Ustrello wrote: And if we weren't stuck in the quagmire that was Iraq I could of seen boots on the ground in lybia and the situation probably would of been different
Gaddafi got capped late in 2011. How many US troops were in Iraq at that point?
And how war weary are we because of the constant war that is the Iraq war? There was no public support for boots on the ground and that can be directly attributed to the Iraq war
Well, I hope he will make America great again. I thought America is already great?
No. I lived in the States for a longer time (Princeton). He's right about the infrastructure. Its really bad. Roads, railway, and power supply. The school system is also a bit questionable while the ivy league universities are unbeatable.
President-elect Donald Trump plans to dramatically slash funding for the humanities when he takes office, according to a new report from The Hill. In meetings with White House staff, Trump transition officials have reportedly indicated that the administration will shutter the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, as well as privatize the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
The Hill report notes that the floated budget cuts “hew closely to a blueprint published last year by the conservative Heritage Foundation.” It’s previously been reported that the think tank has been enormously influential in shaping Trump’s nascent administration.
You mean, the one that brought Democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq ?
Are...are you serious. Like...are you actually for real-real?
We are talking about Iraq and Afghanistan right? Those countries?
The Iraq that has been consumed by sectarian violence and civil war for over a decade? The "democratic" Iraq that was swiftly politically overtaken by one group and began pushing others out of government jobs and support and kicked off ISIS's invasion as a result and who's officers allowed hundreds of troops to be taken without a fight and shot in fields? The Iraq that has had, by most accounts, 500,000-1,000,000 people killed over the last 14 years as a result of conflict be they at the hands of the US or internal enemies? The Iraq that, to this day, is a sectarian nightmare of divided governments and loyalties? The "democratic" Iraq that is monstrously corrupt and that will never regain control of the Kurdish north that has now effectively broken off to become its own nation? *That* Iraq?
As for Afghanistan, we are talking about the same Afghanistan where the Taliban still exists and holds sway over much of the country? The "democractic" Afghanistan where the government is monstrously corrupt and ineffective and holds sway over only part of the country? The Afghanistan where Apostasy is still a death penalty crime? The Afghanistan that is still mired in conflict to this day?
The one that put the terrorists in jail in Guantanamo Bay ?
Where the overwhelmingly vast majority were released without charge after being held without legal basis for years or over a decade? The "terrorists" that included children and hundreds taken into custody on basically zero reasonable legal basis? The Guantanamo Bay where only a few dozen "terrorists" remain because nobody has any idea what to do with them but nobody intends on actually charging them with anything?
Obama ? War everywhere, everywhen. Even Iraqi, that Bush spend so many time to help, was invaded by isis.... And now what ? After 8 years, there are still terrorists everywere, and in more countries than before.
In what possible way is Obama responsible for the existence of ISIS and its invasion of Iraq...?
8 years for nothing. He was elected because he was black, and he did nothing more than smiling and being "cool". Great..
President-elect Donald Trump plans to dramatically slash funding for the humanities when he takes office, according to a new report from The Hill. In meetings with White House staff, Trump transition officials have reportedly indicated that the administration will shutter the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, as well as privatize the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
The Hill report notes that the floated budget cuts “hew closely to a blueprint published last year by the conservative Heritage Foundation.” It’s previously been reported that the think tank has been enormously influential in shaping Trump’s nascent administration.
As a Math major, all I can say is...this is a complete disaster. He is going to leave this country a burned-out shell, culturally speaking.
President-elect Donald Trump plans to dramatically slash funding for the humanities when he takes office, according to a new report from The Hill. In meetings with White House staff, Trump transition officials have reportedly indicated that the administration will shutter the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, as well as privatize the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
The Hill report notes that the floated budget cuts “hew closely to a blueprint published last year by the conservative Heritage Foundation.” It’s previously been reported that the think tank has been enormously influential in shaping Trump’s nascent administration.
As a Math major, all I can say is...this is a complete disaster. He is going to leave this country a burned-out shell, culturally speaking.
And it pretty much is the reason a lot of democrats hate the GoP is because of the heritage foundation
The best part of that series of photos is the look of almost disdain on Dick Cheney's face who is sitting directly behind him.
Didn't check the link with the photos, but there's a video of it.
Cheney's smirk throughout is probably the best part.
I wasn't a fan of his presidency, to say the least, but I really do like that 'this is all being recorded, isn't it' smile on Bush's face in the last picture.
"I'm being told by my sources that a leading candidate is Neil Gorsuch".
He's an uber textualist...
Jaysus the Trump admin isn't going to pull any punches...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrotherGecko wrote: I love all of the people rushing to poor Richard Spencer's aide .Dang fascists, when will they stop attacking our Nazi political figures.
Que?
I got my ticket to punch him in the face... at least I won't run away like a bitch.
Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama. I can honestly say that I believe that while they had big ideological differences they all believed in this country and wanted to do what's best for it as well as the people living in it. I don't get that feeling from Trump yet, maybe he'll surprise me.
I do like W and voted for him twice, although for different reasons each time. He, like Obama, seemed genuine when you watched them interact with people. Neither of them seemed like they took the power and responsibility of the office lightly. W really shows this with him painting the portraits of the soldiers that were wounded in action during his presidency and wanting to reflect on the fact that they were hurt carrying out his orders. The Bush Clinton Haiti Fund is another good example of the former presidents acting for good.
"I'm being told by my sources that a leading candidate is Neil Gorsuch".
He's an uber textualist...
Jaysus the Trump admin isn't going to pull any punches...
There's nothing on the wiki page, so how is he on issues like privacy, equality ect (as in,,is he an actual "textualist", or a "textualist when it suits my conservative POV", ala Scalia)
"I'm being told by my sources that a leading candidate is Neil Gorsuch".
He's an uber textualist...
Jaysus the Trump admin isn't going to pull any punches...
There's nothing on the wiki page, so how is he on issues like privacy, equality ect (as in,,is he an actual "textualist", or a "textualist when it suits my conservative POV", ala Scalia)
Neil Gorsuch was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit by President George W. Bush on May 10, 2006, and confirmed shortly thereafter. Both his pre-judicial resumé and his body of work as a judge make him a natural fit for an appointment to the Supreme Court by a Republican president. He is relatively young (turning 50 this year), and his background is filled with sterling legal and academic credentials. He was a Marshall Scholar at the University of Oxford, graduated from Harvard Law School, clerked for prominent conservative judges (Judge David Sentelle of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, as well as Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy of the Supreme Court), and was a high-
ranking official in the Bush Justice Department before his judicial appointment. He is celebrated as a keen legal thinker and a particularly incisive legal writer, with a flair that matches
— or at least evokes — that of the justice whose seat he would be nominated to fill. In fact, one study has identified him as the most natural successor to Justice Antonin Scalia on the Trump shortlist, both in terms of his judicial style and his substantive approach.
With perhaps one notable area of disagreement, Judge Gorsuch’s prominent decisions bear the comparison out. For one thing, the great compliment that Gorsuch’s legal writing is in a class with Scalia’s is deserved: Gorsuch’s opinions are exceptionally clear and routinely entertaining; he is an unusual pleasure to read, and it is always plain exactly what he thinks and why. Like Scalia, Gorsuch also seems to have a set of judicial/ideological commitments apart from his personal policy preferences that drive his decision-making. He is an ardent textualist (like Scalia); he believes criminal laws should be clear and interpreted in favor of defendants even if that hurts government prosecutions (like Scalia); he is skeptical of efforts to purge religious expression from public spaces (like Scalia); he is highly dubious of legislative history (like Scalia); and he is less than enamored of the dormant commerce clause (like Scalia). In fact, some of the parallels can be downright eerie. For example, the reasoning in Gorsuch’s 2008 concurrence in United States v. Hinckley, in which he argues that one possible reading of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act would probably violate the rarely invoked non-delegation principle, is exactly the same as that of Scalia’s 2012 dissent in Reynolds v. United States. The notable exception is one prominent concurrence last August, in Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, in which Gorsuch criticized a doctrine of administrative law (called Chevron deference) that Scalia had long defended. Even here, however, there may be more in common than meets the eye.
Religion
Some of the most high-profile cases in which Gorsuch has cast a vote have involved the religion clauses of the Constitution (those prohibiting the establishment of religion and creating a right to free exercise), as well as congressional statutes expanding protection for religious adherents (known as RFRA and RLUIPA). Followers of the Supreme Court will recognize two recent cases in which Gorsuch participated on the 10th Circuit, Hobby Lobby Stores v. Sebelius and Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell. In Hobby Lobby, Gorsuch wrote a concurrence in the en banc 10th Circuit that sided with the company and its owners. He stressed the need to accept these parties’ own conceptions regarding the requirements of their faith, and held (among other things) that they were likely to prevail on claims that the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act substantially burdened their religious exercise in violation of RFRA. This position was largely vindicated in the subsequent decision by the Supreme Court. Thereafter, in Little Sisters of the Poor, Gorsuch joined a group of 10th Circuit judges who dissented from denial of rehearing en banc when a panel of the court of appeals ruled against the Little Sisters on their RFRA claims about the same ACA mandate. There, again, the point was that the 10th Circuit had shown insufficient deference to the Little Sisters’ own articulation of the tenets of their religious beliefs. That position, too, was at least partially vindicated by the Supreme Court when it decided that the Little Sisters’ religious beliefs probably could be accommodated while still affording full and equal contraceptive coverage to their employees, and directed the parties and courts to consider such a solution on remand. Simply put, in cases that closely divided his court and the Supreme Court, Gorsuch has shown himself to be an ardent defender of religious liberties and pluralistic accommodations for religious adherents.
Gorsuch has also written or joined opinions – again, largely vindicated by the Supreme Court – that have criticized doctrines that limit religious expression in public spaces. In Summum v. Pleasant Grove City, in 2007, Gorsuch joined a dissent from denial of rehearing en banc in a case in which the 10th Circuit had limited the ability of the government to display a donated Ten Commandments monument in a public park without accepting all other offers of donated monuments. The subsequent Supreme Court decision reversing the 10th Circuit largely adopted the reasoning of that dissent. Gorsuch also has a pair of dissenting opinions in which he criticizes the “reasonable observer” test for establishment clause cases as far too likely to find impermissible endorsements of religion by the government when none was intended, and thus to prevent religious adherents from reasonably participating in public life. These cases are American Atheists Inc. v. Davenport, in 2010, and Green v. Haskell County Boad. of Commissioners, in 2009. The common thread in these cases is one that matters very deeply to conservatives: a sense that the government can permit public displays of religion – and can accommodate deeply held religious views – without either violating the religion clauses of the Constitution or destroying the effectiveness of government programs that occasionally run into religious objections. In his 2009 concurrence in Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, Scalia articulated very similar views. Gorsuch’s opinions on these issues are quite thoughtful, and demonstrate that he would be a natural successor to Scalia in adopting a pro-religion conception of the establishment clause.
Criminal Law
Another area in which Gorsuch has written persuasively in a manner that closely echoes Scalia relates to how to interpret criminal laws correctly, so as to avoid criminalizing potentially innocent conduct. One of Gorsuch’s most notable opinions in this area also happens to overlap with the hot-button issue of gun ownership — although the case is not about the Second Amendment, and doesn’t involve anything like the typical gun-rights groups.
A federal criminal law prohibits the knowing possession of a gun by a felon. This law has given rise to a debate about how best to read its limitation to “knowing” violations: Does it apply whenever a felon knowingly possesses a gun, or must violators also know that they have been convicted of a felony? This matters, because lots of minor crimes might technically be felonies, and lots of dispositions that seem inconsequential (because they involve no jail time) might technically be felony convictions. And the penalties for violating this law can be very high. In United States v. Games-Perez, in 2012, Gorsuch urged the 10th Circuit to review its rule holding that it is enough to support a conviction that the defendant knew he possessed the gun, whether or not he knew he was a felon. The opinion is an example of Gorsuch’s strong commitment to textualism, and a severe critique of using legislative history — particularly to make criminal what might otherwise be innocent. Accordingly, it is easy to hear clear echoes of Scalia’s views regarding the proper reading of statutes — especially criminal statutes — as well as the importance of focusing on ordinary usage and linguistic rules.
A few examples make the resemblance even clearer. Take this sentence from Games-Perez: “For current purposes, just stating Capps‘s holding makes the problem clear enough: its interpretation—reading Congress’s mens rea requirement as leapfrogging over the first statutorily specified element and touching down only at the second listed element—defies grammatical gravity and linguistic logic.” Or this passage, which contains both an endorsement of Second Amendment rights and a classic Scalia principle about attaching mens rea requirements to the element that criminalizes innocent conduct:
Besides, even if the government could somehow manage to squeeze an ambiguity out of the plain statutory text before us, it faces another intractable problem. The Supreme Court has long recognized a “presumption” grounded in our common law tradition that a mens rea requirement attaches to “each of the statutory elements that criminalize otherwise innocent conduct.” … Together §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2) operate to criminalize the possession of any kind of gun. But gun possession is often lawful and sometimes even protected as a matter of constitutional right. The only statutory element separating innocent (even constitutionally protected) gun possession from criminal conduct in §§ 922(g) and 924(a) is a prior felony conviction. So the presumption that the government must prove mens rea here applies with full force.
Either of these passages would be perfectly at home in a canonical Scalia opinion about how to read the criminal law. And, it is worth noting, this means that Gorsuch, just like Scalia, is sometimes willing to read criminal laws more narrowly in a way that disfavors the prosecution – especially when the Second Amendment or another constitutional protection is involved.
Death Penalty
Gorsuch, like Scalia, has not been a friendly vote for death penalty petitioners pursuing relief from their sentences through federal habeas. But it is important to recognize that, as in the case of Scalia, this makes plenty of sense in light of Gorsuch’s commitment to reading statutes according to their plain text. During the 1990s, Congress passed a statute called the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act that – true to its name – was intended to limit federal habeas in order to make the death penalty easier to carry out. Strict readers of AEDPA are unlikely to find many cases in which a petitioner qualifies for relief. This is particularly true in the courts of appeals, where many of the death penalty habeas cases are uncontroversial —or at least not nearly as close as the cases that make their way to the Supreme Court. Whatever the source of the position, however, it is clear that Gorsuch’s position in death penalty cases is likely to be quite close to Scalia’s, and very unlikely to make the court any more solicitous of the claims of capital defendants.
Dormant Commerce Clause
Another area of the law in which Gorsuch has shown both his writing talent and his similarity to Scalia is in the application (and critique) of doctrines surrounding the so-called “dormant commerce clause.” These doctrines treat the commerce clause not only as a grant of power to Congress to make laws regulating interstate commerce, but as a kind of presumptive limitation on the power of states to make laws that either unduly burden or unfairly discriminate against interstate commerce, without regard to whether Congress has ever passed a law in the relevant area. Because — as its name suggests — the dormant commerce clause cannot actually be found in the text of the Constitution, Scalia eventually came around to the view that it should not be a thing, and refused to endorse any future expansions of the doctrine. For example, in 2015, in a dissenting opinion in Comptroller v. Wynne, Scalia stated: “The fundamental problem with our negative Commerce Clause cases is that the Constitution does not contain a negative Commerce Clause.” Although a court of appeals judge lacks the same freedom to disparage and/or depart from existing Supreme Court precedent, Gorsuch’s opinions also reveal a measure of distrust towards unwritten constitutional provisions like the dormant commerce clause.
For example, a 2015 10th Circuit decision written by Gorsuch, Energy and Environment Legal Institute v. Epel, declined to apply the dormant commerce clause to strike down a clean-energy program created by Colorado on the grounds that it might negatively affect traditional energy producers outside the state. The opinion explains that this result is consistent with the limited reach of the dormant commerce clause’s “judicial free trade policy” even under existing precedent. But while acknowledging that lower courts must take the Supreme Court’s doctrine as they find it, Gorsuch’s opinion shows respect for the doctrine’s “[d]etractors,” like Scalia, who “find dormant commerce doctrine absent from the Constitution’s text and incompatible with its structure.” Though Gorsuch’s personal constitution seems to require him to write clearly about the many unclear aspects of the doctrine, his opinion plainly takes some joy in the act of demonstrating that not only does the dormant commerce clause not apply — the doctrine also doesn’t make much sense. That same instinct is present in a prominent concurrence last year in Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl, in which Gorsuch singled out one aspect of dormant commerce clause doctrine—the Quill rule that exempts out-of-state mail order sales from state sales tax—as an “analytical oddity” that “seems deliberately designed” to be overruled eventually. This opinion aligned him with Justice Anthony Kennedy (who has called for overruling Quill), and again with Scalia, who identified Quill as part of the “bestiary of ad hoc tests and ad hoc exceptions that we apply nowadays” under the dormant commerce clause.
The dormant commerce clause isn’t a particularly hot-button issue, nor does it have obvious liberal/conservative fault lines. But it’s noteworthy that criticism of the dormant commerce clause is of a piece with criticism of the “right to privacy” that undergirds the Supreme Court ‘s abortion jurisprudence, as well as other judge-made doctrines that do not have a strong connection to the constitutional text. Again, Gorsuch’s opinions seem to follow the lead of textualists and federalists like Scalia in expressing great skepticism towards such doctrines, which allow judges to strike down duly enacted local laws on the basis of vague principles that cannot be found in the concrete text of the national charter.
Administrative Law
Finally, there is administrative law—the one area that seems to demonstrate some real distance between Scalia and Gorsuch. Last August, Gorsuch made real waves in the normally sleepy world of administrative law by advocating the end of a doctrine that has been tied closely to the functioning of the administrative state and the executive branch since the mid-1980s — a doctrine called Chevron deference. The basic idea behind Chevron is that, when Congress enacts a broadly worded statute whose precise contours are ambiguous, the courts should permit the federal agencies that are charged with administering the statute to enforce it in any manner that is not clearly forbidden. Scalia was a judge on the D.C. Circuit (which does more agency review than any other court), and he was a strong advocate for Chevron’s basic take on agency review and the flexibility that it preserved in the administrative state: He often warned that the consequences of efforts to limit or tinker with its model could be severe. Gorsuch’s recent opinions in Gutierrez-Brizuela — he wrote both the majority opinion and a concurrence to his own opinion to express his personal views on the doctrine — expressly urge: “We managed to live with the administrative state before Chevron. We could do it again.” Ironically, Gorsuch’s chief complaint about Chevron doctrine was something that would have been close to Scalia’s heart — namely, that it empowers agencies to take the power of statutory interpretation away from courts, and subjects judicial decision-making to administrative review, rather than the other way around.
Gorsuch’s opinion — in which he stakes out ground that few have sought to defend — is a very compelling read, and it is unfair to try to summarize it in a few sentences. But it seems quite clear that: (1) Gorsuch’s views on administrative law are meaningfully different from Scalia’s in a way that could be described as even more conservative; and yet (2) the difference is not as profound as one might think. Unlike Scalia, Gorsuch really does want to apply the basic Gorsuch/Scalia take on ordinary statutes to administrative statutes as well. He believes even these broadly worded enforcement statutes have objective meanings that can be understood from their texts; that it is the job of the courts to say what those laws mean and to tell agencies when they do not have the best reading; and that if the agency disagrees, the only proper recourse is for Congress to change the law or the Supreme Court to correct the error. Scalia, on the other hand, wanted to limit courts to the role of reviewing agency implementations of these kinds of statutes for clear error in order to prevent “ossification,” recognizing that the understanding of these kinds of laws might need to change from time to time to accommodate changing priorities among presidents and changing conditions on the ground.
The reason that difference is less pronounced than you might think is that Scalia’s take on Chevron was always a little different from others’, in part to address the very concerns that Gorsuch so clearly articulates. First, Scalia was much more willing than others to say that a particular agency position was beyond the statutory bounds, even when the words at issue in the statute were ambiguous (at least in isolation). For example, in MCI Telecommunications Group v. AT&T, in 1994, Scalia held that the term “modify” unambiguously excludes major changes. In fact, in a Duke Law Journal piece in 1989 Scalia once said strict textualists like him (and, say, Judge Gorsuch) would be less likely to find statutes ambiguous for purposes of Chevron because of their attention to the details of statutory text and their unwillingness to consider broad purposes and legislative history. Such an approach makes a statute’s delegation to agencies much narrower, notwithstanding Chevron. And second, Scalia wanted Chevron to apply all the time precisely to avoid a situation in which a court would give the statute its best reading and the agency could later revise that understanding with the benefit of newfound deference — one of Gorsuch’s chief complaints. In Gutierrez-Brizuela, Gorsuch criticized the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X, which permitted an agency to bypass a Supreme Court decision through Chevron deference, echoing Scalia’s own dissent in Brand X, in which Scalia criticized the court for having adopted a version of Chevron that led to the spectacle of agencies bypassing Supreme Court readings of statutes.
In short, Gorsuch definitely has a different take from Scalia on the administrative state — one that grants it less power, and so accords even more closely with the conservative conception of small government. Indeed, this is an area in which Gorsuch is plainly a thought leader, expressing judicial sentiments many conservatives with similar concerns have rarely voiced, and which even Scalia might have bristled at. But given their parallel commitments to textualism and their parallel understandings of the relative roles of agencies and courts, even this seems like a bridgeable divide between Gorsuch and the justice he might replace. Gorsuch is still a very natural choice for any Republican president to nominate as a replacement for Scalia — someone who would espouse similar principles, stand firm on similar doctrinal commitments, reach similar outcomes, and even fill a similar role as one of the court’s most articulate defenders of conservative judicial theory.
In other news... Trump is using the same EO powah that Obama presumed to lessen the effect of the ACA.
The wonderful thing is that he wasted an executive order when he could have done the same thing by writing it on a post-it note. It doesn't do anything except say "yes, we plan on repealing it at some point in the future, but it's still the law, so keep on enforcing it for now".
In other news... Trump is using the same EO powah that Obama presumed to lessen the effect of the ACA.
The wonderful thing is that he wasted an executive order when he could have done the same thing by writing it on a post-it note. It doesn't do anything except say "yes, we plan on repealing it at some point in the future, but it's still the law, so keep on enforcing it for now".
He's doing the same thing as Obama did in 2014 when he delayed the Individual/Employer mandate.
Ustrello wrote: And if we weren't stuck in the quagmire that was Iraq I could of seen boots on the ground in lybia and the situation probably would of been different
Obama started sending them in after people were commenting on the mess he and Clinton created there.
Ustrello wrote: And if we weren't stuck in the quagmire that was Iraq I could of seen boots on the ground in lybia and the situation probably would of been different
Obama started sending them in after people were commenting on the mess he and Clinton created there.
Hrm, lets be real, Obama did not start the conflict in Libya or create the mess there. That started all on its own as an internal civil war, which, as we've seen in every other conflict of late (be it in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere) is inherently messy. One can lay question some of the decisions that Obama's administration made there, and that's entirely fair, but they didn't "create" that mess, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of military action was not done by the US but by Europe and the Libyans themselves, and more recently by other Arab nations as well.
EDIT: unless we're talking specifically about the embassy thing which has been politicized and misrepresented on all sides to the point where nobody is ever going to agree on what actually happened.
Ustrello wrote: And if we weren't stuck in the quagmire that was Iraq I could of seen boots on the ground in lybia and the situation probably would of been different
Obama started sending them in after people were commenting on the mess he and Clinton created there.
Hrm, lets be real, Obama did not start the conflict in Libya or create the mess there. That started all on its own as an internal civil war, which, as we've seen in every other conflict of late (be it in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere) is inherently messy. One can lay question some of the decisions that Obama's administration made there, and that's entirely fair, but they didn't "create" that mess, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of military action was not done by the US but by Europe and the Libyans themselves, and more recently by other Arab nations as well.
EDIT: unless we're talking specifically about the embassy thing which has been politicized and misrepresented on all sides to the point where nobody is ever going to agree on what actually happened.
Even Huffington Post admits Clinton played a huge part in wrecking that country:
Ustrello wrote: And if we weren't stuck in the quagmire that was Iraq I could of seen boots on the ground in lybia and the situation probably would of been different
Obama started sending them in after people were commenting on the mess he and Clinton created there.
Hrm, lets be real, Obama did not start the conflict in Libya or create the mess there. That started all on its own as an internal civil war, which, as we've seen in every other conflict of late (be it in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere) is inherently messy. One can lay question some of the decisions that Obama's administration made there, and that's entirely fair, but they didn't "create" that mess, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of military action was not done by the US but by Europe and the Libyans themselves, and more recently by other Arab nations as well.
EDIT: unless we're talking specifically about the embassy thing which has been politicized and misrepresented on all sides to the point where nobody is ever going to agree on what actually happened.
Even Huffington Post admits Clinton played a huge part in wrecking that country:
She argued for intervention. Yes. But that's literally about all that article says, and spends as much time whining about Giuliani. It gave zero specifics or discussion aside from "Libya sucks now, Clinton helped that happen". Which, may be fair, but doesn't tell us how or to what extent or what that impact was, which is pretty typical for a HuffPo blog piece.
Again, the Libya situation began without any assistance from anywhere else. Nobody else got involved until a large scale shooting war was already under way, and the vast majority of that involvement was by European and now other Arab nations. Clinton had a part in convincing European nations to engage, a big part even, but neither Obama nor Clinton had any part in creating the conflict, only shaping part of its course which was unlikely to be particularly rosy in any event.
d-usa wrote: I'm confused, is HuffPo now credible again?
Everything is credible if it agrees with what they already think.
America 101 D where have you been
I forgot about the truthiness aspect of it all
Is that why we had lots of commentary yesterday about a small group of people rioting and setting stuff on fire yesterday, and not much commentary about a march that has more people in it than the actual inauguration?
d-usa wrote: Is that why we had lots of commentary yesterday about a small group of people rioting and setting stuff on fire yesterday, and not much commentary about a march that has more people in it than the actual inauguration?
At least it's more consistent with what sources are considered acceptable around here.
But it's still a lie that "Obama and Clinton started it all".
The Libyan civil war was happening long before the US intervened.
Then there was a United Nations Security Council Resolution.
Then there were French and British jets firing on Libyan Air Force targets.
They were joined by other countries, the US, as the civil war continued, as part of an international (and non-US initiated) operation.
Then NATO took over operations.
Then the UK send military advisers to aid the rebels, followed by France and Italy.
Then the US send aid, followed by Qatar, Turkey, and France.
NATO initiated a naval blockade.
NATO continued operations and assistance to rebels until the regime was defeated.
I guess the USA could have used their veto power in the security council to stop this whole thing from happening. I guess the USA could have stopped all the other countries from supporting the rebels. But they went along and supported an international coalition that wanted to become involved, an international coalition that voted in favor of a UN resolution (pushed heavily by France and Britain), and an international coalition that fought the battles in the form of NATO.
I won't deny that the US played a role in the mess, but it's an outright falsehood to pretend that Obama and Clinton (or the US) is responsible for a civil war that started without the involvement of the US or the military intervention that was pushed by France and Britain, supported by the UN security council, and fought by NATO coalition forces.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Unrelated: in what must be the ultimate irony, the administration has directed agencies to stop tweeting.
The fundamentally problem with how people look at Libya is the mistaken notion that things there could have been made to work out.
Seriously, the US has spent most of the last decade directly involved in the Middle East, and how the feth has that gak worked out? The idea that if X had been done, or ig Y hadn't Libya would be fine is assuming a lot, and ignoing that most of the assumptions by which the West has made about the Middle East have continually panned out to be wrong.
Did Clinton feth it up? I'm not really clear on how the West in general didn't feth it up, which makes trying to pin the whole thing on one person little more than political hogwash. Most of the last century of Middle Eastern history could be written off as "the US/Britain/France/NATO/someone tried to force its will on the Middle East and it didn't work."
I'm fine with us and the French taking the lions share of the blame for the Wests involvement in Libya not going exactly well, rather than the US. Also, naturally, I'd blame the French more
In saying that, LordofHats is probably right, to an extent. Sometimes things are just ****ed and it's a question of best judgement at the time whether what you'll do makes something incrementally less rubbish or worse.
We really should respect everything that scrolls across Glorious Orange Leader's phone screen as his safe space, and that includes the National Park Service's Twitter feed. How else is he supposed to relax this weekend? We can't stress him out by reminding him he might not be the best, most beloved person in the history of the world.
It is unusual for an administration to silence the National Park Service from commenting on the attendance figures for a national park.
The guy thinks demagogues are great roll models. First he tells the branches of government to stop using twitter, then he tells them to stop talking to the public at all
All news is good news when it comes from glorious leader!
whembly wrote: They shared two tweets that were unsympathetic to President Trump during his inauguration.
Yep. I find it completely unacceptable that every branch of the government did not fall 100% in line behind the propaganda effort, and revealed an awkward truth that might embarrass our benevolent and dearest leader.
So the headline thing, I was all ready to be outraged about (EG Incoming administration bans agencies from tweeting) . But yeah, looking at what happened.
I'm kinda like... yeah... Not the the best thing for a Governmental organisation to do.
Are they supposed to just not show pictures of the 'crowd' at the inauguration? What about any pictures of the President that he deems unflattering? You guys remember when he went on that rant, right? What about if they don't think it's unflattering, but he does? What if he himself tweets something stupid, is the entire government supposed to pretend it didn't happen?
I can't believe the nation is going to have to spend the next however long stepping on eggshells so we don't hurt the President's feelings. Can you imagine if Obama acted like this?
It might be my Britishness going through but kinda my opinion is, tweets/retweets etc on social media are Official Statements by a Governmental Organisation. In the UK, at least, Governmental Organisations are supposed (not saying they always are) to be apolitical. Therefore, if they had just, say, tweeted a picture of the crowds, that would be a factual thing. Heck, they could have even done something along the lines of. "Photographs of inaugurations over the years."
However, an instruction to, "Compare the crowds" is very much a political statement and therefore, I would not feel comfortable with a Governmental organisation doing such.
On, for example, climate change, if it was a case of: "These are December 2016's statistics of the change in ice thickness of Somesorta Glacier in Alaska" from the Office of Meteorology and it was something that was done as standard business, that is not in of itself a political statement, it may be a politically inconvenient statement, but it is not a political statement in of itself.
Compel wrote: However, an instruction to, "Compare the crowds" is very much a political statement and therefore, I would not feel comfortable with a Governmental organisation doing such.
The correct answer to that situation is to fire/discipline the specific person who made the tweet, but that's not what what happened. To drop the sarcasm for a post, I haven't seen anyone actually attribute the ban to Trump's administration. Rather the order has been attributed to the Washington Support Office, and might have nothing to do with Trump himself (though the order itself is so bizarre and seemingly vindictive it does seem like something he'd do to me).
You don't shut down a communication line for an entire federal department because a few people made some prank phone calls.
Compel wrote: It might be my Britishness going through but kinda my opinion is, tweets/retweets etc on social media are Official Statements by a Governmental Organisation. In the UK, at least, Governmental Organisations are supposed (not saying they always are) to be apolitical. Therefore, if they had just, say, tweeted a picture of the crowds, that would be a factual thing. Heck, they could have even done something along the lines of. "Photographs of inaugurations over the years."
However, an instruction to, "Compare the crowds" is very much a political statement and therefore, I would not feel comfortable with a Governmental organisation doing such.
On, for example, climate change, if it was a case of: "These are December 2016's statistics of the change in ice thickness of Somesorta Glacier in Alaska" from the Office of Meteorology and it was something that was done as standard business, that is not in of itself a political statement, it may be a politically inconvenient statement, but it is not a political statement in of itself.
But this is just my views.
Basically my view. Taking down those particular tweets made sense, but my worry is that this will lead to silencing of actual information (such as climate change data).
Speaking of which, Trump blasted the media for "falsely" reporting it raining and having a relatively small crowd, you know, by actually showing the rain and the crowd. In his mind the sun came out when he started speaking and then the skies erupted in a downpour when he concluded in front of "a million, million and a half people". What's next? Statutes of him learning how to tame and ride giant bald eagles akin to North Korean unicorns?
Gordon Shumway wrote: Speaking of which, Trump blasted the media for "falsely" reporting it raining and having a relatively small crowd, you know, by actually showing the rain and the crowd. In his mind the sun came out when he started speaking and then the skies erupted in a downpour when he concluded in front of "a million, million and a half people". What's next? Statutes of him learning how to tame and ride giant bald eagles akin to North Korean unicorns?
Come on man. You know the media is just lies. If they say it was raining then clearly it was sunnier than a summer day in Death Valley, and if they say the crowd was small it absolutely had to be the largest crowd eva.
You know the saddest (and funniest) part of the next four years is going to be watching people bend over backwards to hand wave this gak away. I mean it was sad and funny before he'd even taken the oath, but now it's just going to be like reality TV in actual reality.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Speaking of which, Trump blasted the media for "falsely" reporting it raining and having a relatively small crowd, you know, by actually showing the rain and the crowd. In his mind the sun came out when he started speaking and then the skies erupted in a downpour when he concluded in front of "a million, million and a half people". What's next? Statutes of him learning how to tame and ride giant bald eagles akin to North Korean unicorns?
Come on man. You know the media is just lies. If they say it was raining then clearly it was sunnier than a summer day in Death Valley, and if they say the crowd was small it absolutely had to be the largest crowd eva.
You know the saddest (and funniest) part of the next four years is going to be watching people bend over backwards to hand wave this gak away. I mean it was sad and funny before he'd even taken the oath, but now it's just going to be like reality TV in actual reality.
Its already been happening in this thread by some of our esteemed fellow posters
Part of me suspects Trump really might not be prepared for how difficult it is going to be to hide from cameras now. Even as a candidate there's a much better ability to avoid the press and media attention when you don't want it, especially in election season when all those cameras are as occupied with a dozen other people as they are with you.
...glad that the adversarial press is back... after a long 8 year hiatus.
EDIT: oops... meant to post this:
Bradd Jaffy ✔ @BraddJaffy
"This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration -- period," Trump White House press secretary claims
4:48 PM - 21 Jan 2017
462 462 Retweets 582 582 likes
whembly wrote: "Crowd size" is the new "hand size"... innit?
...glad that the adversarial press is back... after a long 8 year hiatus.
You've said that before, and I've questioned you before with no response. What, exactly, do you think that the press wasn't holding Obama accountable for?
whembly wrote: "Crowd size" is the new "hand size"... innit?
When Trump lies out of his mouth, then yes it becomes a deal. When the POTUS lies within 24 hours of being inaugurated, a lie so stupid that anybody with a pair of eyes looking at a picture can see it, then it's a pretty good sign of something.
How many lies today so far? Record breaking crowds, great weather, never talked bad about the intelligence agencies.
...glad that the adversarial press is back... after a long 8 year hiatus.
For not liking Trump you are awesome at parroting his speech. #FakeNews, adversarial press.
Is this the same press that you and others claimed ignored Clinton in favor of Trump, despite having more negative stories on Clinton? The same lies about ignoring Obama during the 2012 election, despite having more negative stories on Obama than McCain?
Reporting truth does not make the press adversarial, just because you or Trump don't like the news.
And there are plenty of stories about the "adversarial press" and Obama.
whembly wrote: "Crowd size" is the new "hand size"... innit?
...glad that the adversarial press is back... after a long 8 year hiatus.
You've said that before, and I've questioned you before with no response. What, exactly, do you think that the press wasn't holding Obama accountable for?
They weren't holding him accountable for being a democrat
I honestly don't think he'll be impeached. I don't exactly know how that works, not being American but it feels to me, being impeached would be tantamount to people in politics admitting they made a mistake. And that's not going to happen.
Getting shot... In all seriousness, dear God I hope that doesn't happen. Not *just* because of the whole 'political assassination isn't cool' thing. Or, well, assassination at all, generally speaking. But also and more-so, there's that whole martyr thing. That would just be terrible for the planet.
What I imagine is mostly likely (aside from us all dying in nuclear fire), is that after a year or so, he'll get bored and wander off. Or people in the party will encourage him to do so.
I might have even dreamed about it. "Hello everyone, I've come to you today to tell you I'm stepping down from President. Don't worry though, I love you guys, I love you guys, it's been a great honour but I set out to make America Great again and I've done my job. Now America's great, *insert made-up stats,* "but my family needs me, I want to spend time with them. Don't worry though, I leave you in Mike Pence's hands, as you know, he's a great guy, great guy. Top man, ace."
whembly wrote: "Crowd size" is the new "hand size"... innit?
When Trump lies out of his mouth, then yes it becomes a deal. When the POTUS lies within 24 hours of being inaugurated, a lie so stupid that anybody with a pair of eyes looking at a picture can see it, then it's a pretty good sign of something.
How many lies today so far? Record breaking crowds, great weather, never talked bad about the intelligence agencies.
Dunno... but he's sure going to be that "Here... hold my beer*" President for sure...
*he famously doesn't drink, so what is it?
...glad that the adversarial press is back... after a long 8 year hiatus.
For not liking Trump you are awesome at parroting his speech. #FakeNews, adversarial press.
Is this the same press that you and others claimed ignored Clinton in favor of Trump, despite having more negative stories on Clinton? The same lies about ignoring Obama during the 2012 election, despite having more negative stories on Obama than McCain?
Reporting truth does not make the press adversarial, just because you or Trump don't like the news.
And there are plenty of stories about the "adversarial press" and Obama.
Oh c'mon... you know there's a difference between 'Reporting that something happens' vs. 'let's spin this in a manner to mitigate the damages.'
Furthermore, the press has gone off the rails more often than not. Just last night, a reporter tweeted that the Winston Bust is back in the oval, but no sign of MLK's bust... which, he didn't see... that's incorrect, both busts are there. Yet, the media-circle-jerks are trying to make something of 'Trump takes out the MLK's bust... what does that mean??!?!"
Do mistake me... I'm glad that the press is going full-bore adversarial here... as they should.
LordofHats wrote: Part of me suspects Trump really might not be prepared for how difficult it is going to be to hide from cameras now. Even as a candidate there's a much better ability to avoid the press and media attention when you don't want it, especially in election season when all those cameras are as occupied with a dozen other people as they are with you.
I know "gaslighting" has to be the most overused word of 2016, but as long as he can simply come out and say "I've always done the exact opposite of what I've done, everybody else is just lying" because the people simply believe him there won't be any change.
Just look at the #NeverTrump folks flocking to his defense and repeating his arguments, even in this thread.
Compel wrote: I honestly don't think he'll be impeached. I don't exactly know how that works, not being American but it feels to me, being impeached would be tantamount to people in politics admitting they made a mistake. And that's not going to happen.
It essentially works like this:
The House Judiciary Committee holds hearings and, if necessary, prepares articles of impeachment. These are the charges against the official.
If a majority of the committee votes to approve the articles, the whole House debates and votes on them.
If a majority of the House votes to impeach the official on any article, then the official must then stand trial in the Senate.
For the official to be removed from office, two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict the official. Upon conviction, the official is automatically removed from office and, if the Senate so decides, may be forbidden from holding governmental office again.
Bill Clinton was impeached by the House... but, the Senate was unable to get to the 61st vote to remove him from office.
Getting shot... In all seriousness, dear God I hope that doesn't happen. Not *just* because of the whole 'political assassination isn't cool' thing. Or, well, assassination at all, generally speaking. But also and more-so, there's that whole martyr thing. That would just be terrible for the planet.
Yeah... don't wish that in any case.
What I imagine is mostly likely (aside from us all dying in nuclear fire), is that after a year or so, he'll get bored and wander off. Or people in the party will encourage him to do so.
I might have even dreamed about it. "Hello everyone, I've come to you today to tell you I'm stepping down from President. Don't worry though, I love you guys, I love you guys, it's been a great honour but I set out to make America Great again and I've done my job. Now America's great, *insert made-up stats,* "but my family needs me, I want to spend time with them. Don't worry though, I leave you in Mike Pence's hands, as you know, he's a great guy, great guy. Top man, ace."
Nah... he's a narcissist with a massive alpha ego. He won't willing step down.
He is 70 years old though... so, his health may be a factor.
LordofHats wrote: Part of me suspects Trump really might not be prepared for how difficult it is going to be to hide from cameras now. Even as a candidate there's a much better ability to avoid the press and media attention when you don't want it, especially in election season when all those cameras are as occupied with a dozen other people as they are with you.
Now there's just him. No one else.
This!
This is going to be what I'm watching. He's a narcissistic, thin-skinned bully who's operated in a bubble surrounded by his sycophantic family that rely completely upon him for their livelihood and has shown that he has not a shred of tolerance for anyone who says "peep" out of line with him, his views or his positions. Now, he's going to be under the biggest of microscopes on the biggest of stages. He's the oldest POTUS ever to be sworn in, he's got a penchant for junk food, looks eminently out of shape and pasty, and I have absolutely no doubt that he has no idea of the degree of pressure he's about to experience in this job. I truly cannot stand this individual. He is repugnant to me on so many levels. But as a human being I do worry about how this will affect him and as an American, I worry about how his response to this adversity and pressure will affect our country and the world.
Compel wrote: I honestly don't think he'll be impeached. I don't exactly know how that works, not being American but it feels to me, being impeached would be tantamount to people in politics admitting they made a mistake. And that's not going to happen.
Here the Impeachment process is so rigorous it's only been carried out fifteen times successfully. All fifteen successfully impeached persons were court judges, with the highest ranking one being Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase in 1804. No elected official has ever been successfully impeached if only because they either retired, or ended up leaving office before the process was completed. Nixon probably would have been impeached, but he resigned before the process could really get going.
Trump won't be impeached for the simple reason that I don't think the Republicans can back out of him now. The House is integral to the process, and the Republicans aren't going to lose the House anytime soon imo. EDIT: Besides, I think there's a certain attitude in the party that the White House is best for them when it distracts from their shenanigans in the legislature. The Republicans don't care about having an effective executive.
Trump won't be impeached for the simple reason that I don't think the Republicans can back out of him now. The House is integral to the process, and the Republicans aren't going to lose the House anytime soon imo.
If he is impeached, then Pence would take over I think.
Which makes it more likely that the Republicans might get "their" guy into the Oval Office after all.
Compel wrote: Can impeachment be filed while an impeachment is on-going?
I'm not sure I understand the question. Do mean can someone be impeached twice at the same time? I'm just confused by the wording XD
I figured he meant something like:
If the Senate is currently doing their bit for an impeachment for X, can the House begin an impeachment process for Y.
Oh.
The Impeachment process is laid out in Article II Section IV. A member of the Senate can present charges for impeachment, but the Senate doesn't have the power to begin the process proper. Only the House of Representatives can begin the impeachment process. Technically speaking just about anyone can bring charges for impeachment. The House initiates impeachment and determines the charges that will be heard, and the Senate then conducts the "trial" process of impeachment.
Compel wrote: Can impeachment be filed while an impeachment is on-going?
I'm not sure I understand the question. Do mean can someone be impeached twice at the same time? I'm just confused by the wording XD
I figured he meant something like:
If the Senate is currently doing their bit for an impeachment for X, can the House begin an impeachment process for Y.
Oh.
The Impeachment process is laid out in Article II Section IV. A member of the Senate can present charges for impeachment, but the Senate doesn't have the power to begin the process proper. Only the House of Representatives can begin the impeachment process. Technically speaking just about anyone can bring charges for impeachment. The House initiates impeachment and determines the charges that will be heard, and the Senate then conducts the "trial" process of impeachment.
My "I am not a lawyer but I google stuff I don't understand on the internet" thought was always something like: The House serves as the DA and can indict , the Senate serves as the Jury with a Justice presiding over the trial.
But can the House impeach for something else while the Senate is conducting a trial for something? Is there a limit of how many times a President can be impeached for different things? Is there a double jeopardy thing going on?
Thoughts on the validity? It is Trump, so I wouldn't be surprised, and I'm sure Blackwater/Academi wants to get back into the war profiteering (and civilian murdering) business, but it's also democracy now, which is not known for their lack of bias.
Trump said he was going to get work dor the 96 million adults out there without jobs. That 96 million is a real number but it is all adults who aren't working, not just the ones who want jobs and can't get one. It includes people in college, stay at home parents, and the retired.
Either Trump wants to put Gertrude Weaver, the oldest American, back to work, or he's an idiot who random figures plucked out of nowhere with no understanding of what they mean.
There's no way a healthy democracy could elect a buffoon who doesn't understand basic measures, so we must conclude Trump the only way Anerica going to be great again is by getting rid of all retirement nonsense.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Speaking of which, Trump blasted the media for "falsely" reporting it raining and having a relatively small crowd, you know, by actually showing the rain and the crowd. In his mind the sun came out when he started speaking and then the skies erupted in a downpour when he concluded in front of "a million, million and a half people". What's next? Statutes of him learning how to tame and ride giant bald eagles akin to North Korean unicorns?
Come on man. You know the media is just lies. If they say it was raining then clearly it was sunnier than a summer day in Death Valley, and if they say the crowd was small it absolutely had to be the largest crowd eva.
You know the saddest (and funniest) part of the next four years is going to be watching people bend over backwards to hand wave this gak away. I mean it was sad and funny before he'd even taken the oath, but now it's just going to be like reality TV in actual reality.
Does that mean those Huff Post and New York Times news articles I linked about Obamaand Clinton helping destabilize Lybia are now accepted?
sebster wrote: Trump said he was going to get work dor the 96 million adults out there without jobs. That 96 million is a real number but it is all adults who aren't working, not just the ones who want jobs and can't get one. It includes people in college, stay at home parents, and the retired.
Either Trump wants to put Gertrude Weaver, the oldest American, back to work, or he's an idiot who random figures plucked out of nowhere with no understanding of what they mean.
There's no way a healthy democracy could elect a buffoon who doesn't understand basic measures, so we must conclude Trump the only way Anerica going to be great again is by getting rid of all retirement nonsense.
Get a fething job, Gertrude.
I think the best way to show those numbers are BS when talking about unemployment, is to say that Obama is now one of them (as he is not working as of yesterday).
My "I am not a lawyer but I google stuff I don't understand on the internet" thought was always something like: The House serves as the DA and can indict , the Senate serves as the Jury with a Justice presiding over the trial.
Nah that's pretty much it.
But can the House impeach for something else while the Senate is conducting a trial for something?
I assume the House can amend their "indictment." I don't think the Constitution defines such a provision, but it would be bizarre to require them to have a whole other impeachment if the first reveals startling information. Kind of at the end of my "I'm not really a lawyer but I read stuff" rope on that one XD
Is there a limit of how many times a President can be impeached for different things?
No. The Bill of Rights protections have traditionally been interpreted not to apply to Impeachment processes, partly because impeachment is not classified as the civil or criminal matter. It's just something the legislature can do. Note that the actual proceedings are protected. Congress cannot compel you to testify against yourself for any reason, but the measure of evidence in an Impeachment is simply what will get the Senate to convict, and there is no means by which the Judge can overrule the jury.
Is there a double jeopardy thing going on?
Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, so there is no double jeopardy. A president could find themselves impeached, removed from office, and then sent to federal court on criminal charges as far as I understand it.
The Courts have historically not involved themselves in Impeachment because it's always been assumed that impeaching an official is inherently a political matter (i.e. a political question). This was made official with Nixon, when the court ruled (after he resigned) that impeachment is a political question and thus is not subject to appeal or judicial review.
Thoughts on the validity? It is Trump, so I wouldn't be surprised, and I'm sure Blackwater/Academi wants to get back into the war profiteering (and civilian murdering) business, but it's also democracy now, which is not known for their lack of bias.
While I would be hesitant to trust such a source, if true, that's extremely worrying. I wasn't aware that DeVos was related to, much less a sibling of, Prince, and that alone is almost as worrying given the position DeVos will likely occupy and the access she could grant.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Speaking of which, Trump blasted the media for "falsely" reporting it raining and having a relatively small crowd, you know, by actually showing the rain and the crowd. In his mind the sun came out when he started speaking and then the skies erupted in a downpour when he concluded in front of "a million, million and a half people". What's next? Statutes of him learning how to tame and ride giant bald eagles akin to North Korean unicorns?
Come on man. You know the media is just lies. If they say it was raining then clearly it was sunnier than a summer day in Death Valley, and if they say the crowd was small it absolutely had to be the largest crowd eva.
You know the saddest (and funniest) part of the next four years is going to be watching people bend over backwards to hand wave this gak away. I mean it was sad and funny before he'd even taken the oath, but now it's just going to be like reality TV in actual reality.
Does that mean those Huff Post and New York Times news articles I linked about Obamaand Clinton helping destabilize Lybia are now accepted?
I mean, if you payed attention, you would realize the point was about content not source.. NYT are a well-trusted source, as are things like WaPo, BBC, NPR, ect. But that doesn't mean things can't be wrong, or disagreed with.
I honestly do not know XD This might be something laid out in the House rules but I haven't really ever looked through those.
This is the relevant section;
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors.
I think it might be irrelevant for the matter of impeachment, because the process doesn't follow traditional courtroom procedure and the only punishment is removal from office, which one murder would seem sufficient to secure. At the same time, there's really no limitation on how broad these kinds of investigations get. Just look at the email scandal and Benghazi, which basically got up, ran, and kept running until the people running it finally gave up the ghost.
I think the Founders just kind of assumed the only way anyone would get impeached is if they seriously fethed up. Though I highly suspect that after Mr. Cobblepot gets impeached he'll get a mean visit from Batman followed by a criminal case in the offending jurisdiction.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Speaking of which, Trump blasted the media for "falsely" reporting it raining and having a relatively small crowd, you know, by actually showing the rain and the crowd. In his mind the sun came out when he started speaking and then the skies erupted in a downpour when he concluded in front of "a million, million and a half people". What's next? Statutes of him learning how to tame and ride giant bald eagles akin to North Korean unicorns?
Come on man. You know the media is just lies. If they say it was raining then clearly it was sunnier than a summer day in Death Valley, and if they say the crowd was small it absolutely had to be the largest crowd eva.
You know the saddest (and funniest) part of the next four years is going to be watching people bend over backwards to hand wave this gak away. I mean it was sad and funny before he'd even taken the oath, but now it's just going to be like reality TV in actual reality.
Does that mean those Huff Post and New York Times news articles I linked about Obamaand Clinton helping destabilize Lybia are now accepted?
I mean, if you payed attention, you would realize the point was about content not source.. NYT are a well-trusted source, as are things like WaPo, BBC, NPR, ect. But that doesn't mean things can't be wrong, or disagreed with.
I figure if any news source, ranging from left to right, I happen to google lays strong involvement with what happened in Lybia at Obama and Clinton's feet, there must be some truth to it
Gordon Shumway wrote: Speaking of which, Trump blasted the media for "falsely" reporting it raining and having a relatively small crowd, you know, by actually showing the rain and the crowd. In his mind the sun came out when he started speaking and then the skies erupted in a downpour when he concluded in front of "a million, million and a half people". What's next? Statutes of him learning how to tame and ride giant bald eagles akin to North Korean unicorns?
Come on man. You know the media is just lies. If they say it was raining then clearly it was sunnier than a summer day in Death Valley, and if they say the crowd was small it absolutely had to be the largest crowd eva.
You know the saddest (and funniest) part of the next four years is going to be watching people bend over backwards to hand wave this gak away. I mean it was sad and funny before he'd even taken the oath, but now it's just going to be like reality TV in actual reality.
Does that mean those Huff Post and New York Times news articles I linked about Obamaand Clinton helping destabilize Lybia are now accepted?
I mean, if you payed attention, you would realize the point was about content not source.. NYT are a well-trusted source, as are things like WaPo, BBC, NPR, ect. But that doesn't mean things can't be wrong, or disagreed with.
I figure if any news source, ranging from left to right, I happen to google lays Lybia at Obama and Clinton's feet, there must be some truth to it
Which D-usa (among others) did explain exactly what the goings on were. You can blame a lot of things on the Obama admin, but not Libya. Europe was going in no matter what, we just joined them.
Involvement is one thing, the idea that Obama and Clinton are majorly responsible for what resulted in Libya or that they created the situation is another, for reasons explained at length already.
You don't need opinion pieces, from whatever spectrum, telling you one thing when history and facts tell you another.
But if you want to blame a civil war started in Lybia, a UN resolution pushed by France and Britain, and an international NATO let mission largely on Obama and Hillary then I guess you can keep on doing so.
Some of us don't care what the political alignment of a news source is. Some of us only care if it makes sense and/or is supported, and even then we might still disagree with said news source. Maybe we care if said source habitually commits bad reporting but even a dead clock is right twice a day.
True is true regardless of where it comes from, and sure we're not talking about the National Inquirer or such places where we best assume the story is hogwash from the get go but that doesn't mean blind acceptance.
I would also challenge that none of the stories you've linked have actually said Lybia is "in large part Clinton's fault." They've criticized her for being naive, overly eager to become involved, and bungling US involvement in Libya, but they haven't leveled blame in the way you're insinuating.
Just for people who don't click wikipedia links with chronologies
23 February 2011: French President Nicolas Sarkozy pushed for the European Union (EU) to pass sanctions against Gaddafi (freezing Gaddafi family funds abroad) and demand he stop attacks against civilians.
26 February 2011: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 was passed unanimously, referring the Libyan government to the International Criminal Court for gross human rights violations. It imposed an arms embargo on the country and a travel ban and assets freeze on the family of Muammar Al-Qadhafi and certain Government officials.
28 February 2011: British Prime Minister David Cameron proposed the idea of a no-fly zone to prevent Gaddafi from "airlifting mercenaries" and "using his military aeroplanes and armoured helicopters against civilians."
1 March 2011: The US Senate unanimously passed non-binding Senate resolution S.RES.85 urging the United Nations Security Council to impose a Libyan no-fly zone and encouraging Gaddafi to step down. The US had naval forces positioned off the coast of Libya, as well as forces already in the region, including the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise.
7 March 2011: US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder announced that NATO decided to step up surveillance missions of E-3 AWACS aircraft to twenty-four hours a day. On the same day, it was reported that an anonymous UN diplomat confirmed to Agence France Presse that France and Britain were drawing up a resolution on the no-fly zone that would be considered by the UN Security Council during the same week. The Gulf Cooperation Council also on that day called upon the UN Security Council to "take all necessary measures to protect civilians, including enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya."
10 March 2011: France recognized the Libyan NTC as the legitimate government of Libya soon after Sarkozy met with them in Paris. This meeting was arranged by Bernard-Henri Lévy.
11 March 2011: Cameron joined forces with Sarkozy after Sarkozy demanded immediate action from international community for a no-fly zone against air attacks by Gaddafi.
14 March 2011: In Paris at the Élysée Palace, before the summit with the G8 Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sarkozy, who is also the president of the G8, along with French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and pressed her to push for intervention in Libya.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Just for people who don't click wikipedia links with chronologies
23 February 2011: French President Nicolas Sarkozy pushed for the European Union (EU) to pass sanctions against Gaddafi (freezing Gaddafi family funds abroad) and demand he stop attacks against civilians.
26 February 2011: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 was passed unanimously, referring the Libyan government to the International Criminal Court for gross human rights violations. It imposed an arms embargo on the country and a travel ban and assets freeze on the family of Muammar Al-Qadhafi and certain Government officials.
28 February 2011: British Prime Minister David Cameron proposed the idea of a no-fly zone to prevent Gaddafi from "airlifting mercenaries" and "using his military aeroplanes and armoured helicopters against civilians."
1 March 2011: The US Senate unanimously passed non-binding Senate resolution S.RES.85 urging the United Nations Security Council to impose a Libyan no-fly zone and encouraging Gaddafi to step down. The US had naval forces positioned off the coast of Libya, as well as forces already in the region, including the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise.
7 March 2011: US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder announced that NATO decided to step up surveillance missions of E-3 AWACS aircraft to twenty-four hours a day. On the same day, it was reported that an anonymous UN diplomat confirmed to Agence France Presse that France and Britain were drawing up a resolution on the no-fly zone that would be considered by the UN Security Council during the same week. The Gulf Cooperation Council also on that day called upon the UN Security Council to "take all necessary measures to protect civilians, including enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya."
10 March 2011: France recognized the Libyan NTC as the legitimate government of Libya soon after Sarkozy met with them in Paris. This meeting was arranged by Bernard-Henri Lévy.
11 March 2011: Cameron joined forces with Sarkozy after Sarkozy demanded immediate action from international community for a no-fly zone against air attacks by Gaddafi.
14 March 2011: In Paris at the Élysée Palace, before the summit with the G8 Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sarkozy, who is also the president of the G8, along with French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and pressed her to push for intervention in Libya.
d-usa wrote: You don't need opinion pieces, from whatever spectrum, telling you one thing when history and facts tell you another.
But if you want to blame a civil war started in Lybia, a UN resolution pushed by France and Britain, and an international NATO let mission largely on Obama and Hillary then I guess you can keep on doing so.
I'm not talking opinion pieces as much as news with documented facts behind it.
There is nobody that feels stronger about the intelligence community and the CIA than Donald Trump,” Trump said. “There is nobody.”
He added, “I am so behind you. I know maybe sometimes you haven’t gotten the backing that you’ve wanted and you’re going to get so much backing. Maybe you’re going to say, ‘Please, don’t give us so much backing. Mr. President, please, we don’t need so much backing.’
Trump delved into the Iraq war, saying: “I wasn’t a fan of Iraq. I didn’t want to go into Iraq.” His statement was at odds with comments he made during a 2002 interview with radio shock jock Howard Stern.
Trump also asserted his oft-stated belief that the United States bungled its exit from the country by not taking Iraq’s oil. “If we kept the oil, we wouldn’t have had ISIS in the first place,” Trump reasoned, saying that was how the Islamic State terrorist group made its money.
“The old expression, to the victor belong the spoils,” Trump said. He added, “We should’ve kept the oil. But, okay, maybe we’ll have another chance.”
The 3rd movie in the series is when the franchise either dies or goes onto great things.
Most of the original cast have left to do other things but there's normally a minor character who gets to stay and then eke out an existence on the convention circuit for the rest of their life, they normally get a lovely obituary when they die too.
But aspects of his appearance are likely to be unsettling to the broader workforce, including his suggestion that the agency has been losing in the battle against the Islamic State and other terror groups, and his decision to score political points unrelated to the CIA’s mission in front of its most sacred setting — a wall emblazoned with more than 100 carved stars to mark the deaths of agency operatives killed in the line of duty.
That was one of the more disconcerting speeches I’ve seen,” said a senior U.S. intelligence official who was not present for the Trump speech but watched it by video. “He could have kept it very simple and said, ‘I’m here to build some bridges.’ But he spent 10 seconds on that and the rest was on the crowd size,” the official said, referring to Trump’s repeated complaints that the media had undercounted the turnout for his inauguration.
Referring to Trump’s use of the CIA memorial wall as a backdrop, the official said, “People are going to think that was offensive.”
He also asked CIA officers to applaud his national security adviser, former lieutenant general Michael Flynn, who is a controversial figure within the intelligence community.
Now, Brexit lady Theresa May will be the first to meet Trump next Friday. Then he will meet Trudeau and the Mexican president. I'm curious when he will meet Merkel, one of the leaders who are against protectionism and isolation.
reds8n wrote: ..when the Russians have given their ok.
I guess he could meet Putin before Merkel and further EU representatives.
However, I think now its time to give him a chance no matter what. He already backed up the secret services. Next he will stop fuzzing about isolation and protectionism. After all, he has become ''to big to fail'' because of the possibilities of global business.
But aspects of his appearance are likely to be unsettling to the broader workforce, including his suggestion that the agency has been losing in the battle against the Islamic State and other terror groups, and his decision to score political points unrelated to the CIA’s mission in front of its most sacred setting — a wall emblazoned with more than 100 carved stars to mark the deaths of agency operatives killed in the line of duty.
That was one of the more disconcerting speeches I’ve seen,” said a senior U.S. intelligence official who was not present for the Trump speech but watched it by video. “He could have kept it very simple and said, ‘I’m here to build some bridges.’ But he spent 10 seconds on that and the rest was on the crowd size,” the official said, referring to Trump’s repeated complaints that the media had undercounted the turnout for his inauguration.
Referring to Trump’s use of the CIA memorial wall as a backdrop, the official said, “People are going to think that was offensive.”
He also asked CIA officers to applaud his national security adviser, former lieutenant general Michael Flynn, who is a controversial figure within the intelligence community.
Classy as ever.
I think we can conclude that Trump has an issue with size in all matters. I think he might be overcompensating....
I also particularly like this comment
“I’m a person that very strongly believes in academics,” Trump said. “They say, ‘Is Donald Trump an intellectual?’ Trust me. I’m, like, a smart person.”
Whilst completely denying anything about climate change. I suppose it could be a play on words as he does dress up in smart suit but I doubt he thought of this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
wuestenfux wrote: Now, Brexit lady Theresa May will be the first to meet Trump next Friday. Then he will meet Trudeau and the Mexican president. I'm curious when he will meet Merkel, one of the leaders who are against protectionism and isolation.
If Merkel has any sense she will let Trump come to her to arrange a meeting to show that she is not going to come running because of fear. May is desperately looking for positive news on Brexit; Mexico and Canada will have their own trade issues they will be worried about.
“I’m a person that very strongly believes in academics,” Trump said. “They say, ‘Is Donald Trump an intellectual?’ Trust me. I’m, like, a smart person.”
Sorry Trump, but an intellectual would know that you don't need to believe in academics, they exist regardless. You might be confusing them with fairies.
Also, nobody has been asking if you are an intellectual. We all know the answer to that already.
Also just saw this on facebook:
Spoiler:
Now this is a story all about how The world got flipped-turned upside down And I'd like to take a minute Just sit right there I'll tell you all about the prick with the ridiculous hair
I was to a billionaire, born and raised In the bankruptcy courts I spent most of my days Chillin' out maxin' relaxin', a fool And all groping some pussy outside of the school With a couple of guys who were wearing the hood I started blaming latins in your neighborhood I dissed this disabled guy, but nobody cared They said, “He’s movin on the White House, but we’re still not scared.”
I whistled for a limo and when it came near The license plate said "Trump" and it had gold in the mirror If anything I could say this ride was fine But I thought, "I’ve got billions" – "I’m elite, it’s all mine."
I pulled up to the White House at 7 or 8 And I yelled at the driver, "Go home, migrant labor." I looked at my kingdom With the world in despair To sit on my throne as the Prick with the hair
It goes without saying that we all thought the Trump administration would take the USA into uncharted territory, but I didn't think it would happen after only one day!
To set the tone in this manner i.e picking a fight with the press when the facts are overwhelmingly against you with regard to crowd sizes.
I hesitate to say this, but I think there is a mental issue here...
Compare and contrast to:
FDR. The first 100 days and priority of getting the galloping snail of congress moving.
LBJ, and the speed and skill he executed in getting the bills through Congress.
Donald J Trump: my crowd's bigger than your crowd!
I'd happily offer American dakka members a place in the UK (subject to appropriate immigration checks ) but we've kinda got our hands full ourselves...
Still, it's going to be a long 4 years for the USA.
so is this an actual Bill that will pass or just a bit of grandstanding by ..err.... Mike Rogers ?
Shown Here:
Introduced in House (01/03/2017)
American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017
This bill repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other specified related laws.
The bill requires: (1) the President to terminate U.S. membership in the United Nations (U.N.), including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body; and (2) closure of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.
The bill prohibits: (1) the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the U.N., (2) the authorization of funds for any U.S. contribution to any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (3) the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. Armed Forces as part of any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (4) U.S. Armed Forces from serving under U.N. command, and (5) diplomatic immunity for U.N. officers or employees.
It's certainly a bold play.
.. still won't get those parking fines paid one fears.
I have a few -- vague -- memories of other politicians trying similar stunts over the years .
What I don't understand is how telling the rest of the world to feth off is going to make the rest of the world want to make deals with the US in the US's favour without the US implicitly threatening to bomb said countries.
We joke about it, but this type of nonsense should be laughed out of Washington, will be laughed out of Washington.
I dunno, if it gets to Trumps desk I reckon he'd sign it and if there is one thing which republicans in congress have shown they can do it is send idiotic bills to the presidents desk.
Trump clearly has huge insecurity issues in his mind. The mere IDEA that his inauguration crowd wasn't #1 in USA history makes him go ballistic against media and any goverment official who dares to even mention it.
And this is supposed to be president...Sheesh. I said before random 5 year old would make better president. I think I was too optimistic. Random TODDLER would be better qualified president!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It goes without saying that we all thought the Trump administration would take the USA into uncharted territory, but I didn't think it would happen after only one day!
You really shouldn't be surprised. He was utterly ridiculous for years before he started his presidential campaign, he was utterly ridiculous throughout his campaign... kinda obvious he'd continue being utterly ridiculous.
To set the tone in this manner i.e picking a fight with the press when the facts are overwhelmingly against you with regard to crowd sizes.
That part isn't a unique Trump thing. Anyone remember Karl Rove mocking what he called the 'reality based community', and saying that the Bush administration created its own reality.
Trump is the most extreme case so far, but he hasn't come out of nowhere, he is the next logical step in the long Republican decline.
I hesitate to say this, but I think there is a mental issue here...
I don't know if any of us are qualified to know where the line is between having a mental issue and just being a really, really awful person
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It goes without saying that we all thought the Trump administration would take the USA into uncharted territory, but I didn't think it would happen after only one day!
You really shouldn't be surprised. He was utterly ridiculous for years before he started his presidential campaign, he was utterly ridiculous throughout his campaign... kinda obvious he'd continue being utterly ridiculous.
To set the tone in this manner i.e picking a fight with the press when the facts are overwhelmingly against you with regard to crowd sizes.
That part isn't a unique Trump thing. Anyone remember Karl Rove mocking what he called the 'reality based community', and saying that the Bush administration created its own reality.
Trump is the most extreme case so far, but he hasn't come out of nowhere, he is the next logical step in the long Republican decline.
I hesitate to say this, but I think there is a mental issue here...
I don't know if any of us are qualified to know where the line is between having a mental issue and just being a really, really awful person
I was under the mistaken belief that the responsibility and prestige of such a high office would temper something in Trump.
It's one thing to read about the fall of a particular empire in the history books, it's another thing to witness it happening in slow motion, as we are doing now.
I was under the mistaken belief that the responsibility and prestige of such a high office would temper something in Trump.
He got to where he is by being Donald Trump, he has no reason to quit now.
Impeachment might bring Trump to a stop, but knowing Trump, he'll probably try and counter-impeach the people trying to impeach him
I'll never forget that excellent passage in the John Adams biography by David McCullough.
Adams is trying to get to France to raise French support against Britain. He's almost captured by the Royal Navy, and nearly dies of pneumonia, sea voyages being particularly hazardous in those days.
Adams must be spinning in his grave at the state of the nation he risked so much for...
I was under the mistaken belief that the responsibility and prestige of such a high office would temper something in Trump.
He got to where he is by being Donald Trump, he has no reason to quit now.
Impeachment might bring Trump to a stop, but knowing Trump, he'll probably try and counter-impeach the people trying to impeach him
I'll never forget that excellent passage in the John Adams biography by David McCullough.
Adams is trying to get to France to raise French support against Britain. He's almost captured by the Royal Navy, and nearly dies of pneumonia, sea voyages being particularly hazardous in those days.
Adams must be spinning in his grave at the state of the nation he risked so much for...
If impeachment proceedings do get launched against Trump he will bluster for a bit, claim he's innocent despite any evidence to the contrary, claim it is some conspiracy by the media and/or "the swamp" and then eventually resign before he is removed from office, still claiming that he was innocent and that you didn't fire him, HE QUIT!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It goes without saying that we all thought the Trump administration would take the USA into uncharted territory, but I didn't think it would happen after only one day!
You really shouldn't be surprised. He was utterly ridiculous for years before he started his presidential campaign, he was utterly ridiculous throughout his campaign... kinda obvious he'd continue being utterly ridiculous.
To set the tone in this manner i.e picking a fight with the press when the facts are overwhelmingly against you with regard to crowd sizes.
That part isn't a unique Trump thing. Anyone remember Karl Rove mocking what he called the 'reality based community', and saying that the Bush administration created its own reality.
Trump is the most extreme case so far, but he hasn't come out of nowhere, he is the next logical step in the long Republican decline.
I hesitate to say this, but I think there is a mental issue here...
I don't know if any of us are qualified to know where the line is between having a mental issue and just being a really, really awful person
I was under the mistaken belief that the responsibility and prestige of such a high office would temper something in Trump.
It's one thing to read about the fall of a particular empire in the history books, it's another thing to witness it happening in slow motion, as we are doing now.
One of the long-time political pundits I follow said 'The White House changes a man. But typically, not in the way one would think. Sure there have been examples where the Oval Office has checked an individual's brashness and braggado, but those are very few and far between. John F. Kennedy is a perfect example of this. Typically, the change we see is that the characteristics and persona displayed by the candidate becomes amplified by the position."
"It's all just campaign bluster." No. No, it isn't. I can't even count how many times I heard that fool's buy-in from his supporters or Clinton detractors. This guy is an open book. There's no hint of subtlety. What we've seen, is what we're going to get...God help us.
Just not getting the sarcasm then? Even PJ pointed it out to you in a reply post, but, K...if you like arguing with yourself. Maybe I should have italicized "of course" to really get the tone across...*note to self.
Sorry I left what I meant implied... I was responding to the person you were responding to, who was responding to my first statement.
Much of the speech was written by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon, two of Mr. Trump’s top advisers, a White House official said.
“I don’t think we’ve had a speech like that since Andrew Jackson came to the White House,” said Mr. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s chief strategist and senior counselor. “It’s got a deep, deep root of patriotism.”
The speech was intended to touch the same themes of his campaign, Mr. Bannon said. “It was an unvarnished declaration of the basic principles of his populist and nationalist movement,” he said. “It was given in a very powerful way.”
so is this an actual Bill that will pass or just a bit of grandstanding by ..err.... Mike Rogers ?
Shown Here:
Introduced in House (01/03/2017)
American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017
This bill repeals the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and other specified related laws.
The bill requires: (1) the President to terminate U.S. membership in the United Nations (U.N.), including any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body; and (2) closure of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.
The bill prohibits: (1) the authorization of funds for the U.S. assessed or voluntary contribution to the U.N., (2) the authorization of funds for any U.S. contribution to any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (3) the expenditure of funds to support the participation of U.S. Armed Forces as part of any U.N. military or peacekeeping operation, (4) U.S. Armed Forces from serving under U.N. command, and (5) diplomatic immunity for U.N. officers or employees.
It's certainly a bold play.
.. still won't get those parking fines paid one fears.
I have a few -- vague -- memories of other politicians trying similar stunts over the years .
One of the Ryans perhaps ?
It's a real bill and does have some support...
However, I'm betting that it won't leave the House.
Interesting, watch the way she pauses before saying "alternative facts", she also looks away, swallow, stutters and then brushes her hair, all distraction techniques used by your subconscious when trying to get a lie out.
Then she immediately trys to change the subject onto Obama. Classic.
My guess is in a week or so we will see a poll where 30% buys those "alternative facts" as the truth and will believe the media was lying about the crowd size.
2018 will be interesting for sure, but I've learned not to have hope of any kind.
But this is certainly an interesting set of circumstances. Starting the presidency with the highest approval rating in recent history following the presidency ending with (maybe?) the highest approval rating in recent history.
And starting the first couple of days with a vacation, multiple easily verified lies, "alternate facts", and the first Executive Order targeting a law that the vast majority of people don't want to see repealed.
For better or worse, the GOP hitched their wagon to him and has fallen in line. Conventional logic would say that 2018 should see a groundswell for the Democrats, especially if the marches yesterday were any indication. But conventional logic also said we wouldn't have a President Trump.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And if the whole "Libtards talking gak about people is how Trump won" has any truth to it, then the "Trump got more fat women walking than Michelle Obama ever did" posts on Facebook should result in a Democratic landslide victory...
d-usa wrote: Starting the presidency with the highest approval rating in recent history following the presidency ending with (maybe?) the highest approval rating in recent history.
Obama's exit popularity was high, but not as high as those of Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan. Higher than both Bushes if I remember right.
I'm sorry. For the longest time, I thought we were supposed to be led by adults.
I'm honestly surprised. She's usually great at swallowing her own BS, but even she seems to be in a fuss that this is what she now has to say on air to earn her pay check.
d-usa wrote: Starting the presidency with the highest approval rating in recent history following the presidency ending with (maybe?) the highest approval rating in recent history.
Obama's exit popularity was high, but not as high as those of Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan. Higher than both Bushes if I remember right.
Pulling numbers for my fancy "random number facts" and you're right.
"The crowd was huge, a million and a half people, the media are lying"
What a bold new era we're in now it seems.
On the plus side your chocolate rations have been increased by 125% already.
Inaugurations have always drawn respectable-sized crowds. And considering the threats of violence and "protests" going bad, Trump actually had a decent turn-out.
Leftists and neocons seem to forget that fact when they compare Trump's crowd to Obama's back in 2008, and use it as a gauge of his popularity.
Personally, I see no need for Trump's crew to go into "damage control" mode over something so trivial.
But they are going into damage control mode, and flat out lying in a plainly obvious manner, which is a problem and indicative of the issues with this administration.
I throw up in my mouth a little every time I hear that phrase.
Seriously, it sounds like a Colbert bit. And that's what the actual administration is throwing around, because Glorious Leader couldn't stand the thought of not drawing the biggest crowd ever.
The crowd size is something that would only be bandied around by left-leaning groups, if it wasn't for the fact that the Trump admin responded. The crowd size isn't really important (and we already know that he's very unpopular), the important thing is that they will lie, in an official capacity, about such an insignificant thing. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, they all lied or deceived, but none of them did so constantly about such insignificant gak.
Co'tor Shas wrote: The crowd size is something that would only be bandied around by left-leaning groups, if it wasn't for the fact that the Trump admin responded. The crowd size isn't really important (and we already know that he's very unpopular), the important thing is that they will lie, in an official capacity, about such an insignificant thing. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, they all lied or deceived, but none of them did so constantly about such insignificant gak.
'bama did the same' Is the apologists insulation and inoculation every time this government and president is to be called out on its shenanigans. They will be getting way way worse.
Interesting number fact so far today. Welfare spending as & of GDP rose during the terms of both Bush presidencies, and dropped during the Clinton and Obama presidencies.
Co'tor Shas wrote: The crowd size is something that would only be bandied around by left-leaning groups, if it wasn't for the fact that the Trump admin responded. The crowd size isn't really important (and we already know that he's very unpopular), the important thing is that they will lie, in an official capacity, about such an insignificant thing. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, they all lied or deceived, but none of them did so constantly about such insignificant gak.
'bama did the same' Is the apologists insulation and inoculation every time this government and president is to be called out on its shenanigans. They will be getting way way worse.
Even Obama managed to go 24 hours without replacing all the reports about the actual inauguration with reports about something stupid he said.
"The crowd was huge, a million and a half people, the media are lying"
What a bold new era we're in now it seems.
On the plus side your chocolate rations have been increased by 125% already.
Inaugurations have always drawn respectable-sized crowds. And considering the threats of violence and "protests" going bad, Trump actually had a decent turn-out.
Leftists and neocons seem to forget that fact when they compare Trump's crowd to Obama's back in 2008, and use it as a gauge of his popularity.
Personally, I see no need for Trump's crew to go into "damage control" mode over something so trivial.
Vaktathi wrote: But they are going into damage control mode, and flat out lying in a plainly obvious manner, which is a problem and indicative of the issues with this administration.
"Alternative facts" and all that...
It's so weird. Why the hell lie about something so meaningless as the Inauguration crowds? What upside are there here?
It would have been a great opportunity to blame the low numbers on the threat of violence from the fringe groups. Scoring some political points.
It's monumentally stupid to lie about stuff that's so easy to conclusively prove false. There's a reason that it's almost impossible to get straight answers from politicians about anything.
Zywus wrote: It would have been a great opportunity to blame the low numbers on the threat of violence from the fringe groups. Scoring some political points.
I don't think there are many points to score there honestly.
Setting aside the usual, any attempt by Trump to do his usual response to those protests in a high profile manner would simply invoke all the reports about O'Keefe paying people to disrupt the event, and with the Women's March following the next day peacefully it would only call more attention to the matter.
In truth I think Trump would prefer the media pay attention to a stupid comment about whether or not it was raining. He can spin the religious angle, and tell his supporters the media is just being petty and focusing on something that doesn't matter.
Zywus wrote: It would have been a great opportunity to blame the low numbers on the threat of violence from the fringe groups. Scoring some political points.
I don't think there are many points to score there honestly.
Setting aside the usual, any attempt by Trump to do his usual response to those protests in a high profile manner would simply invoke all the reports about O'Keefe paying people to disrupt the event, and with the Women's March following the next day peacefully it would only call more attention to the matter.
In truth I think Trump would prefer the media pay attention to a stupid comment about whether or not it was raining. He can spin the religious angle, and tell his supporters the media is just being petty and focusing on something that doesn't matter.
Well tomi or whatever her name is said the low numbers were because of threats of violence from liberals
I still can't believe how badly they handled something as minor as this.
It would have been so easy for them to say, yes, we know the crowds were lower than 4 years ago, but many of our supporters come from rural America: Nevada, Alaska, Montana etc etc
so it's not easy for them to get here, but we appreiciate the support from the people who could make it. Thanks for turning up to show your support.
We obviously don't agree with the protestors, but we respect their right to protest and hope to work with them in taking the country forward blah blah blah etc etc etc
Case closed. easy easy easy x 1000
Normally, and we all know this, a newly elected politician gets a honeymoon period for a few months. It was never going to be long for Trump but even so, he still had some momentum, benefit of the doubt.
When you read the biographies of FDR and LBJ, they know you have about 18 months before events and the quagmire of Congress starts to suck the life out of your administration.
So they waste no time, they hit the ground running, as FDR and LBJ famously did. They don't waste time and energy on minor issues like this.
But then again, they were first class politicians...
Threats from white power fanatics and conservatives didn't keep a massive crowd out of Obama's inauguration, so I guess Trump supporters are just made of weaker stuff
d-usa wrote: Interesting number fact so far today. Welfare spending as & of GDP rose during the terms of both Bush presidencies, and dropped during the Clinton and Obama presidencies.
Bush was only following the tried and tested Reagan tactic of taking on big government by er, increasing big government.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Threats from white power fanatics and conservatives didn't keep a massive crowd out of Obama's inauguration, so I guess Trump supporters are just made of weaker stuff
Vaktathi wrote: But they are going into damage control mode, and flat out lying in a plainly obvious manner, which is a problem and indicative of the issues with this administration.
"Alternative facts" and all that...
If nothing else, I think the phrase Alternative facts is going to be in use for a very long time, so if nothing else, the Trump administration has already given something to political and historical discussion.
It's up there with Nixon's no white wash at the white house, or the President can bomb anybody he likes.
Well he's Trump. With skin so thin you need molecular level ruler to measure...
Scary thought what will happen with bigger things when something as trivial as inauguration crowd will make him explode like a volcano.
If a President is on the ropes after suffering a setback during the mid terms elections, or bad approval ratings during a re-election campaign, then fair enough, you can understand the anger and short temper if they are under pressure.
But I dread to think what is going to happen if say, American sailors are held by Iran, like 2 years ago or a bomb goes off at an American embassy abroad, or some other major crisis...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I'll just go on the record now than and say "alternative facts" is a bs phrase. There's only facts, which have alternative interpretations
Next time I get in trouble at work, I'm using alternative facts as an excuse
LordofHats wrote: Threats from white power fanatics and conservatives didn't keep a massive crowd out of Obama's inauguration, so I guess Trump supporters are just made of weaker stuff
I LOL'd.
But seriously, all joking aside, the far-right nutcases back then didn't have the organization, numbers, or backing to be much more than a public relations nuisance and trash talk. I recall two self proclaimed "neo-nazis" , Daniel Cowart and Paul Schlesselman, making threats in Tennessee against Obama back in '08. Whether of not they would have tried anything stupid is subject to conjecture, since they got their little punk asses busted by State law enforcement and the BATFE.
There were probably others that I haven't heard of or recall.
On the other hand, 217 of the 230 protesters arrested during Inauguration Day in D.C. are facing felony rioting charges for the destruction of public and private property and assault on public officials (six riot police were injured). If there were any problems in other cities, I haven't heard.
But the Women's March was a shining example on how a peaceful demonstration should be carried out. I might be in political opposition to them on the political spectrum. But I salute their civility and they have my respect. I also suspect that their message resonated better, since they weren't setting cars on fire and smashing up businesses.
oldravenman3025 wrote: But seriously, all joking aside, the far-right nutcases back then didn't have the organization, numbers, or backing to be much more than a public relations nuisance and trash talk.
Neither did the far-left nutcases in 2017. A handful of people smashed some property and fought the cops, but the inauguration proceeded just fine without any major violence. If Trump's supporters were scared off by such weak threats then LordofHats is right, it's pretty embarrassing for them.
On the other hand, 217 of the 230 protesters arrested during Inauguration Day in D.C. are facing felony rioting charges for the destruction of public and private property and assault on public officials
I'm just curious how much Project Veritas paid them (damn this jumping to conclusions thing is easy, wish I'd been doing it for years XD)
If there were any problems in other cities, I haven't heard.
There were protests across the country, but far as I know the violent variety was strictly in DC.
But the Women's March was a shining example on how a peaceful demonstration should be carried out. I might be in political opposition to them on the political spectrum. But I salute their civility and they have my respect. I also suspect that their message resonated better, since they weren't setting cars on fire and smashing up businesses.
I think it helps that what they want is actually clear. The rambunctious folks on the other hand I have no idea what they wanted. You know, other than a general sense of "not Trump", and in my book if you're going to riot you better have a really really good reason for it, and it really shouldn't be the first resort in a general sense. And the violence in DC was just a violation of both of those XD I don't know what they specifically wanted, and with Trump only having been President for 72 hours, I don't get the sense that less extreme methods were attempted, let alone exercised. Which is just great because what we really need is a return to the good old days when rioting was just a matter of course.
But then I can't help but feel there's a lesson in all this about ignoring anger
"The crowd was huge, a million and a half people, the media are lying"
What a bold new era we're in now it seems.
On the plus side your chocolate rations have been increased by 125% already.
Inaugurations have always drawn respectable-sized crowds. And considering the threats of violence and "protests" going bad, Trump actually had a decent turn-out.
Leftists and neocons seem to forget that fact when they compare Trump's crowd to Obama's back in 2008, and use it as a gauge of his popularity.
Personally, I see no need for Trump's crew to go into "damage control" mode over something so trivial.
That's not the real point.
The real point is firstly that Trump claimed falsely that the crowd was the largest in history and secondly that he claimed that media reports to the contrary were lies.
I don't agree with you that Trump's gang needn't do damage control on something so trivial. For one thing Trump doesn't feel it is trivial. In Trump's mind, everything Trump does has to be the biggest, the best ever, and anyone who says different is a liar, fool, sad, a terrible person, etc. and has to be attacked.
For another thing Trump actually is right to be worried. Trump's approval rating is the lowest in history since Herbert Hoover (I think...) He won the election by a minority vote and the narrowest EC margin for decades. There is murkiness around the whole Russian hacking affair. The small crowds reflect these facts and whatever the technical legal position of holding the presidency, senate and the House, Trump and the Republicans do not have much political currency to spend so they need to try and hold on to whatever they can.
The administration depends on enough Trumpublican voters continuing happily to accept and defend the lies, bs and chicanery.
Some say the glass is half empty, some say the glass is half full but the fact of the matter is that the glass is neither full nor empty.
Facts are not debatable. Interpretations of facts are, because the world is a complicated place and especially with complicated things it's not as simple as reciting a list of facts. Fact; it was raining during Trumps inauguration. Saying that God looked down and decided not to rain on Trump's big day, that the photographs taken during his inauguration showing that it was raining are fake, and that he had the largest inauguration crowd of any president when there are empty bleachers along his travel route, is not a matter of "alternate facts." It's a matter of facts versus bull gak.
I don't really see why making a fuss out of it. I mean, we got plenty of "alternative facts" on this topic and all the topics before here. This never stopped people supporting them to keep posting them, over and over.
Well, now I think it's best to focus on what will really be done and how it will be reported.
I don't really see why making a fuss out of it. I mean, we got plenty of "alternative facts" on this topic and all the topics before here. This never stopped people supporting them to keep posting them, over and over.
Well, now I think it's best to focus on what will really be done and how it will be reported.
The very first stamenent in the White House press room was a lie, and a stupid boldfaced lie. That makes it a big deal, not what the lie was about.
I don't really see why making a fuss out of it. I mean, we got plenty of "alternative facts" on this topic and all the topics before here. This never stopped people supporting them to keep posting them, over and over.
Well, now I think it's best to focus on what will really be done and how it will be reported.
The very first stamenent in the White House press room was a lie, and a stupid boldfaced lie. That makes it a big deal, not what the lie was about.
So... how many peeps can you stuff underneath the bus?
I don't really see why making a fuss out of it. I mean, we got plenty of "alternative facts" on this topic and all the topics before here. This never stopped people supporting them to keep posting them, over and over.
Well, now I think it's best to focus on what will really be done and how it will be reported.
The very first stamenent in the White House press room was a lie, and a stupid boldfaced lie. That makes it a big deal, not what the lie was about.
So... how many peeps can you stuff underneath the bus?
Not going to watch a 15 minute video.
Does it give any explanation about why the first press room statement features alternative facts?
I don't really see why making a fuss out of it. I mean, we got plenty of "alternative facts" on this topic and all the topics before here. This never stopped people supporting them to keep posting them, over and over.
Well, now I think it's best to focus on what will really be done and how it will be reported.
The very first stamenent in the White House press room was a lie, and a stupid boldfaced lie. That makes it a big deal, not what the lie was about.
The second statement was a threat to the media for not toeing the line on their lies. It's more than concerning.
I think the term "gaslightling" is going to come into common usage again.
I remember there were a few articles about how Clinton would be a great threat to the Press, because she didn't like to hold full press conferences often. Bet a lot of journalists are feeling stupid about writing those articles now...
I don't really see why making a fuss out of it. I mean, we got plenty of "alternative facts" on this topic and all the topics before here. This never stopped people supporting them to keep posting them, over and over.
Well, now I think it's best to focus on what will really be done and how it will be reported.
The very first stamenent in the White House press room was a lie, and a stupid boldfaced lie. That makes it a big deal, not what the lie was about.
So... how many peeps can you stuff underneath the bus?
Not going to watch a 15 minute video.
Does it give any explanation about why the first press room statement features alternative facts?
THat Tom Barrack dude told Anderson Cooper last night that the estimate of 1.5 million at the inauguration came from him... and goes to say that the Team Trump’s crowd count was partially distorted by the vantage point of looking out from the Capitol towards the Lincoln Memorial, which I guess makes the lawn appear completely packed even if it isn’t... that erroneous estimate of 1.5 million was accurate from that vantage point, but not when you saw the shots from overhead.
So... it's the ol'Kenobi "he's right from a certain point of view"...
Frankly... it's bs... Team Trump didn't think they'd get this much pushback and Tom Barrack became the patsy imo.
EDIT: he also told Cooper that many attendees were late getting onto the lawn because of a wider security perimeter and the strain on police from dealing with the riots happening elsewhere in the city, which meant that even the overhead shots taken before Trump spoke didn’t accurately capture how many people ended up being there.
It all sounds so plausible... but still stanks of bs...
d-usa wrote: Did nobody bother to look at the tweets from the park service before they ordered them to be purged?
It's going to be 4 years of this...
Everybody's got to remember that one of his top advisors is Bannon. He's understands that opinion can be more important than fact. Say a lie enough times and it can sway opinion. This is already playing out...
BigWaaagh wrote: Everybody's got to remember that one of his top advisors is Bannon. He's understands that opinion can be more important than fact. Say a lie enough times and it can sway opinion. This is already playing out...
And besides swaying opinion it can get the mindless middle to say "well, both sides are saying stuff, I don't know what the truth is!" and give up on everything. Destroy the entire concept of truth and go back to "us vs. them" politics where Trump's rabid followers can get him reelected.
d-usa wrote: Maybe the crowd really was larger, and we just didn't see it on those pictures because the white ground made all the white robes hard to see?
Ha!
I think, what's more likely is that someone TOLD Trump that it was yuge... and when the media reported that it wasn't, Trumpo was pissy and asked his peeps to correct them.
d-usa wrote: Maybe the crowd really was larger, and we just didn't see it on those pictures because the white ground made all the white robes hard to see?
Ha!
I think, what's more likely is that someone TOLD Trump that it was yuge... and when the media reported that it wasn't, Trumpo was pissy and asked his peeps to correct them.
And none of his top advisors, or the press secretary, knew the truth or bothered to correct him?
I mean, on the one hand he's only barley gotten into office, and on the other there have been some questionable business meeting pre-presidency so I could see it standing up.
Realistically it'll almost certainly fail standing. I just think it's hilarious. EDIT: The article is also fairly decent considering it's from ThinkProgress, and the authors took the time to put some attention on what the ACLU says it wants to do which would have a better chance of success.
My parents live near the Trump Winery in Virgnia. I remember over a year ago when wine stores in the area couldn't sell the stuff, cause apparently it's not bad but costs more than its worth. I was in a store two weeks ago, and the guy was talking about how he couldn't keep the stuff on the shelf.
Co'tor Shas wrote: The crowd size is something that would only be bandied around by left-leaning groups, if it wasn't for the fact that the Trump admin responded. The crowd size isn't really important (and we already know that he's very unpopular), the important thing is that they will lie, in an official capacity, about such an insignificant thing. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, they all lied or deceived, but none of them did so constantly about such insignificant gak.
Understand, Trump is absolutely obsessed with ratings. Its been easy to troll him on it so far. Every time he was criticized he would bring up how such and such got more ratings when he was on etc.Frankly its probably more important to him then the nuclear codes.
You know you're doing great when the GOP President is loosing the FoxNews support.
I feel like this video needs to be earmarked and used in all future lessons about not opening a barrel of worms you don't want to end up dealing with.
This has kind of been the thing for me with a lot of this stuff.
Think the things celebrities say don't matter? Then why the feth do you keep talking about what they say? Think the media is producing fake news? Then why do you keep responding to every "fake" story? Trump won the election imo in part because he played almost pure offense, or at least stumbled from one stupid comment to another with such speed it didn't matter what the media was reporting on yesterday because they already had something new to report on. Now he's getting bogged down in what has to be the most banal argument that has ever been argued on national television and if he'd just not made those comments in the first place we'd have all forgotten the size of the crowd by now.
Yeah... it's gonna be a great four years alright XD
I'd recommend listening to Episode 35 and Episode 36 of Opening Arguments. It covers why Prof. Seth Tillman wrote his paper about the Emoluments Clause not applying to the President, and one of the host's arguments against the claim.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I was under the mistaken belief that the responsibility and prestige of such a high office would temper something in Trump.
Trump doesn't see responsibility, he sees power and prestige. Giving him more power and prestige and hoping it will get him to modify his behaviour is like telling a 5 year old you'll give them red cordial as long as they promise to calm down.
It's one thing to read about the fall of a particular empire in the history books, it's another thing to witness it happening in slow motion, as we are doing now.
I think calls for the US decline are premature. They will still have their base of hard power - an almighty military and the largest economy in the world.
The part of the US empire that will likely degrade is US soft power. This was a serious issue with the GW Bush presidency, and it was interesting to note how quick everyone was to move on from that debacle and ignore what happened once Bush left office. But here we have round 2, and this time its much crazier. Will people be so willing to move back to the status quo a second time around? Will people be fearful of a new pattern of crazy idiot presidents every 8 years, and start to look to more stable countries for their key diplomatic relationships?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
oldravenman3025 wrote: Inaugurations have always drawn respectable-sized crowds. And considering the threats of violence and "protests" going bad, Trump actually had a decent turn-out.
Leftists and neocons seem to forget that fact when they compare Trump's crowd to Obama's back in 2008, and use it as a gauge of his popularity.
You've missed the point completely. Trump getting a so-so crowd is barely news. What is news is Trump's bizarre reaction and invention of 'alternative facts' to try and convince himself that the turnout was large.
Yeah... it's gonna be a great four years alright XD
I'd recommend listening to Episode 35 and Episode 36 of Opening Arguments. It covers why Prof. Seth Tillman wrote his paper about the Emoluments Clause not applying to the President, and one of the host's arguments against the claim.
The Emoluments Clause is one of (if not the) least litigated sections of the United States Constitution. I'm not aware of any SCOTUS cases dealing with it, or even any major scandals in US political history related to it (if only because of long standing isolationist policy traditions). I'm not going to debate Tillman cause I lack the capacity, but I would be wary about assuming anything about what the Emoluments Clause does and does not apply to with so little case law under it.
I highly doubt any lawsuit on the matter will go forward for that very reason. The Robert court isn't going to make to touch that kettle.
Zywus wrote: It's so weird. Why the hell lie about something so meaningless as the Inauguration crowds? What upside are there here?
Because the most important thing to Trump is his ego. His whole run for office was driven by ego. He isn't there for any kind of reform agenda, his campaign was a grab bag of populist talking points that he thought would appeal, and his actual polices are basically 'okay Republicans, I'll do your policy things but everyone has to pretend they're my ideas'. The whole point is ego.
It's why he claimed his EV win was historically large, when it was actually in the closest 25% of presidential elections. It's why he invented weird conspiracy nonsense to pretend he hadn't lost the popular vote, even though popular vote doesn't matter. The whole point of everything he's done is his own ego.
It's monumentally stupid to lie about stuff that's so easy to conclusively prove false. There's a reason that it's almost impossible to get straight answers from politicians about anything.
In his campaign he told easily disproven lies. When caught, he just kept repeating the same lies. I don't think he'd see any reason to change his ways now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If nothing else, I think the phrase Alternative facts is going to be in use for a very long time, so if nothing else, the Trump administration has already given something to political and historical discussion.
It took until 2004 for the Bush administration's denial of reality to be perfectly captured, when Karl Rove criticised the opposition as belong to the reality based community, while the Bush administration were 'creating their own reality'. Four years to finally, perfectly sum up the central delusion that was driving so much terrible decision making within the Bush administration.
The Trump administration didn't even need four days to come up with an even crazier expression.
This Trump admin really has been like the more extreme and even less plausible sequel to the Bush administration.
The biggest difference, imo, is that Bush really did want the US to do well, and really tried his best to make that happen. He wasn't very good at being President but his intentions were good. Trump, as you said, has no desire to help the nation or the people beyond how it will increase his own prestige.
In his campaign he told easily disproven lies. When caught, he just kept repeating the same lies. I don't think he'd see any reason to change his ways now.
They were shown the picture of the crowd on FoxNews today and then argued that anybody could post pictures of the crowd and there is no way of telling when they were taken, and argued that the picture taken during the swearing in was taken long before anything actually happened, and then argued that they could take a picture right now and the National Mall would be empty and claim it was a shot of the crowd. Then the FoxNews guy told the tech guy to pull up the picture again to show how stupid the lie actually is that they are doubling down on.
FoxNews is one of the voices of reason. Attacking the GOP administration less than 48 hours after getting rid of (in their mind) the worst president to have ever governed.
The recent events of major CEOs like Walmart and GM going to meet with Trump, kiss his hand an announce big investment and jobs in the US are simple cons, played on Trump by CEOs smart enough to know how to shift a couple of numbers. The Walmart jobs were new staff for stores planned years ago, and are mostly of the $10 an hour variety. Meanwhile Walmart is cutting higher paying back end jobs... but Trump has his story about new jobs offered up to him by a supplicant CEO. Similarly, GM made a detail free promise about 7,000 jobs, while remaining committed to making more and more cars in Mexico. The article doesn't mention it, but Barro is on an economic advisory board to Trump, talk of the tariff was a very shallow showmanship.
The announcement for Bayer is utterly mundane - pharmaceutical research and manufacture is a huge growth area in the US, it'd be weird if a multinational wasn't investing 9 figure sums in new business. It's also a case of a very clever CEO trapping a very stupid president - Trump has been led down the path of cheerleading the merger with Monsanto, a decision that is meant to be made by the Justice Dept based on their reading of anti-trust laws. The last president to try this was Richard Nixon with ITT (more than the hotel break-in, Woodward and Bernstein's investigations were all about the hundreds of thousands in campaign contributions ITT made to have their acquisition pass anti-trust review). Trump isn't even smart enough to get some money in exchange for taking a political position on the Bayer and Monsanto merger.
Probably the funniest one is Boeing, because it created the most noise despite meaning absolutely nothing. Trump tweeted that Airforce One cost $4 billion. It doesn't, it costs $2.9 billion over ten years. The Boeing CEO doesn't put out the incredible incompetence of the incoming president, instead he just meets with Trump and comes out of the meeting saying Boeing will make a better plane at a lower cost. ie same plane, still at the actual cost and not Trump's stupid made up number, but I'll pretend you're not stupid and made some kind of deal, and you keep giving us our sweet defence contracts.
This is the Berlusconi con, people. The only question is whether the American people are as hopelessly gullible as the Italians were.
This is officially a good deal as he had seized power in coup.
It's great news as seeing West African solidarity based on a principle of democracy is a wonderful new thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: The biggest difference, imo, is that Bush really did want the US to do well, and really tried his best to make that happen. He wasn't very good at being President but his intentions were good. Trump, as you said, has no desire to help the nation or the people beyond how it will increase his own prestige.
While the personalities are different, the processes and the beliefs of the two are very similar. Like you I have some kind of fondness for Bush in that he seemed very well intentioned. The problem is when you wrap yourself up in an ideology that lets you ignore inconvenient realities, well you're pretty much doomed to screw everything up.
Trump has no such ideological commitments, he's just in it for the ego boost. But the people around him and the political party he leads are extremely ideological, more so than they were 16 years ago when Bush began his first term.
So we're getting this double whammy, a more extreme policy set, an even crazier political party, and this time it's helmed by a truly awful person. So it's the same issues, this time turned to 11.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: They were shown the picture of the crowd on FoxNews today and then argued that anybody could post pictures of the crowd and there is no way of telling when they were taken, and argued that the picture taken during the swearing in was taken long before anything actually happened, and then argued that they could take a picture right now and the National Mall would be empty and claim it was a shot of the crowd. Then the FoxNews guy told the tech guy to pull up the picture again to show how stupid the lie actually is that they are doubling down on.
FoxNews is one of the voices of reason. Attacking the GOP administration less than 48 hours after getting rid of (in their mind) the worst president to have ever governed.
Good on FOX for doing that, but I suspect it might be too little too late from them. As far as news for crazy people goes they're no longer where its at.
Some guy I went to highschool with has just put on facebook a bit of nonsense about how the comparison pictures where from different times of the day, because the media is plotting against Trump. Then it shows a photoshop of Trump in front of a different inauguration crowd.
The recent events of major CEOs like Walmart and GM going to meet with Trump, kiss his hand an announce big investment and jobs in the US are simple cons, played on Trump by CEOs smart enough to know how to shift a couple of numbers. The Walmart jobs were new staff for stores planned years ago, and are mostly of the $10 an hour variety. Meanwhile Walmart is cutting higher paying back end jobs... but Trump has his story about new jobs offered up to him by a supplicant CEO. Similarly, GM made a detail free promise about 7,000 jobs, while remaining committed to making more and more cars in Mexico. The article doesn't mention it, but Barro is on an economic advisory board to Trump, talk of the tariff was a very shallow showmanship.
The announcement for Bayer is utterly mundane - pharmaceutical research and manufacture is a huge growth area in the US, it'd be weird if a multinational wasn't investing 9 figure sums in new business. It's also a case of a very clever CEO trapping a very stupid president - Trump has been led down the path of cheerleading the merger with Monsanto, a decision that is meant to be made by the Justice Dept based on their reading of anti-trust laws. The last president to try this was Richard Nixon with ITT (more than the hotel break-in, Woodward and Bernstein's investigations were all about the hundreds of thousands in campaign contributions ITT made to have their acquisition pass anti-trust review). Trump isn't even smart enough to get some money in exchange for taking a political position on the Bayer and Monsanto merger.
Probably the funniest one is Boeing, because it created the most noise despite meaning absolutely nothing. Trump tweeted that Airforce One cost $4 billion. It doesn't, it costs $2.9 billion over ten years. The Boeing CEO doesn't put out the incredible incompetence of the incoming president, instead he just meets with Trump and comes out of the meeting saying Boeing will make a better plane at a lower cost. ie same plane, still at the actual cost and not Trump's stupid made up number, but I'll pretend you're not stupid and made some kind of deal, and you keep giving us our sweet defence contracts.
This is the Berlusconi con, people. The only question is whether the American people are as hopelessly gullible as the Italians were.
America already bought that nonsense about Carrier. Something tells me it work for at least a few years until everyone realizes everyone they know is losing their dead end job and they just got handed a pink slip.
d-usa wrote: Maybe the crowd really was larger, and we just didn't see it on those pictures because the white ground made all the white robes hard to see?
LordofHats wrote: America already bought that nonsense about Carrier. Something tells me it work for at least a few years until everyone realizes everyone they know is losing their dead end job and they just got handed a pink slip.
Yeah, it was pretty embarrassing when people bought the nonsense the first time around with Carrier. I can't see it working for four years though, with Trump constantly calling in CEOs to get them to announce 'deals' where they're going to do something that they'd already planned to do years ago. It seems a trick you can play once or twice before it becomes noise.
End of the day, what matters is those monthly job creation figures. And those are largely at the whim of the economic gods.
sebster wrote: End of the day, what matters is those monthly job creation figures. And those are largely at the whim of the economic gods.
Fortunately, if the whim of the economic gods does not line up with the wishes of the Dear Leader we can always have some alternative facts to fix the problem.
wuestenfux wrote: I'm not a Trump supporter, but the media are a bit unfair. Also here in Germany. Give him at least 100 days of government.
He started being bad before in office and has just continued. How long you need to see he's bad before you admit he's bad? What next 98 days are going to be that first couple months haven't been? Hell he's shown to be bad president even before elections were over! We have had like year+ of him showing what he's like as a president.
Why? What reason is there to expect his next 98 days to deviate from the well-established trend of bad government?
He already backed up the secret services.
Wait and see if he will support protectionism and isolation in the near future. I hope he will see that this is the wrong way.
sebster wrote: I can't see it working for four years though
I think you underestimate the stupidity of the average American. I mean, all you have to do is look at who was elected President and that will tell just how idiotic we are. His competitor wasn't a good choice either. Our dumb game is strong and I'm betting we got it in us to be fooled for many years regardless of the truth or facts.
Also, "alternate facts" sounds strangely Orwellian, which is, of course, double plus good!
Do you have anything other than desperate hope and wishful thinking about this? Any credible reasons to believe that Trump's record so far is not representative of his next 98 days in office? Because so far the evidence is not in favor of Trump miraculously figuring out how to do a better job of anything. His nominees are still terrible, his stated policy goals are still terrible, and his interactions with the media have been a continuation of the established lying and gaslighting.
This is the Berlusconi con, people. The only question is whether the American people are as hopelessly gullible as the Italians were.
Most likely, it will follow the same way; everything will go back at Trump's face like a boomerang, but years later, when he's not in office/supported by his party anymore and after his mandate. And too late for the damage already done.
I mean, people keep defending him right now. You can't believe they will magically turn against their beliefs, when they were conned that long. People would rather try to find "alternative facts" than recognizing they were conned (and thus, implying they were stupid enough to let themselves be conned).
H.R.586 - To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.
... and it begins.
Actually thats not off from current case law. The real issue is when life can can exist outside the womb. As technology advances the state's compelling interest in protecting the life of its citizenry will advance.
You know I think that is fair... but here's the thing.
He's been President for three days, and what is the thing that has dominated his public message? How many people were at his inauguration, whether it was raining or not, and how unfair the media is for reporting that turnout for the inauguration was meh and that it was raining. That's his message. He has sent people in front of cameras and reporters to talk about it. They talked about at the first press conference of the administration.
The media does not dictate his message they just air it, and he has let his message be this asinine garbage. That's not the media's fault. He's three days in and this is what Trump's Administration has chosen to talk about.
I don't think the media is being remotely unfair. This is easily the most childish thing that any president has ever done in my lifetime. With no exaggeration this is the kind of behavior I expect out of a grade schooler, not a grown ass man with billions of dollars in his bank account. And he's the fething President. He could have seriously just sat back and accepted that it rained on his big day and that if people don't go out to vote indoors when its raining, they probably aren't going to go out and stand under falling water for hours in a huge crowd just to hear him talk. It was really that simple to move past this.
So I honestly don't think the media is being unfair. I'm all for giving a guy a chance but he pretty much torpedoed that opportunity by his own hand within 12 hours of taking the oath.
EDIT: I'm bolding that because holy gak people. He hadn't even been president for a day.
H.R.586 - To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.
... and it begins.
Actually thats not off from current case law. The real issue is when life can can exist outside the womb. As technology advances the state's compelling interest in protecting the life of its citizenry will advance.
Iraqis at this tiny outpost near the front lines of the ISIS battle warn that any attempt by the US to seize their oil would destabilize the country, and the region, and possibly undermine the war against ISIS he has described as a top priority.
“There’s no way Trump could take the oil unless he launched a new military front and it be a new world war,” said Kareem Kashekh, a photographer who works for the Popular Mobilization Units, a new branch of Iraq’s armed forces consisting of former militiamen and volunteers fighting against ISIS.
“He cannot do it. He cannot succeed,” said Dawoud Ali, a 30-year-old Baghdad resident and a member of Ansar al-Aghida, one of the Shiite militias fighting against ISIS. “Of course I would fight the Americans if they came for the oil.”
Trump’s comments risk relations with a key player in the US-led war against ISIS. Iraq is currently the primary US partner in the war against ISIS, with the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and members of the country’s various sectarian and ethnic communities fighting the jihadi group.
Sitting inside a small house used as a base for reporters covering the Popular Mobilization’s efforts against ISIS, some suggested seizing Iraqi’s oil would be counter-productive, noting that Iraq recently took a $5.3 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund in part to help pay for the war against ISIS.
Short of war, they said, Trump could use international institutions and courts to divert Iraq’s oil money to the US instead of outright seizing it. “They are the Great Satan,” said Ali, the Shiite fighter. “If they cooperate with the central government maybe they can succeed in taking the oil.”
But that, too, could backfire as Iraqis would likely respond by electing a hardliner like former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who is considered close to Iran and is favored by Shiite armed groups close to Tehran, they said. Many critics say Maliki’s sectarian policies helped ISIS take root in Iraq’s Sunni communities.
“If they came with lawyers, maybe they could get away with taking our oil money with a weak person like Abadi, but if we have a strong person like Maliki, it wouldn’t work,” said Hussam Abdel-Wahed, 25, and a member of the Popular Mobilization’s media office.
“We will kick out all of the corrupted politicians,” said Abu Luay. “We now have a wide base and we will go to the ballot boxes. We will use bombs and explosives, and we’ll also go to the ballot boxes if that’s what it takes.”
..so in one speech he's nearly managed to get the Iraqis fighting against ISIS ready to team up with them.
Iraqis at this tiny outpost near the front lines of the ISIS battle warn that any attempt by the US to seize their oil would destabilize the country, and the region, and possibly undermine the war against ISIS he has described as a top priority.
“There’s no way Trump could take the oil unless he launched a new military front and it be a new world war,” said Kareem Kashekh, a photographer who works for the Popular Mobilization Units, a new branch of Iraq’s armed forces consisting of former militiamen and volunteers fighting against ISIS.
“He cannot do it. He cannot succeed,” said Dawoud Ali, a 30-year-old Baghdad resident and a member of Ansar al-Aghida, one of the Shiite militias fighting against ISIS. “Of course I would fight the Americans if they came for the oil.”
Trump’s comments risk relations with a key player in the US-led war against ISIS. Iraq is currently the primary US partner in the war against ISIS, with the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and members of the country’s various sectarian and ethnic communities fighting the jihadi group.
Sitting inside a small house used as a base for reporters covering the Popular Mobilization’s efforts against ISIS, some suggested seizing Iraqi’s oil would be counter-productive, noting that Iraq recently took a $5.3 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund in part to help pay for the war against ISIS.
Short of war, they said, Trump could use international institutions and courts to divert Iraq’s oil money to the US instead of outright seizing it. “They are the Great Satan,” said Ali, the Shiite fighter. “If they cooperate with the central government maybe they can succeed in taking the oil.”
But that, too, could backfire as Iraqis would likely respond by electing a hardliner like former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who is considered close to Iran and is favored by Shiite armed groups close to Tehran, they said. Many critics say Maliki’s sectarian policies helped ISIS take root in Iraq’s Sunni communities.
“If they came with lawyers, maybe they could get away with taking our oil money with a weak person like Abadi, but if we have a strong person like Maliki, it wouldn’t work,” said Hussam Abdel-Wahed, 25, and a member of the Popular Mobilization’s media office.
“We will kick out all of the corrupted politicians,” said Abu Luay. “We now have a wide base and we will go to the ballot boxes. We will use bombs and explosives, and we’ll also go to the ballot boxes if that’s what it takes.”
..so in one speech he's nearly managed to get the Iraqis fighting against ISIS ready to team up with them.
Because no one learned a thing from the Bush presidency.
H.R.586 - To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization.
... and it begins.
Actually thats not off from current case law. The real issue is when life can can exist outside the womb. As technology advances the state's compelling interest in protecting the life of its citizenry will advance.
uh huh.
it's totally not outlawing abortion
fo'sure.
You misperceive my intent. Under SCOTUS, the state has a compelling state interest to protect human life. That interest begins to kick in when that life can effectively be carried outside the womb. Thats why the state can in fact ban the horror that is late term abortion, but cannot ban abortion per se. Once technology advances to the point where we can support an egg immediately (not far off I would think) then SCOTUS has a real deal to try to find further protection.
You misperceive my intent. Under SCOTUS, the state has a compelling state interest to protect human life.
Hence the staunch defense of universal healthcare.
While I am fully in support of a Canadian or Swiss system, I don't understand your point.
He means since the GOP is so in favor of defending human life. They do nothing for the people already alive and their heavy opposition to universal health care.
The GOP would probably do more to bring abortion down if they would focus on comprehensive welfare reform, especially on the state level, than abortion.
You misperceive my intent. Under SCOTUS, the state has a compelling state interest to protect human life.
Hence the staunch defense of universal healthcare.
While I am fully in support of a Canadian or Swiss system, I don't understand your point.
He means since the GOP is so in favor of defending human life. They do nothing for the people already alive and their heavy opposition to universal health care.
Obamacare is most definitely NOT universal healthcare.
You misperceive my intent. Under SCOTUS, the state has a compelling state interest to protect human life.
Hence the staunch defense of universal healthcare.
While I am fully in support of a Canadian or Swiss system, I don't understand your point.
He means since the GOP is so in favor of defending human life. They do nothing for the people already alive and their heavy opposition to universal health care.
Obamacare is most definitely NOT universal healthcare.
Pretty sure he isn't talking about Obama care. They have been against proper Universal Healthcare for a long time now
You misperceive my intent. Under SCOTUS, the state has a compelling state interest to protect human life.
Hence the staunch defense of universal healthcare.
While I am fully in support of a Canadian or Swiss system, I don't understand your point.
He means since the GOP is so in favor of defending human life. They do nothing for the people already alive and their heavy opposition to universal health care.
Obamacare is most definitely NOT universal healthcare.
Pretty sure he isn't talking about Obama care. They have been against proper Universal Healthcare for a long time now
Judging by Obamacare, so have the Democrats.
EDIT: Historically Republicans have been against universal healthcare, no doubt. I will note the historical Republican Party is no more. Trump is a populist, with more in line with other NY Democrats then traditional Republicans. We have yet to see what the Republican Party evolves into. Same to same for the Democrat Party.
Yep. The SCOTUS decision predates The Trump administration by about 5 decades though.
So what has it done to ensure people have access to healthcare then ?
Obamacare, Romney Care, expansion of Medicade and Medicare.
Here's where I part with my Libertarian comrades but for similar reasons. I am strongly in favor of a Canadian/Swiss styled system for the same reason I am in favor of the best education k-12 and tech school/university for EVERYONE, to give everyone an equal shot.
Obamacare, Romney Care, expansion of Medicade and Medicare.
What has SCOTUS had to do with those ?
Aside from, presumably, not ruling against them in some fashion or other ?
Very little (although they ruled Obamacare was legal as a tax but held up some other portions. Rulings on the legality of abortion are not very related to healthcare, but you brought it up.
Obamacare, Romney Care, expansion of Medicade and Medicare.
What has SCOTUS had to do with those ?
Aside from, presumably, not ruling against them in some fashion or other ?
Very little (although they ruled Obamacare was legal as a tax but held up some other portions. Rulings on the legality of abortion are not very related to healthcare, but you brought it up.
I beg to differ. There are other health reasons for abortion and family planning beyond just what the fanatics in the GOP label as "Killing Babies"
Ahtman wrote: I think you underestimate the stupidity of the average American. I mean, all you have to do is look at who was elected President and that will tell just how idiotic we are. His competitor wasn't a good choice either. Our dumb game is strong and I'm betting we got it in us to be fooled for many years regardless of the truth or facts.
Yeah, I only meant the theatre of having CEOs kiss the Trump ring then announce 'new' jobs won't work for long. The whole Trump show - I agree that could last four years if Democrats feth up the opposition to him. I mean as amazingly awful as Trump has been already, he'll still get the same 60 million turning up for him.
My evangelical cousins living in the US are a good example. In the lead up to the election my cousin posted a whole bunch of very weird stuff about why you had to vote Trump despite him being Trump. "Imperfect vessel" got used a lot, and everything came back to abortion, basically. About a day after the election he started posting stuff about keeping oneself above the mess of politics, trying to walk away from what he'd just done by supporting Trump. But next election he'll be making the same abortion driven arguments. It simply doesn't matter who the Republican candidate is what bs they're peddling.
Ahtman wrote: I think you underestimate the stupidity of the average American. I mean, all you have to do is look at who was elected President and that will tell just how idiotic we are. His competitor wasn't a good choice either. Our dumb game is strong and I'm betting we got it in us to be fooled for many years regardless of the truth or facts.
Yeah, I only meant the theatre of having CEOs kiss the Trump ring then announce 'new' jobs won't work for long. The whole Trump show - I agree that could last four years if Democrats feth up the opposition to him. I mean as amazingly awful as Trump has been already, he'll still get the same 60 million turning up for him.
My evangelical cousins living in the US are a good example. In the lead up to the election my cousin posted a whole bunch of very weird stuff about why you had to vote Trump despite him being Trump. "Imperfect vessel" got used a lot, and everything came back to abortion, basically. About a day after the election he started posting stuff about keeping oneself above the mess of politics, trying to walk away from what he'd just done by supporting Trump. But next election he'll be making the same abortion driven arguments. It simply doesn't matter who the Republican candidate is what bs they're peddling.
I too have listened so some very agile mental gymnastics to try and square circle their convictions with Trump. It is nauseating at best. That is one thing I can never understand I suppose.
Very little (although they ruled Obamacare was legal as a tax but held up some other portions. Rulings on the legality of abortion are not very related to healthcare, but you brought it up.
I don't understand your point.
You said
Under SCOTUS, the state has a compelling state interest to protect human life. That interest begins to kick in when that life can effectively be carried outside the womb.
and then agreed that healthcare is needed to protect human life.
Are you saying then that SCOTUS has, on fairly fundamental level, failed to do its job correctly as there were/are/will/might be so many people with inadequate healthcare coverage ?
Peregrine wrote: Fortunately, if the whim of the economic gods does not line up with the wishes of the Dear Leader we can always have some alternative facts to fix the problem.
The GOP already routinely have big tantrums when the Bureau of Labor stats gives figures that don't fit what they want to believe. I can only imagine what's going to happen when Trump gets some bad monthly numbers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vash108 wrote: I too have listened so some very agile mental gymnastics to try and square circle their convictions with Trump. It is nauseating at best. That is one thing I can never understand I suppose.
Its one of those amazing phenomenons that's utterly predictable but completely inexplicable. You know it will happen, but it is impossible to understand why.
Obamacare, Romney Care, expansion of Medicade and Medicare.
What has SCOTUS had to do with those ?
Aside from, presumably, not ruling against them in some fashion or other ?
Very little (although they ruled Obamacare was legal as a tax but held up some other portions. Rulings on the legality of abortion are not very related to healthcare, but you brought it up.
I beg to differ. There are other health reasons for abortion and family planning beyond just what the fanatics in the GOP label as "Killing Babies"
beg to differ about what? The tangential linkage to universal healthcare is whether that the govs would pay for it correct? Thats not an issue for SCOTUS, unless the government unconstitutionally funds it somehow.
Unless you get weird and mandate abortion of course, then envision civil war within hours.
Very little (although they ruled Obamacare was legal as a tax but held up some other portions. Rulings on the legality of abortion are not very related to healthcare, but you brought it up.
I don't understand your point.
You said
Under SCOTUS, the state has a compelling state interest to protect human life. That interest begins to kick in when that life can effectively be carried outside the womb.
and then agreed that healthcare is needed to protect human life.
Are you saying then that SCOTUS has, on fairly fundamental level, failed to do its job correctly as there were/are/will/might be so many people with inadequate healthcare coverage ?
Ok I think we're (we as in the Royal Wienie) are seeing the issue.
SCOTUS = US Supreme Court. They ruled on the legality of abortion of when the government has an interest which can override the right to privacy. To be clear I was just noting that once technology advances to the point where they can keep a fertilized egg going to full trim outside of the womb then that kind of follows the existing SCOTUS framework. Now that may have advanced since I left Shank em University School of Law (our motto: "you keep what you kill") and can't be arsed to research, but I doubt it.
As noted, SCOTUS would only be involved in the future healthcare plans if they somehow violated the Constitution
Very little (although they ruled Obamacare was legal as a tax but held up some other portions. Rulings on the legality of abortion are not very related to healthcare, but you brought it up.
I don't understand your point.
You said
Under SCOTUS, the state has a compelling state interest to protect human life. That interest begins to kick in when that life can effectively be carried outside the womb.
and then agreed that healthcare is needed to protect human life.
Are you saying then that SCOTUS has, on fairly fundamental level, failed to do its job correctly as there were/are/will/might be so many people with inadequate healthcare coverage ?
Ok I think we're (we as in the Royal Wienie) are seeing the issue.
SCOTUS = US Supreme Court. They ruled on the legality of abortion of when the government has an interest which can override the right to privacy. To be clear I was just noting that once technology advances to the point where they can keep a fertilized egg going to full trim outside of the womb then that kind of follows the existing SCOTUS framework. Now that may have advanced since I left Shank em University School of Law (our motto: "you keep what you kill") and can't be arsed to research, but I doubt it.
As noted, SCOTUS would only be involved in the future healthcare plans if they somehow violated the Constitution
Yeah, just to try to add further clarification, SCOTUS ruled that the state has to give the same legal protections to the life of an unborn baby that was far enough along in gestation to be viable outside the womb that it gives to newborn babies. It basically just sets a time limit for abortions being legal on demand prior to viability outside the womb and making a baby still in the womb but viable to survive outside out it the same degree of legal personhood as a newborn outside the womb. The ruling does nothing to change the fact that the State, on either the state or Federal level isn't legally required to give healthcare to anyone. Beyond the Veterans' Administration the government isn't a healthcare provider, it just subsidizes private insurance plans for qualifying people.
Prestor Jon wrote: Beyond the Veterans' Administration the government isn't a healthcare provider, it just subsidizes private insurance plans for qualifying people.
The government is also a healthcare provider via the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the Indian Health Service, and the Public Health Service.
Working "artificial wombs"/similar & related technologies will & should change the debate/issue, no argument there.
I know what SCOTUS is
The bit I don't get is that you claim that the court has a duty to protect human life -- and yeah yeah there'll be wars, murders still etc etc -- and that access to healthcare is part of this protection.
However things like the 1st executive order Trump issued will restrict or prevent people from accessing this healthcare -- especially given the somewhat.. nebulous ? ... inchoate ? nature of the plans to replace it -- thus harming the people -- literally might kill them.
One appreciates -- alas -- $$$ will always be an issue but presumably if the Govt. put... say a $1,000,000 tax on firearms one would see people arguing that would be very much against the grain of the 2nd amendment.
Obviously there's limits here -- the Govt. isn't required to subsidise firearm sales to ensure that people can have the gun the want/need/deserve etc etc
The bit I don't get is that you claim that the court has a duty to protect human life -- and yeah yeah there'll be wars, murders still etc etc -- and that access to healthcare is part of this protection.
Not the court, the state. The state has a "compelling state" interest in protecting human life, so if a state wants to ban abortion, then that interest overrides the privacy interest of the invidual. This is the same reasoning that is used for a variety of things. Other variants are found in a compelling state interest to protect children-thus allowing state intervention in certain circumstances, up to and including termination of parental rights.
However things like the 1st executive order Trump issued will restrict or prevent people from accessing this healthcare -- especially given the somewhat.. nebulous ? ... inchoate ? nature of the plans to replace it -- thus harming the people -- literally might kill them.
The government is not required under the constitution to provide healthcare. You're trying to argue with me here about something, but I don't know why.
One appreciates -- alas -- $$$ will always be an issue but presumably if the Govt. put... say a $1,000,000 tax on firearms one would see people arguing that would be very much against the grain of the 2nd amendment.
The Second Amendment is a protection, incorporating THE LIMIT expressly prohibiting government interference in that fundamental right. It has literally nothing to do with anything else you are talking about.
In the words of the ancient Buddha (GC painted me a picture of a sailing ship named Ancient Budha for Xmas): dude are you stoned?
Yes, and the actions/responsibilities of the court oversee the the Govt. to ensure it is keeping within the law.
The state has a "compelling state" interest in protecting human life,
Indeed.
And as agreed access to healthcare is part of protecting human life.
And the state/govt. is actively taking this away from people .
The government is not required under the constitution to provide healthcare. You're trying to argue with me here about something, but I don't know why.
One appreciates there's no specific requirement for them to provide healthcare.
However one would raise the issue about that whole protecting human life.
The Second Amendment is a protection, incorporating THE LIMIT expressly prohibiting government interference in that fundamental right. It has literally nothing to do with anything else you are talking about.
Are saying the Govt. couldn't/doesn't have the ability/right to put a tax on firearms, bullets etc etc ?
And as agreed access to healthcare is part of protecting human life. And the state/govt. is actively taking this away from people .
***Government is confiscating healthcare from people? Please cite there. I don’t think you meant to type what you typed.
One appreciates there's no specific requirement for them to provide healthcare.
However one would raise the issue about that whole protecting human life.
***That is in fact the primary argument for universal healthcare, that everyone should have the same right to healthcare.
The Second Amendment is a protection, incorporating THE LIMIT expressly prohibiting government interference in that fundamental right. It has literally nothing to do with anything else you are talking about.
Are saying the Govt. couldn't/doesn't have the ability/right to put a tax on firearms, bullets etc etc ?
Not sure why you’re arguing about the Second Amendment. A brightline intent reading would say the government literally has no authority to do that yes. This is my view, that the Bill of Rights is sacrosanct.
SCOTUS, which I disagree with, has determined there can be some limitations on the Bill of Rights, but those limits cannot be (depending on the chain of cases) defacto bans or even material burdens (aka voting rights).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also am I the only one who caught the Kelly Anne statement afer her alternative facts one about "revisiting the relationship" with the media if the media's poor coverage kept up.
While Constitutionally the press has F'all rights to access, what exactly did she mean by that? If someone really wanted to take down the Trump juggernaut they would hack and disable Twitter.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The biggest difference, imo, is that Bush really did want the US to do well, and really tried his best to make that happen. He wasn't very good at being President but his intentions were good. Trump, as you said, has no desire to help the nation or the people beyond how it will increase his own prestige.
I think Bush43 and Obama were both good people with good intentions that wanted to help make the country better. However, given the nature of the Executive branch and the current state of politics both were really just vessels through which their Party could obtain control of the White House. I think the visions both had for the country and goals they wanted to accomplish with the economy, healthcare, education, Middle East policy etc. would resonate with most Americans. Unfortunately, the actual legislation that was produced by the hyper partisan Congress fell pretty short of the mark for the last 16 years. It's even more unfortunate that while I believe Trump wants to have a successful presidency that increases the value of his Trump brand I haven't seen any evidence that Trump understands what the country needs or what work is really required for his presidency to really be successful. I'm concerned that Trump is surrounded by partisan zealots and media manipulators to the extent that he'll be convinced that whatever policies he advance and legislation he signs is popular enough to make Trump Inc. more valuable than ever. Thankfully I don't think it's possible for a POTUS to really harm the country in one term but I'm fearful that Trump's fumbling along will only lead to even more populist angst in 2020 which would produce volatility across the ballots that could lead to some real craziness.
Government is confiscating healthcare from people? Please cite there. I don’t think you meant to type what you typed.
Are you unaware that the ACA is going to gutted and/or removed ?
And currently there is nothing more than vague promises about replacing it.
Will the removal and potential non replacement of their healthcare coverage not endanger them ?
Especially if they have ongoing conditions and the like.
Not sure why you’re arguing about the Second Amendment. A brightline intent reading would say the government literally has no authority to do that yes. This is my view, that the Bill of Rights is sacrosanct.
My understanding is that there are -- in places as ever one assumes it'll vary from state to state -- tax/taxes on firearms
There have been challenges on this calling on the 2nd amendment
I have some -- admittedly vague -- memories about cases being brought against Wilson in California when he brought in the sales tax on newspapers wwaayy back with regards to the Govt. and press regulation.
Also am I the only one who caught the Kelly Anne statement afer her alternative facts one about "revisiting the relationship" with the media if the media's poor coverage kept up.
Very little (although they ruled Obamacare was legal as a tax but held up some other portions. Rulings on the legality of abortion are not very related to healthcare, but you brought it up.
I don't understand your point.
You said
Under SCOTUS, the state has a compelling state interest to protect human life. That interest begins to kick in when that life can effectively be carried outside the womb.
and then agreed that healthcare is needed to protect human life.
Are you saying then that SCOTUS has, on fairly fundamental level, failed to do its job correctly as there were/are/will/might be so many people with inadequate healthcare coverage ?
SCOTUS don't *make* laws...
They can't just say, "I decree from this point forward that healthcare is a right, so Congress, I'll hold you in contempt if you don't pass some sort of Universal Healthcare!".
If you need to blame someone... that's on Congress' (and eventually the President's) lap.
Furthermore, you do know that every Emergency Room is REQUIRED to take any anyone who needs to be stabilized... right?
This isn't like Panem, where only the connected gets care...
Yes, emergency rooms will stabilize, but thats often far from enough. I know several people, including a close personal friend of mine since middle school, that would have been dead without the ACA and the extra care it allowed beyond mere stabilization that missed stuff like the internal bleeding from esophageal varices.
But emergency rooms aren't much good for, say, treating cancer or similar on a long term basis.
But if Congress passes a law -- such as the removal of healthcare -- which could actively lead to the demise of a USA citizen --
-- and I'm happy to accept there would have to be some limits here of course -- because there's no replacement, does SCOTUS have the right or duty to step in ?
I have a friend.. well more a friend of a friend , Facebook kinda thing -- who is undergoing treatment for Liver cancer & a few related odds and sods and said person appears to be facing an effective death sentence when/if their h'care coverage is removed.
Didn't have access prior to the ACA due to pre-existing conditions AFAIK.
jasper76 wrote: Maybe being in charge of the Department of Education could have some effect, but I honestly don't know enough about what DoEd is all about.
It can't change anything here. There is no way the federal government is going to impose a policy of "you must invite conservative speakers" on state-owned or private schools.
The Federal govt routinely dictates policies to state and private universities the same way they've always made states comply with Federal standards for things that the Feds don't really have jurisdiction over, they tie it to funding. State and private universities still get Federal funds and they still rely on students getting Federal student loans to pay the tuition that keeps the schools in business. How does the Federal govt get state and private universities to comply with Title IX? They withhold Federal funds if schools don't comply or violate the regulations.
Universities are supposed to be promoting education and the free exchange of ideas and information not encouraging groupthink and turning themselves into echo chambers by banning speakers whose politics may not appeal to the entire student body. That's the antithesis of the mission of higher education and it's incredibly short sighted and intolerant.
It's a problem when a state university like Rutgers acquiesces to a student protest against having Condoleezza Rice give a commencement speech because she worked for the Bush administration. Allowing somebody like Rice to give a commencement speech doesn't mean that every student and faculty member at Rutgers supports every position on issues like the legality of torture that the Bush administration took while Rice was a cabinet member. Faculty and students should be able to discuss the pros and cons of legal positions taken by the Bush administration without having to shut down speeches by heads of state for political reasons. The Federal govt has a vested interest in making sure that university systems they subsidize allow for the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions.
Here are Obama's comments on the issue when he gave his commencement speech at Rutgers last year:
And if participation means voting, and it means compromise, and organizing and advocacy, it also means listening to those who don’t agree with you. I know a couple years ago, folks on this campus got upset that Condoleezza Rice was supposed to speak at a commencement. Now, I don't think it's a secret that I disagree with many of the foreign policies of Dr. Rice and the previous administration. But the notion that this community or the country would be better served by not hearing from a former Secretary of State, or shutting out what she had to say -- I believe that’s misguided. (Applause.) I don't think that's how democracy works best, when we're not even willing to listen to each other. (Applause.) I believe that's misguided.
If you disagree with somebody, bring them in -- (applause) -- and ask them tough questions. Hold their feet to the fire. Make them defend their positions. (Applause.) If somebody has got a bad or offensive idea, prove it wrong. Engage it. Debate it. Stand up for what you believe in. (Applause.) Don't be scared to take somebody on. Don't feel like you got to shut your ears off because you're too fragile and somebody might offend your sensibilities. Go at them if they’re not making any sense. Use your logic and reason and words. And by doing so, you’ll strengthen your own position, and you’ll hone your arguments. And maybe you’ll learn something and realize you don't know everything. And you may have a new understanding not only about what your opponents believe but maybe what you believe. Either way, you win. And more importantly, our democracy wins. (Applause.)
You're correct that student protests that result in the cancellation of guest speakers/lecturers isn't a violation of constitutionally protected free speech but while lawful it's still a terrible, unreasonable and intolerant practice.
Are you unaware that the ACA is going to gutted and/or removed ?
That’s not “confiscating” healthcare. You know that. Quit playing semantics games. We don’t do alternative facts here. We do Real Facts! Babylon Five comes true 200 years early.
My understanding is that there are -- in places as ever one assumes it'll vary from state to state -- tax/taxes on firearms
There are state sales taxes in general. I do not know what each state does more specifically as that would fill up a couple of dozen Bibles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: Yes, emergency rooms will stabilize, but thats often far from enough. I know several people, including a close personal friend of mine since middle school, that would have been dead without the ACA and the extra care it allowed beyond mere stabilization that missed stuff like the internal bleeding from esophageal varices.
Why were they not on Medicaid? This is a question not a criticism.
But emergency rooms aren't much good for, say, treating cancer or similar on a long term basis.
But if Congress passes a law -- such as the removal of healthcare -- which could actively lead to the demise of a USA citizen --
-- and I'm happy to accept there would have to be some limits here of course -- because there's no replacement, does SCOTUS have the right or duty to step in ?
I have a friend.. well more a friend of a friend , Facebook kinda thing -- who is undergoing treatment for Liver cancer & a few related odds and sods and said person appears to be facing an effective death sentence when/if their h'care coverage is removed.
Didn't have access prior to the ACA due to pre-existing conditions AFAIK.
... I had to google Panem
The ACA doesn't provide people with healthcare. The ACA sets up the system through which the Federal govt funds subsidies for private insurance plans purchased by citizens and for the reimbursement to state govts for the cost of new enrollees in medicare or Medicaid programs. Subsidizing the cost of health insurance =/= providing healthcare. The ACA increased the number of people with health insurance but it really didn't do much of anything to change the quality of health care and it only had a secondary impact on the availability of health care to the extent that people with active health insurance plans have an easier time getting preventative and long term care at a more reasonable cost than those without health insurance.
However, the German elections are overshadowed by the growing right-wing populists. As long as refugees make headlines in Germany, the populist party will grow. Could be a bad awakening after the elections.
But emergency rooms aren't much good for, say, treating cancer or similar on a long term basis.
True... most of an individual's healthcare is the sole responsibility of said individual.
But if Congress passes a law -- such as the removal of healthcare -- which could actively lead to the demise of a USA citizen --
I work in the healthcare industry. Remember that Obama promise "you can keep your doctor, and your healthcare plan!".
Remember that?
Well, in our Cancer Centers many patients had to pause, or in some cases stop, their treatments because they had to get different insurances (and some cases, different doctors). Now, it wasn't a huge number, (we all heard about them), as many insurance/clinics did their best to smooth out the transition periods, but many were left wondering if that change impacted their treatment adversely.
-- and I'm happy to accept there would have to be some limits here of course -- because there's no replacement, does SCOTUS have the right or duty to step in ?
It's too premature to claim that there's no replacement.
Even then... no... the SCOTUS does not have a duty to step in as the litigant would have no standing.
I have a friend.. well more a friend of a friend , Facebook kinda thing -- who is undergoing treatment for Liver cancer & a few related odds and sods and said person appears to be facing an effective death sentence when/if their h'care coverage is removed.
Liver cancer is one of the worst... I can't forecast what would happen if the ACA insurance would be rendered null and void. There's talk about the next plan to target and address those with pre-existing conditions. Even then... your friend may even be qualified by his state's medicaid program (something that would be in effect pre-ACA anyways).
Didn't have access prior to the ACA due to pre-existing conditions AFAIK.
This narrative that Pre-ACA was this wild-wild-west in Fallout 4 is getting tiring... In MOST cases, the state's Medicaid would likely helped him.
I donated a kidney to a 24 year old who was suffering from renal failure (pre-existing condition), who didn't work... the state of Missouri's Medicaid picked up the tab on that.
... I had to google Panem
Sorry... I get the feeling that the outsider thinks that is how US Healthcare works...
whembly wrote: Furthermore, you do know that every Emergency Room is REQUIRED to take any anyone who needs to be stabilized... right?
This isn't like Panem, where only the connected gets care...
And as we all know, the emergency room is the best place to treat cancer and other conditions that would qualify as pre-existing.
I know you're being pithy here... but, you have NO idea how close the truth you are...
Studies has been done, that even though the poor (those having difficult times to purchase insurance) are heavily subsidized... since the advent of the ACA, "free-care" to Emergency Rooms has NOT dropped... it's even gone UP.
whembly wrote: Furthermore, you do know that every Emergency Room is REQUIRED to take any anyone who needs to be stabilized... right?
This isn't like Panem, where only the connected gets care...
And as we all know, the emergency room is the best place to treat cancer and other conditions that would qualify as pre-existing.
If you're not dying or seriously ill, there is nothing the ER is required to do. That's what the "go to the ER" crowd always ignores. My job for 1.5 years was telling our doctors what can and cannot be admitted to our hospital. Now we were lucky enough that we also provided al the specialty clinics and primary care clinics and related testing and procedures for our patients, so when we turned people away that didn't need admission I could send them out of our ER with scheduled appointments for the testing and follow-up needed. But the vast majority of facilities won't do that. They will just tell you "we did a CT, looks like you have cancer but it won't kill you yet, sign here and find an oncologist that will see you without insurance, now get out."
But emergency rooms aren't much good for, say, treating cancer or similar on a long term basis.
But if Congress passes a law -- such as the removal of healthcare -- which could actively lead to the demise of a USA citizen --
-- and I'm happy to accept there would have to be some limits here of course -- because there's no replacement, does SCOTUS have the right or duty to step in ?
I have a friend.. well more a friend of a friend , Facebook kinda thing -- who is undergoing treatment for Liver cancer & a few related odds and sods and said person appears to be facing an effective death sentence when/if their h'care coverage is removed.
Didn't have access prior to the ACA due to pre-existing conditions AFAIK.
... I had to google Panem
The ACA doesn't provide people with healthcare. The ACA sets up the system through which the Federal govt funds subsidies for private insurance plans purchased by citizens and for the reimbursement to state govts for the cost of new enrollees in medicare or Medicaid programs. Subsidizing the cost of health insurance =/= providing healthcare. The ACA increased the number of people with health insurance but it really didn't do much of anything to change the quality of health care and it only had a secondary impact on the availability of health care to the extent that people with active health insurance plans have an easier time getting preventative and long term care at a more reasonable cost than those without health insurance.
This.
Right here.
Is 1000% correct.
Once you understand wha the ACA has done, you'll realize it's not the panacea it's made out to be...
Prestor Jon wrote: Beyond the Veterans' Administration the government isn't a healthcare provider, it just subsidizes private insurance plans for qualifying people.
The government is also a healthcare provider via the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the Indian Health Service, and the Public Health Service.
Other than the VA and the Indian Health Service, do any of those departments actually own and operate hospitals and healthcare providers or do they just provide health insurance policies?
You're correct that student protests that result in the cancellation of guest speakers/lecturers isn't a violation of constitutionally protected free speech but while lawful it's still a terrible, unreasonable and intolerant practice.
Hrm, depends on the event and the speaker. If I were graduating from an ivy league school and they bring in a pop culture personality who's claim to fame is based on things in strong opposition to the values espoused by the institution for the commencement speech, disinviting that speaker as a result of student protests who will comprise the audience probably isnt awful.
If people are attempting to have an honest conversation about an issue, disinviting speakers with extensive track records of inflammatory and false statements is probably not a terrible thing as long as theyre allowed to attend in an audience capacity and have their say that way and can freely express themselves around campus otherwise.
Why were they not on Medicaid? This is a question not a criticism.
At the time he was under 26 and still working (but was a temp and wasnt covered by work). He is on disability and medicaide now and just had a liver transplant at 30 a few weeks ago. Had the bad luck to be born with viral hep C from his mother in the mid 80's and has failed literally every treatment out there (his old liver is actually apparently now something of a dedicated research project at Scripps health now)
Prestor Jon wrote: Beyond the Veterans' Administration the government isn't a healthcare provider, it just subsidizes private insurance plans for qualifying people.
The government is also a healthcare provider via the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the Indian Health Service, and the Public Health Service.
Other than the VA and the Indian Health Service, do any of those departments actually own and operate hospitals and healthcare providers or do they just provide health insurance policies?
They own and operate hospitals and heath care facilities.
The DoD has giant hospitals for soldiers wounded in combat, and clinics at all major bases. Walter Reed is just one example.
The Department of Justice operates clinics and health care facilities via ICE and the Bureau of Prisons. The BOP is the primary care provider for all federal inmates, and operates entire hospitals located within a prison.
You're correct that student protests that result in the cancellation of guest speakers/lecturers isn't a violation of constitutionally protected free speech but while lawful it's still a terrible, unreasonable and intolerant practice.
Hrm, depends on the event and the speaker. If I were graduating from an ivy league school and they bring in a pop culture personality who's claim to fame is based on things in strong opposition to the values espoused by the institution for the commencement speech, disinviting that speaker as a result of student protests who will comprise the audience probably isnt awful.
If people are attempting to have an honest conversation about an issue, disinviting speakers with extensive track records of inflammatory and false statements is probably not a terrible thing as long as theyre allowed to attend in an audience capacity and have their say that way and can freely express themselves around campus otherwise.
I don't think you'll find many universities inviting such people to speak at commencement or as guest lecturers. The more controversial speakers are likely to be invited by various student organizations that have a more partisan or focused agenda. Commencement is a showcase for the university so they tend to put a fair amount of thought into who gets invited to speak at them. There may well be universities that have invited political ideologues or vapid entertainers but I haven't heard of it happening at any of the major universities in the states I've lived in.
For instance in 2011 a student organization at Rutgers that books/plans events used the money they get from the school to hire Snooki from The Jersey Shore to be a guest speaker. Rutgers University paid Nobel and Pulitzer prize winning author Toni Morrison to be the commencement speaker that year.
At the time he was under 26 and still working (but was a temp and wasnt covered by work). He is on disability and medicaide now and just had a liver transplant at 30 a few weeks ago. Had the bad luck to be born with viral hep C from his mother in the mid 80's and has failed literally every treatment out there (his old liver is actually apparently now something of a dedicated research project at Scripps health now)
Good good. In line with my belief about universal healthcare I view it as a requirement for a free society that at least the lower class/poor should have access.
Prestor Jon wrote: Beyond the Veterans' Administration the government isn't a healthcare provider, it just subsidizes private insurance plans for qualifying people.
The government is also a healthcare provider via the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the Indian Health Service, and the Public Health Service.
Other than the VA and the Indian Health Service, do any of those departments actually own and operate hospitals and healthcare providers or do they just provide health insurance policies?
They own and operate hospitals and heath care facilities.
The DoD has giant hospitals for soldiers wounded in combat, and clinics at all major bases. Walter Reed is just one example.
The Department of Justice operates clinics and health care facilities via ICE and the Bureau of Prisons. The BOP is the primary care provider for all federal inmates, and operates entire hospitals located within a prison.
What's the distinction between the DoD and the VA? The veterans in my family always refer to it as the VA but at least one of them received care at Walter Reed, IIRC.
And thanks for the clarifications, I shouldn't have overlooked the BoP (so many privatize prisons these days) and ICE.
However, the German elections are overshadowed by the growing right-wing populists. As long as refugees make headlines in Germany, the populist party will grow. Could be a bad awakening after the elections.
You saw what happened here. It's going to happen there, and elsewhere. Hence the point of my posting that article. The ugly child of the 2008/9 global meltdown has finally got legs and is making the rounds.
Yay, I can't wait to tell my father (who works for the NPS).
It's such an arbitrary, and all around really fething stupid idea. If you think there is waste, get rid of that, don't hurt everybody who works for government (and by extension all of those millions of families).
Are you unaware that the ACA is going to gutted and/or removed ?
That’s not “confiscating” healthcare. You know that. Quit playing semantics games. We don’t do alternative facts here. We do Real Facts!
Babylon Five comes true 200 years early.
Effectively, for some people? It very well could be.
Vaktathi wrote: Yes, emergency rooms will stabilize, but thats often far from enough. I know several people, including a close personal friend of mine since middle school, that would have been dead without the ACA and the extra care it allowed beyond mere stabilization that missed stuff like the internal bleeding from esophageal varices.
Why were they not on Medicaid? This is a question not a criticism.
Because some people can't necessarily qualify for Medicaid.
Effectively, for some people? It very well could be.
No that’s not how logic works. By not paying for someone else the government is not “restricting” their care. Otherwise the government is restricting my transportation by not buying me an original Norton.
Because some people can't necessarily qualify for Medicaid.
(I was looking for a shot of the crowd where you an actually see Trump).
...still it's a petty argument last weekend. Makes we wonder we're going to see these sorts of petty arguments to 'overshadow' the things they're going to do...
Like, Trump signing an EO to forbidding funding to any abortion services internationally:
President Trump signs executive order reinstating the Mexico City abortion rules. pic.twitter.com/CNprSew5CQ
Effectively, for some people? It very well could be.
No that’s not how logic works. By not paying for someone else the government is not “restricting” their care. Otherwise the government is restricting my transportation by not buying me an original Norton.
Do you actually understand how the ACA worked? Because it really seems like you don't.
ACA prevented insurance companies from turning down people because of preexisting conditions and other issues that made insurance companies consider them to be "high risk/low reward" prospects.
d-usa wrote: The petty argument is not about the size.
The actual argument is about the lie.
Eh? I thought Spicer et. & el. were arguing it's the largest crowd ever...
Did they walk that back?
No, Whem'. The point is that they lied about something so insignificant, and obviously, not what the lie was. And that they then talked about keeping the media "in check" (or whatever the phrase was)... because they called them out on such an obvious lie.
Good write-up, I expect the small amount of federal funding to dry up soon.
I mean, they are already trashing arts and humanities funding, I would not be surprised if public broadcasting was next on the chopping block. Thankfully most NPR stations are largely self-sufficient nowadays, what with the charitable donations and fund-drives..
d-usa wrote: The petty argument is not about the size.
The actual argument is about the lie.
Eh? I thought Spicer et. & el. were arguing it's the largest crowd ever...
Did they walk that back?
No, Whem'. The point is that they lied about something so insignificant, and obviously, not what the lie was. And that they then talked about keeping the media "in check" (or whatever the phrase was)... because they called them out on such an obvious lie.
Ah...
Meh... media did this to themselves (see last 8 years covering Obama)...
All this chicken little hysteria is falling right into their trap.
On more trivial note, does anyone else think Spicer just looks like a reanimated corpse? In all the pictures of the dude over the last couple days, he's got this weird purple hue around his eyes and mouth, like a zombie extra from the Walking Dead or something.
Spoiler:
Ruffle up the hair a bit, maybe loosen the tie, BAM, instant Walking Dead extra.
Might just be a first day on the job thing, and not trying to start any weird theories or anything, but he does not look well in any pics I've seen of him at his new job
Effectively, for some people? It very well could be.
No that’s not how logic works. By not paying for someone else the government is not “restricting” their care. Otherwise the government is restricting my transportation by not buying me an original Norton.
Do you actually understand how the ACA worked? Because it really seems like you don't.
ACA prevented insurance companies from turning down people because of preexisting conditions and other issues that made insurance companies consider them to be "high risk/low reward" prospects.
Only if you had the money.
You are literally not making a logical argument.
) but we've kinda got our hands full ourselves...
