The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Yep don't disagree with you there Molson.


Also there was a bit of blue wave here in SC-unexpectedly. Last I looked, the Republican candidate who beat Mark Sanford in the primary was comfortably ahead of the Democrat. This morning though it appears he has beaten her. Looks like I have to move to the district south of me if I want to get any Democratic power in the state.

And now the loser is blaming Mark Sanford and his supporters rather than herself or Trump. Good riddance.

[Ben E Lou]

We are pleased to announce that Matthew G. Whitaker, Chief of Staff to Attorney General Jeff Sessions at the Department of Justice, will become our new Acting Attorney General of the United States. He will serve our Country well....

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2018

[ISiddiqui]

Uh oh... I wonder who Trump is going to put up for the job.

[Thomkal]

wow he sure moved quick

[Thomkal]

And twitter is going crazy over how Jim Acosta assaulted the aide who tried to take the mic from him. When to me all it looked like was he put his arm in to block her from doing so.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Uh oh... I wonder who Trump is going to put up for the job.

I think he'll be fine with Whitaker keeping it for a good long time:

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/06/opini...ion/index.html

[Thomkal]

Fox reporting Rosenstein on his way to the White House

[JPhillips]

This is a mature way to handle losing:

After losing his bench in a Democratic sweep the night before, Harris County Juvenile Court Judge Glenn Devlin released nearly all of the youthful defendants that appeared in front him on Wednesday morning, simply asking the kids whether they planned to kill anyone before letting them go.

"He was releasing everybody," said public defender Steven Halpert, who watched the string of surprising releases. "Apparently he was saying that's what the voters wanted."

In court, prosecutors voiced their concerns about the seemingly indiscriminate release of those accused of everything from low-level misdemeanors to violent crimes.

"We oppose the wholesale release of violent offenders at any age," Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg said in a statement afterward. "This could endanger the public."

When reached by phone Wednesday, Devlin declined to comment.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

Fox reporting Rosenstein on his way to the White House

This whole thing looks like a very calculated play on his part. The timing of it just after the election, a lame duck control of the house, possible indictment of Jr. The strategist in me says that a new acting attorney general is going to assume control over the investigation and basically freeze the FBI out of it and try and force Mueller on an island of public opinion. He won't shut the investigation down, but he will force it to limp along in the public, then shoot it when it's lost its relevance and power. I don't know if any of that is a possibility, but it smells like enough of an "I'm not shutting it down" kind of thing, while still effectively putting a homer in charge of it, who will fill the president in on the entire thing.

[JPhillips]

But that's much harder to do when the Dem Judiciary Committee takes power in January and will surely fire everything up.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

This is a mature way to handle losing:

Fun drinking game: "Banana republic or the United States of America ?"

[cartman]

The new acting AG is on record as saying one of the worst Supreme Court decisions was Marbury v. Madison.

[Thomkal]

I think (hope) Mueller was ready for this-I mean Trump has made no bones about his dislike of the investigation. He's probably got sealed indictments ready to go. And its being reported now that Rosenstein no longer in charge of the Mueller investigation.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

The strategist in me says that a new acting attorney general is going to assume control over the investigation and basically freeze the FBI out of it and try and force Mueller on an island of public opinion.

Rod Rosenstein no longer overseeing Russia probe


Nailed that and fast.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

I think (hope) Mueller was ready for this-I mean Trump has made no bones about his dislike of the investigation. He's probably got sealed indictments ready to go. And its being reported now that Rosenstein no longer in charge of the Mueller investigation.

Rosenstein has been expected to be fired for months now. A source I know heard him say that directly in January. So I've no doubt Mueller was prepared for this to happen.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I must simply conclude, with all due respect(seriously, with no sarcasm intended), that your conclusions come from a different version of the Federalist Papers, or else a perspective that exists in a much different reality than the facts of history compel me to exist in.

I don't know how you can read them and not feel that it was set up in part to protect wealthy landowners (or the status quo). Federalist number 10 is entirely devoted to this. The argument is clear that the wealthy landowners must be protected from the commoners.

Elsewhere, Madison specifically says what the Senates purpose is. To protect the wealthy landholders from the people.

Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.

An obvious and permanent division of every people is into the owners of the Soil, and the other inhabitants. In a certain sense the Country may be said to belong to the former. If each landholder has an exclusive property in his share, the Body of Landholders have an exclusive property in the whole. As the Soil becomes subdivided, and actually cultivated by the owners, this view of the subject derives force from the principle of natural law, which vests in individuals an exclusive right to the portions of ground with which he has incorporated his labour & improvements. Whatever may be the rights of others derived from their birth in the Country, from their interest in the high ways & other parcels left open for common use as well, as in the national Edifices and monuments; from their share in the public defence, and from their concurrent support of the Govt., it would seem unreasonable to extend the right [of the other inhabitants] so far as to give them when become the majority, a power of Legislation over the landed property without the consent of the proprietors. Some barrier against the invasion of their rights would not be out of place in a just & provident System of Govt. The principle of such an arrangement has prevailed in all Govts. where peculiar privileges or interests held by a part were to be secured against violation, and in the various associations where pecuniary or other property forms the stake. In the former case a defensive right has been allowed; and if the arrangement be wrong, it is not in the defense, but in the kind of privilege to be defended. In the latter case, the shares of suffrage allotted to individuals, have been with acknowledged justice apportioned more or less to their respective interests in the Common Stock.

There are many, many more of his and others writings that talk about this.

Now you may agree with his stance, just as many others do. But I don't know how you could think this was anything other than a protection of economic interests of a certain class. These were primarily wealthy individuals who wanted to protect themselves while giving the facade of being a free country.

You'll also notice in all these writings about the dangers of minority rule, that it almost exclusively focuses on economics. There is no fear of racial or ethnic minorities being oppressed by the tyranny of the majority. There is no talk of a dominant religion such as the Baptists using their majority to impose adultery laws for instance on the minority.

It's almost if the "tyranny of the majority" was only a concern when it came to certain landholders.

[RainMaker]

If he's trying to obstruct (which he likely is), he's a bit late. The investigation is split between other investigative bodies that include states.

The House can also just fund Mueller for their own investigation. Have them turn over all the documents of the investigation. Even hold televised hearings where Mueller can describe what evidence he had before he was shut down.

This feels more like a temper tantrum after a rough day at the polls. Maybe the realization that indictments are on the way for some people and a House with subpoena power.

[JPhillips]

Move On et al are organizing protests tomorrow in response to the Sessions firing. I'd protest the hell out of a Mueller firing, but I've got no interest in appearing to defend Jeff Sessions.

[jct32]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Move On et al are organizing protests tomorrow in response to the Sessions firing. I'd protest the hell out of a Mueller firing, but I've got no interest in appearing to defend Jeff Sessions.

I’m pretty sure they changed their website recently that a Sessions firing wasn’t a protest level event. Which I thought was funny because it was last time there was rumors about Sessions getting fired.

Let me know if I am wrong.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Saw this from one of my Florida friends...

THE ELECTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED

[lungs]

Now Wisconsin's State Assembly Leader Robin Vos is talking about taking away some of the governor's powers in a lame duck session before Tony Evers takes over for Scott Walker.

What a bunch of slimy fucking losers.

[whomario]

64 truly remarkable lines from Donald Trump's otherworldly post-election news conference - CNNPolitics

[Ksyrup]

I’ve just been denied entrance to the WH. Secret Service just informed me I cannot enter the WH grounds for my 8pm hit

— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) November 8, 2018

[Scoobz0202]

Sarah Sanders on Twitter: "President Trump believes in a free press and expects and welcomes tough questions of him and his Administration. We will, however, never tolerate a reporter placing his hands on a young woman just trying to do her job as a White House intern..."


And here is the start of a thread of lies

[Thomkal]

wow good luck on that war against the free press Sarah.

[RainMaker]

When I was talking about gerrymandering earlier, here is the district I used to live in.

[Edward64]

An analysis as to what the mid-terms (may) mean for healthcare reform.

Midterms put the brakes on Republicans’ health-care agenda — so what’s next? - MarketWatch

The Affordable Care Act is safe

President Trump vowed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, when he took office. Those efforts were largely dashed when three Republican Senators — Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and the late John McCain of Arizona — broke ranks and refused to agree to legislation that would dismantle the majority of President Obama’s signature legislative achievement.

While Republican members of Congress did eventually roll back certain portions of the health-care law, including the individual mandate that penalized people who didn’t get insurance, it still largely remained intact.

And that will be the case moving forward, now that Democrats control the U.S. House of Representatives. “The most important consequence of last night’s results is that the repeal of the Affordable Care Act is off the table until at least 2021,” said Matthew Fiedler, a fellow with the University of Southern California-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative on Health Policy.
:
Now the conversation in Congress, so far as the Affordable Care Act is concerned, will turn to stabilizing the marketplaces for individual insurance policies. Last year, the Trump administration cut $7 billion in health-care subsidies to low-income households that were designed to offset the cost of health insurance premiums.

For many that made the cost of health insurance much higher, and some 1 million people were expected to lose their insurance because of the change.

In the new Congress, bipartisan legislation like that written by Republican Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Democratic Senator Patty Murray of Washington could become more feasible. That bill would have made cost-sharing subsidies law as well as give states more flexibility in how they manage health insurance and other reforms. “That’s the type of legislation they would stop looking at again to make sure that coverage remains affordable for people in the individual marketplace,” Willard said.
:
Short-term health insurance plans’ future in doubt

Over the past year, the Trump administration relaxed guidelines set by President Obama restricting the availability and scope of short-term health insurance plans. Just as the Affordable Care Act was the bogeyman of Paul Ryan’s House majority, these insurance policies are likely to be the focus of Democratic ire now that they control the House, some argue.

“We can expect a Democratic house to attack those plans in the same way that the Republicans attacked the Affordable Care Act for the last six years,” said Scott Flanders, CEO of eHealth, an online health insurance marketplace for both traditional and short-term plans.
:
Medicaid expansion comes to red states

“Last night’s results do show that Medicaid expansion is broadly popular,” Fiedler said. Altogether, 37 states have now expanded Medicaid to some extent, with most of the holdouts being in the South.

Outside of the fight for control of Congress, state elections paved the way for the continued expansion of Medicaid. Voters approved ballot initiatives in three conservative-leaning states — Nebraska, Idaho and Utah — that called on state lawmakers to expand access to Medicaid.
:
Consumers could see relief from high drug prices

Another opportunity for bipartisanship could come with drug price reform. Democrats and Republicans alike have suggested that reducing drug prices is one of their main legislative priorities in the years ahead, and President Trump has taken a renewed interest in the subject as of late.

However, polarization could prove toxic for efforts to address the rising cost of prescription medications. “Perhaps the best opportunity for bipartisan cooperation is on drug prices, but even that seems unlikely in the current political environment,” Levitt said.
:
‘Medicare for All’ debate to continue

From Democratic Texas senatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democratic member-elect of the House of Representatives for New York’s 14th congressional district, a number of Democrats have made universal health care or “Medicare for All” initiatives a progressive calling card. And with the repeal of Obamacare almost certainly off the table, the national discussion on health care reform appears primed to focus on this concept, particularly as the Democratic presidential primaries begin to get underway.

“There’s going to be a vibrant debate over the course of the Democratic presidential primary over what the party’s health care vision should be,” Fiedler said. “That debate is just getting started.”

The plan put forth by Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who won re-election in Vermont Tuesday, would expand the Medicare program for seniors to all Americans, meaning consumers would not owe co-pays or face deductibles for medical expenses.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

Sarah Sanders on Twitter: "President Trump believes in a free press and expects and welcomes tough questions of him and his Administration. We will, however, never tolerate a reporter placing his hands on a young woman just trying to do her job as a White House intern..."


And here is the start of a thread of lies

He literally applauded that Congressman who bodyslammed a reporter a couple weeks ago.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He literally applauded that Congressman who bodyslammed a reporter a couple weeks ago.

He would have applauded if that intern had bodyslammed Acosta.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

And here is the start of a thread of lies

It's pretty obvious on the video, unless someone wants to parse the difference between "putting hands on" and "chopping with the arm.

CNN should not have WH credentials, plain & simple. Should have been pulled ages ago frankly.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ;3222683

“Last night’s results do show that Medicaid expansion is broadly popular,” Fiedler said. Altogether, 37 states have now expanded Medicaid to some extent, with most of the holdouts being in the South.

Outside of the fight for control of Congress, state elections paved the way for the continued expansion of Medicaid. Voters approved ballot initiatives in three conservative-leaning states — Nebraska, Idaho and Utah — that called on state lawmakers to expand access to Medicaid.

Ya, the popular retiring Idaho Republican governor endorsed the medicaid expansion and it was approved easily. This is a state that shot down a small vehicle registration fee increase and a levy for community college funding. "Medicaid" is not a dirty word I guess.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It's pretty obvious on the video, unless someone wants to parse the difference between "putting hands on" and "chopping with the arm.

CNN should not have WH credentials, plain & simple. Should have been pulled ages ago frankly.

The difference in those 2 things is that one involves me in your space and the other is you in mine.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It's pretty obvious on the video, unless someone wants to parse the difference between "putting hands on" and "chopping with the arm.

CNN should not have WH credentials, plain & simple. Should have been pulled ages ago frankly.

lol

I never expected you to turn snowflake. Enjoy your safe space!

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I’ve just been denied entrance to the WH. Secret Service just informed me I cannot enter the WH grounds for my 8pm hit

— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) November 8, 2018

I said it years ago and only believe it more now, the whole press corps should boycott the WH events and just report stories. Any time they have a briefing it's for propaganda purposes, so deny them the oxygen. They'll cave pretty quickly if they aren't getting airtime.

[RainMaker]

New AG was part of one of those invention patent scam companies.

Attention Required! | Cloudflare

[Edward64]

This is not what I would have thought but surveys don't lie ...

https://news.gallup.com/poll/243860/...ult%2520Rifles

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

57% oppose banning semi-automatic guns; 40% favor a ban
Opposition is up after 2017 reading in wake of Las Vegas shooting
Democrats more than twice as likely as Republicans to favor ban, 56% to 25%

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' support for a ban on semi-automatic guns in the U.S. has dropped eight percentage points from a year ago, when opinions were more evenly divided after the mass shooting in Las Vegas. Last year's measure was unusually high for the trend over the past several years; the current 40% is back to within a few points of where it was between 2011 and 2016.
:
The current 40% support for an assault rifles ban is below the historical average of 47%. The latest data provide further evidence that public opinion typically shifts to higher support for tougher gun laws in the aftermath of a traumatic national event such as a mass shooting, but gradually reverts to prior levels as the memory of it fades.
:
Since 1996, Democrats have been more supportive than Republicans of a ban on semi-automatic guns. Currently, they are more than twice as likely as Republicans to favor such a ban (56% vs. 25%).
:
Americans without a gun in the home are more likely than those with a gun to favor banning assault rifles (46% vs. 33%, respectively). This 13-point difference is in line with the 14-point average difference, historically.

[NobodyHere]

I still don't understand why any legitimate news organization would want to cover a WH press briefing. You might as well just listen to Alex Jones.

[RainMaker]

Guy spent the day moving further toward obstructing a federal investigation by setting up a kangaroo justice system and people are more concerned about whether Jim Acosta has a press pass.

[mauchow]

Amy Klobuchar a legitimate Democratic presidential hopeful? She seems to be a better option than Elizabeth Qarren vs Trump.

[Brian Swartz]

She's the kind of person I hope, but don't expect, Democrats to nominate. Just a solid, relatively 'boring' politician who won't a lot of negatives to attack, relatively speaking.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I said it years ago and only believe it more now, the whole press corps should boycott the WH events and just report stories. Any time they have a briefing it's for propaganda purposes, so deny them the oxygen. They'll cave pretty quickly if they aren't getting airtime.

You can't do that, it just feeds into the narrative of being an "enemy".

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Guy spent the day moving further toward obstructing a federal investigation by setting up a kangaroo justice system and people are more concerned about whether Jim Acosta has a press pass.

Nah, some of us are looking at the clinic Brian Kemp is putting on in the GA governor race.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

I don't know how you can read them and not feel that it was set up in part to protect wealthy landowners (or the status quo).

The key words here are 'in part'. I don't argue that this wasn't a factor. My point is that it was just that - a factor, among many given and among many logical ones as well, both for and against. Your previous posts said it was the reason, not a reason, and twice later in the most recent post I'm quoting here you reverted to that as well, such as:

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

I don't know how you could think this was anything other than a protection of economic interests of a certain class.

How about because, as I already referenced, the framer you specifically chose(Madison) gave many other reasons for the Senate in the source you specifically chose (the Federalist Papers). That'd seem as compelling a reason as anything could be, would it not?

Originally Posted by Federalist 62

The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small states

As noted before, populations indicate there were actually somewhat more small states in the North than in the South.

Originally Posted by Federalist 62

at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual states, and an instrument for preserving that residual sovereignty

Originally Posted by Federalist 62

the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the states. … as the facility and the excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable

It's worth noting that there are many well-known writings by other framers making this exact same argument, among them Hamilton.

Originally Posted by Federalist 62

a body which is to correct this infirmity[so-called 'mob rule', the section on which I did not quote merely for brevity], ought itself to be free from it, and consequently ought to be less numerous. It ought moreover to possess great firmness, and consequently ought to hold its authority by a tenure of considerable duration

There are the four arguments I referenced. You seem to be laboring under the idea that I made them up or something. How could I think it was anything other than a protection of economics? Because Madison and others were constantly saying it was, such as above. I don't in any way deny that motivation played into it as well - but if one is going to characterize it generally that way you have to believe they are just lying here - and if you're going to do that, they have no value as a source and we might as well just pick a reason out of a hat and go with that.

It's not about, for me at least, arguing in favor of the idea of a Senate though I'm very willing to do that and I think the concept of a single-chamber legislature, or two of them elected the same way which is no better, is excessively bad. My argument is simply that the reasons for it were varied and I completely stand by the idea that your assessment was not accurate, inasmuch as you claimed the minority of the opulent quote summed it up and have continued to basically do so. It does not at all, given the above arguments that were put forward.

[Edward64]

The older I get the more I want "medicare for all". I'm not sure what's the best plan/option but Option #1 is Bernie's plan with est. $32T and that is too much (assuming that is correct). No estimates for the costs for Options #2 & #3 in the article but assumption is it will be lower.

Either way, it can't just be give access/provide coverage for "all". It really needs to address the cost side also and people's expectations.

Best we can hope for is the Dems lay the groundwork now and then it really begins in 2020 with some sort of grand compromise that moves the dial towards "all" with somewhat reasonable costs and tax hike.

Democrats Have Won The House. What Will They Do About Medicare For All?

The Democrats won control of the House, largely on the back of health policy. And many members of the caucus have gone on record in favor of what’s come to be known as “Medicare for all.”

The idea is hugely popular, backed by 58 percent of Americans in some polls and up to 70 percent in others. But what does that really mean? And is there a chance that such an idea will become law any time soon?

The last question is the easiest to answer; No. As long as Republicans control the Senate, where they increased their majority on Tuesday, and as long as President Trump remains in the White House, there is zero chance that Americans under age 65 will get access to Medicare.
:
What is Medicare for all?

But even answering the first question is complicated. It turns out that Medicare for all means many different things to different Democrats. Sometimes it doesn’t really mean Medicare. And it often doesn’t really mean for all.
:
Start with the most far-reaching: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) plan to replace the entire health insurance system with a single public plan. No more employer-sponsored health coverage (which currently covers most Americans under age 65), no more Medicaid. No more ACA health exchanges for individuals. In fact, no more Medicare as we know it. Just a single government payer for all Americans, no matter their age.

Then there is what was called the “public option” during the debate over the 2010 Affordable Care Act. A Medicare-like public plan would be offered on the ACA marketplace alongside private insurance. Individuals and, in some bills, even employers, could purchase coverage. While some backers use Medicare to frame these plans (they are sometimes called Medicare Part E or Medicare-X), they really are not Medicare at all. Their benefits would be different and so would their premiums.

The third variation on the theme, which harkens back at least to the Bill Clinton Administration, is a Medicare buy-in. Unlike the other ideas, this really is Medicare—just made available starting at, say, age 50 or 55. Like today’s Medicare beneficiaries, enrollees could choose traditional Medicare, Medicare supplemental (Medigap) coverage, Part D drug coverage, or Medicare Advantage managed care. Unlike, the over-65 enrollees, younger buyers would pay premiums that would cover the full cost of benefits.
:
My Urban Institute colleagues have estimated that a Sanders-like plan would increase public costs by $32 trillion over 10 years. We don’t know what the other ideas would cost, but presumably it would be much less.
:
The 2020 fight

House Democrats will also try to protect current Medicare from any administrative efforts by the Trump Administration to scale back benefits. At the same time, there is a chance, however remote, that they may find a work together with Trump to reduce Medicare drug costs.

But all of that falls far short of Medicare for all—no matter what you think it means.

So what will newly empowered House Democrats do? My best guess is that they pass a relatively modest buy-in bill. Then, it dies in the Senate. And everyone fights about it all over again in 2020.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

lol

I never expected you to turn snowflake. Enjoy your safe space!

At this point, I can only assume Jon is just trolling the board, since he's repeatedly pointed out he's the only true conservative around here, to make sure his comments embody the absolute extremes of what a Trump supporter sounds like in an effort to roil this board.

I mean, look, "free press" does not mean you get to ask questions until you are satisfied with the answers, and he should have handed over the mic, but the idea that he put his hands on her is ridiculous, as was Trump's non-response to the question that it's fake news. He pulled the mic away as she attempted to take it from him.

The unfortunate part of getting to ask Trump questions is that you have to put up with his answers. Their job is to ask the questions, but they aren't going to get real answers to tough questions. It's just giving him more ammo to shout down his detractors. This was the perfect example of turning the press's tough questions into an attack on Trump.

[PilotMan]

trump is the most immature president I've ever seen. He's the great whiner in chief. He will not answer questions if he doesn't like it. None of the questions are unfair, they are philosophical questions, based on his own words, that he has no conceptual understanding of and only hears challenges to his authority that he responds to with anger and name calling.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

trump is the most immature person over the age of 35 or so I’ve ever seen..

fixed

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Butter

You can't do that, it just feeds into the narrative of being an "enemy".

Less so, I think, than participating in the public flogging sessions these briefings have become.

[JPhillips]

Hey,

what happened to that immigrant caravan that was going to kill us all? Funny how coverage just stopped the day after the election.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Less so, I think, than participating in the public flogging sessions these briefings have become.

He wants the questions to stop and to face no scrutiny. Stop attending the press conferences and that's what he gets.