Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

jonessed

Members
  • Content Count

    28,561
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,130 Excellent

About jonessed

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Sacramento, CA

Recent Profile Visitors

16,684 profile views
  1. He only did so officially with the full Mueller report. I don’t believe it’s actually used that often. Generally Presidents just delay and pull it out at the end if need be. The House could have held the witnesses in contempt and gone to the courts. I suspect at some point along the way Trump would have claimed executive privilege. I doubt it would have held up in an impeachment, but I’m not really sure. Unfortunately, the House was in a bit of a hurry so we won’t know.
  2. Some standards, sure. Ironically, the Nordic model is a great example of the power of local control.
  3. A more centralized control over education (primary, secondary, and higher).
  4. Not really. I think that’s been well explained in this thread and others like it.
  5. I doubt he wants to emulate Cuba in its entirety, but based on his history, I think he would like to emulate more aspects of Cuba than he’s letting on.
  6. Then the courts will compel the administration to comply. Same as it ever was.
  7. Why would he be required to take Bernie at his current word and not his last word, or the word prior, or his previous actions? Just because you trust him doesn’t mean everybody should. These are all well seasoned politicians with big money and staff behind them. They aren’t choir boys. They know how to play the political game.
  8. Executive branch subpoenas will always bring executive privilege issues. This is not administration or party specific. These are constitutionally gray areas.
  9. Sure. There’s always trade offs. We can’t provide universal coverage at a lower cost without impacts in other places.
  10. Nurse ratios vary substantially by state, as does pay. The impact would vary quite a bit.
  11. You can’t just reduce the amount of money hospitals receive by 15%+ and expect quality of care not to suffer. I doubt it would be poor quality. It would just be less quality.
  12. The overall quality of care could be reduced to offset this. That would require some regulatory changes as well, but I assume a complete revamp of the system would include those kinds of provisions.