Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
What is the alternative that Bannon/Breitbart want? Straight out repeal? Sounds like it.
No, the whole exercise is ridiculous. Really if the GOP wants to fall on their sword at Bannon's instruction go right ahead, the whole congressional session is over before it started to boot.
Again it's important to note that this is not unique to Trump: walking away from the UN has been a staple of talk radio for 30 years. In this case, as in cutting out government agencies, Trump is only carrying out the wishes of conservatism as it has expressed itself for decades.
Sure, it's the talk radio presidency.
Wait until he makes it legal to date your daughter. Then these guys will finally have the utopia they've been longing for.
But long before Trump and Bannon ever reached power, many of us predicted this struggle would occur. The Republicans have no consensus on how to replace Obamacare. They never have.
what's coming out here now is that the House bill really just an opportunity for them to rework Medicaid. it's a chance for them to change entitlement programs. Ryan sees that as the goal here really. they'll talk a good game about coverage, costs, healthcare but fundamentally changing it to block grants to states will likely cut outlays significantly.
Eh, just to be clear though, Trumpbannon is a special problem that adds a much bigger burden. They pretty much committed themselves to self-defeat when they signed on with Trump, even if he and they "won." So they won, won what?
In this particular case, by Republican moderates I mean any GOP House or Senate member who is concerned with the political consequences of trying to cut Medicaid and remove pre-existing condition protections. There are a lot of these, I suspect.
Yes.
Trump doesn't really appear to understand how government works. He's joined with Bannon IMO, you may not realize it but Bannon has been there since almost the beginning even though he only came out front after Manafort left. Trump has no idea how to drive the train and he thinks Bannon is a miracle worker who was 'right'.
Tim, Trump's "rhetoric" is just bull #### for his voters. He doesn't really mean any of it any more than he meant any of it during his campaign.
You really can't. There was no sexual impropriety discussed during his first election. And before his second it was sexual indiscretions and harassment. When you're talking about sexual assault it's disingenuous to lump in Clinton's improprieties with the other 2, no matter how one wishes to really strain oneself to be, "independent" and, "non-partisan." Which should mean being objective in things, not just trying to tar both parties equally when given the opportunity.
At this point it looks like they need to keep the Medicaid expansion in some form for any of this to pass the Senate. What a bill that keeps that expansion in place looks like is well Obamacare with some revisions. But this was always about jamming through Medicaid defunding, so here they are.
Just heard Tom Cotton comfirm this. But he suggested that the existing bill could pass the House and then they could change it in the Senate.
Name one point in the last year that he's shown any willingness, or even interest, in delving into the details of anything. That would entail real work. Even before the election there was a story verified by Trump people that Trump had offered Kasich to be the VP. To be the COO to Trump's CEO. Trump wasn't interested in details or operations. He announces a headline and then goes to large dinners and golf games with VIPs and celebrities. Closing deals on the 8th hole fairway.
He seems to think they need 60 votes though since he doesn't believe the Phase 1/2/3 nonsense (i.e. out of the budget process)
Some people don't believe the history of sexual abuse/assault. Some think it was just talk and that the women were lying who accused him. Some think it may be true, they don't know, but they don't care because they're voting for their policies and an SC justice.
Right. I watched the John Oliver piece on it last night and he said that you could just hear Ryan's erection as he talked about his plan. He was detethering (Ryan's word) an entitlement program from the federal government. They are chopping federal government into pieces to let states do it. And if they're not giving states enough money or states don't have any interest in giving good health care to the poor, well, that's just the virtue of small and local government. So not only does Ryan get his policy goal he gets to reduce the spending as he increases the block grants by 3% or whatever as health care costs go up 20% or so. Hey! I cut medical spending! By no longer paying for all of it! Rather than by reducing costs.
This is a poor analogy. Someone who supports abortion rights is, at most, someone who condones baby-killing, if that's how you see abortion. That would be analogous to a politician who wants to decriminalize sexual abuse or strike sexual harassment laws.
Trump wants to be the little boy at the front of the train pretending like he's running it, with the conductor's cap on his head, pulling the whistle, waving at his friends...all the while bannon is heaping the coals into the furnace and doing the actual conducting.
Why is it a poor analogy? Yes, the situation is different, but the mischaracterization is just as bad.
Sure, that's a fine statement. But when you vote for Trump you're not just voting for someone who condones sexual assault and harassment. You're voting for someone who commits those acts. Condoning an act and committing it are totally different things. Our laws make that clear, and I think our collective morality pretty clearly separates the two as well.
1. I didn't accuse you of any of the above. In fact I don't personally recall you, in particular, supporting Trump but I do disagree with your stance on those who have and do. Vigorously.
I don't like to find myself in a position defending Trump voters, but again, one has to believe those claims are true before they can even begin to be called supporters of a sexual abuser. Most don't. I'd put the % of folks who voted for Trump who believe he sexually assaulted anyone at less than 20%.
I agree with most of this. I don't think most of the people who voted for him think he's a sexual abuser, and so I don't consider their support for a sexual abuser and harasser to be a moral failing. But that doesn't make the statement any less true. The people holding up "Free OJ" signs outside the courthouse may have genuinely thought that Simpson was innocent, but that doesn't make it any less accurate to declare that they were supporting a murderer.
To engage in a legit discussion on this very sensitive point, you'd need to have your head in the sand to say Trump is not a womanizing, cheating misogynist who ADMITTED to assaulting women (he freakin' admitted it, it's not like we need evidence at this point).
Tough one for me here. He's on tape admitting to his behavior. Not to mention his Stern interview where he talked about walking in on the teen girls undressing. All this is documented and on the record. For me, if you chose to ignore that and voted for him you either condone sexual harassment and the vile treatment of women or you don't consider it a big deal when a woman is treated in such a manner. Tough for me to just turn a blind eye on that one.
You have created an enemy in your head and now have nothing stopping you from demonizing them for no reason aside from that. This is what the worst examples of the right did with Obama and Hillary.
I think you can make the argument that you believe they supported a murderer, but when folks suggest that Trump voters should own that they voted for a sexual predator/abuser, well that presupposes they agree to the premise, which most don't.
This describes 80+% of Trump voters. With the sand being right-wing media. What do you think the poll results would be if you asked Trump supporters whether Trump has been guilty of sexual assault or not? What about misogyny?
Yeah, I kind of agree with these posts. OTOH we see in other contexts how hard it is to admit something terrible about someone or something you support or admire. Happens in the sports context all the time. So I'm not sure what to make of people who are able to maintain denial when it comes to Trump's treatment of women. Won't really matter until at least 2019 at this point, I guess.
I am not painting with a broad brush - this is very specific brush.
This doesn't make any sense. Millions more people voted democrat than republican in 2016...you realize that right?
Ok, now we are making progress on the nuance of WHY... which is why I go back to something with which you take umbrage... that Trump supporters need to own it. Willingly putting your head in the sand does not change who and what you support, and how that reflects upon you.
Don't get me started on this... her attorney, imo, is as bad as they come (from what I know about her in her professional life and motives and attention whore nature, using that term quite intentionally).
It's not an easy decision to make, I agree. If you believe, for example, the allegations against Michael Jackson will you still listen to his music or admire what he created? Can we separate parts of who people are, even the most despicable, if there are aspects we admire? I don't claim to have the definitive answer for that. But I do believe in what I said with regard to Trump - he has a clear pattern of behavior toward women that is on record and if you voted for him you either chose to ignore it, you agree with it or you don't consider it an issue when women are treated that way. I don't understand how so many women voted for him given how he has behaved. That one remains extremely puzzling.
We all agreed to the rules of the game beforehand. Electoral votes and votes state by state. Arguing against that again just signals that you think the constitution needs to be done away with. Peope ARE Getting that msg but they are going right not left.
And like I've said, why would you own something you don't believe is true?
