President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

aloyisious

Billy86 wrote: »

If Republicans, who have been so loud and so eager to replace Obamacare seemingly no matter what, are unable to get behind this bill then it tells you all you need to know.

They're getting the "wake-up" call after the first 100 days?

oscarBravo

Kitsunegari wrote: »

Nobody really knows.

Well, there's a solid basis on which to pass a healthcare law.

Kitsunegari

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, there's a solid basis on which to pass a healthcare law.

I never once suggested that it should be passed.

oscarBravo

Kitsunegari wrote: »

I never once suggested that it should be passed.

You seem awfully fond of arguing vigorously in favour of things you claim not to support.

Christy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

I never once suggested that it should be passed.

Fair enough. Had thought you in favour but you seem to suggest that universal health care is best in your previous post which I would agree with. This law is definitely going the wrong way (as is to be expected with Republicans really).

I agree the I don't know is big thing. Also the if premiums can be capped. If premiums could be capped easily Obamacare would have been untouchable.

Kitsunegari

Christy42 wrote: »

Fair enough. Had thought you in favour but you seem to suggest that universal health care is best in your previous post which I would agree with. This law is definitely going the wrong way (as is to be expected with Republicans really).

I agree the I don't know is big thing. Also the if premiums can be capped. If premiums could be capped easily Obamacare would have been untouchable.

The primary goal of healthcare in the US is to obtain profit. PBMs, pharmaceutical and insurance companies get to rip off anyone and everyone that needs healthcare in the US and they all blame each other for the rising costs.

I would say they have by far the worst health care system in the developed world.

listermint

Kitsunegari wrote: »

You said one doesn't exist and now it does but it's $190Bn short now. Where did you pull that figure out of? How many premiums and states opting out is that figure based on? You know it's not yet clear how states would even opt out in the first place nor how high premiums would be. So any figure is a complete estimation at this point. Only time will tell whether or not $138Bn will be enough as too many external factors are unknown at this point.

Why did lie about it in the first place? Bizarre.

I said it doesn't exist precisely because it doesn't even come remotely close to being one . You missed that I assume. Being 190 billion short isn't short it's empty....

But sure there's a pool...

.

Billy86

Kind of says it all, really. Just like a host on MSNBC who had her staff reach out to every single one of the 217 people who voted for the bill to explain it and why they voted for it, offering them the top slot on the show, and yet not a single one of them was willing to do so.

Itssoeasy

I'm just watching CNN and the health and human services secretary Tom price has said that patients and doctors will be the winners with the new healthcare plan which the CBO said will cut €880BN from Medicade. The way he said made it sound like the insurance companies will lose out. Who is he trying to kid.

aloyisious

Billy86 wrote: »

Kind of says it all, really. Just like a host on MSNBC who had her staff reach out to every single one of the 217 people who voted for the bill to explain it and why they voted for it, offering them the top slot on the show, and yet not a single one of them was willing to do so.

Hmm, wonder if eye care is provided for in Paul Ryan's congressional health care package?

Professor Moriarty

The wilful stupidity of Trump's administration marches on:

The Environmental Protection Agency has dismissed at least five members of a major scientific review board, the latest signal of what critics call a campaign by the Trump administration to shrink the agency’s regulatory reach by reducing the role of academic research.

A spokesman for the E.P.A. administrator, Scott Pruitt, said he would consider replacing the academic scientists with representatives from industries whose pollution the agency is supposed to regulate, as part of the wide net it plans to cast. “The administrator believes we should have people on this board who understand the impact of regulations on the regulated community,” said the spokesman, J. P. Freire.

They are handing the keys of the henhouse to the fox. Anybody who voted for Trump, knowing this policy, should hang their heads in shame. But I suspect that many of them are good 'ol boys who are very suspicious of them there 'experts'. Better to trust a rich kid failed businessman celebrity 'billionaire'.

aloyisious

Supposedly Don hired Gen Mike Flynn as his Nat Sec Advisor after Barack Obama advised Don not to hire Mike Flynn. Don claims that Mike Flynn had gotten security clearance in Jan from the Obama Admin and that (therefore) it was ok to hire Flynn.

Trump, it was reported last week, was aware of Flynn's ties to Russia and Turkey, yet opted to hire him anyway.

Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, whom Trump fired, will testify before the Senate this afternoon on Flynn and Russia.


While this source is partly LGBT based and is not fond of Don Trump and his new Admin team, the reason behind Barack firing Gen Flynn and the reason why Don should NOT have hired him have become proven in public by the fact that Don had also to fire Flynn. Mike Flynn was not fit for the office.

Source: https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjrouLP3uDTAhWDCMAKHX0dDKsQFgglMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FThe-New-Civil-Rights-Movement-358168880614%2F&usg=AFQjCNHWP745gQSn3lu73uCpUyOnD_vIvQ

Edit, with this being at 2.30 EDT in the US, it'll be at 19.30/7.30PM here, probably on the US PBS network

Christy42

aloyisious wrote: »

Supposedly Don hired Gen Mike Flynn as his Nat Sec Advisor after Barack Obama advised Don not to hire Mike Flynn.

I really think this is a failing of Obama. That dude should have gone up to Trump and told him he should not introduce socialist style healthcare or that he should be wary of immigrants.

Really the easiest way of getting Trump to do something is to convince him Obama does not want him to do that.

Overheal

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The wilful stupidity of Trump's administration marches on:

The Environmental Protection Agency has dismissed at least five members of a major scientific review board, the latest signal of what critics call a campaign by the Trump administration to shrink the agency’s regulatory reach by reducing the role of academic research.

A spokesman for the E.P.A. administrator, Scott Pruitt, said he would consider replacing the academic scientists with representatives from industries whose pollution the agency is supposed to regulate, as part of the wide net it plans to cast. “The administrator believes we should have people on this board who understand the impact of regulations on the regulated community,” said the spokesman, J. P. Freire.

They are handing the keys of the henhouse to the fox. Anybody who voted for Trump, knowing this policy, should hang their heads in shame. But I suspect that many of them are good 'ol boys who are very suspicious of them there 'experts'. Better to trust a rich kid failed businessman celebrity 'billionaire'.

They appear to misinterpret what the regulated community is, and who they serve to protect.

aloyisious

Watching the senate hearings live, waiting for the former AG to be called. Mr Sheldon Whitehouse, Jnr Dem Senator, Rhode Island, reading out the preamble of questioning. Mr Clapper and Sally Yeates just sworn in to answer questions.

Mr Clapper stated that Don was given a full briefing on the three-agency investigation report into the Russian interference of the US election while he was president-elect in Trump Towers. The same that was given previously to Barack. he's just said the Russians must be delighted with the success of their operations at such a low cost, the high water mark of their operations to interfere with US elections since 1962. He's highlighted the importance to the US intelligence agencies of the 702 permit from the Senate, due for renewal in Dec, that it is a necessity to listen into what Non US nationals are saying about the US, warning against any non renewal of it.

IMO, It doesn't take much to work out what he is referring to and who's interests would be aided by a non-renewal.

Sally Yeates is now ready for her Q & A session.

Gen Flynn seems to be the person who evidence is being given about.

Sally just said that due to the security classification of material she can't answer the question put to her about evidence of collusion, it being the very first. She's just clarified her answer, telling the committee that it can't assume, from her answer, that she did know of collusion evidence. She's still saying that she can't answer the questions, due to security classifications,(same obligations as Mr Comey, FBI Dir).

She told Mr McGahn (President's counsel) in the W/House what Flynn had done, walking him through the info slowly, that they had separated the fake news stories from their info and that the Russians knew what he had done, as it was an urgent matter. She was called back there the following day, as a matter of urgency, by Mr McGahn, and told him that Gen Flynn was liable to manipulation by the Russians. She also replied Yes to a question there that Gen Flynn was under investigation re criminal offences.

Billy86

aloyisious wrote: »

Sally just said that due to the security classification of material she can't answer the question put to her about evidence of collusion, it being the very first. She's just clarified her answer, telling the committee that it can't assume, from her answer, that she did know of collusion evidence. She's still saying that she can't answer the questions, due to security classifications,(same obligations as Mr Comey, FBI Dir).

"Sally Yates says no collusion!!!!!"

Wonder if we'll be seeing any Trump fans try to claim that one in the next few days?

aloyisious

Billy86 wrote: »

"Sally Yates says no collusion!!!!!"

Wonder if we'll be seeing any Trump fans try to claim that one in the next few days?

Eh no. Sally can't say if there was or wasn't, just that the committee can't assume, from her answer, that there was, because both a yes or a no reply would involve using classified secret info which she couldn't mention.

aloyisious

Sally said, that after her last W/house briefing, she doesn't know if the W/house investigated what she had urgently briefed it on, about Gen Flynn as she was (unfortunately) fired the following day (by President Trump) ending her connect with the Trump Admin.

Billy86

aloyisious wrote: »

Eh no. Sally can't say if there was or wasn't, just that the committee can't assume, from her answer, that there was, because both a yes or a no reply would involve using classified secret info which she couldn't mention.

Has that stopped them trying to make similar claims with others before?

aloyisious

Sally can't answer a question if British Int, and many other European Int agencies, had told the US in late 2015 about Russian Int connections with several of the Trump election team. Gen Clapper (outgoing US Nat Int Dir) spoke (without question) and said he was aware of such info being passed to the US (in early 2016).

aloyisious

Questions to Sally:
Q. the day when you were at the W/house briefing the counsel, was that the day the President went ahead with the aliens order?:Yes...

Q. Was (the present AG) Jeff Sessions there?: Yes....

Q. Did AG Sessions ask you anything?: Yes, he asked me that if the President gave you a directive that you thought unlawful, would I obey it and I replied No.

Q. Were you made aware that the president was making an order?: No.. the first I heard of it was on the media (after the briefing).

One question to her was worded like a statement of fact from the committee, re the Presidents original aliens order being overturned on legal grounds by three separate levels of the federal court system (it was in conflict with the constitution and therefore unlawful) seemed to be asking her if she would comply with a presidential directive that she thought unlawful.....

One senator asked her was she on the USSC to make a judgement on the legality of the President's directive and on what authority she decided the President's directive was illegal. Reply: i was AG and couldn't obey a directive I believed to be unlawful.

(Another senator's question):Did a Senator (at her fitness hearing to become AG) ask her if she would obey a presidential that she thought to be unlawful and she told that fitness hearings Senator (Senator Jeff Sessions) NO, she wouldn't. She became AG after that confirmation hearing.

EDIT: I listed one gent as Mr McGann & that the president's counsel was also at the W/house meetings. Mr Donald McGahn is President Trumps counsel.

The committee is asking Sally for a comment on why it seemed that Mr McGahn could not understand why Gen Flynn should be fired, Sally said she couldn't really say (laughs around committee room).

aloyisious

Might be leading somewhere, and yet again, no-where. (Speculative) Q's to Sally about if as a result of Gen Flynn lying to the V/P and a Special Prosecutor being appointed to investigate, would senior Admin officials (incl the VP) be questioned on what they knew about Gen Flynn and the matter under investigation.... Reply... don't know.

Edit: I'm mindful of Archibald Cox (Spec Pros) and President Nixon firing him cos he got too close to Nixon Admin senior staff (incl pres counsel) with questions. Nixon was a seasoned politician (V/P under President Eisenhower) before Kennedy, and Don is not, just a person with a hasty temper and rapid responses being fed info by staff with personal interests. If a special prosecutor was appointed by Don, there's no telling what might happen....

Water John

Well, we do know that Flynn was red flagged, (excuse the pun) by O'Bama to Trump, before Trump selected him as his National Security Advisor.
We also know Yates did likewise and Flynn was left in position for a further two weeks.

aloyisious

Very last question of the day, put by Senator Graham, (head of committee) to Sally: do you know the US Deputy Attorney General and do you have faith in him?... Sally; Yes.

Edit: I'm not sure what was behind the question or if it was relative to JS recusing himself from the Russian investigation, re the DAG getting instruction or making persons senior to him aware of how the case is proceeding.

aloyisious

Billy86 wrote: »

Has that stopped them trying to make similar claims with others before?

Yeah, there'd been a lot of leaping into the dark before the election, rattling of cell keys, leaks everywhere, secrets being given to people with no clearance etc...

jimmycrackcorm

Phonehead wrote: »

Trump just said during his meeting with the Australian PM that Australia has better healthcare than we do...... Australia has universal healthcare!!!! it further reinforces the opinion that Trump has no idea what he is signing/supporting.

The unfortunate aspect is that, whether or not it's obamacare or trumpcare, the idea that health services can be adequately provisioned by simply opting some people into paid insurance can't work.

And people here think we have it bad.

aloyisious

The way Mr McGahn's (Dons Counsel) question to Sally "why are you telling me about Flynn's connections with Russia" was raised at the hearing made him sound like a dumbass jerk even though he was duty bound to consider all the angles on an unapologetic "I have to ask you this" basis, which she (as a legal eagle) would understand as covering any possible anti-admin aspect on her part.

Leroy42

I think it safe to say after yesterday, as is any further proof was needed, that there is simply no way in which Trump will be impeached. The GOP is 100% behind him, and are prepared to deflect any questioning away from the real issue.

Many of the GOP questions yesterday were aimed at trying to paint Yates as in the wrong. There may even be a point to that (I don't know enough to comment) but surely their ire should be directed at Flynn and how Trump knew of the lying and possible problems and seemingly didn't care.

Igotadose

I wonder if Vlad called Trump to cause this: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-08/washington-loves-general-mcmaster-but-trump-doesn-t

Summary: National Security Advisor #2, Genl. McMaster, on the outs with Trump and puppetmaster Bannon.

Not surprising. The guy appears to have some brains and integrity, both are liabilities in the Trump WH.

aloyisious

Igotadose wrote: »

I wonder if Vlad called Trump to cause this: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-08/washington-loves-general-mcmaster-but-trump-doesn-t

Summary: National Security Advisor #2, Genl. McMaster, on the outs with Trump and puppetmaster Bannon.

Not surprising. The guy appears to have some brains and integrity, both are liabilities in the Trump WH.

To lose one Nat Sec Advisor may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like stupidity....... (tips hat to Oscar W)