Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

volchitsa

That could be interesting. To say the least.

(Good point made in the article about Trump who said he would drain the swamp immediately ending a practice that helps towards more open government.)

spacecoyote

Will anything of interest come of that though. Given it's not the white house how strictly would they be forced to keep logs? Surely if there was anyone they didnt want hearing about it they wouldn't be on a log??

B_Wayne

spacecoyote wrote: »

Will anything of interest come of that though. Given it's not the white house how strictly would they be forced to keep logs? Surely if there was anyone they didnt want hearing about it they wouldn't be on a log??

Pretty strictly, imagine the secret service would have detailed logs on literally any goings on.

Professor Moriarty

B_Wayne wrote: »

Pretty strictly, imagine the secret service would have detailed logs on literally any goings on.

Especially if they were keeping an eye on a POTUS who had publicly humiliated them.

Overheal

spacecoyote wrote: »

Will anything of interest come of that though. Given it's not the white house how strictly would they be forced to keep logs? Surely if there was anyone they didnt want hearing about it they wouldn't be on a log??

Well, like everything else, when they get caught meeting there with someone not on the list they provide, it will blow up spectacularly in their face.

aloyisious

FoxNews is running an item on Trump's popularity re Russia that it has not changed much since the last poll. They do say that 2 ro 1 of the voters say the Don Jnr meeting with the Russians was inappropriate. One of the commentators thinks the story may be more than a Nothingburger and that is why she is listening to what is coming out....

Itssoeasy

I think it says something when the secret service put a statement out after trumps lawyer mentions the secret service. I say that because to me it's not standard for the secret service to comment on things like this.

InTheTrees

Ipse dixit wrote: »

InTheTrees wrote: »

A very very very large proportion of the us electorate that pay no attention at all to news. None. They'll vote R and then forget about it until next time.

Witness the posters on this thread who say "just let him do his job". They have no interest or critical facilities to judge his performance.

Which is why a sadistic part of me wishes the healthcare repeal does take place, it might jolt these people into consciousness.

That's a very simplistic view to take. These people have made a conscious choice. It's idiotic to attempt to generalise a whole portion of voters simply based on an arrogant egotistical assumption that these people are essentially less intelligent than a Hilary voter or a Trump protestor. It's stupid to try and attempt to categorise people such as the lazy label the alt-right. Instead of attempting to correct the obvious problems in Washington we have gone down the road of attempting to demonise Trump's voters.

You have a go at the 'critical facilities' of Trump voters yet all you can offer is a lazy generalisation?

Well the question was about how is it that there are people who approve of the job he's doing.

Can you explain it?

Overheal

Yeah no, they normally don't have to enter the discussion. In this case however Trump's lawyer questioned why the USSS didn't screen the people that Trump Jr. was meeting at Trump tower.

USSS: Because Trump Jr. wasn't under protection, only Melania and Trump were.

Overheal

So far Don has spent Monday of "Made in America Week" taking photos inside of fire trucks and big rigs set up on the WH driveway, and letting in 15,000 immigrant workers for Resorts, Golf Clubs, Fisheries, etc. Because we already ran out of Americans apparently.

conditioned games

Klaus Eberwein the Haitian government official who was to expose the Clinton Foundation corruption next week has been found dead after a gun shot to the head. Staggering the amount of people have been killed that had evidence against the Clintons since Bill first ran for office. The controlled mainstream media refuses to report it as usual.

mcmoustache

conditioned games wrote: »

Klaus Eberwein the Haitian government official who was to expose the Clinton Foundation corruption next week has been found dead after a gun shot to the head. Staggering the amount of people have been killed that had evidence against the Clintons since Bill first ran for office. The controlled mainstream media refuses to report it as usual.

Got a link?

The Hillary Clinton thread would appreciate it.

aloyisious

conditioned games wrote: »

Klaus Eberwein the Haitian government official who was to expose the Clinton Foundation corruption next week has been found dead after a gun shot to the head. Staggering the amount of people have been killed that had evidence against the Clintons since Bill first ran for office. The controlled mainstream media refuses to report it as usual.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiEje24tJHVAhXiKcAKHXgfAzUQFggzMAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.miamiherald.com%2Fnews%2Fnation-world%2Fworld%2Famericas%2Fhaiti%2Farticle160983614.html&usg=AFQjCNG4TAKJzzu4OjkPDhFw-lO287-RGA

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiEje24tJHVAhXiKcAKHXgfAzUQFgg2MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbdnews24.com%2Fworld%2F2017%2F07%2F16%2Fwitness-in-clinton-foundation-corruption-trial-found-dead-in-miami&usg=AFQjCNHowshZqPAQCoLJA07OUIqHzZJk0g

Billy86

conditioned games wrote: »

Klaus Eberwein the Haitian government official who was to expose the Clinton Foundation corruption next week has been found dead after a gun shot to the head. Staggering the amount of people have been killed that had evidence against the Clintons since Bill first ran for office. The controlled mainstream media refuses to report it as usual.

I take it you assume Peter W Smith was murdered for the evidence he gave on the trump campaign committing collusion with Russia then?

There is a conspiracy theories forum for this stuff, as there was for Seth rich.

DaniilKharms

Billy86 wrote: »

I take it you assume Peter W Smith was murdered for the evidence he gave on the trump campaign committing collusion with Russia then?

There is a conspiracy theories forum for this stuff, as there was for Seth rich.

http://www.snopes.com/klaus-eberwein

Of course the Clinton thing is complete bull****. Quelle surprise.

BabyCheeses

conditioned games wrote: »

Klaus Eberwein the Haitian government official who was to expose the Clinton Foundation corruption next week has been found dead after a gun shot to the head. Staggering the amount of people have been killed that had evidence against the Clintons since Bill first ran for office. The controlled mainstream media refuses to report it as usual.

Let me guess, the whole Russia thing is fake news made up by the mainstream media?

DaniilKharms

Just breaking on all the 24hr news... two more Republicans have come out together against the Senate healthcare bill (so neither can be blamed as "the one").

Unless something extremely dramatic and unexpected happens this bill is DOA.

StringerBell

I still lean toward, they will get it through.

InTheTrees

Breaking News tonight, there are now four republican senators committed to voting no on the trump care bill.

The massive groundswell of public anger and activism has been phenomenal and relentless.

The battle continues however. McConnell is determined to take peoples healthcare away.

DaniilKharms

StringerBell wrote: »

I still lean toward, they will get it through.

Personally at the moment I think they may end up trying to push a repeal separate from a replace... And that'll probably fail.

Then they'll probably just move on to tax cuts.

This was never about anything other than that anyway.

InTheTrees

DaniilKharms wrote: »

StringerBell wrote: »

I still lean toward, they will get it through.

Personally at the moment I think they may end up trying to push a repeal separate from a replace... And that'll probably fail.
Then they'll probably just move on to tax cuts.
This was never about anything other than that anyway.

And if they fail they're still going to have to deal with funding the current system.

I'd like to think mcconnell might be under pressure to resign but I doubt it.

InTheTrees

DaniilKharms wrote: »

Personally at the moment I think they may end up trying to push a repeal separate from a replace... And that'll probably fail.

You're right, McConnell just tweeted tonight that they're going to go for repeal and then a two year gap to work on a replacement.

Curious why he would think the four senators who committed to voting no on the original would vote yes to this idea because its far more harsh.

Leroy42

InTheTrees wrote: »

You're right, McConnell just tweeted tonight that they're going to go for repeal and then a two year gap to work on a replacement.

Curious why he would think the four senators who committed to voting no on the original would vote yes to this idea because its far more harsh.

My understanding (and hopefully someone can either confirm of correct) is that they do not need to pass legislation to repeal ACA as it has already been passed by the House & Senate but was never enacted by Obama. I think they already voted for it (repeal) in 2015 and it was vetoed by Obama. They are enacting this vote.

It repeals ACA with a two year delay to give them the time to actually come up with a working alternative.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

My understanding (and hopefully someone can either confirm of correct) is that they do not need to pass legislation to repeal ACA as it has already been passed by the House & Senate but was never enacted by Obama. I think they already voted for it (repeal) in 2015 and it was vetoed by Obama. They are enacting this vote.

It repeals ACA with a two year delay to give them the time to actually come up with a working alternative.

Anything that has been vetoed is dead. It cannot now be unvetoed. The whole process has to start again.

Blowfish

InTheTrees wrote: »

Curious why he would think the four senators who committed to voting no on the original would vote yes to this idea because its far more harsh.

Rand Paul would be happy with a complete repeal, doubt the other 3 would be though.

I'd imagine there'd be a few more defectors if they are looking for a straight repeal though as kicking 20+ million off healthcare at once is going to completely kill them in the 2018 elections.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

My understanding (and hopefully someone can either confirm of correct) is that they do not need to pass legislation to repeal ACA as it has already been passed by the House & Senate but was never enacted by Obama.

No, McConnell is scheduling a vote on the 2015 bill, which will fail.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, Ky.) acknowledged the defeat in a statement Monday night. "Regretfully, it is now apparent that the effort to repeal and immediately replace the failure of Obamacare will not be successful," McConnell said

In a strategy facing long odds, the majority leader said the Senate would instead vote "in coming days" on a bill the chamber passed in late 2015 to unravel most of the ACA, which former President Barack Obama vetoed in January 2016.

That bill would utterly wreck the individual insurance market, not just roll back Obamacare. They only created that bill in 2015 because they knew Obama would veto it, and this is just theatre.

Leroy42

Ah ok, so the new plan is to rerun a vote they held and passed in 2015 to repeal ACA, which Obama vetoed.

On the basis, I assume, that if they already voted for this in 2015, there really is no reason not to vote for it again.

This time, of course, POTUS would sign it into law.

Its quite a smart move (given how dumb they appear to be to this point). How can a senator who voted for the legislation in 2015 now not vote for it, so GOP will have the numbers.

The actual enactment is deferred for 2 years so nobody loses anything until after the mid-terms which gives the GOP time to better feel the true feelings out there and of course actually come up with a plan. Whilst at the same time being able to say that they have got rid of the terrible Obamacare.

They will then simply blame the Democrats if a new bill can't be passed.

I was reading somewhere (can't recall where) that a poll was taken of GOP supporters regarding healthcare. 80% of them were against Obamacare, whilst 60% were against the ACA! So simply getting rid of Obamacare, regardless of the actual effects, is a win for their base

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

I was reading somewhere (can't recall where) that a poll was taken of GOP supporters regarding healthcare. 80% of them were against Obamacare, whilst 60% were against the ACA! So simply getting rid of Obamacare, regardless of the actual effects, is a win for their base

If they pass this bill (which was written assuming it would never be enacted) they will destroy the whole individual insurance market, not just roll back to before Obamacare. It is utter madness and there will certainly be 3 Republican Senators who know this.

Since ACA failed to get 50 votes because it is not harsh enough on the poor, any possible replacement bill will be even harsher and even more unpopular. The whole effort is dead in the water.

Now, Trump and the Republicans will probably try to screw Obamacare up by cutting funding where they can,, but as long as the principle stays, that healthcare is to be judged by how many people it covers, they will never be able to roll it back.

DaniilKharms

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If they pass this bill (which was written assuming it would never be enacted) they will destroy the whole individual insurance market, not just roll back to before Obamacare. It is utter madness and there will certainly be 3 Republican Senators who know this.

Since ACA failed to get 50 votes because it is not harsh enough on the poor, any possible replacement bill will be even harsher and even more unpopular. The whole effort is dead in the water.

Now, Trump and the Republicans will probably try to screw Obamacare up by cutting funding where they can,, but as long as the principle stays, that healthcare is to be judged by how many people it covers, they will never be able to roll it back.

They have already been attacking Obamacare, since day 1.

The aHca wasn't harsh enough for some, but much too harsh for other Republicans which had expanded Medicaid in their states. In one district in WV alone the AHCA would have removed 62,000 people from their healthcare as a result!

I would 100% agree that the Republican Party is split into three groups:

- People that want to somehow make something better than the ACA (O'care) that also somehow is a massive tax cut for the rich and stops making healthcare mandatory
- People that want to deregulate Healthcare completely, and in the process remove healthcare from 10s of millions, while giving tax cuts to billionaires
- Donald Trump - who promised universal healthcare, that would be cheaper, better, have more options and have the poor covered by the government - but is willing to sign a law that contradicts what he campaigned on.

These differences make this almost impossible for them, and their base is getting VERY restless.

DaniilKharms

InTheTrees wrote: »

You're right, McConnell just tweeted tonight that they're going to go for repeal and then a two year gap to work on a replacement.

Curious why he would think the four senators who committed to voting no on the original would vote yes to this idea because its far more harsh.

Wow! I need to start posting in the psychic forum!

I think the ONLY hope he has is that those four senators all campaigned on repealing Obamacare. As did all Republicans. Will they stand against their own campaign promises?

It certainly be groundbreaking if they did, lol.

Blowfish

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Since ACA failed to get 50 votes because it is not harsh enough on the poor, any possible replacement bill will be even harsher and even more unpopular. The whole effort is dead in the water.

Indeed, at this point the only chance they have of getting anything done with healthcare is ignoring the hardcore conservative element and have the moderate R's start working with the moderate D's. The D's would then force it to cover more people so they can claim a 'win' and the R's will claim to have 'replaced' Obamacare to claim a 'win'.

Of course, it'd cause chaos with the big donors and Tea Party end of things if they went that route, so they are largely screwed no matter what they do.

DaniilKharms

Leroy42 wrote: »

Ah ok, so the new plan is to rerun a vote they held and passed in 2015 to repeal ACA, which Obama vetoed.

On the basis, I assume, that if they already voted for this in 2015, there really is no reason not to vote for it again.

This time, of course, POTUS would sign it into law.

Its quite a smart move (given how dumb they appear to be to this point). How can a senator who voted for the legislation in 2015 now not vote for it, so GOP will have the numbers.

The actual enactment is deferred for 2 years so nobody loses anything until after the mid-terms which gives the GOP time to better feel the true feelings out there and of course actually come up with a plan. Whilst at the same time being able to say that they have got rid of the terrible Obamacare.

They will then simply blame the Democrats if a new bill can't be passed.

I was reading somewhere (can't recall where) that a poll was taken of GOP supporters regarding healthcare. 80% of them were against Obamacare, whilst 60% were against the ACA! So simply getting rid of Obamacare, regardless of the actual effects, is a win for their base

This kinda sums up why I guessed what I did. Nicely put.

The only thing I'd say is that the GOP had a plan, it was called Obamacare. Obamacare had dozens and dozens of GOP amendments, the GOP was a huge part of the process of writing the law, a state level version was passed by the GOP, and the two most controversial elements (mandate and exchanges) were designed by the GOP.

So that was their plan.

They claimed for 8 years to have a replacement, and they didn't.

the chances of them magically coming up with one in the next few years that will square a circle is extremely slim.

Leroy42

I do wonder about where Trump actually stands on Healthcare. He said during the campaign that he would repeal ACA and replace it with something better. Cheaper, cover everyone etc etc. I actually believe him when he said that.

What he didn't understand was the complexity of the area and just how difficult and expensive it would be to provide that. He has also stated that Australian healthcare is far better than US.

Is it that he is simply going along with what the GOP want? He might think the best solution is universal healthcare, but it doesn't affect him or anyone he knows so he isn't wedded to it and the GOP seem to be totally against it. Is it that is simply an issue he doesn't care enough about to get involved in?

He has seemed very detached from the whole process. He certainly hasn't taken a leading role and said very little about it during his office.

DaniilKharms

Blowfish wrote: »

Indeed, at this point the only chance they have of getting anything done with healthcare is ignoring the hardcore conservative element and have the moderate R's start working with the moderate D's. The D's would then force it to cover more people so they can claim a 'win' and the R's will claim to have 'replaced' Obamacare to claim a 'win'.

Of course, it'd cause chaos with the big donors and Tea Party end of things if they went that route, so they are largely screwed no matter what they do.

Dems - for the last 8 years - wrote bill after bill after bill to fix the ACA. Every one was killed by the GOP.

What you're suggesting would be a MASSIVE change of heart.

We live in hope, but not much hope.

DaniilKharms

Leroy42 wrote: »

I do wonder about where Trump actually stands on Healthcare. He said during the campaign that he would repeal ACA and replace it with something better. Cheaper, cover everyone etc etc. I actually believe him when he said that.

What he didn't understand was the complexity of the area and just how difficult and expensive it would be to provide that. He has also stated that Australian healthcare is far better than US.

Is it that he is simply going along with what the GOP want? He might think the best solution is universal healthcare, but it doesn't affect him or anyone he knows so he isn't wedded to it and the GOP seem to be totally against it. Is it that is simply an issue he doesn't care enough about to get involved in?

He has seemed very detached from the whole process. He certainly hasn't taken a leading role and said very little about it during his office.

Trump's main goal is to have some sort of signature legislation. It could be the Donald Trump Drowns Kittens Act of 2018 and he'd be happy.

He KNOWS what people want, which is how he manipulates them, but doesn't care if they get it.

Billy86

Leroy42 wrote: »

I do wonder about where Trump actually stands on Healthcare. He said during the campaign that he would repeal ACA and replace it with something better. Cheaper, cover everyone etc etc. I actually believe him when he said that.

What he didn't understand was the complexity of the area and just how difficult and expensive it would be to provide that. He has also stated that Australian healthcare is far better than US.

Is it that he is simply going along with what the GOP want? He might think the best solution is universal healthcare, but it doesn't affect him or anyone he knows so he isn't wedded to it and the GOP seem to be totally against it. Is it that is simply an issue he doesn't care enough about to get involved in?

He has seemed very detached from the whole process. He certainly hasn't taken a leading role and said very little about it during his office.

Here is where Trump stands on health care: Trump doesn't give a sh** about health care, anyone who needs it or anything to do with it beyond getting his family a tax cut, because Trump's family will never need health care. edit: As Daniil said though, he just wants something -anything- signed, mainly to soothe his own ego, feeling like a big boy who earned a gold star is immeasurably more important to him that the livelihoods of millions and lives of tens of thousands.

That's all there is to it.

jem

Billy86 wrote: »

Here is where Trump stands on health care: Trump doesn't give a sh** about health care, anyone who needs it or anything to do with it beyond getting his family a tax cut, because Trump's family will never need health care. edit: As Daniil said though, he just wants something -anything- signed, mainly to soothe his own ego, feeling like a big boy who earned a gold star is immeasurably more important to him that the livelihoods of millions and lives of tens of thousands.

That's all there is to it.

And the major problem he has with it is that it is known as Obamacare. That relay kills him. If Obama's name wasn't linked to it by most people he would probably leave it there but his huge ego cant allow it to stand for that reason.

DaniilKharms

jem wrote: »

And the major problem he has with it is that it is known as Obamacare. That relay kills him. If Obama's name wasn't linked to it by most people he would probably leave it there but his huge ego cant allow it to stand for that reason.

The irony of course being that it was Republicans that insisted it be called Obamacare in the media.

aloyisious

I'm surprised that a group of interested bi-partisan people haven't gone to the USSC seeking to stop the cancellation of the ACA as it provides for their families in a way they can't on grounds like scrapping ACA puts their families in an avoidable health risk position. Allegedly even the health insurance industry doesn't want the ACA scrapped, probably just tinkered with with regard to taxation.

This from the Congressional Budget Office in March shows the figure the GOP and the Trump Admin are really interested in saving [it clearly is not the lower figure mentioned]..... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjgrdrRzZLVAhXhL8AKHfGTDtkQFggyMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F03%2F13%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Faffordable-care-act-health-congressional-budget-office.html&usg=AFQjCNF1hic39xoIiyRKmlIDto6nfGMTqA

I can't find any info on whether any group exists to go to the USSC, was wondering if any of the existing rights groups might take up the cause.

DaniilKharms

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm surprised that a group of interested bi-partisan people haven't gone to the USSC seeking to stop the cancellation of the ACA as it provides for their families in a way they can't on grounds like scrapping ACA puts their families in an avoidable health risk position. Allegedly even the health insurance industry doesn't want the ACA scrapped, probably just tinkered with with regard to taxation.

This from the Congressional Budget Office in March shows the figure the GOP and the Trump Admin are really interested in saving [it clearly is not the lower figure mentioned]..... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjgrdrRzZLVAhXhL8AKHfGTDtkQFggyMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F03%2F13%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Faffordable-care-act-health-congressional-budget-office.html&usg=AFQjCNF1hic39xoIiyRKmlIDto6nfGMTqA

Various groups have promised lawsuits if the GOP manages to do anything.

DaniilKharms

"It's getting to the point where, if the President says the sky is blue, you have to go outside and check."

- Eugene Robinson on MSNBC

Billy86

The $ USD is now at 86.5c, now down 10c on where it was a few weeks before Trump took office. It has also dropped 9c on the Canadian Dollar ($1.35 to $1.26) in that time.

Zubeneschamali

DaniilKharms wrote: »

The aHca wasn't harsh enough for some, but much too harsh for other Republicans which had expanded Medicaid in their states.

4 senators came out against it, 3 because it was too soft, 1 too harsh.

And moderate Rs have a long history of buckling and passing stuff. See the House version, where Moderates and Tea Partiers opposed it initially, the Tea Party got their concessions and the Moderates bowed to pressure.

So it was not the Moderate Rs who defeated this bill.

One conservative also called out McConnell for telling moderates they could safely vote for it because it was years away and would probably never happen. Not what the conservative wing wanted to hear.

Billy86

DaniilKharms wrote: »

"It's getting to the point where, if the President says the sky is blue, you have to go outside and check."

- Eugene Robinson on MSNBC

I had an old, old college course to complete to get the required points for Canadian permanent residency, so came back and did the thesis required on it - a lot was to do with US and global box office figures. I found a really extensive source that had been used by the Obama administration and was referenced in ".gov" docs on trade deals relating to Chinese distribution deals.

Submitted in May (got meself a first there last week on it!) and holy christ, over and over and over again I had to stress during the intro/methodology type section that is was from the Obama administration and not the current crowd, since they would be liable to use the National Enquirer and NY Post in their official documents. It really says a lot when you're pretty confident that "good enough for the POTUS office of Donald Trump" won't cut the mustard for an undergrad thesis that you only need even 40% on for paperwork purposes.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

He has seemed very detached from the whole process. He certainly hasn't taken a leading role and said very little about it during his office.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but he is an utterly useless idiot with no idea how the Government works.

Leroy42

That made me laugh Zubeneschamali, well done

StringerBell

Leroy42 wrote: »

My understanding (and hopefully someone can either confirm of correct) is that they do not need to pass legislation to repeal ACA as it has already been passed by the House & Senate but was never enacted by Obama. I think they already voted for it (repeal) in 2015 and it was vetoed by Obama. They are enacting this vote.

It repeals ACA with a two year delay to give them the time to actually come up with a working alternative.

Sure, what's another two years after they have already spent 7/8 years trying to come up with one! With the head honcho himself announcing they had a plan, a very good plan, the best. A secret plan to make healthcare better, and for everyone......

Going for repeal rather then try to work out the problems in the ACA will be the alternative if they can't push through their own AHCA. Again I would have to say I think it would not be the best option of all available.

B0jangles

Billy86 wrote: »

I had an college course to complete to get the required points for Canadian permanent residency, so came back and did the thesis required on it - a lot was to do with US and global box office figures. I found a really extensive source that had been used by the Obama administration and was referenced in ".gov" docs on trade deals relating to Chinese distribution deals.

Submitted in May (got meself a first there last week on it!) and holy christ, over and over and over again I had to stress during the intro/methodology type section that is was from the Obama administration and not the current crowd, since they would be liable to use the National Enquirer and NY Post in their official documents. It really says a lot when you're pretty confident that "good enough for the POTUS office of Donald Trump" won't cut the mustard for an undergrad thesis that you only need even 40% on for paperwork purposes.

That's going to be a really weird and lasting effect of this administration on academic studies in a very wide range of diciplines. Whitehouse releases and statements will be of use as examples of propoganda and spin for politics students, but of no use whatsoever for anyone in need of factual data on pretty much any subject.

(also huge congratulations on the first!)

DaniilKharms

To make this all very clear:

The Democrats:

- held dozens of public hearings, with Republicans
- added dozens of GOP amendments to the final ACA
- based the ACA on two right-wing ideas (exchanges and mandate)
- tried on numerous times to fix ACA problems, all of which were blocked by the GOP

During that same time the GOP tried to take away healthcare from millions, repeatedly, lied about the implementation, and lied about having a better idea.

These lies and obstructions eventually helped destroy the Democratic Party nationally.

Then Trump came into the spotlight promising universal healthcare, that would be cheaper and better. He also said he had this plan ready to go on day one.

As it turns out:

- There was no Trump plan.
- The plan the GOP said they had for 8 years was also a lie.
- They're too incompetent to pass anything the US wants.

So, what's their Plan B (C, D, E?):

- Pass a plan that removes healthcare from 30M plus people, with a two year delay, because they'll have a replacement ready in two years.


How ANYONE thinks this is credible is beyond me.

And it's worth remembering, this party controls almost all of the US government and the majority of state governments.

DaniilKharms

In other news:

"Trump Administration Quietly Cuts $213 Million in Funds to Prevent Teen Pregnancy"

https://www.thecut.com/2017/07/trump-cut-usd213-million-in-funds-to-prevent-teen-pregnancy.html?utm_campaign=nym&utm_medium=s1&utm_source=tw&utm_campaign=nym&utm_medium=s1&utm_source=tw