Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

RIGOLO

eire4 wrote: »

Not complaining simply stating a fact. He won the electoral college and that is why he is president today.

Quite right, Donald Trump won the 45th American Presidential election .

And all indications are he will win the 46th also.

everlast75

RIGOLO wrote: »

Its been two years and still complaining about the way the system works for a Constitutional Federal Republic.Theres been plenty discussion on that , hardly needs to be revisited.
I think people need to get over losing the election.

quite likely, HRC was quite likely to win the election and we all know how that worked out.

Quite right Rigolo.

Russian interference is the actual reason Trump is in power.

Eric Cartman

everlast75 wrote: »

Quite right Rigolo.

Russian interference is the actual reason Trump is in power.

A terrible democratic pick, democratic voter complacency, A lack of appealing to central states and the rust belt, a fear of radical islam, a desire for some sort of change in politics, a history of democrats not doing three terms in a row and a bunch of Facebook ads and paid shills is why Trump was elected (In that order)

Once you spell out that the 'Russian interference' was actually just a cheaper and more full on version of what every party does every cycle it makes less odds.

Igotadose

RIGOLO wrote: »

Alot of scare mongering there.
You might want to report the facts behind your sensationalism .

The Washington Post wrote an article on the 'MEDICAID WORK REQUIREMENT' , and called it the least controversial thing the Trump Administration has done .
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/01/11/medicaid-work-requirements-are-one-of-the-least-politically-controversial-things-trump-has-done/?utm_term=.4e97d425ea4b

Whatever the title might be (from January), it's behind a paywall. "Least controversial" under the Trump regime is small beer.

Here's a non-paywalled analysis posted to the Hill : http://theweek.com/articles/792608/republicans-medicaid-work-requirements-are-already-proving-disastrous

Key ideas: Low-paid jobs are hard to predict hours for. The work requirements, as you state, were exactly after those who gained medicaid coverage due to the ppACA's expansion and were exactly targeted to repeal those. While medicaid was available, people using it, got healthier. Whoulda thunk. The judge in the Kentucky ruling basically ruled the work-hour requirement unenforceable due to the nature of low-paying jobs that medicaid recipients get (if they had employer-paid insurance, they wouldn't be on medicaid.)

Arkansas’ work requirement only applies to non-disabled adults in the state’s Obamacare Medicaid expansion. It doesn’t apply to disabled or elderly individuals, pregnant women, parents with dependent children, anyone who is caring for a disabled individual, and a whole host of other folks.
Arkansas’ work requirement only applies to non-disabled, working-age adults.

Harvard and Politco did polling on this measure and found that the majority of Americans were in favour .
In fact DEMOCRATS were 64% in favour of this measure.
Effectively imposing a 20 hour minimum weekly work requirement for medicaid recipients.


The Public’s Views on Requiring Low-Income, Able-Bodied Adults Without Young Children to Work in Order to Receive Medicaid Benefits, by Party Identification


- Total Rep Dem Ind
Favor 72 84 64 77
Oppose 24 10 32 18
Don’t know/ Refused 4 6 4 5

And, so what? People were getting healthier. Now, due to targeting by the states (which, by the way, didn't pay the cost of the expansion), they're less healthy. And for the majority of Americans not under Medicaid or Medicare, having more of your fellow citizens ill, is bad for you.

Again, I say mean-spiritedness was the reason for the reduction in coverage. Whether portraying it as 'force those idlers to go to work for their coverage' or not, it's mean spirited.

BTW I didn't bring up elderly people, etc. Simply :"You gained medicaid coverage our state doesn't pay for. Now, we're setting rules on you because you did."

It's mostly just a way to victimize the poor, which is a tGOP specialty.

Eric Cartman

Igotadose wrote: »

Whatever the title might be (from January), it's behind a paywall. "Least controversial" under the Trump regime is small beer.

Here's a non-paywalled analysis posted to the Hill : http://theweek.com/articles/792608/republicans-medicaid-work-requirements-are-already-proving-disastrous

Key ideas: Low-paid jobs are hard to predict hours for. The work requirements, as you state, were exactly after those who gained medicaid coverage due to the ppACA's expansion and were exactly targeted to repeal those. While medicaid was available, people using it, got healthier. Whoulda thunk. The judge in the Kentucky ruling basically ruled the work-hour requirement unenforceable due to the nature of low-paying jobs that medicaid recipients get (if they had employer-paid insurance, they wouldn't be on medicaid.)




And, so what? People were getting healthier. Now, due to targeting by the states (which, by the way, didn't pay the cost of the expansion), they're less healthy. And for the majority of Americans not under Medicaid or Medicare, having more of your fellow citizens ill, is bad for you.

Again, I say mean-spiritedness was the reason for the reduction in coverage. Whether portraying it as 'force those idlers to go to work for their coverage' or not, it's mean spirited.

BTW I didn't bring up elderly people, etc. Simply :"You gained medicaid coverage our state doesn't pay for. Now, we're setting rules on you because you did."

It's mostly just a way to victimize the poor, which is a tGOP specialty.

No, Its a way to tell people that contribute nothing that they'll get nothing. Pretty fair system I would say.

Captain Obvious

Eric Cartman wrote: »

A terrible democratic pick, democratic voter complacency, A lack of appealing to central states and the rust belt, a fear of radical islam, a desire for some sort of change in politics, a history of democrats not doing three terms in a row and a bunch of Facebook ads and paid shills is why Trump was elected (In that order)

Once you spell out that the 'Russian interference' was actually just a cheaper and more full on version of what every party does every cycle it makes less odds.

But does that not make it the equivalent of getting massive funding fromt he Russian government?

RIGOLO wrote: »

This sort of story taking the headlines this week by virtue of the totalitarian left insatiable appetite for anti-Trump click bait says it all really.

Whilst the left, Democrats and anti-Trumpers are immersing themselves in DNA tests of liberal Democrat has beens, the Trump administration moves on with its real economic progress.

This week has been declared National Minority Enterprise Week.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-minority-enterprise-development-week-2018/



https://eig.org/opportunityzones



So while the left are trying to win votes by proving someone has between 0.1 and 1% native-American DNA, in a questionable test.

The Trump Adminsitration is winning votes by investing in distressed communities and incentivising business to do the same thru its tax program.

I don't think the Democratic party have to win any Native American votes from the Republicans. And it was Trump who made this a big issue in the first place.



Anything to say about Trump's denial of his challenge?

Eric Cartman

Captain Obvious wrote: »

But does that not make it the equivalent of getting massive funding fromt he Russian government?





I don't think the Democratic party have to win any Native American votes from the Republicans. And it was Trump who made this a big issue in the first place.



Anything to say about Trump's denial of his challenge?

If it was the government that paid for it. Is there evidence it was the government ? also I posed the question before, if it was say all paid for by trump and done on US soil, it would be standard electoral practice in this day and age. Because of its geography people have understandable issues , and how its funded raises questions, but at the end of the day we have to remember we're talking about a bunch of internet ad's here, not actually altering an election.

Captain Obvious

Eric Cartman wrote: »

If it was the government that paid for it. Is there evidence it was the government ? also I posed the question before, if it was say all paid for by trump and done on US soil, it would be standard electoral practice in this day and age. Because of its geography people have understandable issues , and how its funded raises questions, but at the end of the day we have to remember we're talking about a bunch of internet ad's here, not actually altering an election.

There's a reason money is needed to win elections in the US. It's because advertising is very important. Even if it was not the Russian government, it still equates to a large amount of undeclared donations from outside the state. I don't think it's accurate to say it would have been considered standard inside the State as it would have had to comply with rules for donations and broadcasting.

Eric Cartman

Captain Obvious wrote: »

There's a reason money is needed to win elections in the US. It's because advertising is very important. Even if it was not the Russian government, it still equates to a large amount of undeclared donations from outside the state. I don't think it's accurate to say it would have been considered standard inside the State as it would have had to comply with rules for donations and broadcasting.

advertising is quite important, understandably, so hat you're saying is that nobody really knows who was paying for these Russian troll farms etc...
Most winning presidents have broken donation rules, Obama was fined millions for it. With literally every media outlet against him, I could see how trump would have to try a different road (as much as it may not be the best one. It certainly helps that people can scream Russia like its the Cold War again and drum up a bit of fear for nothing).

The 'interference' is the equivalent of me using fiverr to get some Moldovan lad to design logos for me.

Captain Obvious

Eric Cartman wrote: »

advertising is quite important, understandably, so hat you're saying is that nobody really knows who was paying for these Russian troll farms etc...

No, everyone knows. I'm just pointing out that it's pretty bad even if it isn't the government.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Most winning presidents have broken donation rules, Obama was fined millions for it. With literally every media outlet against him, I could see how trump would have to try a different road (as much as it may not be the best one. It certainly helps that people can scream Russia like its the Cold War again and drum up a bit of fear for nothing).

Again we ignore the issue of scale. Trump also broke the same rules as Obama did.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The 'interference' is the equivalent of me using fiverr to get some Moldovan lad to design logos for me.

No, it's nothing at all similar.

dudara

RIGOLO wrote: »

Quite right, Donald Trump won the 45th American Presidential election .

And all indications are he will win the 46th also.

A point of technicality, and something for the quiz-lovers out there.

There’s a difference between the number of individuals who have held the office and the actual numbering of the presidents. And this is different again from the number of presidential campaigns. Trump is POTUS #45, meaning he is the 45th sequential president. (For instance Grover Cleveland was #22 and #24 as he held two separate non-sequential presidencies). In fact 44 individuals have held the 45 presidencies to date. The next individual after Trump will be #46.

This does not equal the number of presidential races as several presidents will have founght two campaigns and held two successive terms of office but only get one number e.g. Obama who was #44 but fought two campaigns.

Igotadose

Eric Cartman wrote: »

No, Its a way to tell people that contribute nothing that they'll get nothing. Pretty fair system I would say.

And... how do you prove they contribute nothing?

eire4

RIGOLO wrote: »

Quite right, Donald Trump won the 45th American Presidential election .

And all indications are he will win the 46th also.

Just as your comments on the current upcoming midterms were wishful thinking on your part so is the above as regards 2020. While the next presidential election remains 2 years away given the majority of Americans disapprove of him the current indications are poor for him.

BabyCheeses

Eric Cartman wrote: »

No, Its a way to tell people that contribute nothing that they'll get nothing. Pretty fair system I would say.

I hate the young, old, and disabled as much as the next person but we gotta do something with them and putting them down will be unpopular.

Eric Cartman

Igotadose wrote: »

And... how do you prove they contribute nothing?

well if they're not working they're not contributing.

everlast75

Eric Cartman wrote: »

well if they're not working they're not contributing.

What about if they are systematic tax fraudsters?

Eric Cartman

everlast75 wrote: »

What about if they are systematic tax fraudsters?

if they believe that much in the glory of capitalism then they can pay for their own healthcare.

Igotadose

Eric Cartman wrote: »

well if they're not working they're not contributing.

Medicaid recipients, by and large, work. What happened in the expansion, is that the eligible income level grew. So, they're working and contributing.

So, why deny them coverage?

Eric Cartman

Igotadose wrote: »

Medicaid recipients, by and large, work. What happened in the expansion, is that the eligible income level grew. So, they're working and contributing.

So, why deny them coverage?

if they work over 20 hours a week then sure give it to them, I'm not sure of the finer details of it but if you're not doing a half weeks work I fail to see why the government should look after you.

WinnyThePoo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

if they work over 20 hours a week then sure give it to them, I'm not sure of the finer details of it but if you're not doing a half weeks work I fail to see why the government should look after you.

What heartless view of the world.

Eric Cartman

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

What heartless view of the world.

Healthcare is not a human right.
You do not have the right to another persons labour (doctors etc..)
Maybe it would encourage more people to contribute.

WinnyThePoo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Healthcare is not a human right.
You do not have the right to another persons labour (doctors etc..)
Maybe it would encourage more people to contribute.

Heartless and narrow minded.

eire4

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

What heartless view of the world.

That is the American way. It is all about I got mine and tough on everyone else and none more so when it comes to health care. Despite the fact that needing health care is a reality for every person no matter how healthy a life they lead your ability to have health care in the US is dependent on if you have enough money or not. If you don't then too bad you die if the problem is bad enough or you live with whatever problem you have no matter how badly if affects you.

Captain Obvious

Eric Cartman wrote: »

if they work over 20 hours a week then sure give it to them, I'm not sure of the finer details of it but if you're not doing a half weeks work I fail to see why the government should look after you.

What if they did last year and lost their job due to Trump's tariffs?

relax carry on

Eric Cartman wrote: »

No, Its a way to tell people that contribute nothing that they'll get nothing. Pretty fair system I would say.

“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”

Eric Cartman

Captain Obvious wrote: »

What if they did last year and lost their job due to Trump's tariffs?

They'll be able to get one of the many new jobs added during his tenure.

BabyCheeses

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Healthcare is not a human right.
You do not have the right to another persons labour (doctors etc..)
Maybe it would encourage more people to contribute.

I didn't know they got rid of the right to a fair trial. Outside of Mexican children in the US I mean.



If you ever see someone on fire at a car wash feel free to use the hose, if it costs 1 euro for 15 mins I'll post you the euro ok? You don't have to let them burn to death.

Captain Obvious

Eric Cartman wrote: »

They'll be able to get one of the many new jobs added during his tenure.

Good news steel fabricator, here's a job in the coal mines.

Nody

Remember how Trump is such a great financial master mind and his plans will balance the budget (as he demanded back in 2012 of Obama coming out of an economical crisis compared to Trump at the peak of one? Yea about that...

The U.S. budget deficit grew to $779 billion in Donald Trump’s first full fiscal year as president, the highest since 2012 amid tax cuts and spending increases.

The budget gap for the 12 months through September was 17 percent wider than the same 12-month period a year earlier, as spending rose 3.2 percent and revenue gained just 0.4 percent, according to a Treasury Department report released Monday. The deficit as a share of total economic output was 3.9 percent in fiscal 2018, up 0.4 percentage point from the prior year. The government’s fiscal year runs from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30.

The budget deficit has continued to climb in recent years, raising concerns the country’s debt load of more than $21.5 trillion will grow out of control. The Treasury reported this month that the government paid $523 billion in total interest in fiscal 2018, the highest on record.

But the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan arm of Congress, forecasts government spending will outweigh revenue by $973 billion in fiscal 2019 and more than $1 trillion the next year. That would be the first time the deficit exceeds $1 trillion since 2012, when the American economy was still recovering from the Great Recession.

Always good to see the Republicans being "fiscally conservative" and "not spending your dollars" at the peak of the economy controlling both houses and the President slot so no excuses here...

Qoutes from Bloomberg's report.

everlast75

Eric Cartman wrote: »

if they believe that much in the glory of capitalism then they can pay for their own healthcare.

My point was clear.

You've a problem with those that don't contribute.

I'm asking you to address Trump's rampant tax fraud. Does his refusal to pay taxes not make people like you who support him a mug?