In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On January 16 2017 08:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:24 LegalLord wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:17 xDaunt wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On January 16 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote: This idea that Democrats can successfully mimic Trump is hilarious. Trump is a unique talent. No one else can replicate his style. This lack of creativity from the Democrats is also readily apparent in their ham-handed attempts to turn Booker into the next Obama.
You don't replicate his style, you replicate the "say outrageous things to grab media attention." I can guarantee you Lewis gained a ton of influence with younger Dems by saying what he did, and Bernie's constant reiteration of how he will oppose Trump and calling out what he sees as his failings are doing a lot for keeping him in the headlines.
And again, this is in general a "selfish" attitude. But that "selfish" attitude is literally what people praised about Trump, and exactly what people are praising about others. Just not in the conservative echo chambers.
It would be convenient if they all just stayed in a corner and wept for years, though.
Yeah, that's the better way of putting it. I still think that it takes a special kind of politician to do it.
Trump doesn't just say outrageous things. He says a lot of things that just trigger the establishment folk, while also being an aggressive advocacy of the kinds of things the populist base wants. The wall. NATO contribution. Muslim registry. Getting along with Russia. Radical Islamic terrorism. It all flies in the face of what the establishment folk want, yet it's wildly popular with a certain base.
To be fair, he does have the most tenuous relationship with the truth that I've ever seen from a candidate, but damn, he certainly knows how to trigger people on a national/international stage. I know a few other politicians like that, but none in the US as of now.
What and who do you call the establishment? Genuine question. Everybody uses the word all the time but to me it seems to describe nothing more than "everyone who doesn't like populist ideas".
I think it would be good for the rest of the discussion to put that concept under a bit of scrutiny.
Everybody that is involved in the government for the sake of their own pocket rather than the need of Americans.
Donald Trump, instead of putting his own need before the people, ran a very successful campaign against the establishment.
a very odd definition. and inconsistent with most standard usage. there are quite a number of people in government who do so for americans' sake (or what in their view is best for them). a minority of course, and plenty of them foolish ideologues. and everyone in government could make more money outside of it. at least if they're at a high enough level for us to talk about (i.e. excluding city-level employees and low-level ones)
he did run a decent campaign against the establishment, not very successful though, more like adequate.
and trump puts his own needs before the people all the time. so I also simply LOL at your claim. it betrays a very poor and naive understanding of the world.
edit: fixed some typoes/errors
Maybe only in your mind.
Pretty much everybody that is tired of the naivete nature of the modern DNC SJW-esque form of leadership pretty much knows that the definition of the establishment is those in position that are only there for their own career and cronyism without putting the livelihood of your everyday Americans in number 1 top priority.
Which Donald Trump, against all odds with the DNC run media to discourage Trumpeters and with even with how dirty DNC establishment have been playing during the campaign, managed to get an overwhelming victory.
hmm, I think you'll need someone else to go over stuff with you, I keep LOL'ing at how utterly absurd, clueless, and delusional your statements are. so I don't think i'll be able to debate too constructively with you.
also, you're factually wrong, trump did not get an overwhelming victory, it was not remotely near an overwhelming victory. it was an underwhelming victory. and the DNC do not run the media. nor were they particularly dirty by the standards of politics.
not sure what oyu mean throwing sjw in for a form of leadership. but trump is still simply not putting everyday americans as his number 1 priority. not in fact at least; (maybe in his own mind, due to errors in his own estimations, but probably not that either based on his history).
if you want anyone to take you seriously, and you're pushing something as irregular as this, you'll have to come up with a stronger foundation of arguments to present.
Someone who can't write proper English nor understand the basic comparison of 304 electoral votes to a mere 227 of Clinton shouldn't be lecturing anybody.
Someone who say "Haha you are wrong! I'm just LOL'ing" without providing any facts or explanation. Instead his first thoughts is to resort to Ad homineum attacks by calling others clueless delusional is probably someone who places emotions above it all.
if you think 304 electoral votes to 227 is overwhelming than you are very clueless on the history of electoral vote distributions. you should look up where that places historically in terms of how much he won by. if you don't want to look it up, then I don't remember exactly, but i'ts somewhere quite poor, something like 9 out of 10 elections saw a bigger electoral victory %. and ofc he lost the popular vote.
me? place emotions above it all? I'm sorry, I actually did LOL again. i'm not sure if you're literally projecting when doing that, given how you support trump so easily.
you're the one making outrageous claims, so i'd say the burden of proof is more on you than I. you haven't provided facts enough for a basis for me to dispute, you've just made outlandish claims. if you have some facts I can have a look at them; but you've also already made numerous errors of basic fact, which maeks me doubtful. I know it seems harsh, but from my perspective, it's like when a 9/11 truther comes along. with some people reason doesn't really work, and I remember your history in this thread.
If there's something specific you want explaind more, maybe I can, though you should probably find someone else to do it for you.
I was at one of the most prominent US nuclear national labs just a short while ago. What struck me was the apparent lack of focus of an organization that is supposed to be dedicated to nuclear work. It all seemed like a random collection of fundable projects - radar, bomb defusion, plane crash experiments, satellites for science projects, robots. There were plenty of nuclear projects but it was very clear that nuclear simply wasn't working out for what should be one of the groups at the core of nuclear R&D (and some people there essentially told me as much).
I'm hoping Perry happens to take nuclear seriously because that focus on an assortment of (admittedly neat) random projects seems to underlie a larger scale failure to appreciate nuclear in the US, which I've seen quite convincingly overall.
On January 16 2017 11:58 Doodsmack wrote: Rick Perry, Secretary of Energy, advocated for abolishing the department of energy.
correct, your point?
it seems fairly consistent with trump's views, and with some aspects of republican ideology. he's selected a lot of people who dislike their own departments, and will look to curtail them/cut them down.
alot of republicans complain about big government, it seems therefore reasonable to select people who would rather shrink than grow the agencies they're in charge of.
not to say anything good about trump of course
But then you take a look at the DOE's actual purview and realize how big a clown it takes to call for its abolishment.
On January 16 2017 08:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:24 LegalLord wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:17 xDaunt wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:14 TheTenthDoc wrote: [quote]
You don't replicate his style, you replicate the "say outrageous things to grab media attention." I can guarantee you Lewis gained a ton of influence with younger Dems by saying what he did, and Bernie's constant reiteration of how he will oppose Trump and calling out what he sees as his failings are doing a lot for keeping him in the headlines.
And again, this is in general a "selfish" attitude. But that "selfish" attitude is literally what people praised about Trump, and exactly what people are praising about others. Just not in the conservative echo chambers.
It would be convenient if they all just stayed in a corner and wept for years, though.
Yeah, that's the better way of putting it. I still think that it takes a special kind of politician to do it.
Trump doesn't just say outrageous things. He says a lot of things that just trigger the establishment folk, while also being an aggressive advocacy of the kinds of things the populist base wants. The wall. NATO contribution. Muslim registry. Getting along with Russia. Radical Islamic terrorism. It all flies in the face of what the establishment folk want, yet it's wildly popular with a certain base.
To be fair, he does have the most tenuous relationship with the truth that I've ever seen from a candidate, but damn, he certainly knows how to trigger people on a national/international stage. I know a few other politicians like that, but none in the US as of now.
What and who do you call the establishment? Genuine question. Everybody uses the word all the time but to me it seems to describe nothing more than "everyone who doesn't like populist ideas".
I think it would be good for the rest of the discussion to put that concept under a bit of scrutiny.
Everybody that is involved in the government for the sake of their own pocket rather than the need of Americans.
Donald Trump, instead of putting his own need before the people, ran a very successful campaign against the establishment.
a very odd definition. and inconsistent with most standard usage. there are quite a number of people in government who do so for americans' sake (or what in their view is best for them). a minority of course, and plenty of them foolish ideologues. and everyone in government could make more money outside of it. at least if they're at a high enough level for us to talk about (i.e. excluding city-level employees and low-level ones)
he did run a decent campaign against the establishment, not very successful though, more like adequate.
and trump puts his own needs before the people all the time. so I also simply LOL at your claim. it betrays a very poor and naive understanding of the world.
edit: fixed some typoes/errors
Maybe only in your mind.
Pretty much everybody that is tired of the naivete nature of the modern DNC SJW-esque form of leadership pretty much knows that the definition of the establishment is those in position that are only there for their own career and cronyism without putting the livelihood of your everyday Americans in number 1 top priority.
Which Donald Trump, against all odds with the DNC run media to discourage Trumpeters and with even with how dirty DNC establishment have been playing during the campaign, managed to get an overwhelming victory.
hmm, I think you'll need someone else to go over stuff with you, I keep LOL'ing at how utterly absurd, clueless, and delusional your statements are. so I don't think i'll be able to debate too constructively with you.
also, you're factually wrong, trump did not get an overwhelming victory, it was not remotely near an overwhelming victory. it was an underwhelming victory. and the DNC do not run the media. nor were they particularly dirty by the standards of politics.
not sure what oyu mean throwing sjw in for a form of leadership. but trump is still simply not putting everyday americans as his number 1 priority. not in fact at least; (maybe in his own mind, due to errors in his own estimations, but probably not that either based on his history).
if you want anyone to take you seriously, and you're pushing something as irregular as this, you'll have to come up with a stronger foundation of arguments to present.
nor understand the basic comparison of 304 electoral votes to a mere 227 of Clinton shouldn't be lecturing anybody.
Keep misrepresenting the facts. 21/25 elections in the last 100 years had bigger margins of victory (some were 400+) in the electoral college. It doesn't matter how much you parrot the idiotic 'overwhelming landslide' rhetoric put out by Trump and his team. It's simply not true, but is consistent with a lot of his hyperbole.
The polls prior to the election was something like 3% chance for Donald Trump to win. And how it was going to be "razor" sharp.
But no, not only did President Donald Trump win, he won by a hefty one.
On January 16 2017 10:50 oBlade wrote: A fun fact is Trump's cabinet was put together faster than any in recent history:
President Weighted Average Nixon '68 6.0 weeks Carter '76 6.8 weeks Reagan '80 6.6 weeks Bush '88 5.3 weeks Clinton '92 7.0 weeks Bush '00 7.5 weeks Obama '08 5.4 weeks Trump '16 4.9 weeks
He is being badly underestimated.
The ability to make terrible decisions quickly is not something he's being underestimated on.
On January 16 2017 12:35 RealityIsKing wrote:
On January 16 2017 12:04 zlefin wrote:
On January 16 2017 11:56 RealityIsKing wrote:
On January 16 2017 11:04 zlefin wrote:
On January 16 2017 10:02 RealityIsKing wrote:
On January 16 2017 08:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:24 LegalLord wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:17 xDaunt wrote: [quote] Yeah, that's the better way of putting it. I still think that it takes a special kind of politician to do it.
Trump doesn't just say outrageous things. He says a lot of things that just trigger the establishment folk, while also being an aggressive advocacy of the kinds of things the populist base wants. The wall. NATO contribution. Muslim registry. Getting along with Russia. Radical Islamic terrorism. It all flies in the face of what the establishment folk want, yet it's wildly popular with a certain base.
To be fair, he does have the most tenuous relationship with the truth that I've ever seen from a candidate, but damn, he certainly knows how to trigger people on a national/international stage. I know a few other politicians like that, but none in the US as of now.
What and who do you call the establishment? Genuine question. Everybody uses the word all the time but to me it seems to describe nothing more than "everyone who doesn't like populist ideas".
I think it would be good for the rest of the discussion to put that concept under a bit of scrutiny.
Everybody that is involved in the government for the sake of their own pocket rather than the need of Americans.
Donald Trump, instead of putting his own need before the people, ran a very successful campaign against the establishment.
a very odd definition. and inconsistent with most standard usage. there are quite a number of people in government who do so for americans' sake (or what in their view is best for them). a minority of course, and plenty of them foolish ideologues. and everyone in government could make more money outside of it. at least if they're at a high enough level for us to talk about (i.e. excluding city-level employees and low-level ones)
he did run a decent campaign against the establishment, not very successful though, more like adequate.
and trump puts his own needs before the people all the time. so I also simply LOL at your claim. it betrays a very poor and naive understanding of the world.
edit: fixed some typoes/errors
Maybe only in your mind.
Pretty much everybody that is tired of the naivete nature of the modern DNC SJW-esque form of leadership pretty much knows that the definition of the establishment is those in position that are only there for their own career and cronyism without putting the livelihood of your everyday Americans in number 1 top priority.
Which Donald Trump, against all odds with the DNC run media to discourage Trumpeters and with even with how dirty DNC establishment have been playing during the campaign, managed to get an overwhelming victory.
hmm, I think you'll need someone else to go over stuff with you, I keep LOL'ing at how utterly absurd, clueless, and delusional your statements are. so I don't think i'll be able to debate too constructively with you.
also, you're factually wrong, trump did not get an overwhelming victory, it was not remotely near an overwhelming victory. it was an underwhelming victory. and the DNC do not run the media. nor were they particularly dirty by the standards of politics.
not sure what oyu mean throwing sjw in for a form of leadership. but trump is still simply not putting everyday americans as his number 1 priority. not in fact at least; (maybe in his own mind, due to errors in his own estimations, but probably not that either based on his history).
if you want anyone to take you seriously, and you're pushing something as irregular as this, you'll have to come up with a stronger foundation of arguments to present.
nor understand the basic comparison of 304 electoral votes to a mere 227 of Clinton shouldn't be lecturing anybody.
Keep misrepresenting the facts. 21/25 elections in the last 100 years had bigger margins of victory (some were 400+) in the electoral college. It doesn't matter how much you parrot the idiotic 'overwhelming landslide' rhetoric put out by Trump and his team. It's simply not true, but is consistent with a lot of his hyperbole.
The polls prior to the election was something like 3% chance for Donald Trump to win. And how it was going to be "razor" sharp.
But no, not only did President Donald Trump win, he won by a hefty one.
repeating a claim doesn't make it true. trump's win was not a hefty one, it was a thin one. not quite razor thin, but pretty thin. please just look it up yourself or somesuch. the numbers are easily verifiable. also, the polls then were higher than 3% for trump to win, at least the decent polls and aggregators (like 538) were. yes, there were a few that gave very low chances, but they were amongst the less reputable and reliable places. and all the polling showed an uptick for trump right near the end. so please make sure to look up the facts and histories of these things. otherwise it looks bad cuz you keep spouting stuff that is just verifiable untrue. (much like trump himself /snark)
Sam Wang PhD (PEC) and NYT and the like wouldn't be called "unreliable" if Hillary had won. People were in fact criticizing Nate Silver for not being strongly enough behind Hillary.
The margins of his victory are small but it does so happen that he essentially has a full house in the national government. To the victor goes the spoils, as they say.
On January 16 2017 08:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:24 LegalLord wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:17 xDaunt wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On January 16 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote: This idea that Democrats can successfully mimic Trump is hilarious. Trump is a unique talent. No one else can replicate his style. This lack of creativity from the Democrats is also readily apparent in their ham-handed attempts to turn Booker into the next Obama.
You don't replicate his style, you replicate the "say outrageous things to grab media attention." I can guarantee you Lewis gained a ton of influence with younger Dems by saying what he did, and Bernie's constant reiteration of how he will oppose Trump and calling out what he sees as his failings are doing a lot for keeping him in the headlines.
And again, this is in general a "selfish" attitude. But that "selfish" attitude is literally what people praised about Trump, and exactly what people are praising about others. Just not in the conservative echo chambers.
It would be convenient if they all just stayed in a corner and wept for years, though.
Yeah, that's the better way of putting it. I still think that it takes a special kind of politician to do it.
Trump doesn't just say outrageous things. He says a lot of things that just trigger the establishment folk, while also being an aggressive advocacy of the kinds of things the populist base wants. The wall. NATO contribution. Muslim registry. Getting along with Russia. Radical Islamic terrorism. It all flies in the face of what the establishment folk want, yet it's wildly popular with a certain base.
To be fair, he does have the most tenuous relationship with the truth that I've ever seen from a candidate, but damn, he certainly knows how to trigger people on a national/international stage. I know a few other politicians like that, but none in the US as of now.
What and who do you call the establishment? Genuine question. Everybody uses the word all the time but to me it seems to describe nothing more than "everyone who doesn't like populist ideas".
I think it would be good for the rest of the discussion to put that concept under a bit of scrutiny.
The people who are currently involved in the administrative organization of either the ruling party or the opposition party is the establishment in this case.
Right. So if Trump secures a grip on the party, he will be the establishment, right? I mean regardless of who he is and his message.
That makes a completely unsubstantial definition, and I think there is plenty of substance to the word when i hear it here. It's not merely a position.
Also how does it cover talks about "establishment media" and so on and so on?
On January 16 2017 08:50 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:24 LegalLord wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:17 xDaunt wrote:
On January 16 2017 07:14 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On January 16 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote: This idea that Democrats can successfully mimic Trump is hilarious. Trump is a unique talent. No one else can replicate his style. This lack of creativity from the Democrats is also readily apparent in their ham-handed attempts to turn Booker into the next Obama.
You don't replicate his style, you replicate the "say outrageous things to grab media attention." I can guarantee you Lewis gained a ton of influence with younger Dems by saying what he did, and Bernie's constant reiteration of how he will oppose Trump and calling out what he sees as his failings are doing a lot for keeping him in the headlines.
And again, this is in general a "selfish" attitude. But that "selfish" attitude is literally what people praised about Trump, and exactly what people are praising about others. Just not in the conservative echo chambers.
It would be convenient if they all just stayed in a corner and wept for years, though.
Yeah, that's the better way of putting it. I still think that it takes a special kind of politician to do it.
Trump doesn't just say outrageous things. He says a lot of things that just trigger the establishment folk, while also being an aggressive advocacy of the kinds of things the populist base wants. The wall. NATO contribution. Muslim registry. Getting along with Russia. Radical Islamic terrorism. It all flies in the face of what the establishment folk want, yet it's wildly popular with a certain base.
To be fair, he does have the most tenuous relationship with the truth that I've ever seen from a candidate, but damn, he certainly knows how to trigger people on a national/international stage. I know a few other politicians like that, but none in the US as of now.
What and who do you call the establishment? Genuine question. Everybody uses the word all the time but to me it seems to describe nothing more than "everyone who doesn't like populist ideas".
I think it would be good for the rest of the discussion to put that concept under a bit of scrutiny.
Everybody that is involved in the government for the sake of their own pocket rather than the need of Americans.
Donald Trump, instead of putting his own need before the people, ran a very successful campaign against the establishment.
Sure, Trump has a pure heart and ran a campaign for the good of the american people. He is such a selfless man!
Oh and people like, you know, Obama doesn't believe in anything but his own pocket. The only thing he's done in the last 8 years is to get rich with stuff like the ACA. Unless Obama is anti establishment?
So, is the establishment simply a political elite you resent? When you like someone because he has a populist message, even if he shits in golden toilets and has never done a thing for someone else, he is anti establishment, while the normal politicians from the dnc only care about their own pockets and are therefore establishment.
Anyone seen the strange clip from this 1958 TV show? A guy called Trump - a "conman" who promises to build a wall to protect the citizens of the town and threatens to sue for defamation.Episode is titled "The end of the world".
Trump threatens German carmakers with 35 percent U.S. import tariff
U.S President-elect Donald Trump warned German car companies he would impose a border tax of 35 percent on vehicles imported to the U.S. market, a plan that drew sharp rebukes from Berlin and hit the automakers' shares.
In an interview with German newspaper Bild, published on Monday, Trump criticized German carmakers such as BMW (BMWG.DE), Daimler (DAIGn.DE) and Volkswagen (VOWG_p.DE) for failing to produce more cars on U.S. soil.
"If you want to build cars in the world, then I wish you all the best. You can build cars for the United States, but for every car that comes to the USA, you will pay 35 percent tax," Trump said in remarks translated into German.
"I would tell BMW that if you are building a factory in Mexico and plan to sell cars to the USA, without a 35 percent tax, then you can forget that," Trump said.
At 1155 GMT (6:55 a.m. ET), BMW shares were down 2.2 percent, while Volkswagen's (VW) and Daimler's were both down 2 percent.
Under pressure to deliver on campaign promises to revive U.S. industrial jobs, Trump has turned his fire on carmakers that use low-cost Mexican plants to serve the U.S. market. He has also warned Japan's Toyota (7203.T) it could be subject to a "big border tax" if it builds its Corolla cars for the U.S. market at a planned factory in Mexico.
All three German carmakers have invested heavily in Mexico, but also pointed out on Monday that they manufacturer in the United States as well.
BMW executive Peter Schwarzenbauer told reporters the company was sticking to plans to invest around $1 billion in a new plant in Mexico, which is due to go into production in 2019 and create at least 1,500 jobs.
"The president's powers are considerable. He can legally impose tariffs of up to 15 percent for 150 days. Trump is not constrained by Congress," said Simon Evenett, professor of international trade at Switzerland's University of St Gallen.
"Even if foreign companies object and seek to challenge the legality of tariffs, it will take at least 18 months to get decided. Corporate strategies will be disrupted by then."
While investing in Mexico, German carmakers have quadrupled light vehicle production in the United States over the past seven years to 850,000 units, more than half of which are exported from there, Germany's VDA automotive industry association said.
"In the long term, the United States would be shooting itself in the foot by imposing tariffs or other trade barriers," VDA President Matthias Wissmann said in a statement.
German carmakers employ about 33,000 workers in the United States and German automotive suppliers about 77,000 more, the VDA said.
Speaking in tabloid newspaper Bild, German Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel said that rather than trying to penalise German carmakers, the United States should instead respond by building better and more desirable cars.
Norbert Roettgen, head of Germany's foreign affairs committee, said Berlin needed to take Trump's comments seriously. "He seems to be absolutely focused on short-term job interests and security interests ... not that he is looking for free trade so much, but more for protection," he told Reuters.
MEXICAN PLANS
Daimler's Mercedes-Benz and BMW already have sizeable factories in the United States where they build higher-margin sports utility vehicles (SUVs) for export to Asia and Europe.
Around 65 percent of BMW's production from its factory in Spartanburg, South Carolina is exported overseas. BMW builds the X3, X4, X5 and X6 models in the United States.
"It is surprising that Trump singles out the carmaker that exports more vehicles from the United States than any other manufacturer," Evercore ISI analysts said.
A BMW spokeswoman said the planned plant in the central Mexican city of San Luis Potosi would build the BMW 3 Series from 2019, with the output intended for the world market. The plant would be an addition to existing 3 Series production facilities in Germany and China.
In June last year, BMW broke ground on the plant, pledging to invest $2.2 billion in Mexico by 2019 for annual production of 150,000 cars.
Daimler has said it plans to begin assembling Mercedes-Benz vehicles in 2018 from a $1 billion facility shared with Renault-Nissan (RENA.PA) (7201.T) in Aguascalientes in Mexico. A spokesman for Daimler declined to comment on Trump's remarks.
Last year, VW's Audi division inaugurated a $1.3 billion production facility with 150,000 vehicle production capacity near Puebla, Mexico. Audi said it would build electric and petrol Q5 SUVs in Mexico.
Audi declined to comment on Monday. VW also declined to comment on Trump's remarks but noted it was investing another $900 million in its U.S. plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Trump called Germany a great car producer, saying Mercedes-Benz cars were a frequent sight in New York, but claimed there was not enough reciprocity. Germans were not buying Chevrolets at the same rate, he said, calling the business relationship an unfair one-way street.
Chevrolet sales have fallen sharply in Europe since parent company General Motors (GM.N) in 2013 said it would drop the Chevrolet brand in Europe by the end of 2015. Since then, GM has focused instead on promoting its Opel and Vauxhall marques.
so after Toyota and BWM now effectively told him to fuck off, what's the plan here?
Actually going with that plan of putting 35% on toyota cars, every european car, putting tariffs on China as well and basicly putting yourself under sanctions because I'm sure there's going to be a response if he actually does that?
Is he actually insane enough to think that'd help the US or does he think foreign companies like Toyota and BMW will give in without getting something in return?
There is a giant argument going on between Trump and CNN that boils down to a CNN article containing a web link to BuzzFeed. Of course, now the link sends you to a CNN article. Was there are space in time of a few hours or more where it did in fact link to BuzzFeed? is there any way to objectively verify if the article on CNN linked to BuzzFeed?
Trump reportedly insists healthcare replacement will have 'insurance for everybody'
President-elect Donald Trump revealed in an interview with The Washington Post that he’s almost finished with a plan to replace ObamaCare and vowed to have “insurance for everybody.”
Trump declined to reveal the pertinent details of the new healthcare plan, but told The Post in the interview published Sunday night that drug companies will be forced to negotiate on Medicare and Medicaid prices. He also plans to fight pharmaceutical companies over drug prices.
The president-elect insisted that his plan for replacing the Affordable Healthcare Act is all but finished, and added that care would have “lower numbers, much lower deductibles.” He went as far to say that he’s ready to reveal it alongside Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan.
“It’s very much formulated down to the final strokes. We haven’t put it in quite yet but we’re going to be doing it soon,” Trump said during the interview with the paper.
He added that he’s still waiting for Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., to be confirmed as his secretary for health and human services. A hearing for his confirmation has yet to be scheduled.
Congressional Republicans took the first big step last week in their seven-year trek to dismantle President Obama’s healthcare law, passing a budget that would ease the passage of a bill that would replace ObamaCare. The budget — the Senate approved it Thursday — bars Democratic senators from blocking that future legislation with a filibuster.
The budget "gives us the tools we need for a step-by-step approach to fix these problems and put Americans back in control of their healthcare," Ryan, R-Wis., said after the vote.
Though Trump wants a quick repeal and replace of the law, there’s likely to be months of debate and infighting before the new law could be passed. Much of Friday's debate underscored the sharp-elbowed politics of the issue.
"People in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio, screwed," said Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., citing places where he said voters would suffer from the health law's repeal — which also were normally reliably Democratic states that Trump won on Election Day. Continuing the theme of highlighting Trump voters, Jeffries added, "People in Appalachia and rural America, screwed."
Democrats praised the law for extending coverage to tens of millions of Americans and helping many millions more afford policies and buy prescriptions. Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., said rather than "repeal and replace," Republicans should name their effort "repeal and repent" because of the harm they were about to cause to voters.
No. 3 House GOP leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana aimed his rhetoric at Democrats defending one of Obama's proudest legislative achievements, a law that Republicans say missed its goals of cutting consumers' medical costs and increasing access to doctors.
"This should not be about preserving somebody's legacy," Scalise said. "It should be about fulfilling those promises to the American people that were broken."
Approval of the budget means Senate Democrats won't be allowed to filibuster the future repeal-and-replace bill — a pivotal advantage for Republicans. They control the Senate 52-48, but it takes 60 votes to end filibusters, which are endless procedural delays that can scuttle legislation.
Congressional Republicans have made annulling Obama's law and replacing it a top goal for the past seven years. GOP rifts and an Obama veto prevented them from achieving anything other than holding scores of votes that served as political messaging.
Trump insists that the new law will be better despite worries from Congress and the possibility of putting 20 million Americans at risk of losing their health coverage.
“We’re going to have insurance for everybody. There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”
Apparently, Trump and the Republicans are almost finished creating a healthcare plan that will give healthcare to 100% of Americans. So he says, anyway. No details though.
I'm confused by "There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” though... doesn't that imply socialized medicine and government assistance? That's about as unRepublican as you can get...
Trump reportedly insists healthcare replacement will have 'insurance for everybody'
President-elect Donald Trump revealed in an interview with The Washington Post that he’s almost finished with a plan to replace ObamaCare and vowed to have “insurance for everybody.”
Trump declined to reveal the pertinent details of the new healthcare plan, but told The Post in the interview published Sunday night that drug companies will be forced to negotiate on Medicare and Medicaid prices. He also plans to fight pharmaceutical companies over drug prices.
The president-elect insisted that his plan for replacing the Affordable Healthcare Act is all but finished, and added that care would have “lower numbers, much lower deductibles.” He went as far to say that he’s ready to reveal it alongside Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan.
“It’s very much formulated down to the final strokes. We haven’t put it in quite yet but we’re going to be doing it soon,” Trump said during the interview with the paper.
He added that he’s still waiting for Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., to be confirmed as his secretary for health and human services. A hearing for his confirmation has yet to be scheduled.
Congressional Republicans took the first big step last week in their seven-year trek to dismantle President Obama’s healthcare law, passing a budget that would ease the passage of a bill that would replace ObamaCare. The budget — the Senate approved it Thursday — bars Democratic senators from blocking that future legislation with a filibuster.
The budget "gives us the tools we need for a step-by-step approach to fix these problems and put Americans back in control of their healthcare," Ryan, R-Wis., said after the vote.
Though Trump wants a quick repeal and replace of the law, there’s likely to be months of debate and infighting before the new law could be passed. Much of Friday's debate underscored the sharp-elbowed politics of the issue.
"People in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio, screwed," said Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., citing places where he said voters would suffer from the health law's repeal — which also were normally reliably Democratic states that Trump won on Election Day. Continuing the theme of highlighting Trump voters, Jeffries added, "People in Appalachia and rural America, screwed."
Democrats praised the law for extending coverage to tens of millions of Americans and helping many millions more afford policies and buy prescriptions. Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., said rather than "repeal and replace," Republicans should name their effort "repeal and repent" because of the harm they were about to cause to voters.
No. 3 House GOP leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana aimed his rhetoric at Democrats defending one of Obama's proudest legislative achievements, a law that Republicans say missed its goals of cutting consumers' medical costs and increasing access to doctors.
"This should not be about preserving somebody's legacy," Scalise said. "It should be about fulfilling those promises to the American people that were broken."
Approval of the budget means Senate Democrats won't be allowed to filibuster the future repeal-and-replace bill — a pivotal advantage for Republicans. They control the Senate 52-48, but it takes 60 votes to end filibusters, which are endless procedural delays that can scuttle legislation.
Congressional Republicans have made annulling Obama's law and replacing it a top goal for the past seven years. GOP rifts and an Obama veto prevented them from achieving anything other than holding scores of votes that served as political messaging.
Trump insists that the new law will be better despite worries from Congress and the possibility of putting 20 million Americans at risk of losing their health coverage.
“We’re going to have insurance for everybody. There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”
Apparently, Trump and the Republicans are almost finished creating a healthcare plan that will give healthcare to 100% of Americans. So he says, anyway. No details though.
Same story they have been saying since the election. Cut ACA taxes that would help to reduce cost, remove mandate yet keep coverage for pre-existing conditions and be cheaper then the ACA. I'll believe it when I see it.
AURORA - When Berthie Ruoff arrived at the Aurora Central Library to meet with Congressman Mike Coffman, she was hopeful to find encouraging answers about the impending changes to the Affordable Care Act.
"My husband passed away and the only way I was able to get insurance was through the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare," Ruoff said.
When she walked in, she saw a crowd she didn't expect.
"There were hundreds of people here," Ruoff said.
Krondia Siebert just wanted Coffman to hear her concerns. But, she ended up trying to organize the crowd that gathered outside the large community room.
"The Representative didn't have a plan. They expected just a small handful of people to show up," Siebert said. "We were under the understanding it was a town hall meeting and they were only allowing four people in at a time."
Coffman's chief of staff, Ben Stein, sent a statement addressing what happened Saturday afternoon. The statement says the Congressman's community event was not a town hall.
"Rep. Mike Coffman routinely hosts constituent one on one meetings across the district. Constituents are invited to meet individually with the congressman to express their opinions, seek help with a range of issues, and discuss legislation. Given the volume of people who came, the Congressman met with four people at a time for five minutes each for a total of more than 70 constituents," the statement said.
Ruoff was not one of them.
"I am trying to get an answer and I can't even get in," Ruoff said.
While the crowd was waiting inside the lobby, singing and chanting, Aurora Police officers are putting up crime scene tape to create a perimeter outside of the library. This allowed Coffman to leave secretly at about 3:24 p.m. unbeknownst to those still waiting to see him. The community event was scheduled from 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
"We were told at one point everyone would get their time and then he sneaks out six minutes early. I think he couldn't handle it," Stephanie Brook Chavez, Aurora resident, said.
Stein's statement reads, "Unfortunately, we only reserved the room at the Aurora Central Library for 90 minutes, which is usually plenty of time to see everyone. For those who were unable to see the Congressman today we apologize. These constituents are invited to attend upcoming meeting opportunities and we will block more time so that he can hear from more of his constituents."
Ruoff still has questions.
"I am potentially going to lose my health insurance. I've had a preexisting condition. I've had breast cancer. What's going to happen to me?" Ruoff said. "My spouse who had health insurance passed away. What do I do? You know, what am I supposed to do?"
Trump reportedly insists healthcare replacement will have 'insurance for everybody'
President-elect Donald Trump revealed in an interview with The Washington Post that he’s almost finished with a plan to replace ObamaCare and vowed to have “insurance for everybody.”
Trump declined to reveal the pertinent details of the new healthcare plan, but told The Post in the interview published Sunday night that drug companies will be forced to negotiate on Medicare and Medicaid prices. He also plans to fight pharmaceutical companies over drug prices.
The president-elect insisted that his plan for replacing the Affordable Healthcare Act is all but finished, and added that care would have “lower numbers, much lower deductibles.” He went as far to say that he’s ready to reveal it alongside Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan.
“It’s very much formulated down to the final strokes. We haven’t put it in quite yet but we’re going to be doing it soon,” Trump said during the interview with the paper.
He added that he’s still waiting for Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., to be confirmed as his secretary for health and human services. A hearing for his confirmation has yet to be scheduled.
Congressional Republicans took the first big step last week in their seven-year trek to dismantle President Obama’s healthcare law, passing a budget that would ease the passage of a bill that would replace ObamaCare. The budget — the Senate approved it Thursday — bars Democratic senators from blocking that future legislation with a filibuster.
The budget "gives us the tools we need for a step-by-step approach to fix these problems and put Americans back in control of their healthcare," Ryan, R-Wis., said after the vote.
Though Trump wants a quick repeal and replace of the law, there’s likely to be months of debate and infighting before the new law could be passed. Much of Friday's debate underscored the sharp-elbowed politics of the issue.
"People in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio, screwed," said Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., citing places where he said voters would suffer from the health law's repeal — which also were normally reliably Democratic states that Trump won on Election Day. Continuing the theme of highlighting Trump voters, Jeffries added, "People in Appalachia and rural America, screwed."
Democrats praised the law for extending coverage to tens of millions of Americans and helping many millions more afford policies and buy prescriptions. Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., said rather than "repeal and replace," Republicans should name their effort "repeal and repent" because of the harm they were about to cause to voters.
No. 3 House GOP leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana aimed his rhetoric at Democrats defending one of Obama's proudest legislative achievements, a law that Republicans say missed its goals of cutting consumers' medical costs and increasing access to doctors.
"This should not be about preserving somebody's legacy," Scalise said. "It should be about fulfilling those promises to the American people that were broken."
Approval of the budget means Senate Democrats won't be allowed to filibuster the future repeal-and-replace bill — a pivotal advantage for Republicans. They control the Senate 52-48, but it takes 60 votes to end filibusters, which are endless procedural delays that can scuttle legislation.
Congressional Republicans have made annulling Obama's law and replacing it a top goal for the past seven years. GOP rifts and an Obama veto prevented them from achieving anything other than holding scores of votes that served as political messaging.
Trump insists that the new law will be better despite worries from Congress and the possibility of putting 20 million Americans at risk of losing their health coverage.
“We’re going to have insurance for everybody. There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”
Apparently, Trump and the Republicans are almost finished creating a healthcare plan that will give healthcare to 100% of Americans. So he says, anyway. No details though.
Same story they have been saying since the election. Cut ACA taxes that would help to reduce cost, remove mandate yet keep coverage for pre-existing conditions and be cheaper then the ACA. I'll believe it when I see it.
Healthcare for everybody (who can afford it). And if you can't afford it, you probably don't want it bad enough.
Well, Trump also said they were going to repeal and replace within a week of the ACA being repealed. I would give any claims about the effects of the plan as much credence as you give that claim, considering the time it will take for any new plan to be winnowed and porked up (and the inevitable implementation gap for anything that would actually get healthcare for everybody).
(He also said the repeal and replace plan was done at that point...which was apparently a lie)
On January 16 2017 21:50 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Anyone seen the strange clip from this 1958 TV show? A guy called Trump - a "conman" who promises to build a wall to protect the citizens of the town and threatens to sue for defamation.Episode is titled "The end of the world". https://youtu.be/eQJMek9b7SA
That's quite amazing. I did a quick research because it sounded too good to be true and sounded really like a hoax, but apparently this is legit.
EPT
