Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse

[Big_paul]

Neither party is doing the middle class and working poor any favors, Paul. I always hear the term "elite" used when referring to liberals but aren't the rich Republicans the same?

To a degree you are right, how many dems do you see trying to kick 14-24 million Americans off health insurance?

Both parties did nothing to prevent our industries from locating in other countries.

I just see republicans as enemies of the working class. The gop reform of healthcare strips over 10 years 837 billion dollars from Medicaid and gives 859 billion dollars in tax cuts to the wealthy. What does that say?

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[GigaloRob]

To a degree you are right, how many dems do you see trying to kick 14-24 million Americans off health insurance?

Nobody is "kicking off" 14-24 million. By removing the mandate that forced people to pay for insurance they didn't want people will opt not to get insurance. Obamacare also had millions not insured as well. For the record I think the plan being pushed by Trump is garbage and needs a ton of adjustments. I don't see any real legislation to lower prices in the bill.

I just see republicans as enemies of the working class. The gop reform of healthcare strips over 10 years 837 billion dollars from Medicaid and gives 859 billion dollars in tax cuts to the wealthy. What does that say?

As far as republicans being the enemy of the working class here is a little something to read and absorb.

"Democrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, and for four of those years had control of both houses of Congress. But in that time they failed to reverse the decline in working-class wages and economic security. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ardently pushed for free trade agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.

They stood by as corporations hammered trade unions, the backbone of the white working class – failing to reform labor laws to impose meaningful penalties on companies that violate them, or help workers form unions with simple up-or-down votes. Partly as a result, union membership sank from 22% of all workers when Bill Clinton was elected president to less than 12% today, and the working class lost bargaining leverage to get a share of the economy’s gains.

Bill Clinton and Obama also allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify – with the result that large corporations have grown far larger, and major industries more concentrated. The unsurprising result of this combination – more trade, declining unionization and more industry concentration – has been to shift political and economic power to big corporations and the wealthy, and to shaft the working class."

Democrats lost the election because of their neglect for the working class. As stated above Democrats have done nothing but hurt the working class and it's been done predominantly under their watch for the last 20 plus years. Neither party has done much for the working class and that certainly involves the Democrats.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Both Are Lies ...

 

[Docd187123]

Not the opposite actually. Show me one shred of evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians to throw the election. I won't hold my breath because there is none. That doesn't stop the left from pushing that narrative with zero evidence. Trump made the wiretap claim with zero evidence. Not what I call exactly opposite.

I didn't say specific that trump colluded with the Russians, those were your words. Even if he didn't knowingly collude though, do you think he's immune from feeling indebted to them and if so, are you willing to stake your country's future on that?

On the other hand it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he actively colluded with them but I've yet to see enough evidence to say he has with conviction.

I'm not aware of how unprecedented it is to not have replacements in place immediately after having the attorneys resign or be fired as I can't find anything confirming or denying it. I'm sure you can post some type of evidence to back that claim so I will wait for that. The only thing unusual about this process was Bharara refusing to resign and having to be fired.

You used the Clinton example of when he asked for about 90 resignations of US attorneys. The evidence I have is in that same example bc Clinton, by way of Janet Reno, asked for those resignations in March but allowed most, if not all, the US attorneys to stay in their posts until a replacement could be confirmed and/or any major cases they were involved in could be concluded. Bharara is in charge of the investigation regarding corruption by the NYC mayor and the governor of NY. I'd say those are pretty big cases.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but neither Bush, Clinton, or Obama were ever in a situation where they were possibly about to be under investigation and asked for the resignation of the US attorney who would have led that investigation. I'm talking about the Emoluments clause and maybe more. With the way trump fires anyone who is not steadfastly loyal to HIM, do you not see a potential conflict of interest in any possible investigation should he choose Bharara's replacement?

Another conspiracy theory, what a surprise. You are right, it makes complete sense that Trump and his team were completely ignorant of the fact that Bharara could investigate Trump if asked to stay on. They then realized later that monumental error and swiftly asked him to resign in order to avoid prosecution. That makes much more logical sense except he could of just not asked him to stay from the start.

You use the words "complete sense/logical sense" and trump in the same sentence as if they go hand in hand. I'm sorry but I cannot take that seriously. You know I have the utmost respect for you regardless of our different opinions in this thread but there's no way anyone can look at Trump's history thus far and come to the conclusion that common sense is something he uses regularly at best.

 

[GigaloRob]

didn't say specific that trump colluded with the Russians, those were your words. Even if he didn't knowingly collude though, do you think he's immune from feeling indebted to them and if so, are you willing to stake your country's future on that?

On the other hand it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he actively colluded with them but I've yet to see enough evidence to say he has with conviction

Indebted to them? I guess my point is there is zero evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians. In order for him to feel indebted that would imply he owes them something which again there is no evidence to suggest that. I stake my country on facts and not on fear mongering non evidence based narratives. I never thought Obama was an agent for isis, never bought in to the birther bullshit because there was no actual evidence. The democrats and the media are pushing this narrative and it's being done with zero evidence just like the ones I mentioned with Obama. The only main difference is the involvement of the media pushing the Trump narrative.

You used the Clinton example of when he asked for about 90 resignations of US attorneys. The evidence I have is in that same example bc Clinton, by way of Janet Reno, asked for those resignations in March but allowed most, if not all, the US attorneys to stay in their posts until a replacement could be confirmed and/or any major cases they were involved in could be concluded. Bharara is in charge of the investigation regarding corruption by the NYC mayor and the governor of NY. I'd say those are pretty big cases.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but neither Bush, Clinton, or Obama were ever in a situation where they were possibly about to be under investigation and asked for the resignation of the US attorney who would have led that investigation. I'm talking about the Emoluments clause and maybe more. With the way trump fires anyone who is not steadfastly loyal to HIM, do you not see a potential conflict of interest in any possible investigation should he choose Bharara's replacement?

This whole thing is really is a non story. Regardless of their investigations all the attorneys have deputies which remain on until replacements are made. They continue the investigations that were being done. As far as conflicts of interest goes I can tell you that each time a president removes the attorneys they are accused of removing a certain attorney for political or their own gain. I believe people accused Clinton of removing a certain one because of the Whitewater investigation, Bush was accused of removing a certain one as well but I don't recall what the investigation was.

Point is this happens every single time a Democrat replaces a Republican and vice versa. One side accuses the incoming president of silencing some particular investigation involving the president himself or his party. There is no story here and it happens to both parties depending on who is elected.

You use the words "complete sense/logical sense" and trump in the same sentence as if they go hand in hand. I'm sorry but I cannot take that seriously. You know I have the utmost respect for you regardless of our different opinions in this thread but there's no way anyone can look at Trump's history thus far and come to the conclusion that common sense is something he uses regularly at best.

I never said Trump is the smartest guy on the planet as I certainly would never make that claim. I think it's quite the incredible stretch to suggest Trump and his administration were unaware Bharara was/could be investigating them so they asked him to stay on. Later they realized he could be investigating so they fired him after asking him to resign. Nobody is that dumb and yes that includes Trump. You don't have to like the guy but again you have to stretch to great lengths to make the case anyone is that stupid.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Here is why tonight's release of a portion of Trump's tax returns actually _matters_. Don't be fooled into thinking it a non-story.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

More EO Denial ...

 

[CdnGuy]

Hawaii judge to issue ruling on revised Trump travel ban before it takes effect

" Unconstitutional" is an understatement imo lol

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Obama left Trump a major climate-change report — and independent scientists just said it’s accurate
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/15/obama-left-trump-a-major-climate-change-report-and-independent-scientists-just-said-its-accurate/ (Obama left Trump a major climate-change report — and independent scientists just said it’s accurate)

The United States’ top independent science experts have blessed a draft Obama administration climate science report — left behind for the Trump administration to finish — that presents a strong contrast to inaccurate scientific claims by President Trump’s top environmental official.

The document, dubbed the “Climate Science Special Report,” is a product of the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the federal entity that coordinates climate research across the government and publishes, every four years, a major assessment of how climate change is affecting the United States. A draft of the report was submitted for review to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine shortly before the change in administration.

The report’s text, which strongly affirms that global warming is being driven by humans, received an overall clean bill of health Tuesday from the academies. The committee of 11 scientists reviewing the report called it “impressive, timely, and generally well-written” and said it was “generally impressed with the breadth, accuracy, and rigor of the draft. The draft emphasizes the robust evidence that human emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) have substantially warmed the planet and are causing myriad changes to the Earth system, some of which are effectively irreversible on human timescales.”

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[XKawN]

I don't care what they do. Just get rid of that piece of shit obamacare. It's just a bill that forces you to buy a turd sandwich and expects you to like it. The biggest rhetoric joke about all this Healthcare talk is the amount of people who signed up for obamacare and the amount of people who will lose thier Healthcare. You passed a freakin law that forced people to sign up for it then brag about people signing up for it. What a fucking joke to use that as a selling point.

 

[XKawN]

Interesting. I don't recall them calling obamacare unconstitutional because Obama was selling it by referring to it as "not a tax" and then called it a tax when they were in court. Who was there to play that back to him?

 

[xy5jn0]

I don't care what they do. Just get rid of that piece of shit obamacare. It's just a bill that forces you to buy a turd sandwich and expects you to like it. The biggest rhetoric joke about all this Healthcare talk is the amount of people who signed up for obamacare and the amount of people who will lose thier Healthcare. You passed a freakin law that forced people to sign up for it then brag about people signing up for it. What a fucking joke to use that as a selling point.

That sums it up. Let's FORCE everyone to buy this shit sandwich and pat ourselves on the back.
"If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor"
"If you like your health plan you keep it"
"We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it"

 

[XKawN]

That sums it up. Let's FORCE everyone to buy this shit sandwich and pat ourselves on the back.
"If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor"
"If you like your health plan you keep it"
"We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it"

Lol, the audacity to force everyone to do something and then tell us we must like it because we're doing it. WTF, lol.