Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[TheFeniX]

Trump trying to push for an investigation of Obama on Trumped-up allegations... is he angling for a pretext to arrest major Democratic leaders? Was "lock her up" more than just hot air?

The more Trump tries to dump on Obama (who, despite all his faults left office with a high approval rating) for personal revenge, the more people are going to be willing to turn on him and those who support him in this regard in the long run. Bush and Co were doing this same thing with Clinton for years. It died down when popular support for the administration was high, then revved back up when support took a nose-dive. It did nothing to bolster their approval rating except among the most ardent supporters of the party.

You know, the same people who felt the failings of the Bush admin were because they weren't conservative enough.

Voters don't like "leaders" who try to pass off blame. Especially when said leaders are firmly in the drivers seat. They're stupid and uninformed, but they aren't THAT stupid and uninformed. Trump came into office with historic low approval and only seems to have seen a "jump" (from terrible to just "mostly bad") because he made good on his threats to go after illegals, which outside of extreme liberals has a lot of popular support. In fact, outside of his stance on immigration, he doesn't have much else to cater to non-partisans because killing NAFTA just by showing up to work isn't going to cement a legacy.

Trump can dodge the issues all he wants by pushing his vendettas. It worked for Bush for a while after 9/11 due to overwhelming popular support. But for Trump to last that long, he's going to need something huge and that "something huge" will need to be something that voters won't look at as his fault. Otherwise, the lid is going to blow off the conservative shit-hole as voters realize (once again) said conservatives do not have their interests at heart and turn on them. Because Republicans are in the drivers seat. And no amount of blaming the old guard or the losing team has turned things around for either side that I've seen in the last 16 years.

I see this as more barking to dodge issues voters actually care about. To change the focus. But if he actually tries to ram through charges against Obama over some grade-A bullshit? Oh man, that would be a shitstorm. Honestly, I think Trump is self-destructive enough to try. The funny part would be watching Republicans either scramble to distance themselves from the idea, quietly gum it up, or go down in flames along with him.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh yeah, their's very little I would put past Trump at this point, because he's a pathetic narcissist and bully who can't handle not getting his way on everything, because he's exactly the sort of person who lets power go to their head, and because deep down, he probably knows he's fucked long-term.

What I do have doubts about is weather more than a small minority of Republican leaders would ever have the sense and decency to oppose him no matter how far he went. Principles don't seem to be something most of them understand at this point.

But yeah, people like Obama. More than Trump anyway. Hell, I wonder how much of this tirade is just petty jealousy that the ex-President's approval ratings are better than his.

[TheFeniX]

What I do have doubts about is weather more than a small minority of Republican leaders would ever have the sense and decency to oppose him no matter how far he went. Principles don't seem to be something most of them understand at this point.

"This point?" Republicans tried everything to sweep their affiliation with Bush and Co under the rug leading up to 2008 after spending 6-8 years servicing him under the desk. Yet only a few Republicans I recall actually broke rank when voting. Voters got the message and they passed it onto Republicans: Democrats took both houses over the next few years. Obama won in a landslide. And Reps continued to bleed seats up until the early 2010s when they took the house back (IIRC).

To be fair, more than a few of those seats were filled with Blue Dogs, but take what you can get I suppose.

Trump continues to alienate anyone not already vomiting Red. Worse, he's looking to be motivating them out of self-interest to get them to once again realize "Ok, yea, maybe they AREN'T both the same. I need to get off my fatass and vote for the guy (or gal) who may not be acting in my best interests, but at least he's not actively trying to kill me."

And we aren't even six months into his presidency.

Anyways, Trump's bluster barely gave him the election due to a number of factors. But he put up numbers eerily similar to Romney. It's not a sustainable plan for Trump or Republicans when they have to drive the car because when shit explodes, the people look at the driver and don't care about your excuses (true or not) about how the last guy planted C4 on the brakes. Republicans got by on similar numbers because Democrats assumed that because people really liked Obama, that favoritism transferred to other Democrats.

Bzzt.

I think this is the poll I found about a year ago. How did no Democratic advisor not notice the nose-dive the party was taking in popularity?

Really, them losing their seats in Congress should have been a wake-up call. That and all the "people have faith in Obama, but they fucking hate Congress because it can't get anything done" polls that were everywhere. Sure, blame obstructionist Republicans for that. You might be right, but voters don't care. They want results.

Honestly, IMHO Trump's best bet is to continue just beating up on illegals because there's at least some support there. But what else is he going to do to get people on his side? His whole shtick is "burn it down." Sure, that gives people who are disgusted with the system some kind of vitriolic sense of victory, but they come around when they get neck deep in shit. It's a shame they think like that AND it's able to get to that point at all.

Trump would have to start FIXING things and making good on his promises to even start getting public support on his side: is that really his platform? Pfft.

Damn I rant too much. Let me just add one thing: provided Democrats band together against Trump, you need like, what, 3 Republicans to break rank to start derailing Trump? I am a Hell of a lot less scared of Trump than I was in in 2001 when (even being the conservative tard I was back then) the entire country cut GW a blank check to kick ass and chew bubble-gum.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump scares me more than Bush, because Trump is willing to go farther down the road to despotism and destruction of the social services than Bush ever was. And he is surrounded by people who will either willingly abet him, or probably want him to go further still (i.e. Bannon, who from what I've heard of his views is essentially an apocalypse prophet).

They may fail to make America their dictatorship, likely due to overreaching and provoking a backlash before the necessary groundwork for such a transition is laid, but they can still do damage that will likely take decades to undo, sowing bigotry and division, crippling our institutions, and destroying our reputation and the credibility of American democracy itself.

You are correct though that Trump is neither capable of nor interested in delivering on what most voters want, and does not have the support of the majority.

Though I am concerned that gerrymandering and voter suppression will render it something of a moot point, at least for the next couple elections. And I don't know how much of our democracy will be left after that.

That's probably part of why the Democrats didn't reevaluate their positions or strategies more when they started losing Congress: They (not without reason) attributed it to gerrymandering, not a voter backlash.

I recall hearing after the 2012 election that the Democrats got more votes for Congress, nation-wide, than the Republicans.

[TheFeniX]

Trump scares me more than Bush, because Trump is willing to go farther down the road to despotism and destruction of the social services than Bush ever was. And he is surrounded by people who will either willingly abet him, or probably want him to go further still (i.e. Bannon, who from what I've heard of his views is essentially an apocalypse prophet).

Darth Cheney? Motherfucking "go to war with the army you have" Rumsfeld? Do people not honestly remember the cabal of "fuck this country all kinds of up" GW cronies? Maybe I don't, but GW's axis of evil is a major player in WHY I'm no longer conservative, so I'd like to think I remember it all to well. Jesus, they dragged us into a WAR based on lies, destabilized an entire REGION, all over a fucking grudge from Bush's daddy. "Compassionate Conservatism." Someone stop me if I'm ringing a few bells here.

N&P was ACTIVE back then. People were flipping their shit.

Honestly, you are right though. Bush was much more of an easily lead good ol' boy who was more detached from the American citizen than actively hostile, though I disagree with that on a few levels. But I actually remember his "Lol minimum wage? We need jobs and No Child Left Behind is a jobs program!" I also recall the guy saying something to the effect of "Social Security is racist because black people die to young to benefit from it."

I remember Republicans trying and succeeding on more than a few levels to fuck SS, welfare, and every social program they could. We didn't even have the ACA back then and Insurance companies were making bank fucking the American citizen.

They may fail to make America their dictatorship, likely due to overreaching and provoking a backlash before the necessary groundwork for such a transition is laid, but they can still do damage that will likely take decades to undo, sowing bigotry and division, crippling our institutions, and destroying our reputation and the credibility of American democracy itself.

Welcome to 2008. And Obama and Democrats did specifically what to distance themselves from Bush and Co's power grabs? Is the Patriot Act not still a thing? Did Obama not extend it? Did he not wait until the twilight of his presidency to take a stand against NCLB? Did he not sell out the American worker to Wall Street? Did Obama not totally pass the buck and let the TSA continue to molest anyone they want, including toddlers?

And they aren't going to make America a dictatorship because America does not work that way. God damn man, let it go. You need MASSIVE support for something like that, and not just from some shit-eating racist rednecks with a few guns. Really shitty conditions help a lot but you can't be the one who started the shit-fest. There's like... one guy who could have put on a dictators hat (or really a crown) in the history of the U.S.: George Motherfucking Washington.

When you talk about "dictatorship" I want to roll my eyes because I've heard that over and over and OVER again about GW AND Obama. "He'll never give up power! ZOMG!" Obama had a better shot at his weakest of going that route because he's actually popular and WAS the guy who nabbed Bin Laden, so he has a lot more cred than a guy whose high points are in no particular order:
A. Losing the popular vote
B. Rounding up a bunch of illegals.
C. Getting a Seal killed in a botched raid.

But "Oh God, Democrats only make up 45% of the seats in the House! ALL IS LOST! ALL IS LOOOOST!"

I'm not saying don't worry or don't fight the guy and his cronies. But where the fuck were liberals when Obama was signing extensions of the Patriot Act? Where the fuck were they when he was saying "well, I'm totally NOT going to roll back the bullshit the TSA is pulling."?

I recall hearing after the 2012 election that the Democrats got more votes for Congress, nation-wide, than the Republicans.

Could be, but Democrats rank about as shitty as Republicans right now in the general electorate. So, gerrymandering is much more useful to turn the tide of a close fight.

EDIT: Sorry if I'm being harsh here, but this is dredging up a lot of anger because I lost a few friends over in Iraq and I had to get called a Traitor and Liberal (a cutting insult in Texas) because I didn't want my friends dieing over a 20 year old grudge.

[The Romulan Republic]

Regarding the possibility of a dictatorship: I fully agree that we're not their yet, nor are we about to be tomorrow. But I would say that it is dangerously complacent and arrogant to assume that the US is somehow immune to the rise of a dictatorship, as has been seen in so many other countries. It would take time for the culture to shift and institutions to erode to the point where such a thing could be implemented without massive resistance, but it is possible.

That people have falsely fear-mongered about dictatorship from Obama and W. does not mean that all such concerns should always be dismissed out of hand. The thing people forget about the story of the boy who cried wolf is that eventually, a wolf actually showed up, even if nobody listened.

As to Bush- I only said that he wasn't as bad as Trump. I am certainly not defending that mass of dishonesty and incompetence. Its just a sad commentary on how bad things have gotten that he looks almost good in comparison. The only reason why I would not call the 2003 Iraq war the greatest debacle of the 21st. Century (or second greatest, after the 2008 recession) is because Trump just got elected.

[TheFeniX]

Regarding the possibility of a dictatorship: I fully agree that we're not their yet, nor are we about to be tomorrow. But I would say that it is dangerously complacent and arrogant to assume that the US is somehow immune to the rise of a dictatorship, as has been seen in so many other countries. It would take time for the culture to shift and institutions to erode to the point where such a thing could be implemented without massive resistance, but it is possible.

I'd be long dead before it ever reached that point. If I'm not and something changes: I'll eat those words. But I am in no way afraid of a U.S. dictatorship, especially under someone like Trump.

I would be more inclined to believe Shadowrun becomes reality where the South forms the Confederated American States, the North merges with Canada into the UCAS and California and Florida fuck off to do whatever before I'd bet on a dictator taking power. And I'd believe Native Americans perform the Great Ghost Dance before the U.S. unified under someone like Trump.

Closest I recall we came anywhere close to something like a permanent president was when people wouldn't stop electing FDR in landslides. Then he died and Congress enacted the 22nd amendment.

As to Bush- I only said that he wasn't as bad as Trump. I am certainly not defending that mass of dishonesty and incompetence. Its just a sad commentary on how bad things have gotten that he looks almost good in comparison. The only reason why I would not call the 2003 Iraq war the greatest debacle of the 21st. Century (or second greatest, after the 2008 recession) is because Trump just got elected.

Hundreds of thousands of people dead over said dishonesty and incompetence somehow "looks good" in comparison to President Toupee shitting on gays, Muslims, illegals, the poor..... you know what? No point in dragging it out: Trump is shitting on pretty much everyone the Bush admin shit on.

With as much respect as I can muster: get some perspective.

[Flagg]

Regarding the possibility of a dictatorship: I fully agree that we're not their yet, nor are we about to be tomorrow. But I would say that it is dangerously complacent and arrogant to assume that the US is somehow immune to the rise of a dictatorship, as has been seen in so many other countries. It would take time for the culture to shift and institutions to erode to the point where such a thing could be implemented without massive resistance, but it is possible.

I'd be long dead before it ever reached that point. If I'm not and something changes: I'll eat those words. But I am in no way afraid of a U.S. dictatorship, especially under someone like Trump.

I would be more inclined to believe Shadowrun becomes reality where the South forms the Confederated American States, the North merges with Canada into the UCAS and California and Florida fuck off to do whatever before I'd bet on a dictator taking power. And I'd believe Native Americans perform the Great Ghost Dance before the U.S. unified under someone like Trump.

Closest I recall we came anywhere close to something like a permanent president was when people wouldn't stop electing FDR in landslides. Then he died and Congress enacted the 22nd amendment.

As to Bush- I only said that he wasn't as bad as Trump. I am certainly not defending that mass of dishonesty and incompetence. Its just a sad commentary on how bad things have gotten that he looks almost good in comparison. The only reason why I would not call the 2003 Iraq war the greatest debacle of the 21st. Century (or second greatest, after the 2008 recession) is because Trump just got elected.

Hundreds of thousands of people dead over said dishonesty and incompetence somehow "looks good" in comparison to President Toupee shitting on gays, Muslims, illegals, the poor..... you know what? No point in dragging it out: Trump is shitting on pretty much everyone the Bush admin shit on.

With as much respect as I can muster: get some perspective.

Trump doesn't have the blood of hundreds of thousands (if not more) of dead Iraqis on his hands. But he's only been in office for less than 2 months, so give it time. That said, it really is too early to make an accurate assessment.

[Simon_Jester]

I agree.

We can either compare Trumpolini's first two months in office to Dubya's first two months in office, or we can compare Trumpolini's entire term to Dubya's entire term in office.

Either way would seem fair to me- we just can't do the second one without a time machine.

[TheFeniX]

I was going to ghetto edit this but you saved me the trouble. I should have said "over a hundred thousand" rather than hundreds of thousands. Which is still pretty damned grim. But no point in exaggerating.

Trump doesn't have the blood of hundreds of thousands (if not more) of dead Iraqis on his hands. But he's only been in office for less than 2 months, so give it time. That said, it really is too early to make an accurate assessment.

To answer you and Simon: I have very little doubt, given the chance, a guy like Trump would have no issues with more caskets of people he considers expendable. My point is that he, at this moment in time, is in no position to create those caskets. Not without significant American backlash because we've already been through this once (well, in recent memory). And that the way things are going, he will not be a position to create those caskets without cratering his admin and "his" party.

To aspire to Bush's body count, Trump is going to have to go looking for a fight. He's going to have to go prod someone like China or Russia and/or engage in more proxy wars. Or he's going to have to find more Muslims to beat on in the Middle East, which the American populace and military is increasingly tired of. Him and anyone on board with him is going to have to pay politically (a shame not legally) for every casket because Trump got INTO office on the backs of (aside from the shitheads) people who are TIRED of the same old shit, both those that voted and those that didn't.

They expect LESS wars, LESS actions, MORE America First.™ Picking fights abroad is not what they are interested in. Trump doesn't have the support of the people here, or Democrats, like Bush did. Sure, Republicans could lock-step it through, but they'd be eating backlash near instantly because Americans are tired of war at a level that surpasses the populace after Vietnam.

NOTE: None of this is giving him a pass or saying "don't fight guys, Trump's a joke" because we already know where that got us.

[The Romulan Republic]

No, Trump doesn't yet have Bush the Moron's bodycount, but (and I sincerely hope I am wrong about this), give that asshole four years in office, with Bannon (who has flat-out stated he considers war with China inevitable and supports a global war between the Christian West and Islam) directing foreign policy, and we'll see where we stand.

And that's not even factoring in the indirect death toll likely to be caused by Trump and the Republicans scrapping the Affordable Care Act (along with numerous other programs designed to help the poor), deporting refugees who have nowhere safe to go, doing their utmost to incite hostility between whites and minorities (especially Muslims), and quite possibly causing a depression due to rampant deregulation.

Repeal of the ACA alone, without an adequate replacement, will likely kill thousands (millions in the long term, if the situation is not remedied).

[The Romulan Republic]

To put it simply:

Bush is worse than Trump in what he has thus far managed to accomplish, but its early days (though if collaboration with the Russians to win the election is proved, well, at least Bush never sold out our democratic process to a foreign despot).

Trump and his cohorts are worse in what they aspire to do, and in their basic competency to govern.

Only time will tell rather they end up being worse in practice, or are successfully obstructed/removed from office before then.

[Flagg]

I was going to ghetto edit this but you saved me the trouble. I should have said "over a hundred thousand" rather than hundreds of thousands. Which is still pretty damned grim. But no point in exaggerating.

Trump doesn't have the blood of hundreds of thousands (if not more) of dead Iraqis on his hands. But he's only been in office for less than 2 months, so give it time. That said, it really is too early to make an accurate assessment.

To answer you and Simon: I have very little doubt, given the chance, a guy like Trump would have no issues with more caskets of people he considers expendable. My point is that he, at this moment in time, is in no position to create those caskets. Not without significant American backlash because we've already been through this once (well, in recent memory). And that the way things are going, he will not be a position to create those caskets without cratering his admin and "his" party.

To aspire to Bush's body count, Trump is going to have to go looking for a fight. He's going to have to go prod someone like China or Russia and/or engage in more proxy wars. Or he's going to have to find more Muslims to beat on in the Middle East, which the American populace and military is increasingly tired of. Him and anyone on board with him is going to have to pay politically (a shame not legally) for every casket because Trump got INTO office on the backs of (aside from the shitheads) people who are TIRED of the same old shit, both those that voted and those that didn't.

They expect LESS wars, LESS actions, MORE America First.™ Picking fights abroad is not what they are interested in. Trump doesn't have the support of the people here, or Democrats, like Bush did. Sure, Republicans could lock-step it through, but they'd be eating backlash near instantly because Americans are tired of war at a level that surpasses the populace after Vietnam.

NOTE: None of this is giving him a pass or saying "don't fight guys, Trump's a joke" because we already know where that got us.

I don't really know what Trump foreign policy looks like, and I expect he doesn't, either. But in fairness it's just wrong to say he does or will have the blood of the numbers of however many Iraqi civilians died in the war. It's been less than 2 months since he was sworn in.

[FaxModem1]

The Week

TRUMPCARE
Trump reportedly warns Republicans they face a 'bloodbath' if the GOP health care bill fails
7:36 a.m. ET



Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is one of the American Health Care Act's fiercest Republican critics, calling the GOP's new health care plan "ObamaCare lite" and warning that "it will not pass. Conservatives aren't going to take it." The bill is "dead on arrival," he added. President Trump seems pretty sure Paul will fall in line.


The bill being called, inevitably, TrumpCare is so unpopular that pundits are seriously wondering if Republicans actually want it to fail. Influential conservative groups like FreedomWorks, the Heritage Foundation, the Club for Growth, Americans for Prosperity, and the House Freedom Caucus have denounced the bill, conservative health care wonks are trashing it, and even Breitbart News hates it. The American Hospital Association and AARP have come out against it. And Democrats, unsurprisingly, are decrying it as a massive $600 billion tax cut for the rich disguised as a plan to deprive 20 million Americans of their health care.

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is putting on a brave face. "We'll have 218 when this thing comes to the floor," he said on Tuesday. "I can guarantee you that." And to the relief of GOP leaders, Trump is doing more than just tweeting at Paul. He gave his unequivocal endorsement of the plan in public, and in private he warned House GOP whips of a "bloodbath" in 2018 if Republican members of Congress don't fall in line, one House member tells CNN.



Trump pledged his support to whip recalcitrant Republicans, telling the GOP leaders that "he will be very active in the effort to pass this bill," Rep. Luke Messer (R-Ind.) tells Politico. "He used the phrase several times, 'No more excuses; it's time to get it passed.'"

Trump also sent an olive branch to the Freedom Caucus, telling them through White House budget director Mick Mulvaney that he's open to negotiation and wants them to amend the bill to their liking. Trump's biggest carrot could be face time, though, Republicans told him, reminding him that he is very popular among many of the bill's opponents. "Some of these [Freedom Caucus] guys are used to punching leadership in the nose and being praised for it back home," one Republican whip told Politico. "Are you going to punch Trump in the nose? I don't think so." Peter Weber

So, how is this new healthcare plan looking? Aside from horrendous.

[Ziggy Stardust]

But where the fuck were liberals when Obama was signing extensions of the Patriot Act? Where the fuck were they when he was saying "well, I'm totally NOT going to roll back the bullshit the TSA is pulling."?.

Well, most of us were complaining about that here on these very forums. And I remember a lot of liberal publications and figures were also against it for most of his administration. The idea that Obama was somehow a "liberal" president is a myth mostly perpetuated by the right. He was a centrist with some left-leaning tendencies on certain issues. The idea that liberals are somehow responsible for the worst incidences of Obama's executive overreach is pretty idiotic.

(I also think it's kind of short-sighted to write a long post detailing all the ways in which multiple American administrations have eroded civil liberties and democratic institutions over the course of a decade, and somehow come to the conclusion, "LOL AMERICAN DEMOCRACY IS FINE AND WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY AT ALL", but you do you, man.)

[Flagg]

I was going to ghetto edit this but you saved me the trouble. I should have said "over a hundred thousand" rather than hundreds of thousands. Which is still pretty damned grim. But no point in exaggerating.

Trump doesn't have the blood of hundreds of thousands (if not more) of dead Iraqis on his hands. But he's only been in office for less than 2 months, so give it time. That said, it really is too early to make an accurate assessment.

To answer you and Simon: I have very little doubt, given the chance, a guy like Trump would have no issues with more caskets of people he considers expendable. My point is that he, at this moment in time, is in no position to create those caskets. Not without significant American backlash because we've already been through this once (well, in recent memory). And that the way things are going, he will not be a position to create those caskets without cratering his admin and "his" party.

To aspire to Bush's body count, Trump is going to have to go looking for a fight. He's going to have to go prod someone like China or Russia and/or engage in more proxy wars. Or he's going to have to find more Muslims to beat on in the Middle East, which the American populace and military is increasingly tired of. Him and anyone on board with him is going to have to pay politically (a shame not legally) for every casket because Trump got INTO office on the backs of (aside from the shitheads) people who are TIRED of the same old shit, both those that voted and those that didn't.

They expect LESS wars, LESS actions, MORE America First.™ Picking fights abroad is not what they are interested in. Trump doesn't have the support of the people here, or Democrats, like Bush did. Sure, Republicans could lock-step it through, but they'd be eating backlash near instantly because Americans are tired of war at a level that surpasses the populace after Vietnam.

NOTE: None of this is giving him a pass or saying "don't fight guys, Trump's a joke" because we already know where that got us.

I've heard the Iraq war body count put at 600,000+ To over a million, but I don't know how you'd get to that number, really. I mean do we count the sectarian violence only made possible by toppling the Hussein regime? I just don't know. So I settle on "hundreds of thousands".

But the sticking point for me, and my honest fear, is a US led (hope Israel isn't involved) war on Iran based on the eeeevil Arabs (even though most Iranians are Persian, but why let facts get in the way of war mongers?) either attaining a nuclear weapon, or constructing a reactor that can at some point in the near future can be used to produce a nuclear weapon.

And you can get Americans to 180 on war with a successful terrorist attack. And since apparently President Pussygrabber doesn't actually listen to intelligence agencies or advisors unless it's what he wants yo hear since he knows best, I'm fearful (not for my own safety, but for the country) of just such an attack. And even if the attack is from a North African state like Libya, we saw how successful the Dubya propaganda machine was in linking Al Quaeda and 9/11 to Saddam Hussein without actually saying "Iraq and Saddam Hussein were behind 9/11".

[Flagg]

But where the fuck were liberals when Obama was signing extensions of the Patriot Act? Where the fuck were they when he was saying "well, I'm totally NOT going to roll back the bullshit the TSA is pulling."?.

Well, most of us were complaining about that here on these very forums. And I remember a lot of liberal publications and figures were also against it for most of his administration. The idea that Obama was somehow a "liberal" president is a myth mostly perpetuated by the right. He was a centrist with some left-leaning tendencies on certain issues. The idea that liberals are somehow responsible for the worst incidences of Obama's executive overreach is pretty idiotic.

(I also think it's kind of short-sighted to write a long post detailing all the ways in which multiple American administrations have eroded civil liberties and democratic institutions over the course of a decade, and somehow come to the conclusion, "LOL AMERICAN DEMOCRACY IS FINE AND WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY AT ALL", but you do you, man.)

Yeah, I heard the old "WHERE WERE X WHEN Y HAPPENNED?" shit all the time, mostly about 9/11. The sad part is that in the hours, days, and weeks after the attacks, people were gathering at US embassies with flowers, cards, and American flags as well as candlelight vigils.

[TheFeniX]

So, how is this new healthcare plan looking? Aside from horrendous.

I'm trying to read through it. I promise, but oh man it's boring. Like stereo instructions. I honestly couldn't find anything from conservative sites, though I... don't actually keep track of them, so I have to go looking. But, from what I've read and people smarter than me are talking about. It's basically:

1. Fuck the poor.
2. The middle class either gets kinda screwed or kinda not screwed depending on what you're reading, but does nothing to help them either way.
3. Well, Dr. Zoidberg said it best: "Hooray! A happy ending for the rich people!"

But they plan to just say "fuck" right now and are saving "you" to be spread out between mid-terms and 2020. And I know it was a given, but I'm glad they are hammering the term "Trumpcare." Because this is legacy building: it's another example, in writing, of the motto of Republicans: "More money for us ; Fuck you."

Well, most of us were complaining about that here on these very forums.

I got off on a rant there and you have more than a fair point. I just get so exasperated by this screeching of "all is lost" now that Democrats "only" make up 45% of goddamn Congress and I've been dumb enough to dive into a couple of liberal hugboxes and get blown out with shit like "stuff like this never happened under Obama."

But the sticking point for me, and my honest fear, is a US led (hope Israel isn't involved) war on Iran based on the eeeevil Arabs (even though most Iranians are Persian, but why let facts get in the way of war mongers?) either attaining a nuclear weapon, or constructing a reactor that can at some point in the near future can be used to produce a nuclear weapon.

I looked into this a bit back, but I can't find anything recent, so I have to just go off the cuff since even at the height of the tension in and around 2008: a majority of people didn't want to get into a street fight with Iran.

People are afraid of Iran, but they've been worrying about it since before Obama was even president. Nothing has really changed. And Obama managed to avoid a war or major incident for 8 years. What's Trump going to do? Dump gas on the fire and when it doesn't burn, throw a match on it? Americans are really just not down with picking fights right now and we may never be again and long as we don't risk taking a hit. So, he gets his war, which blows chode. But Americans remember yet ANOTHER president and party that dragged us into ANOTHER war.

And you can get Americans to 180 on war with a successful terrorist attack. And since apparently President Pussygrabber doesn't actually listen to intelligence agencies or advisors unless it's what he wants yo hear since he knows best, I'm fearful (not for my own safety, but for the country) of just such an attack. And even if the attack is from a North African state like Libya, we saw how successful the Dubya propaganda machine was in linking Al Quaeda and 9/11 to Saddam Hussein without actually saying "Iraq and Saddam Hussein were behind 9/11".

True and there's still more than enough people who believe that lie. But Trump made bank off his talk about protecting us from outside threats. How Obama was weak on defense and he would be strong. Him and his hair would protect us from the evil.

The we get hit and where does he shift the blame? To the minority party? Does he throw the intelligence communities under the bus and hope that works? Sure, we have to go beat on some more people in some place 90% of the hawkish can't even pronounce, much less spell. But how does that play off with Republicans in the driver seat?

9/11 "worked" because we didn't see it coming. Well, certain people saw it coming, but whatever: America was caught with it's pants down and we panicked. No one talked about terrorism. The first bombing of the trade center in.... shit, I wasn't even in high school yet so early 90s?. But, it didn't get near as much attention as it should have. Terrorism against Americans was for movies like True Lies and Executive Decision.

I feel we're at the point now that if we take a hit anywhere NEAR as big as 9/11 again: there's going to be about as much blame aimed inward as there is outward. And Trump's got nowhere to point because Democrats have been just as ready to sign over more power to intelligence agencies as anyone. Blame Obama? Who made extensions to surveillance programs, nabbed Bin Laden, and went 8 years without us taking another hit?

Sure, he'll try to shift blame, but I doubt anyone but his most ardent supporters will believe him. And those idiots believe anything. Not saying I don't fear war with Iran under these jackass. Shit, I might realistically fear war with goddamn Canada with these clownshoes. But I wouldn't bet on that even being labelled as some positive point in a legacy or something that keeps the Republican gas tank full. Honestly, they'd be better off just continuing to beat up on illegals.

[FaxModem1]

People are establishing safehouses:

The Independent

New Yorkers create underground network to protect illegal immigrants from Donald Trump crackdown
'This is not the America I grew up in'

Claudia Torrens 5 hours ago29 comments

The Independent US
new-york-sheltering-immigrants-01.jpg
Ruth Silverberg, left, helps Maribel Torres prepare dinner at Maribel's home in the Staten Island borough of New York Mary Altaffer/AP
They get together to make dinners. They teach one another English and Spanish. They exchange phone numbers for a day they hope will never come.

Since Donald Trump's election as president, about 30 New York City residents have met regularly with dozens of Latino immigrants living in the country illegally, offering them their help and, in some cases, their homes. Many say that if the immigrants are detained or deported, they would be willing to take in their children.

"I have enough space," said Ruth Silverberg, a college professor who shares a two-bedroom apartment in Staten Island with her grown son. "I may not have a lot of walls, but I can go buy one of those Ikea partition things and I can manage to find space on my floor for up to 10 people."

While churches and other organisations have long stepped in to assist immigrants under threat of deportation, this effort is notable because it is led by ordinary citizens, mostly from Staten Island, New York City's most conservative borough and the only one that voted for Trump. Those involved say it's a chance to put their beliefs into action, ease their neighbours' fears and show them they have allies.

READ MORE
US police chiefs reject Trump immigration crackdown in open letter
Relatives of people killed by illegal immigrants to sit
Trump's deportation plan for immigrants could cost 'half a trillion'
Ann Coulter accuses refugees and illegal immigrants of pederasty
Memos suggest all illegal immigrants at risk of Donald Trump crackdown
"This is not the America that I either grew up in or want to know about, so I'm fighting back against that," said Michael DeCillis, a special education teacher and former police officer who grew up in Staten Island and now lives in neighbouring Brooklyn. He wouldn't hesitate, he said, to open up his two-bedroom home to immigrants if families are split apart by deportation.

In the meantime, DeCillis said, he could help by accompanying them to a doctor's appointment or to get basic government services if they are too scared to do so.

Tensions among New York's estimated half-million unauthorised immigrants reached a new high in the past few weeks after the Department of Homeland Security issued guidelines making it clear that millions of people living in the United States illegally could be targeted for deportation.

The idea to connect citizens and immigrants started shortly after the election, when several residents looking for ways to help approached the group La Colmena, a nonprofit that works with immigrant workers and translates as "The Beehive."

La Colmena divided the immigrants and citizens into five groups based on where people live and organised language classes to help them get to know one another. They also set up a plan to use a private messaging app to alert each other about potential immigration raids.

new-york-sheltering-immigrants-02.jpg
Axel, back left, and Jose Juarez, centre, have dinner with with their mother Maribel Torres, left, and Ruth Silverberg and Silverberg's son Jesse, right, at Maribel's home (Mary Altaffer/AP)
Jennifer Balis, a 47-year-old schoolteacher, said she wants to help immigrants but is trying to get guidance on whether it is legal to offer her home to immigrant children who also may not have legal status.

"We want to find out if we need to become fosters parents first," she said.

Maribel Torres, a 44-year-old Mexican mother of two who illegally crossed the border about a decade ago, said she is surprised every time she sees white neighbours in the meetings.

"I thought all residents here liked the president," Torres said in Spanish. "We are worried and scared... With this support from them, I feel a bit more secure."

Last week, Torres invited Silverberg to her home to teach her a little Spanish and how to cook Mexican beef "tinga." They chatted while Torres cut tomatoes and Silverberg crumbled the cooked meat with her fingers.

"Esto es chile. Pica, spicy," Torres said.

"I like spicy," Silverberg responded.

Torres says she wouldn't hesitate to ask her new friend for help. And her youngest son, Jose Juarez, would comply and live with Silverberg or another citizen of the group if his mother or stepfather were detained.

"I would be very upset because my mother takes care of me. I would struggle but I would overcome those fears and make my mom proud of me," said Jose, who is 13 and came to the US as a toddler.

World news in pictures
32
show all
La Colmena director Gonzalo Mercado said he's satisfied that now, if immigration raids happen, there is a support network in place.

"Just the presence of non-immigrant neighbours coming to the meetings really gives a sense of relief and hope and comfort."

Anyone thinking of following suite?

[Ralin]

Anyone thinking of following suite?

I sure as fuck wouldn't publicly say so if I was.

Am I missing something or do they not seem to grasp the concept of 'underground?'

[Khaat]

"Underground" in that it isn't the usual suspects, and in an unexpected quarter (the one borough that backed Trump), not that what they're offering is illegal (like, say, hiding escaped slaves from bounty hunters or Federal Marshals), just "if you get detained, we'll look after your kids."

[Ralin]

"Underground" in that it isn't the usual suspects, and in an unexpected quarter (the one borough that backed Trump), not that what they're offering is illegal (like, say, hiding escaped slaves from bounty hunters or Federal Marshals), just "if you get detained, we'll look after your kids."

The way it was phrased sure makes it sound like they're also offering the adults a place to stay if it comes to that, though looking back I suppose that's deniable. But many of the kids are going to be just as illegal, and either way putting your name and picture out where the cops can see it seems counterproductive.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yes, its thankfully not at the stage of hiding fugitive slaves or Jews from the Nazis yet, where you could be jailed/killed if caught.

Though I'm curious: what, if anything, would be the penalty for actually hiding an illegal immigrant facing deportation from the government?

Anyway, on the subject of the Health Care bill, Colbert did a bit on it (special guest appearance by the Grim Reaper):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZMQu30RsX4

The highlights apparently include:

The good:

-Children can stay on their parents' health care until 26.
-No discriminating based on pre-existing conditions.

It seems Obamacare is too successful to completely role back.

The shit:

-It will still cover an estimated 20 million less people.
-Passed without an estimate of the cost from the Congressional Budget Office.
-Seven pages (more than 10% of the bill) are devoted just to denying Medicaid to lottery winners.

Anyway, it seems that pretty much everyone, Left and Right, hates it. It fucks the poor, but not enough to make Republicans happy.

I feel bad for the people losing their insurance, of course, but damn if it isn't satisfying to see the Republicans get a taste of what its like to have everyone bashing them on heath care.

Hopefully this costs them as big as passing the ACA apparently cost the Democrats in the 2010 Midterms.

[Dragon Angel]

Paul Ryan demonstrates he has no idea how insurance actually works.

Paul Ryan just admitted he has no idea how health insurance works
Ladies and gentlemen, meet the conservative movement’s Great Wonk.

CREDIT: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), the Great and Knowledgeable Policy Wonk and Wise Knower of Many Things About Health Care, has no idea how insurance works.

The Great Wonk’s poor grasp of one of the most basic financial instruments was clear after a Power Point presentation he gave Thursday advocating for the House GOP’s embattled health care bill.

The problem with Obamacare, Ryan claimed in this presentation, is that “the young healthy person is going to be made to buy health care and they’re going to pay for the person who gets breast cancer in her 40s or heart disease in their 50s.” He then pointed to a pie chart showing a thin red slice cut into a larger blue pie.

The red slice here are what I would call people with preexisting conditions. People who have real health-care problems. The blue is the rest of the people in the individual market — that’s the market where people don’t get health insurance at their jobs where they buy it themselves. The whole idea of Obamacare is the people on the blue side pay for the people on the red side. The people who are healthy pay for the people who are sick.

Well, yes, that is the whole idea of Obamacare. It’s also the whole idea of any form of insurance of any kind whatsoever.

Think of it this way. Imagine that 1,000 people all buy the same car insurance policy. Over the course of the year, ten of them get in car accidents that cost $10,000 each.

If none of them were insured, the ten unlucky drivers would each be stuck with a $10,000 bill, while the other 990 drivers would pay nothing. The entire point of insurance, however, is to spread this cost around to everyone in the insurance pool. So each driver would instead pay at least $100 in premiums, regardless of whether they were in an accident, and then this money would be redistributed to the ten unlucky individuals with high auto repair bills.

All insurance works this way. Car insurance redistributes wealth from people who aren’t in accidents to people who are. Fire insurance redistributes wealth from people whose houses did not burn down to people whose houses did burn down. Flood insurance redistributes wealth from people who are dry to people whose belongings are soaking wet. And yes, health insurance redistributes wealth from people who are healthy to people who are sick.

After attacking Obamacare for doing the thing that all insurance, by its very nature, will do, Ryan proposed an alternative to traditional insurance — high-risk pools.

The idea behind high-risk pools is to create a special government program that pays for the most expensive health consumers’ health costs, while leaving other, healthier patients to buy insurance in the private market. That way, healthy individuals still pay for the health care of sick individuals, but they pay for them in higher taxes rather than in higher insurance premiums.

Theoretically, this is a viable policy, but it requires a considerable investment. In 2008, for example, Republican presidential candidate John McCain proposed spending $7 to $10 billion on high-risk pools (the House GOP’s health bill similarly calls for about $10 billion in annual spending on high-risk pools). But this was hardly enough to put a dent in the nation’s uninsurance problem.

As ThinkProgress has previously reported:

A national program “funded at $7 billion per year would cover only 875,000 people,” and that was in 2008. Alternatively, “even if participants had to pay half of their own premiums, as is generally the case today in state high risk pools, less than 2 million Americans would be covered.”

Obamacare, meanwhile, provides health insurance to about 20 million Americans.

What can I say. Republicans, everyone.

[The Romulan Republic]

An entire party leadership in a two-party system that consistently proves itself utterly unfit to govern.