I agree that it will be nearly impossible for this (or any) administration to put the worms back in the can with respect to ACA. It is, by almost any measure, a successful healthcare policy. But I don’t believe the Republicans are capable of improving those areas that need improving. I think they are more likely to break key parts having mostly to do with what makes it affordable for people at higher health risk and pre-existing conditions.
Their promises to lower premiums to make it more affordable simply don’t match up with their premise of not requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance. Nor do I believe they will be effective in negotiating lower drug, healthcare and health insurance costs nationally without ensuring a larger customer base. To do the latter, they will need to expand ACA. Something that is in contrast to their rhetoric to date.
There were two things Trump said that I can get behind.
First, if my ears didn’t deceive me, he called for paid family leave for all working Americans. The Republicans in Congress probably choked a bit on that one, and will pretend it was never said, but he’s right. I suspect Ivanka of sneaking that in there.
I forget what the other one was. The big infrastructure spending might be good, depending how it’s implemented. It might also be a massive handout to his industrial tycoon friends.
It still pisses me off to no end how he continues to scapegoat immigrants for terrorism. He named a bunch of attacks to justify his travel restrictions, failing to note that none of those attackers came from any of the countries he is targeting. Again.
People have been wondering if maybe he can’t read. He needed to prove that he can.
According to some reports, that was a nostalgic “Goodbye”, because its the last time H.R. McMaster is going to let him say it.
That was the closest we’re going to get to a retraction and correction of the Sweden gaffe. He needed to show that he can, in fact use Google and find some true occurrences to cite.
I’d say that’s about par for the course for a politician, especially since the middle categories require some measure of subjectivity on behalf of the vetter. I honestly figured it would be much worse.
Trump tweet: I almost think that were I to win some small success now I could become Dictator or anything else that might please me—but nothing of that kind would please me—therefore I won’t be Dictator. Admirable self-denial!
One of the main things I got out of his speech, from between all the puffery, is that he’s going to get rid of all the illegal immigrants and then lower unemployment by opening up a bunch of low-paying jobs that can’t possibly provide any sort of meaningful “living” by modern standards.
Basically how things are now, but with more berry picking involved.
Keep the rich rich by not raising the minimum wage, create tons of low-paid jobs, cut welfare spending, make goods more expensive by adding tariffs or having them made in America (by low-paid workers), eviscerate the middle class completely.
Also is anyone else frustrated by the sentiments of how many college degrees are laughable (like liberal arts degrees) because “Oh, you’ll never get a job!” but as soon as people say they want to have a career in a dying and environmentally-raping field that is coal mining the government is now like “Yes, let us change some laws to get that opportunity for you!”
“True but misleading” is the bread and butter of our elected politicians. Heck, taking something true and spinning it so that you can claim it supports your point is an everyday thing in politics and business and even personal relationships.
For instance, yes, the murder rate had its highest relative increase… from 4.5/100,000 to 4.9/100,000 , so it’s a 10% increase but NOT an increase of ten percentage points, it puts us at the levels if the late 50s/early 60s and it’s still half what it was in 1991 (9.8) and less than half the 1980 peak(10.2). So people on one side will argue it’s just a blip and shows overall crime remains low except for some bad hotspots… and those on the other side will say if those hotspots are so bad they’re moving the overall average then you gotta crack down.
The problem with him is that he wildly overstates when he does not need to overstate, he seems organically incapable of the subtle misdirection. Which often makes mere spin and baldfaced fabrication indistinguishable, coming from him.
Here is where sticking to the script helps – so there were no “Sweden last night” random blurt-outs for no reason, but he did massage the facts (or grabbed them by you know where) when it was useful to push the agenda, as slimy pols will do. Good to see you fitting right in the swamp, Donnie.
Why aren’t people cheering Trump saying crime is bad? I dunno, because his campaign was full of racism and lies about crime and that his solutions to his fake problems are authoritarian.
Why aren’t they cheering about saying we should support NATO? Because Trump has undercut NATO for a year, and he’s lying about it now.
It’s not an ad hominem to take into account context.
If David Duke is talking about how many black people were killed, do you stand up and cheer that he’s taking on an important issue, or recognize his loathsome motives?
Totally. What bothers me is (if the poll is true) the 25% or so who are ready to do an about-face because he read a teleprompted speech written by someone else without stepping on his dick.
And, of course, changing the laws will do more to hurt than environment than they will to help the miners, since a lot of the jobs have been lost to automation. (Also, market forces such as the cheapness of natural gas…but for that, changing the laws will probably just have little effect on the environment or the jobs.)
Yes…He did mention it. But he does not seem to have any particularly realistic plan to address it and, in fact, getting rid of the mandate so that you don’t have young healthy people in the insurance pool will do just the opposite. Here, for example, is a discussion of his notion about selling insurance across state lines.