Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/)
-   -   What Did President Trump Do Now? (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/87986-what-did-president-trump-do-now.html)

Frownland 03-24-2017 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista (Post 1816311)

Trump just ordered Paul Ryan to yank the ACHA bill because it was going to fail miserably. The republicans had 7 years and 1 day to figure out how to repeal the ACA. They have campaigned for that entire time and have won seats on the premise they were going to do it once Obama was out of office. Trump guaranteed he'd get it done. Guaranteed it over and over again. Trump has a majority in the house and senate.

I think that they spent more time in the past seven years zeroing in on how bad ACA was as a political move than actually crafting policy. Hopefully this will be a kick in the pants that leads to a more coherently constructed policy. Better to own up to your mistakes before they have any real-world effect than to stubbornly push it through because of promises. It's like the new season of Rick & Morty: they said it would be here already and while it sucks that it's not, I would rather they take their time and make something worthwhile.

Frownland 03-24-2017 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater (Post 1816315)
This is the difference between getting your information secondhand and thirdhand. In the context of what we're talking about, my skepticism of the FBI is based on secondhand information from a close friend who knows that world very well. Chula thinks thirdhand information is better than secondhand and wants to debate me. By default, he loses.

Is he involved with the case itself? It's only secondhand information if he is. Also it's a lot a bit illegal but whatever.

Chula Vista 03-24-2017 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater (Post 1816315)
In the context of what we're talking about, my skepticism of the FBI is based on secondhand information from a close friend.

Your close friend is an idiot for sharing FBI information with a pleeb.

Paul Ryan just on TV blaming the ACA for why the ACHA crashed and burned. Word is that Trump is PISSED PISSED PISSED.

Raise your hand if you'd like to be a republican in Trump's cabinet right now.

Bottom Line:

Victory for the elderly.
Victory for those dealing with substance abuse.
Victory for the low income families.
Victory for those with mental health issues.

Major loss for the wealthy, the health care CEOs, the republicans, and most importantly, the Blowhard In Chief.

Highly doubt Melania is going to get any anytime soon. Trump's dick just took a major ass kicking and needs time to try and recover.

Think about this: Trump's presidency, barring impeachment, will be 1,461 days. Think about all of the **** that has gone down in his first 100 days.

He's not even served 7% of his term.

Anteater 03-24-2017 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1816318)
Is he involved with the case itself? It's only secondhand information if he is. Also it's a lot a bit illegal but whatever.

He didn't retire til 2015 and traveled quite a bit up until that point. I should ask him about it next time we golf. Last time I saw him we mostly talked about how freaked out some of his colleagues were about what Wikileaks was publishing since January. There's quite a few world leaders on the U.S.'s shitlist that watch for updates religiously.

On another note, this article is fairly interesting for those looking at the Trump-Russia story.

Donald Trump: 5 Reasons the Russia Reset May Be Over | Time.com

Chula Vista 03-24-2017 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1816316)
I think that they spent more time in the past seven years zeroing in on how bad ACA was as a political move than actually crafting policy. Hopefully this will be a kick in the pants that leads to a more coherently constructed policy. Better to own up to your mistakes before they have any real-world effect than to stubbornly push it through because of promises.

.

Lisnaholic 03-24-2017 09:16 PM

Is "meddlism" a thing in politics? I think it should be acknowledged as such.
Opposition parties are a sign of a healthy democracy, but a downside is that to justify themselves they have to go on opposing stuff, even if the stuff works pretty well. When they get elected, they are honour bound to start meddling with the systems they criticised in opposition.

Mrs. Thatcher was a compulsive meddler: she took apart a nationalised railway system which had worked remarkably well for 50 years. She replaced it with some ill-considered scheme which was obviously going to be less efficient; a privatised system in which the company running the trains was different from the company that owned the tracks, which was different from the company that operated the stations. Predictably, it has proven to be a récipe for disaster and is an example of detrimental meddling.

Luckily, the GOP have tripped over their own shoelaces just as they were about to meddle with Obamacare, which seems to work pretty well. Furthurmore, Obamacare has been delicately put together in the midst of a political minefield, and that it exists at all is quite an achievement. So maybe the best policy is just to leave it alone.

"Let sleeping dogs lie" is a piece of common sense which modern politicians, in their hubris, too often ignore and when they do, it's always the people who have to pick up the tab.

The Batlord 03-24-2017 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic (Post 1816431)
Is "meddlism" a thing in politics? I think it should be acknowledged as such.

Pretty sure it's a step mother thing.


https://media.giphy.com/media/13Ev9571xt8Bdm/giphy.gif

Raust 03-24-2017 10:49 PM

**** Ryan Care/ ObamacareLite. If I were Trump I'd listen to Rand Paul. He has his finger on the pulse of this issue. Changing just the penalties from the ACA isn't enough. I'd like to see both parties non partisan work together on this issue.

Chula Vista 03-25-2017 12:50 AM

Do the Donald hangers on actually grasp the fact that Ryan and Trump pulled the bill at the last second because they knew that the final vote count was going to look absolutely disastrous if it was made public?

By pulling it they can spin words like "close", "barely", "slim margin", "almost", and "no Dem votes" to try and save at least a tiny margin of face.

The snake oil salesmen (Trump, Price, and Ryan) just got run out of town while being pelted with stones by the American public. AMEN.

And Raust, I'm just about convinced that by-partisanship is no longer a relevent concept when it comes to major policy issues. Sucks, but I think it's the new reality.

The Batlord 03-25-2017 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista (Post 1816455)
by-partisanship

Now you're just doing it on purpose.

Trollheart 03-25-2017 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1816475)
Now you're just doing it on purpose.

Is it time for another Grammar Nazis Week...?

The Batlord 03-25-2017 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollheart (Post 1816483)
Is it time for another Grammar Nazis Week...?

Urban isn't here to shut us down, so I'd say so.

Lisnaholic 03-25-2017 07:50 AM

Ironically, Trump's attempts to discredit and repeal Obamacare have actually made it more popular than ever. This extract from a BBC article explains how:-

Spoiler for The Rise of Obamacare:
Nobel-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman famously pioneered the idea that people tend to fear loss twice as much as they prefer gains.
Loss aversion, he said, is when people feel the pain of losing something more than they feel the pleasure of gaining something else, which can leave some wary of taking risks. That could be why the threat of losing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), known as Obamacare, has led to more support for the healthcare law than ever before.
"People are looking at what they're losing and it's not clear what they'll be gaining," says Thomas D'Aunno, director of the health policy and management at New York University's Robert F Wagner Graduate School of Public Service. An uncertain future about the country's healthcare is "playing into people's stronger attachment to the ACA", he says.
That sentiment is felt by Americans like Cathy DeLoach, who changed her mind on the ACA after her son was diagnosed with testicular cancer and her family spent $29,000 on treatment costs in 15 days. "I stayed with him in the hospital and I had a lot of time to think about how grateful I was for the Affordable Care Act," she told the BBC.
Mrs DeLoach, who did not vote for Mr Obama in 2008 and 2012, said she was not a fan of the law when it was first passed, but now worries for her son's future. "This really is something that could be so awful for so many people, and so many poor people, and it's wrong."
A recent Health Tracking Poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation found the highest level of favourability for the ACA in more than 60 tracking polls since 2010, when President Barack Obama signed it into law. At its lowest favourability in November 2013, just 33% approved of Obamacare.
The recent poll found that 48% of Americans approved of the ACA while 42% said it was unfavourable.


...and graphs like this, if they were published in America, must be pretty convincing too:-

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cps...nce_624_v2.png

Chula Vista 03-25-2017 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1816475)
Now you're just doing it on purpose.

My fingers are too fast for my brain. Works well on the guitar but not so good with the English language.

djchameleon 03-25-2017 01:03 PM

The ACA is far from perfect in its current form but instead of working on improving it they keep repeating that non sense about repeal and replace. The only thing 45 is right about is moving on. Take this L and move on to other issues.

Chula Vista 03-25-2017 01:19 PM

Pretty amazing how many right wing, Trump supporting websites/talking heads, are slamming the crap out of the Donald this morning.

The honeymoon is officially over.

djchameleon 03-25-2017 04:05 PM

This is interesting to see the 33 Republicans that were extremely against it and some of their reasons why.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...imes&smtyp=cur

OccultHawk 03-25-2017 04:15 PM

Too left wing for some too right wing for others

I think analysts are making way too much of what this going to mean in the midterm.

I'm just happy that checks and balances appear to still be checking and balancing.

Hope Trump doesn't try to amp up his executive power with a war.

The Batlord 03-25-2017 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk (Post 1816578)
Too left wing for some too right wing for others

I think analysts are making way too much of what this going to mean in the midterm.

I'm just happy that checks and balances appear to still be checking and balancing.

Hope Trump doesn't try to amp up his executive power with a war.

Yeah, since we got this out of the way so quick into Trump's presidency, it gives a lot of time for his supporters to shake it off and pretend like it wasn't as bad as it was made out to be, and everyone else will have all the time in the world to forget about it. If this had happened later on then it might have had more of an effect on Trump's re-election plans, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't nearly as meaningful four years from now.

Chula Vista 03-25-2017 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1816581)
Yeah, since we got this out of the way so quick into Trump's presidency, it gives a lot of time for his supporters to shake it off.

OR, it just gives him more time to **** other **** up. The Russian investigation is not going anywhere and word is that there's a bombshell right around the corner.

And the midterms are less than two years away. The campaigning will be starting in just about a year and the popularty rate of the GOP is in the ****ter right now.

After 60 days Trump's approval rating is 37%. The average for presidents after 60 days is 53%. Obama was 62%.

Anteater 03-25-2017 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista (Post 1816649)
OR, it just gives him more time to **** other **** up. The Russian investigation is not going anywhere and word is that there's a bombshell right around the corner.

Yeah...a big bombshell called "nothing". :thumb:

Chula Vista 03-25-2017 10:05 PM

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/f....0;attach=8404

Psy-Fi 03-26-2017 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater (Post 1816650)
Yeah...a big bombshell called "nothing". :thumb:

Those Anti-Trump "bombshells" sure do detonate silently and softly.

Anteater 03-26-2017 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psy-Fi (Post 1816679)
Those Anti-Trump "bombshells" sure do detonate silently and softly.

He thinks after all this time they're going to find real evidence (AKA not 4chan cooked-up dossiers and hearsay from anonymous sources) for Trump-Russia collusion. Might as well wait for Tupac to come back. :p:

Chula Vista 03-26-2017 10:38 AM

Interactive website that'll update daily.

Tracking Trump's promises

Guys, they have yet to interview Manafort, Flynn, and Stone. And the FBI can still supeona his tax returns.

The Watergate break in happened on May 28, 1972. Nixon's impeachment wasn't voted on and fully ratified until August 20, 1974.

That's 27 months. Trump's been in office 2. Give it time folks. Give it time.

Goofle 03-26-2017 11:14 AM

Why does Trump pose such an existential threat to you Chula? Why does he bother you this much?

Frownland 03-26-2017 11:17 AM

Pretty obvious innit? Embracing Obama's expansion of the executive power to implement poorly thought out/ass backwards policy?

Neapolitan 03-26-2017 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista (Post 1816684)
Interactive website that'll update daily.

Tracking Trump's promises

Guys, they have yet to interview Manafort, Flynn, and Stone. And the FBI can still supeona his tax returns.

The Watergate break in happened on May 28, 1972. Nixon's impeachment wasn't voted on and fully ratified until August 20, 1974.

That's 27 months. Trump's been in office 2. Give it time folks. Give it time.

Nixon resigned on Aug 08, 1974.

Chula Vista 03-26-2017 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goofle (Post 1816693)
Why does Trump pose such an existential threat to you Chula? Why does he bother you this much?

1. He's an entitled dick that was born with a silver spoon up his ass.
2. He's not qualified to hold the job.
3. His cabinet (except for Mattis) if filled with very rich people who have vested interests in getting richer rather than helping the country.
4. He's going to damage the reputation of the US with our allies.
5. He's going to embolden our enemies with his rhetoric.
6. His policies are geared towards the wealthy at the expense of the lower class.
7. He doesn't give two ****s about the environment.
8. He's going to stack the supreme court with bible thumpers.
9. He's an embarrassment.
10. His VP thinks that evolution is a theory and wants creationism taught in schools.
11. He emboldens folks like Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly.
12. He makes racists feel good about themselves.
13. He's a misogynist.
14. Steve Bannon? Really? Steve ****ing Bannon?
15. I simply dislike the guy.

Was watching the CNN series last night about the 80s and the whole stock market, Wall Street boom where lots of white collar folks got mega-rich on the backs of the blue collar working class. Trump was featured a number of times and the dude back then came off just as arrogant, unappologetic, entitled, and as pompous as he does today.


I could go on......

Chula Vista 03-26-2017 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan (Post 1816722)
Nixon resigned on Aug 08, 1974.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterg...nd_resignation

Quote:

Nixon's position was becoming increasingly precarious. On February 6, 1974, the House of Representatives approved H.Res. 803 giving the Judiciary Committee authority to investigate impeachment of the President. On July 27, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee voted 27–11 to recommend the first article of impeachment against the president: obstruction of justice. The House recommended the second article, abuse of power, on July 29, 1974. The next day, on July 30, 1974, the House recommended the third article: contempt of Congress. On August 20, 1974, the House authorized the printing of the Committee report H. Rept. 93-1305, which included the text of the resolution impeaching President Nixon and set forth articles of impeachment against him.
He resigned before the impeached was fully ratified.

OccultHawk 03-26-2017 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goofle (Post 1816693)
Why does Trump pose such an existential threat to you Chula? Why does he bother you this much?

I'm not Chula but he acts like Idi Amin and he's the president of the most powerful country in the world. He is an existential threat. Not just to Chula but to all of humanity. It's very disturbing that you can't see that.

djchameleon 03-26-2017 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista (Post 1816725)
1. He's an entitled dick that was born with a silver spoon up his ass.
2. He's not qualified to hold the job.
3. His cabinet (except for Mattis) if filled with very rich people who have vested interests in getting richer rather than helping the country.
4. He's going to damage the reputation of the US with our allies.
5. He's going to embolden our enemies with his rhetoric.
6. His policies are geared towards the wealthy at the expense of the lower class.
7. He doesn't give two ****s about the environment.
8. He's going to stack the supreme court with bible thumpers.
9. He's an embarrassment.
10. His VP thinks that evolution is a theory and wants creationism taught in schools.
11. He emboldens folks like Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly.
12. He makes racists feel good about themselves.
13. He's a misogynist.
14. Steve Bannon? Really? Steve ****ing Bannon?
15. I simply dislike the guy.

Was watching the CNN series last night about the 80s and the whole stock market, Wall Street boom where lots of white collar folks got mega-rich on the backs of the blue collar working class. Trump was featured a number of times and the dude back then came off just as arrogant, unappologetic, entitled, and as pompous as he does today.


I could go on......

This so much.

I can admit that I have a personal bias against him so number 15 fuels every thing else I hate about him.

Cuthbert 03-26-2017 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista (Post 1816725)
1. He's an entitled dick
9. He's an embarrassment.
12. He makes racists feel good about themselves.
13. He's a misogynist.
15. I simply dislike the guy.

I could go on......

Bet you could.

16. I don't like him.
17. I hate him.
18. He's a big meanie.
19. He's a silly sausage.
20. I loathe him.

Etc

Chula Vista 03-26-2017 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Man like Monkey (Post 1816743)
Bet you could.

My next list is going to be about you MLM. :finger:

Anteater 03-26-2017 01:42 PM

Funnily enough, a lot of that list could just as easily apply to the Clintons. Other than the point about Steve Bannon perhaps, though he might have found a way to sneak into the White House even without Trump. :wave:

On another note, I'm not too happy about this, even if I think they should be investing in new technology to actually counter environmental damage with their current budget instead of bloating their operations payroll.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...al-monitoring/

Chula Vista 03-26-2017 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater (Post 1816755)
Funnily enough, a lot of that list could just as easily apply to the Clintons.

Be specific. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 can not be pinned on either Bill or Hillary, so your comeback is ridiculously pathetic.

Bill left the office with a huge surplus and the blue collar folks were doing great.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton - FactCheck.org

Good lord man, you get lamer and lamer by the week with your defenses of Trump.

Lucem Ferre 03-26-2017 03:59 PM

Well I wanted Bernie. Too bad he'll die too soon.

Anteater 03-26-2017 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista (Post 1816768)
Be specific. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 can not be pinned on either Bill or Hillary, so your comeback is ridiculously pathetic.

Bill left the office with a huge surplus and the blue collar folks were doing great.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton - FactCheck.org

Good lord man, you get lamer and lamer by the week with your defenses of Trump.

Lol, quit pathetically deflecting everything back to Trump when the only viable candidate we really had (Bernie) was screwed over by your beloved DNC. We haven't had a great president in decades. 2 and 4 and above certainly do apply to them (13 specifically to Bill and a few others moreso to Hillary). Jesus man, lay off the Kool-Aid.

djchameleon 03-26-2017 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater (Post 1816783)
Lol, quit deflecting everything back to Trump when the only viable candidate we really had (Bernie) was screwed over by your beloved DNC. We haven't had a great president in decades. 2 and 4 and above certainly do apply to them (13 specifically to Bill and a few others moreso to Hillary). Jesus man, lay off the Kool-Aid.

2 specifically doesn't really apply. It might be your personal opinion but both of them had experience in the political arena by actually holding down jobs as either Governors or Senators.

Chula Vista 03-26-2017 04:23 PM

http://i.imgur.com/5sIfa9G.jpg


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:49 PM.


© 2003-2021 Advameg, Inc.