[cherdano]

ldrews, on 2017-February-18, 18:50, said:

Well, Trump did win the election. So there must be a lot of Trump fanboys. Enough that they are really something, as you say. And unless the anti-Trump fanboys get their act together, he will probably win again. The anti-Trump fanboys show no signs of doing so.

Many Trump voters are not Trump fan boys. In fact, Trump is the most unpopular president at this stage of his term since forever.

Which Trump voters do you think will Trump opponents try to persuade? Those who can see what a *****-show this administration has been so far? Or those who think it is normal to lie about everything? Those who think he will magically improve the education system, because they think appointing an ideological and utterly unqualified secretary of education is the same thing as "Shake things up and then build my ideal education system "?

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-February-18, 22:28, said:

It may really surprise you that I agree with your list. Your method of getting there is suspect.

What you will get instead is a dismantling of the social safety net, a massive increase in military spending, and a trade war. There is no way to restructure the old manufacturing jobs and bring them back. Retraining, free educational access, and a progressive tax system is the only way to help the middle class. A middle class must be created; it is not the automatic result of unbridled capitalism.

How you think your list is something that will happen is truly beyond me. I agree that Clinton would not have done much of what you want. But to support Trump is to abandon reason for a belief in magical thinking.

I respectfully disagree. Your view is essentially "we can do nothing, so never mind". I vote for change, however problematical or tenuous it might be. In my opinion, what we have is not working.

[ldrews]

cherdano, on 2017-February-19, 02:59, said:

Other than empowering CBP agents to make life miserable for immigrants that look non-white, none of this will happen under Trump.

Perhaps so. We shall see, won't we?

[Winstonm]

ldrews, on 2017-February-19, 09:56, said:

I respectfully disagree. Your view is essentially "we can do nothing, so never mind". I vote for change, however problematical or tenuous it might be. In my opinion, what we have is not working.

Hardly. My view is that a known intelligent patriotic woman is a better choice than any demagogue.

[Trinidad]

So, when Trump talked yesterday about what happened in Sweden on Friday, what did he think happened in Sweden (other than the arrest of a drunk driver, a failing microphone at a rehearsal and an avalanche warning)?

I've lived 7 years in Sweden and they are laughing their ass off and are angry at the same time.

I think that they are entitled to some answers from the White House. But I also think that the US population is entitled to some answers, first of all to the question that Carl Bildt (Swedish diplomat and former Prime Minister and Secretary of State) asked: "What has he been smoking?".

Rik

[ldrews]

Trinidad, on 2017-February-19, 13:33, said:

So, when Trump talked yesterday about what happened in Sweden on Friday, what did he think happened in Sweden (other than the arrest of a drunk driver, a failing microphone at a rehearsal and an avalanche warning)?

I've lived 7 years in Sweden and they are laughing their ass off and are angry at the same time.

I think that they are entitled to some answers from the White House. But I also think that the US population is entitled to some answers, first of all to the question that Carl Bildt (Swedish diplomat and former Prime Minister and Secretary of State) asked: "What has he been smoking?".

Rik

Why do you think you/they are "entitled" to anything?

[kenberg]

ldrews, on 2017-February-19, 13:49, said:

Why do you think you/they are "entitled" to anything?

I imagine I will regret entering in here. Don't take "entitled" to mean that they have an enforceable document. I don't usually explain what someone else meant, they can do that, but I think here it is clear. When someone says,, and when the "someone" is the President, "Look what happened in Sweden on Friday", and nobody is aware of anything of dark significance happening in Sweden, it is reasonable to say that the people of Sweden are entitled ot know what the hell he is talking about. If you do not like the word "entitled" I'm sure a suitable substitute can be found without changing the meaning that Rik, I and everyone else would get from the sentence.

But the reason I expect to regret this is that the stream of such things is endless, and so it is pointless to respond. Trump confuses the admirable idea of a president watching out for American interests with a president shooting off his mouth with no thought. They really are not the same thing. Close to being the opposite, in fact.

[ldrews]

kenberg, on 2017-February-19, 14:16, said:

I imagine I will regret entering in here. Don't take "entitled" to mean that they have an enforceable document. I don't usually explain what someone else meant, they can do that, but I think here it is clear. When someonesays,, and when the "someone" is the President, "Look what happened in Sweden on Friday", and nobody is aware of anything of dark significance happening in Sweden, it is reasonable to say that the people of Sweden are entitled ot know what the hell he is talking about. If you do not like the word "entitled" I'm sure a suitable substitute can be found without changing the meaning that Rik, I and everyone else would get from the sentence.

But the reason I expect to regret this is that the stream of such things is endless, and so it is pointless to respond. Trump confuses the admirable idea of a president watching out for American interests with a president shooting off his mouth with no thought. They really are not the same thing. Close to being the opposite, in fact.

Yes, you are right. I do take "entitled" to signify a legal or moral obligation. That is what I learned as the meaning of that word. So, yes, we can reword that as "people of Sweden would strongly like to know what the hell he is talking about. But perhaps we shouldn't let clear use of language get in the way of a good exhortation.

I would also point out the the indiscriminate expansion of the concept of "entitlement" is one of the things that pisses off the conservatives.

[cherdano]

You know, Trump is the president of the United States of America. Normally, when a president of the United States of America completes makes up sh*t, it would be a completely normal thing to say that his voters are entitled to an explanation. But I guess Trump fanboys are really something different - they don't even want an explanation.

You know, Sweden and the USA count each others as ally.Normally, when a head of state completely makes up sh*t about a major news event in an allied country, then yes we'd say that ally is "entitled" to an explanation. But I guess having Sweden as an ally is also something that ldrews wants to see changed?

What I'd really like to ask ldrews is something different, however. Do you have any red line in your support for Trump? If my prediction is right that he won't do any successful major changes (except for scaring off immigrants that the US could benefit from), will you hold him accountable? Is there any behaviour you wouldn't accept from him?

[kenberg]

I guess the WH has clarified (?)
From WaPO:
White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders, addressing the matter on Sunday, told reporters that Trump “was talking about rising crime and recent incidents in general and not referring to a specific incident.”

And Trump clarified (?)
“My statement as to what's happening in Sweden was in reference to a story that was broadcast on @FoxNews concerning immigrants & Sweden.”

Although what Trump said was
"You look at what’s happening last night in Sweden."


So taking the statement and the clarifications, what to do? It's hopeless..As the expression goes, Trump is "Just sayin'". If anyone from Sweden is reading this and is unfamiliar with the expression, it would be like "Perhaps King Gustav is having an affair with Angela Meriel. I'm just sayin'."

[ldrews]

cherdano, on 2017-February-19, 18:03, said:

You know, Trump is the president of the United States of America. Normally, when a president of the United States of America completes makes up sh*t, it would be a completely normal thing to say that his voters are entitled to an explanation. But I guess Trump fanboys are really something different - they don't even want an explanation.

You know, Sweden and the USA count each others as ally.Normally, when a head of state completely makes up sh*t about a major news event in an allied country, then yes we'd say that ally is "entitled" to an explanation. But I guess having Sweden as an ally is also something that ldrews wants to see changed?

What I'd really like to ask ldrews is something different, however. Do you have any red line in your support for Trump? If my prediction is right that he won't do any successful major changes (except for scaring off immigrants that the US could benefit from), will you hold him accountable? Is there any behaviour you wouldn't accept from him?

I think it would be a good idea to give Sweden an explanation, but even as an ally I do not think they are "entitled" to an explanation. Of course, not providing one may have adverse consequences.

If Trump does not make progress on the following (not necessarily all of them) then I would indeed no longer support him.

Significant reduction in military presence around the world
Renunciation of being the policeman for the world
Significant improvement of opportunities for the middle/working class
Significant improvement in the plight of inner cities
Significant improvement in control of our borders
Significant improvement in our educational system

Let me ask you: if Trump does make measurable progress on the above in these next 4 years, regardless of what he says publicly, will you then support him? If not, why not? Do you support theater over results?

[y66]

From Ryancare: You Can Pay More for Less! Sun Feb 19 by the NYT Editorial Board:

Quote

President Trump promised to replace the Affordable Care Act with something that is better, is cheaper and covers more people. Scratch that. Republican leaders in the House and Mr. Trump’s secretary of health and human services released a plan last week that would provide insurance that is far inferior, shift more medical costs onto families and cover far fewer people.

In a half-baked policy paper released on Thursday, the House speaker, Paul Ryan, trotted out washed-up ideas for “improving” the country’s health care system that would do anything but. For example, the paper calls for reducing spending on Medicaid, which now provides insurance to more than 74 million poor, disabled and older people. Many millions of them would be cast out of the program. The Republican plan would also force most people who don’t get their health insurance through an employer to pay more by slashing subsidies that the A.C.A., or Obamacare, now provides. The proposal would allow families to sock away more money in health savings accounts, which may sound good at first but would primarily benefit affluent people who can afford to save more.

The paper is Mr. Ryan’s blueprint for effectively repealing and replacing Obamacare. Unsurprisingly, he and his colleagues offered no estimates of how many people would lose coverage or how much premiums and deductibles would rise for middle-class and poor families. Yet those missing details did not stop the Trump administration’s top health official from embracing the proposal. Tom Price, the secretary of health and human services and a former Ryan lieutenant in the House, said the president “is all in on this.”

To understand how far out of the mainstream the House Republican plan is, consider its ideas for Medicaid. It would roll back the A.C.A. provisions that helped more than 11 million people gain Medicaid coverage. Republican governors like John Kasich of Ohio and Rick Snyder of Michigan have praised the expansion because it has helped reduce uncompensated care at hospitals and provided addiction treatment to people suffering from the opioid epidemic. “Thank God we expanded Medicaid, because that Medicaid money is helping to rehab people,” Mr. Kasich said last month.

Next, the Republicans want to slash spending on Medicaid over all by giving states the option of a block grant or a per capita allotment. The current program pays for the health care of everyone who is eligible. During recessions, when the number of people in poverty increases, the government spends more. Without the flexibility that was built into Medicaid, Congress would have to vote to give states more money when health care costs rise. Politically, that is in the “impossible dream” category, which is why most experts believe that, over time, states would cover fewer people and cut benefits.

Another pillar of the Republican proposal scraps the income-based Obamacare subsidies that help families buy affordable insurance. Instead, Mr. Ryan wants to offer a flat subsidy that would be the same whether families earn $500,000 or $50,000. Residents of Minnesota would get the same support as residents of Alaska, where premiums on average are three times as high. The subsidies would vary by age to give older people more support, but the Republicans have not said how much more.

The House proposal is part of a broader attack on the A.C.A. Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services proposed regulatory changes to the law, one of which would allow insurers to reduce benefits and force people to pay higher deductibles on future policies. And the Internal Revenue Service said it would no longer require people to answer a question on their tax returns about whether they had insurance the previous year. The question remains on the form, but filers can chose not to answer it. Under Obamacare, people must buy insurance or pay a penalty enforced by the I.R.S. By backing off, the I.R.S. will encourage people to forgo insurance and take a chance that it will not seek more information or penalize them. When fewer people, especially the young and healthy, buy insurance, overall costs go up, because the people who do sign up tend to need more medical care.

Congress is in recess this week. If people can reach their representatives and senators — many lawmakers have cowardly canceled town halls to avoid angry constituents — they can send a strong message that Americans want legislation that improves health care and makes it more affordable for everyone, not the opposite.

[Vampyr]

ldrews, on 2017-February-19, 21:11, said:

Let me ask you: if Trump does make measurable progress on the above in these next 4 years, regardless of what he says publicly, will you then support him? If not, why not? Do you support theater over results?

Why do you assume that others share your priorities? I would, for example, put protecting the environment and and attempting to slow climate above your list, and The Donald has already made, and promises to make, backwards progress on these.

[ldrews]

Vampyr, on 2017-February-19, 21:42, said:

Why do you assume that others share your priorities? I would, for example, put protecting the environment and and attempting to slow climate above your list, and The Donald has already made, and promises to make, backwards progress on these.

I understand. You have different priorities than I do. That is why we have elections, to determine which priorities will be favored. Trump won.

Now everybody has a choice: obstruct even if it causes damage, or support and try to shape the result. The chances of obstructing enough to get rid of or neutralize Trump without causing significant damage to the nation are very slim.

Your choice.

[ldrews]

One of the more interesting possibilities in the next few years is a Constitutional Convention. My understanding is that about 32 state legislatures have passed resolutions calling for a Constitutional Convention. 34 are required. If the anti-Trump protests are driving moderates/independents toward the Republicans, as I think they are, then in 2018 we may see a further shift of state legislatures toward Republican control. This may increase increase the probability of such a Constitutional Convention.

In a Constitutional Convention, all bets are off! They can totally rewrite the whole thing. And each state gets only one vote. Still has to be ratified by 75% of the states. So the flyover states will dominate.

Talk about a circus!

[awm]

ldrews, on 2017-February-19, 22:26, said:

One of the more interesting possibilities in the next few years is a Constitutional Convention. My understanding is that about 32 state legislatures have passed resolutions calling for a Constitutional Convention. 34 are required. If the anti-Trump protests are driving moderates/independents toward the Republicans, as I think they are, then in 2018 we may see a further shift of state legislatures toward Republican control. This may increase increase the probability of such a Constitutional Convention.

In a Constitutional Convention, all bets are off! They can totally rewrite the whole thing. And each state gets only one vote. Still has to be ratified by 75% of the states. So the flyover states will dominate.

Talk about a circus!

[Trinidad]

ldrews, on 2017-February-19, 21:11, said:

I think it would be a good idea to give Sweden an explanation, but even as an ally I do not think they are "entitled" to an explanation. Of course, not providing one may have adverse consequences.

If a friend of yours makes up some complete BS implying that something really bad has happened to you and goes around telling everybody, don't you think he owes you an apology and an explanation? That is the situation here.

Would you accept it if his mother would tell someone else and say that "he had heard from someone else that you had a broken finger nail" and a sister saying to again someone else that he was probably refering to how you are getting older each day. Or would you want your friend to come to you and apologize and explain?

Rik

[ldrews]

Trinidad, on 2017-February-20, 02:12, said:

If a friend of yours makes up some complete BS implying that something really bad has happened to you and goes around telling everybody, don't you think he owes you an apology and an explanation? That is the situation here.

Would you accept it if his mother would tell someone else and say that "he had heard from someone else that you had a broken finger nail" and a sister saying to again someone else that he was probably refering to how you are getting older each day. Or would you want your friend to come to you and apologize and explain?

Rik

What I want or don't want and what a friend "owes" me are two entirely different things. Are your friendships based on obligations?

[ldrews]

awm, on 2017-February-19, 22:56, said:

The world is coming to an end when my opponent wins! God forbid that he wins the election legally!

[Al_U_Card]

awm, on 2017-February-19, 22:56, said:

Rather the sound of drama queens swooning?

Off-the-cuff remarks (What Trump saw on Fox News that Friday night and made the reference to a group that likely watches Fox News, for what that's worth...) are less acceptable that stilted, stentorian speeches by Obama? To each their own, take them for what they are, expressions of how they relate to their "audience".