Alternative Facts, Broken Promises & Wolves

[CharonY]

Actually, seems I am wrong again.

 

Quote

None of the health proposals rejected in the Senate — not the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) (the repeal-and-replace plan that Republicans had been crafting for months), nor Obamacare Repeal Reconciliation Act (which would have entirely repealed all the coverage and tax parts of Obamacare), nor the Health Care Freedom Act (skinny repeal, targeting the individual and employer mandates and the medical device tax but leaving most of the rest of Obamacare in place) — were actual bills. All of those were amendments to an underlying bill, the American Health Care Act.

Because that underlying bill has not failed yet, the Obamacare repeal effort can still proceed through reconciliation.

“The failed vote was on the ‘skinny repeal’ amendment, not on passage of the bill,” Alan Frumin, who served as parliamentarian of the United States Senate from 1987 to 1995 and then from 2001 to 2012, including during the original Obamacare fight, says (emphasis his). “The reconciliation bill, H.R. 1628, is on the calendar, reachable on a non-debatable majority vote motion to proceed; all 20 hours of debate have expired; amendments are still in order.”

In other words, the Senate can still pass a health care bill with a bare majority and avoid a Democratic filibuster. All Republicans have to do is come up with a plan.

 

[imatfaal]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

Actually, seems I am wrong again.

Damn - It seems I am too. 

 

[MigL]

Now the foul-mouthed 'Gooch' has been escorted out of the ( white ) building too.

This administration is falling apart.
( not quickly enough, I might add )

[DrmDoc]

17 hours ago, MigL said:

Now the foul-mouthed 'Gooch' has been escorted out of the ( white ) building too.

This administration is falling apart.
( not quickly enough, I might add )

My compliments to this administration for shooting itself in the foot yet again with the hiring, then firing of a White House official even less qualified than Trump to hold a position in our government.  Trump's incompetency as chief executive of our nation is embarrassingly overwhelming.

[DrmDoc]

The Washington Post reports Trump will have spent three times as many days at leisure than Obama.  I don't think anyone's surprised by his hypocrisy, I would prefer he spend more time at leisure and away from his job as president than he already has--I've tired of his continual moronic tweets and edicts.

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, DrmDoc said:

The Washington Post reports Trump will have spent three times as many days at leisure than Obama.  I don't think anyone's surprised by his hypocrisy, I would prefer he spend more time at leisure and away from his job as president than he already has--I've tired of his continual moronic tweets and edicts.

Hardly just Trump's hypocrisy though. Republicans politicians voted to repeal the ACA over 50 times, argued the Obama acted like a dictator, wasn't transparent enough, was weak on Russia, was a big city elitist, and etc in addition to complaining about how often he played golf. Turns out all they and the people who vote for them care about is sport. They supported the worst damn liar American politics has ever seen on rhetoric that somehow Clinton lied too much. It is all one gaint contradiction and they do not care. Same crowd has quickly shift from arguing that the love immigrant but just want them to do it legally to arguing that we need to limit legal immigration. Every position from anti climate science to immmigration and healthcare is a total fraud. It is disgusting.

Edited August 4, 2017 by Ten oz
Spelling error

[CharonY]

I just had to add the full transcripts between Trump and Peña Nieto and Turnbull after he took over office. The media have focused on the policy bits but I find it interesting to see the master negotiator at work.

To be honest, I kinda hoped that during talks with foreign leaders he would be less old man rambly, but that is apparently how he is.

[Ten oz]

12 hours ago, CharonY said:

I just had to add the full transcripts between Trump and Peña Nieto and Turnbull after he took over office. The media have focused on the policy bits but I find it interesting to see the master negotiator at work.

To be honest, I kinda hoped that during talks with foreign leaders he would be less old man rambly, but that is apparently how he is.

Conservatives often challange those who disagree with them to prove negatives. In the absence of evidence the imply the best imaginable scenario and argue that it can't be or hasn't been proven wrong. Then they proceed to do everything possible to prevent the collection of evidence. They do this when discussing climate, god, taxes, guns, sexual preference, abortion, and on and on. They argue that there is no proof of collusion with Russia and then demand investigations into collusion stop. For some time they have argued that behind closed doors Trump is more methodical and prepared than he seems to be in public and social media. People come out of private meeting saying they were surprised by how smart he was and how it has put then at ease. Obviously with no media in those private dealings no one can prove it wasn't so.......at least until now.

 

The transcript proves a few things Trump's opponents have been saying all along. For starters the PM of Australia had to walk Trump through the policy agreement regarding refugees because Trump clearly didn't understand the matter. It was also disturbing to read Trump disrespecting his predecessor is a one of one conversation with a foriegn world leader. Trump also shaded Germany and France, U.S. allies, while complimenting Putin as being more pleasant to talk to. None of that is an exaggeration it is actually what went down. As for his conversation with the President of Mexico Trump basically acknowledged the wall he spent a year campaigning to build was just a political prop. Trump basically said what he needed from Mexico was for them to just not speak out against it too strongly so that the U.S. media won't give him (Trump) a hard time. Also in the conversation Trump threw Canada under the bus. Also disturbing was the way Trump rambled off topic and both leaders had to repeatedly bring Trump back to on topic.

 

In defense of these transcripts people will challange us to prove negatives. They will imply that all politicians do this and ask how we know Obama, Clinton, or whomever didn't have similar conversations. In the absence of proof they can claim this might be the status qou. Meanwhile Trump is doing everything he can to limit how much is known about anything that happens. He refused to release his taxes, cameras have been blocked off and on from press breifings, he threatens officials who release if to the press, he demagogues the press, bold face lies about seemingly everthing when interviewed, and etc. The situation is as bad or worse than most all of us believe it is.

 

 

[MigL]

Why does everyone do this ?
"Conservatives often challenge..."

In the last Canadian federal election I voted Conservative ( but I previously voted Liberal ), so that makes me currently a Conservative supporter, but that may change depending on party policies of the next election. And Canadian Conservatives are much more liberal than American Democrats.

Why is there a need to generalize all those negative attributes to me, or to someone who may have voted Conservative in England, or to even American Conservatives. If I said all Muslims are terrorists, or all Catholics are Nazis a lot of people would take exception to that.
And if the argument is that the "good' Conservatives are enabling the bad Conservatives with their support, then that argument can also be made for good Muslims, Catholics, etc.

So, can we have a little less generalizing, please ?
( and yes, my opening line, where I do the same, was intentional )

Edited August 5, 2017 by MigL

[Ten oz]

18 minutes ago, MigL said:

Why does everyone do this ?
"Conservatives often challenge..."

In the last Canadian federal election I voted Conservative ( but I previously voted Liberal ), so that makes me currently a Conservative supporter, but that may change depending on party policies of the next election. And Canadian Conservatives are much more liberal than American Democrats.

Why is there a need to generalize all those negative attributes to me, or to someone who may have voted Conservative in England, or to even American Conservatives. If I said all Muslims are terrorists, or all Catholics are Nazis a lot of people would take exception to that.
And if the argument is that the "good' Conservatives are enabling the bad Conservatives with their support, then that argument can also be made for good Muslims, Catholics, etc.

So, can we have a little less generalizing, please ?
( and yes, my opening line, where I do the same, was intentional )

Context is U.S. politics as the discussion is about the U.S. President. A conservative party member in Canada would be considered liberal by U.S. standards. Context matters.

[MigL]

While I agree with you wholeheartedly about the US president ( and a lot of the Republican party ), I just took exception to the term 'conservatives'; Which unjustly includes all American ( even D D Eisenhower ? ) and international conservatives.

( sorry for the off-topic jaunt )

[Ten oz]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

While I agree with you wholeheartedly about the US president ( and a lot of the Republican party ), I just took exception to the term 'conservatives'; Which unjustly includes all American ( even D D Eisenhower ? ) and international conservatives.

( sorry for the off-topic jaunt )

Perhaps you should take exception to those in the U.S. who self identify as Conservatives then because they overwhelming supported and continue to support Donald Trump. 

[MigL]

Sure. And all Muslims are bad because they continue to support and identify with terrorists ?
You share similar ideals/morals therefore you are just as bad ?
( that argument was addressed in my original post against generalization )

[Ten oz]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Sure. And all Muslims are bad because they continue to support and identify with terrorists ?
You share similar ideals/morals therefore you are just as bad ?
( that argument was addressed in my original post against generalization )

 Not even full percent of Muslims are terrorists. In 2016 81% of voters who identify as conservative and 90% of those who are registered Republicans voted for Trump. If 81% of all Muslims were terrorists (81% of the total world Muslim pop is 1.2 billion people) I guarantee you the overwhelming majority of the world would concede being Muslim was a bad thing. Your comparison is silly. Say Conservatives supported and continue to support Trump (context being U.S. conservatives) is spot on dead accurate.

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/groups-voted-2016/

 

In U.S. politics "conservative" is a title which people self identify under. Being a conservative in the U.S. doesn't mean what if means to be a conservative in Canada and everyone who follow politics understands that. Your complaint is akin to arguing that I can't speak negatively about the state of Georgia because it insults the country Georgia via generalizing all who potentially call themselves Georgians. Same name different group group of people.

 

.