The 2017 General Political discussion thread, Part 2!

[Dddrees]

Trump recertifies the Iran nuclear deal.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...tic-missiles-and-support-terrorism/487583001/

 

[Kutnupe14]

Trump recertifies the Iran nuclear deal.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...tic-missiles-and-support-terrorism/487583001/

Odd....and kinda underhanded. The administration admits Iran is in full compliance with the agreement, but sanctions them anyway because, in the administration's opinion, they are violating the "spirit" of the agreement? Was there a deal based on specific criteria or not?

 

[IndyDave1776]

So the GOP healthcare bill appears to be dying. So what's next when it comes to Healthcare? How does this one play out? Any idea who takes the blame when Obamacare dies? The Republicans who can't govern even though the are in charge of all three branches of government or the Democrats who gave away the entitlement to begin with?

More importantly will the Democrats and Republicans be forced to work together to come up with a plan. Could a feasible and workable plan actually be a result of all this crap?

I would point out that the problem here is that the Republicans have at least three different subgroups with only a scant majority between them. It will be extremely difficult to do much of anything while divided into establishment Rs, light-duty Democrats, and real conservatives and/or libertarians like Rand Paul (who seems to have as much luck getting the rest to listen to him as I do).

Working together is out of the question. Both sides have vastly different agendas both of which have little or nothing to do with solving actual problems pertaining to health care.

Just like the Democrats with the Patriot Act, I don't think the Republicans actually want to eliminate the ACA. Sure, they railed against it for years, but when the time came, what happened?

Just like Democrats with poverty. If they solve the problem, then they will no longer have a selling point.

I don't want a replacement. Repeal it and then pass smaller bills that address issues. They need to stop trying to make one bill that does everything.

The first problem is that they obviously don't give a damn about the actual problem issues with health care, most of which were caused by .gov interference in the first place.

You mean the dog that caught the car and now they don't know what to do.

Unfortunately with this one I think it's actually going to have an affect on a lot of people. Really screwed up with regards to where we find ourselves. I still say the only true fix is going to require both parties to pull their heads out of their A***s and work together.

How are they going to work together when the D issue is control over others and the R issue is the taxation associated with the ACA? The only parallel goal they have is lining their own pockets in the process of achieving their primary goals, which are diametrically opposed.

Well it does appear McConnell wants to move forward with repeal with a 2 year window to replace. Wonder how the insurance agencies will receive this, not to mention the American people?

Sounds to me like a time-delay version of Nancy Pelosi's 'we have to pass this so we can find out what's in it'. Repeal now, taking effect in 2 years, and we may or may not have a replacement, who knows what happens when the buzzer sounds? I agree, that does NOT give me the warm fuzzy feeling.

 

[IndyDave1776]

No, it really is that simple. If thats all you got when it comes to justifying someone's behavior by saying someone previous to them has done just as bad or worse it's still that response you expect from that little kid. If you can't recognize inappropriate or just simply wrong behavior and you wish to condone it or excuse it because someone else somewhere in history can also be found at fault well then you'll be able to excuse anything and anybody,. Wrong is just wrong and it's that simple and to over complicate it just excuses it, period. Did I ever say Trumps speech or what he said rose to the level of Clinton and what he did or at least what his testimony was where he perjured himself? No I did not. But that still doesn't mean what Trump said by any means was acceptable.

I think the problem that most of us are having with this is that, going back decades, a Democrat could do any number of unacceptable things while the media and a sizable portion of the population insisted it is unimportant, tell us we are making mountains out of mole hills, and so forth, but if a Republican so much as makes an off color comment without acting on it, well, all of a sudden, he needs run out of Washington on a pine rail. It isn't a matter of failing to understand that two wrongs don't make a right. It is a matter of being sick and tired of being told for decades that wrong-doing isn't an issue if a Democrat is doing it, but a Republican had better be more perfect than God or else.

 

[Dddrees]

I think the problem that most of us are having with this is that, going back decades, a Democrat could do any number of unacceptable things while the media and a sizable portion of the population insisted it is unimportant, tell us we are making mountains out of mole hills, and so forth, but if a Republican so much as makes an off color comment without acting on it, well, all of a sudden, he needs run out of Washington on a pine rail. It isn't a matter of failing to understand that two wrongs don't make a right. It is a matter of being sick and tired of being told for decades that wrong-doing isn't an issue if a Democrat is doing it, but a Republican had better be more perfect than God or else.

Well regardless where it originated from it's not doing any of us any good. Sorry but if the only thing anybody has is that it or worse has been done before just leads down a extremely destructive path.

 

[Dddrees]

I would point out that the problem here is that the Republicans have at least three different subgroups with only a scant majority between them. It will be extremely difficult to do much of anything while divided into establishment Rs, light-duty Democrats, and real conservatives and/or libertarians like Rand Paul (who seems to have as much luck getting the rest to listen to him as I do).

Working together is out of the question. Both sides have vastly different agendas both of which have little or nothing to do with solving actual problems pertaining to health care.



Just like Democrats with poverty. If they solve the problem, then they will no longer have a selling point.



The first problem is that they obviously don't give a damn about the actual problem issues with health care, most of which were caused by .gov interference in the first place.



How are they going to work together when the D issue is control over others and the R issue is the taxation associated with the ACA? The only parallel goal they have is lining their own pockets in the process of achieving their primary goals, which are diametrically opposed.



Sounds to me like a time-delay version of Nancy Pelosi's 'we have to pass this so we can find out what's in it'. Repeal now, taking effect in 2 years, and we may or may not have a replacement, who knows what happens when the buzzer sounds? I agree, that does NOT give me the warm fuzzy feeling.

Well I have a hard time believing that if it doesn't happen it will do nothing more than blow up. But then again I guess kicking the can down the road is the only answer Americans have learned to deal with nowadays.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Sounds to me like a time-delay version of Nancy Pelosi's 'we have to pass this so we can find out what's in it'. Repeal now, taking effect in 2 years, and we may or may not have a replacement, who knows what happens when the buzzer sounds? I agree, that does NOT give me the warm fuzzy feeling.

I've always disliked the misrepresentation of Nancy Pelosi's words concerning that comment. The way I took it, was that she meant there were a lot of competing opinions about how the ACA would work, and that by passing it, the public would see it in action. The idea that her words were meant to be secretive concerning the provisions of ACA, if true, could only mean one thing.... that she was clueless as to the ACA, and shouldn't have been speaking on it in the first place because her comment made March of 2010, came well after the text of the bill was publicly available Oct 2009. This fact is often overlooked. So those who believed their was some secret plot going on, failed to do their due diligence.

And for the record, I opposed ACA.

 

[Dddrees]

Odd....and kinda underhanded. The administration admits Iran is in full compliance with the agreement, but sanctions them anyway because, in the administration's opinion, they are violating the "spirit" of the agreement? Was there a deal based on specific criteria or not?

Personally I don't find there's any logic in most things Trump does.


Wait for it, wait for it......... I'm waiting for someone to say the magic name. LOL

That's Ok though, because now we're talking about the current President and his failings.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Well regardless where it originated from it's not doing any of us any good. Sorry but if the only thing anybody has is that it or worse has been done before just leads down a extremely destructive path.

Where it originated isn't the issue. The issue is that it is an ongoing double-standard, and if we have a Democrat as president next time, we will be right back to the point where none of it matters any more. I am not willing to capitulate because the Rs can't come up with a candidate who is absolutely perfect, and I am sick and tired of the b*tching.

Well I have a hard time believing that if it doesn't happen it will do nothing more than blow up. But then again I guess kicking the can down the road is the only answer Americans have learned to deal with nowadays.

Unfortunately, when you have at least three different ideological factions in the majority party, most of which have motives not connected in any way with what needs done, it just isn't likely that anything useful will happen.

I've always disliked the misrepresentation of Nancy Pelosi's words concerning that comment. The way I took it, was that she meant there were a lot of competing opinions about how the ACA would work, and that by passing it, the public would see it in action. The idea that her words were meant to be secretive concerning the provisions of ACA, if true, could only mean one thing.... that she was clueless as to the ACA, and shouldn't have been speaking on it in the first place because her comment made March of 2010, came well after the text of the bill was publicly available Oct 2009. This fact is often overlooked. So those who believed their was some secret plot going on, failed to do their due diligence.

And for the record, I opposed ACA.

We failed to do our due diligence? She makes a remark like that about a bill WITH CONTENTS WHICH WERE NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO CONGRESS UNTIL A COUPLE OF HOURS BEFORE THE VOTE AND NOT AVAILABLE TO THE REST OF US UNTIL AFTER THE VOTE and you are telling us that we are wrong for believing exactly what she said about a bill that was not available for any type of review?

The bill WAS a secret to us at that time!

 

[Dddrees]

Where it originated isn't the issue. The issue is that it is an ongoing double-standard, and if we have a Democrat as president next time, we will be right back to the point where none of it matters any more. I am not willing to capitulate because the Rs can't come up with a candidate who is absolutely perfect, and I am sick and tired of the b*tching.



Unfortunately, when you have at least three different ideological factions in the majority party, most of which have motives not connected in any way with what needs done, it just isn't likely that anything useful will happen.



We failed to do our due diligence? She makes a remark like that about a bill WITH CONTENTS WHICH WERE NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO CONGRESS UNTIL A COUPLE OF HOURS BEFORE THE VOTE AND NOT AVAILABLE TO THE REST OF US UNTIL AFTER THE VOTE and you are telling us that we are wrong for believing exactly what she said about a bill that was not available for any type of review?

The bill WAS a secret to us at that time!

I get where your coming from, but that doesn't help anything either. Sorry I'm just sick of it regardless and sometimes it's just better if it where to just plain stop.

 

[indiucky]

I think the problem that most of us are having with this is that, going back decades, a Democrat could do any number of unacceptable things while the media and a sizable portion of the population insisted it is unimportant, tell us we are making mountains out of mole hills, and so forth, but if a Republican so much as makes an off color comment without acting on it, well, all of a sudden, he needs run out of Washington on a pine rail. It isn't a matter of failing to understand that two wrongs don't make a right. It is a matter of being sick and tired of being told for decades that wrong-doing isn't an issue if a Democrat is doing it, but a Republican had better be more perfect than God or else.

That's it in a nut shell...Selective outrage....

 

[Kutnupe14]

Where it originated isn't the issue. The issue is that it is an ongoing double-standard, and if we have a Democrat as president next time, we will be right back to the point where none of it matters any more. I am not willing to capitulate because the Rs can't come up with a candidate who is absolutely perfect, and I am sick and tired of the b*tching.



Unfortunately, when you have at least three different ideological factions in the majority party, most of which have motives not connected in any way with what needs done, it just isn't likely that anything useful will happen.



We failed to do our due diligence? She makes a remark like that about a bill WITH CONTENTS WHICH WERE NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO CONGRESS UNTIL A COUPLE OF HOURS BEFORE THE VOTE AND NOT AVAILABLE TO THE REST OF US UNTIL AFTER THE VOTE and you are telling us that we are wrong for believing exactly what she said about a bill that was not available for any type of review?

The bill WAS a secret to us at that time!

That is incorrect. The text of the bill was available at the time Pelosi made her statement. It was further debated extensively before passage. Look it up.

 

[SSGSAD]

If you ask me Repeal before you have an alternative is irresponsible. The responsible thing to do is to work on Replacing it even if that means you have to work across the aisle. Repealing it first is a dangerous game where somehow hoping you can force the opposition party to do more of want you want them to do. H*** in the meantime I can see this causing nothing but chaos.

What you keep missing, is he is willing to give a 2 year "window" .....

So even if "they" repeal it, it will still be here, for 2 more years .....


THERE WAS NO 2 year "window" with O'care .....


REMEMBER Nancy Pelosi, saying we have to pass this, to find out what is in it .....

 

[Dddrees]

That's it in a nut shell...Selective outrage....

Sorry, but that too gets to a point where that is just a convienent excuse.

 

[Dddrees]

What you keep missing, is he is willing to give a 2 year "window" .....

So even if "they" repeal it, it will still be here, for 2 more years .....


THERE WAS NO 2 year "window" with O'care .....


REMEMBER Nancy Pelosi, saying we have to pass this, to find out what is in it .....

BS

This is a tactic and not a plan. They don't have anything and this is just simply irresponsible. Didn't work when they kicked the can with the budget bluff the Dems and Republicans agreed to years ago and this kind of thing won't work here either.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Sorry, but that too gets to a point where that is just a convienent excuse.

What I see as convenient is the shrieking for Trump's impeachment while ignoring illegal activity on Hillary's part in the same time frame. Until that changes, I will see this as nothing more than disingenuous political games. We are still sitting on that double-standard playing out in real time. As far as I am concerned, it is the other side's turn to make the first move. They have consistently circled the wagons around their own while demanding the Republicans throw their own under the bus at the first bad indicator. The next move is theirs, and if they won't make it, they can go straight to Hell.

 

[Dddrees]

What I see as convenient is the shrieking for Trump's impeachment while ignoring illegal activity on Hillary's part in the same time frame. Until that changes, I will see this as nothing more than disingenuous political games. We are still sitting on that double-standard playing out in real time. As far as I am concerned, it is the other side's turn to make the first move. They have consistently circled the wagons around their own while demanding the Republicans throw their own under the bus at the first bad indicator. The next move is theirs, and if they won't make it, they can go straight to Hell.

Like I tried to indicate that kind of its time for the other to give in first mentality has never worked.

 

[ghitch75]

Hillary Clinton sided with Russia on sanctions as Bill made $500G on Moscow speech | Fox News

 

[IndyDave1776]

BS

This is a tactic and not a plan. They don't have anything and this is just simply irresponsible. Didn't work when they kicked the can with the budget bluff the Dems and Republicans agreed to years ago and this kind of thing won't work here either.

My guess is that it would turn out as either a cold repeal, a rallying point for 'we are down to the deadline, we have to pass SOMETHING', or a really cynical ploy to keep the Democrats from even trying to take back congress for fear of being the ones having to find a solution that Trump won't veto.

 

[KLB]

I've always disliked the misrepresentation of Nancy Pelosi's words concerning that comment. The way I took it, was that she meant there were a lot of competing opinions about how the ACA would work, and that by passing it, the public would see it in action. The idea that her words were meant to be secretive concerning the provisions of ACA, if true, could only mean one thing.... that she was clueless as to the ACA, and shouldn't have been speaking on it in the first place because her comment made March of 2010, came well after the text of the bill was publicly available Oct 2009. This fact is often overlooked. So those who believed their was some secret plot going on, failed to do their due diligence.

And for the record, I opposed ACA.

Most people only quote or heard part of the sentence. Sounds bites rule our world.

You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.