monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Sobering news:

We still do not know how far down Congressional Republicans and Trump supporters will go in defending this administration but there is every reason to assume it is much lower. There is no more telling indictment of the modern GOP and conservatism than this.

Quality-person anecdotes from all over.

David Burge‏ @iowahawkblog Jul 12
*wife finds evite to orgy on my computer*
Good news Honey, I showed up and turns out it wasn't an orgy

I was mainly commenting on how 13 white men are writing laws that affect 1/6 of our economy and 330 million people. Hey are doing this on their own. Closed door meeting. No focus groups. No comments from other members of their party and especially not the opposing party. No industry meetings or input.

13 men. No input from women.
13 white men. No input from people of color who have different medical needs/cultural concerns.
13 rich men. No input from the poor.

I'm not saying that 13 white men can't write good law. I'm suggesting that their process is wrought with blind spots and problems given the scope of what they are trying to do.

Even after resigning, Richard Nixon held about a 20% approval. Some folks just do not care. As far as some are concerned the marmalade shitgibbon could shoot somebody down in public and not lose a bit of appeal.

You can't really be comparing the writing, review, and passage of Obamacare to the process being followed with Trumpcare and suggesting that they are in anyway similar....can you?

I think the reason for concern is self evident.

She says this during an off-camera briefing which is just about as marvelous as anything Mike Huckabee might have ever said or written about the values instilled in a good Christian upbringing.

As Donald is probably saying right now, "Oui".

I doubt he could become that fluent in such a short space of time.

Funny or not funny, you decide:

Let's be specific on how the Dems are hijacking this situation. Anything that would lead to real secure voting is going to be charged as "voter supression", unless they get their way and anyone and everyone can vote. They are in such danger from the average American walking away from them, that they have been trying to move to get different portions of public to vote. They want to lower the voting age loosen registration regulations to make it harder to catch voter fraud. They are against having a Citizen question on the Census, and they are against limiting the assigning of Representatives and Electoral votes to the number of voting age US citizens only. States like CA and TX would lose Representatives in The House and it would be Dem Reps who would be loosing seats. If we assign members of Congress based only on US Citizens, we would have a much different setup in several different states, the area's with large populations of illegal immigrants are usually liberal and voting trends towards Dems. This is the only reason they want loose election laws and loose accounting of the US population. Look at CA, they want illegals to vote in local elections because they are "citizens of CA"... need I say more?

You have hit the nail on the head with govt intervention in the health insurance industry, it has nothing to do with health care, it's the money. Managing a portion of the economy equals control and the left loves control over the population via govt regulations.

I must admit that I know nothing about the history of health insurance/health care in the USA.

But here in Germany, both are closely connected since the Middle Ages, when, when craftsmen were members of guilds. These guilds provided an early form of health insurance based on the principles of Christian solidarity *.
That was followed by insurance funds organised for factory workers as early as the beginning of the industrial revolution, and finally led to Bismarck’s social policies in the late eighteenth century.

* The principle of solidarity ("Solidaritätsprinzip") still is one of the four basics of our health care system [the others are compulsory insurance, funding from premiums, and the principle of self-governance])

Good for Germany Walter.

Still not a peep from cheese-eaters, or even those they punch around 24/7, who often seem concerned only with defending rationality and fundamental fairness rather than implementing it as a minimum standard.

Trump is on the right track. It's way past time to counter-attack these irrational partisans. The focus should be strictly on prosecuting them for their crimes. Just let them talk to themselves in the meantime--that's all they'll ever do anyway. Their phony issues should be be ignored. Rational discussion is impossible with them. Time for action--no more talk.

The hypocrisy is palpable.

Well, at least
a) health care and health insurance are very closely connected (colloqially the same here),
b) it's not an idea of the left.

Health care and health insurance aren't linked in your mind because of some German or leftwing idiosyncrasy. It's a natural linkage, only lost on conservatives.

Well, you and I don't really know how much input they have considered from those of a different gender or color than their own. It's not as if they have all put themselves in a sound proof chamber since 1/1/17. They get e-mail, letters, phone calls and some have held Town Hall meetings.

They should know their constituents and their voters. In the case of the House, regardless of how you feel about it, gerrymandering has created districts that are deliberately not politically diverse. To the extent that the process tends to exclude or embrace a given race, gender, or economic level it is far more a case of the voting history of such groups rather than prejudice. A GOP State party employing gerrymandering to create districts that are "safe" for Republicans, isn't going to try and exclude a neighborhood of conservative Mexican-Americans who have a long history of voting Republican. There aren't going to be huge numbers of traditionally Democrat voters in the districts that GOP incumbents have held for a long time and the reverse is true in "safe" Democrat districts. This leads to questions about whether the democratic process is really working when there are so many "safe" seats, but for right now at least, it is what it is and to expect elected politicians of either Party to behave as if it isn't what it is, is unrealistic.

Do you really think that poor women of color (or any other permutation of the groups you've cited) should be directly involved in the crafting process of a bill? In the actual room with them; behind the closed door? Have the Democrats ever done such a thing?

I've no problem with distrust of politicians in general (I actually think it is a necessity) or concern about legislation being crafted solely by members of an ideological group with which someone mainly disagree (Like I said, I didn't like it when the Democrats did it with ACA, I can't pretend it's unreasonable for you or snood to dislike it when the GOP is calling all of the shots) However I find it problematic when the suggestion is made that any American needs to fear legislation simply because of the race or gender of the crafters. I think it is at best a superfluous argument, contributes to division based on race and gender, and is very unfair to the 13 white men involved. I feel quite sure that you would find it problematic if I suggested that any American needs to fear legislation crafted solely by African-Americans or women, and, of course, you would be right.

We have a pretty clear dividing line between the ideology of the right and the left. I generally disagree with the left so I would take no solace in 13 rich, liberal men exclusively crafting legislation simply because they share color, economic status, and gender with me, while I would be more than comfortable with 13 black and/or female Republicans (there are no poor Republicans or Democrats in DC) crafting the same legislation.

Trump doesn't try to "debate" the wisdom of a seditious network that advocates "sanctuary cities," and all of the destructive consequences they generate. He just undertakes to enforce the law and eliminate their funding. Nothing to "debate" here.

He doesn't "debate" the issue of open borders, he simply enforces the law rather than implement and cater to the subversion of law as Obama did.

With the Justice Department being under Trump's control, and not the corrupt Obama administration, the investigation/prosecution of the Clinton foundation, Clinton's emails, illegal wire-tapping, felonious leaking of classified information, and all the other serious abuses of power witnessed for 8 years will meet up with Lady Justice soon.

That's what I wanted to say.
Just and only the USA, I think.