192
   

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Tue 10 Jan, 2017 10:25 am
@blatham,
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/19/this-is-how-tyranny-begins-why-will-president-donald-trump-continue-to-hold-rallies_partner/
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2017 10:31 am
@blatham,
I believe the discussion and disagreement now ongoing among Republicans regarding the unwinding of Obama care is a much healthier and more demopcratic process than the one that occurred seven years ago prior to the enactment of this consultsant prepared 2,000 page law that no one read.

Overall there will be some dislocations as the law is unwound , however they will likely be small compared to the turmoil that accompanied its enactment - the Stete exchanges that didn't materialize; limited competition in most areas; the forced consolidation of hospitals and service providers through rate caps that accompanied a large increase in the demand for their services; a Supreme Court determination that a tax specified ass such in the law was not a tax at, instead a "penalty"; etc.

From a purely political perspective I believe Republicans should just vamp for six or so months. as the ongoing financial collapse of the system progresses. Next year's rates will be much higher and, as insurance companies continue to abandon this unworkable systems, more exchanges and regions will be left without providers. Calls for a huge Federal bailout will arise etc.

Free markets are readily adaptable and they provide Republicans with several good options.
maporsche
 
  2  
Tue 10 Jan, 2017 10:33 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

I believe the discussion and disagreement now ongoing among Republicans regarding the unwinding of Obama care is a much healthier and more demopcratic process than the one that occurred seven years ago prior to the enactment of this consultsant prepared 2,000 page law that no one read.


"More democratic process" in what way specifically?
blatham
 
  2  
Tue 10 Jan, 2017 10:35 am
Quote:
Every House Democrat has joined a call for Congress to set up an independent and bipartisan commission to probe Russia’s interference in the US presidential election.

The problem is that not a single congressional Republican has supported their effort, basically ensuring it won't succeed.
LINK

How very odd.
blatham
 
  1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2017 10:37 am
@cicerone imposter,
Yup. Reich gets it right.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Tue 10 Jan, 2017 10:38 am
@maporsche,
Your answer lies in the proposition you quoted and in the debate that has recently becun.
blatham
 
  3  
Tue 10 Jan, 2017 10:39 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
I believe the discussion and disagreement now ongoing among Republicans regarding the unwinding of Obama care is a much healthier and more demopcratic process than the one that occurred seven years ago prior to the enactment of this consultsant prepared 2,000 page law that no one read.

Of course you do. And of course you'd toss in the idiotic meme "that no one read".
georgeob1
 
  -2  
Tue 10 Jan, 2017 10:40 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

How very odd.


I think they're waiting for Obama to appoint an independent procesuror to look into the conspiracy of the DNC and the Clinton campaign to hack the Primary and the final election.
cicerone imposter
 
  4  
Tue 10 Jan, 2017 10:43 am
@georgeob1,
Where did you learn about this special prosecutor by Obama?
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  4  
Tue 10 Jan, 2017 10:45 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Your answer lies in the proposition you quoted and in the debate that has recently becun.


I remember you being quite upset that Democrats didn't seek any bi-partisanship (in your mind; personally I disagreed).

Do you feel that Republicans are seeking counsel with Democrats right now? Does that matter to you? If they are, I think I'm missing it.
georgeob1
 
  -2  
Tue 10 Jan, 2017 10:45 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Of course you do. And of course you'd toss in the idiotic meme "that no one read".


It wasn't a "meme" (whatever that may be). It was instead a clear reference to the well known statement rationalizing her actions by the Democrat House Majority Leader who rammed the still incomplete consultant-drafted legislation through the House with zero consultation or negotiation with the Republican minority. Hardly an irrevelant matter.


blatham
 
  3  
Tue 10 Jan, 2017 10:49 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
I think they're waiting for Obama to appoint an independent procesuror to look into the conspiracy of the DNC and the Clinton campaign to hack the Primary and the final election.

You ought to have a smiley thing that means "avoiding the issue". It would be very handy for you, george.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Tue 10 Jan, 2017 10:49 am
@georgeob1,
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/11/gop-led-senate-passing-bills-at-rate-not-seen-in-d/
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -3  
Tue 10 Jan, 2017 10:51 am
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

I remember you being quite upset that Democrats didn't seek any bi-partisanship (in your mind; personally I disagreed).

Do you feel that Republicans are seeking counsel with Democrats right now? Does that matter to you? If they are, I think I'm missing it.


If you disagreed, then why are you asking now?

I don't know if the Republicans are consulting with their Democrat collegues as yet, and I doubt that you do either, - the new Congress has been in session for just a few days.

However I hope and trust they will do better in this area in both the House and the Seanate than was done to them by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Sen. Chuck Schumer, the new Senate minority leader is rather prolific with his threats and demands right now - I wonderr where he was during the Reid years.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -2  
Tue 10 Jan, 2017 10:53 am
@blatham,
There was no issue - only your slavish repearing of a contrived, but pointless Democrat political gesture.

My response was fitting and more than the question merited.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  2  
Tue 10 Jan, 2017 10:58 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
It wasn't a "meme" (whatever that may be). It was instead a clear reference to the well known statement rationalizing her actions by the Democrat House Majority Leader who rammed the still incomplete consultant-drafted legislation through the House with zero consultation or negotiation with the Republican minority. Hardly an irrevelant matter.

Good. You added "rammed" as well. I also like "consultant drafted". The zero consultation/negotiation though is the kicker. You've got your history totally screwed because you attend to media that has that goal.

As to bill reading:
1) what's the normal process for reading bills before a vote?
2) who's responsibility is this?
3) how many individuals are responsible?
4) what's the normal period of time allowed for such study?
5) what historical variations are there in that time allowance?
6) what changes in the above occur when the bill is extremely large and very complicated?
7) in such a case, is an individual assigned to study or a team or a group of teams?
8) who do they report to?
9) if time is short for such review/overview operations, what else are sitting office holders and their staffs spending their time doing - ie fund raising?
10) in the normal course of all these affairs, how many sitting politicians read bills at all?

Unless you want to do research into all those questions, I'm not even going to begin talking with you about "no one read the bill". It's a propaganda line but you swim in the stuff and don't know it to see it.
Frugal1
 
  -2  
Tue 10 Jan, 2017 11:07 am

Condoleezza Rice 'Strongly Supports' Sessions

Code PINK has done a great job of embarrassing themselves & their democrat handlers.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Tue 10 Jan, 2017 11:15 am
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/may/05/jeff-sessions-arlen-specter-judiciary-committee?client=safari
georgeob1
 
  -2  
Tue 10 Jan, 2017 11:16 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
It wasn't a "meme" (whatever that may be). It was instead a clear reference to the well known statement rationalizing her actions by the Democrat House Majority Leader who rammed the still incomplete consultant-drafted legislation through the House with zero consultation or negotiation with the Republican minority. Hardly an irrevelant matter.

Good. You added "rammed" as well. I also like "consultant drafted". The zero consultation/negotiation though is the kicker. You've got your history totally screwed because you attend to media that has that goal.


Unless you want to do research into all those questions, I'm not even going to begin talking with you about "no one read the bill". It's a propaganda line but you swim in the stuff and don't know it to see it.

This from the most prolific paster of propaganda on A2K. Plariamenatary procedures were followed, but no Repoublican amendments were entertained, and no section by sectioon examination of the draft legislation was allowed. That's where Nancy's famous statement comes into play. This ill-conceived, and, as we now know, unworkable legislation was passed with zero Republican votes - an unusual event for legislation of such a pervasive effect.

I'm not going to play the research game with you. I often wonder if you even know what constitutes research.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  4  
Tue 10 Jan, 2017 11:18 am
@cicerone imposter,
Sessions' hostility to civil rights laws should disqualify this bigot. It also tells us much about Trump, the textbook bigot who continues to reveal the true self.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.51 seconds on 04/03/2025 at 12:56:52