President Donald Trump's Final Days...

[ConstantOgler]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Was it to be proven that Mr Trump colluded with the Russian government and its secret service to subvert the democratic process,

This seems a thoughtful, logical statement that no one can dispute. And = is being said by many people. But for me there is a hole in the very center of it. Words like "cooperation . . .collusion . . influence . . . interference . . subversion" etc are being spun by partisans at high speed, like electrons or planets, as if this will prove there is something real at the center. Or maybe obscure the fact there isn't anything at all. ?

No one here, and no objective person anywhere, doubts Hillary's loss was caused by her own inept campaign and the peculiar role of the electoral college. How did Russians cause either of these? Well then, is this about something other than Hillary losing?

Very interesting you cite the revelation about DNC tilt against Bernie. Surely this was most significant result of the hacking. But, is that what cost HRC the election? It did not cost her the Dem nomination! So, if you are a Dem, your case for impeach Trump is that independent voters so resented how your party gave her the nom, they voted Trump? Have fun with that! . . . Got anything else?

Indeed, as Lady Luck has posted, the basic problem with any and all these "Russian Influence" claims is that they involve voters being made aware of facts. How the facts were obtained and even if they are dubious will always be peripheral issues in a free speech country.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by ConstantOgler

This seems a thoughtful, logical statement that no one can dispute. And = is being said by many people. But for me there is a hole in the very center of it. Words like "cooperation . . .collusion . . influence . . . interference . . subversion" etc are being spun by partisans at high speed, like electrons or planets, as if this will prove there is something real at the center. Or maybe obscure the fact there isn't anything at all. ?

No one here, and no objective person anywhere, doubts Hillary's loss was caused by her own inept campaign and the peculiar role of the electoral college. How did Russians cause either of these? Well then, is this about something other than Hillary losing?

Very interesting you cite the revelation about DNC tilt against Bernie. Surely this was most significant result of the hacking. But, is that what cost HRC the election? It did not cost her the Dem nomination! So, if you are a Dem, your case for impeach Trump is that independent voters so resented how your party gave her the nom, they voted Trump? Have fun with that! . . . Got anything else?

Indeed, as Lady Luck has posted, the basic problem with any and all these "Russian Influence" claims is that they involve voters being made aware of facts. How the facts were obtained and even if they are dubious will always be peripheral issues in a free speech country.

I suppose this is about the integrity of the process. I regret to say that in the USA the integrity of the process has been lost and it is now very corrupt and dishonest. Thanks to the appalling Citizens United decision, elected politicians are now answerable to rich donors rather than to the voters. The winner of the popular vote will be the one who is mots successful in deceiving the voters: all candidates fully intend to betray the voters once elected. There is no way back for democracy in the USA unless and until Citizens United can be overturned in statute law: either a decision of the USSC to reverse their previous terrible ruling or a formal amendment to the US constitution to return power to the ordinary people again.

What we see in the Russian hacking story is the degeneration of democracy in action, a working example of what is wrong. Bernie Sanders was talking to the voters whereas Hillary Clinton was talking to Goldman Sachs etc.; so it became very important to make sure that Hillary Clinton was nominated and Bernie Sanders shut out. The DNC achieved this by extremely blatantly cheating - and the people who were cheated are the voters in the Democrat primary, whose right to choose the candidate was treated with contempt by the Democratic Party.

The reason why the DNC did this? They have donors to obey. Where was she on bank regulation? Where was she on affordable college education accessible to working class Americans with good academic credentials? Where was she on making gun manufacturers accountable to victims of gun crime? Mrs Clinton said she opposed the Keystone XL pipeline but she didn't ever seem to talk about it except under duress. She said she was against the Trans Pacific Partnership but she never seemed to mention it voluntarily. Seeing her on the campaign trail was rather like watching a hostage video. She was the glove puppet of special interest groups, especially the bankers and industrialists: the donors, in so many words. She was never going to serve the ordinary people; and the DNC were very worried that Bernie Sanders would serve the ordinary people.

[vinceprince]

Trump: "If You Can't Make A Good Deal With A Politician, Then There's Something Wrong With You, You're Certainly Not Very Good, And That's What We've Got Representing Us'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKWz5iCIh9o

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by vinceprince

Trump: "If You Can't Make A Good Deal With A Politician, Then There's Something Wrong With You, You're Certainly Not Very Good, And That's What We've Got Representing Us'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKWz5iCIh9o

The fat lady has not yet cleared her throat on this one. The Republicans have defeated themselves, showing how screwed up their heads are on healthcare. The Democrats have a more coherent line on healthcare and I strongly doubt if any deal involving the Demcrats will mean "repealing Obamacare". But if Mr Trump could present it as a reform of "Obamacare" to improve it and make it more sustainable, he could get somewhere. He is a Republican president but a lot of Republicans do not support him (as the healthcare vote failure demonstrates) and a lot of Trump supporters do not have much time for the Republican Party. For Mr Trump to outflank his Republican opponents and do a deal with the Democrats would be a slap in the face for many of the House Republicans, but a well deserved one and one which a lot of Trump voters would enjoy.

[vinceprince]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

The fat lady has not yet cleared her throat on this one. The Republicans have defeated themselves, showing how screwed up their heads are on healthcare. The Democrats have a more coherent line on healthcare and I strongly doubt if any deal involving the Demcrats will mean "repealing Obamacare". But if Mr Trump could present it as a reform of "Obamacare" to improve it and make it more sustainable, he could get somewhere. He is a Republican president but a lot of Republicans do not support him (as the healthcare vote failure demonstrates) and a lot of Trump supporters do not have much time for the Republican Party. For Mr Trump to outflank his Republican opponents and do a deal with the Democrats would be a slap in the face for many of the House Republicans, but a well deserved one and one which a lot of Trump voters would enjoy.

He won't achieve anything else he plans if he alienates those fiscal conservatives. Many of them are not fans of expensive walls or religious discrimination.

The whole point of the legislation was to save about $900 billion of Gov't money which Trump/Ryan could use to give away to the better off in Tax Cuts. But he's still going ahead with the Tax Cuts without any way of paying for it apart from greater debt?

[hound dog]

Repealing the ACA was THE key piece of legislation that Republican's have been promising for 7 years. Without it's repeal they can not go forward on their agenda as they intended, to reallocate the funding from the ACA to other areas, like tax cuts for the 1% and corporations. This is a major failure. It wont be admitted as major, but it is.

Perhaps, instead of taking a photo op behind the wheel of a truck, the president should have been spending his time working to get his promised legislation actually through congress. Dazzle us with your work ethic, Donald, if you possess one. Roll up your sleeve's and dive right in to the difficult work ahead. Leave the photo op's for your weekends, when you're golfing at Mar A Largo.

[tsunamiSD]

Trump Said to Have Political Aides Monitoring the Loyalty of Cabinet Secretaries

As President Trump recently reminded us, when someone has been disloyal to him, he never forgets it. But now that he’s president, it’s become more difficult to keep track of those who have defied him — or who may potentially defy him. That’s why, according to the Washington Post, Trump has embedded political appointees in every cabinet agency and tasked them with keeping tabs on the secretaries’ fealty to the president. Unsurprisingly, this is not going over well with some cabinet members.

As New York’s Ed Kilgore noted last month, “People like that can be described as political commissars, to use the term made famous in the Soviet Union for the agents sent to impose ideological discipline, particularly in military units.” Sure enough, the former Marine and fighter pilot assigned to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis is privately referred to as “the commissar” within the Pentagon.

[diamelsx]

Originally Posted by diamelsx

I am waiting for a good deal of the Trump supporters to understand they have been conned...

I am currently looking for a writing credit from Bill for this segment here.

[bloke57]

Here's a picture of Mr Trump's committee dealing with healthcare. One of the items on the agenda was health services for women and whether mammograms should continue to be essential.

Can't quite put my finger on it, but one vital element seems to be missing from a committee deciding on women's issues.

[Devius]

Following the spectacular failure of the American Health Care Act, it’s now abundantly clear that President Trump’s first 100 days in office will almost certainly not include a significant legislative victory for him or the Republican Party, despite their rare control of Washington, or their repeated promises to get rid of Obamacare. Furthermore, a central, self-made myth about Trump — that he is a master deal-maker — seemed to evaporate when it came to negotiating legislation. Indeed, insider accounts suggest that Trump’s deal-making style likely hurt the AHCA more than it helped, as did his seeming lack of commitment to the actual process of policy-making and governing.

“Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated,” Trump told a group of governors in February. A month later, when the president finally decided to embrace his role in the legislative process and try to whip up support for the AHCA bill, Trump deployed a messaging strategy that was light on substance, heavy on Trump. Rather than assuage the policy concerns of skeptical Republicans, Trump often bullied them instead, asking them how well he did in their districts and telling them how badly the bill’s failure might hurt them, and him, politically.

“Forget about the little shit,” Trump reportedly said to a group of 30 representatives who had come to the White House. “Let’s focus on the big picture here,” and by big picture Trump meant his reputation, his agenda, and his chances at reelection.

Motivated by the desire to win, perhaps exclusively, Trump was unable to address specific policy issues when talking with members of the House GOP or conservative groups, and was just trying to play — and enjoy — the role of closer. Trump “didn’t know, didn’t care, or both,” when it came to details, according to a congressional aide who spoke with CNN. A GOP congressman added that the president “did very little to say why we should vote ‘yes,’” and “kept talking about his damn election.”

Source:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ahca-deal.html

Bit too early to write off the Donald's 100 days just yet - there is still the tax reform...