Are you busy October 18th? Please join me...

[TamleeB]

People protested, which is the purpose of a protest. What did you think the protestors thought would happen?

Exactly what did happen....nothing.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Absolutely. You be sure to keep me updated on any changes. If not, then it will happen on January 20th, 2029 at12:00 am.

Thanks Captain Obvious! In the meantime, those who wish to protest will enjoy their Constitutional right to do so.

 

[TamleeB]

Thanks Captain Obvious! In the meantime, those who wish to protest will enjoy their Constitutional right to do so.

Never said differently. Good luck

 

[ElChupacabra]

Exactly what did happen....nothing.

Except "nothing" other than people protesting is what was intended. Nothing happening would be incorrect, since people showed up and protested. The goal was to make their voices heard and that was accomplished too.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Never said differently. Good luck

Cool, thanks for stopping by!

 

[Old 'N Chill]

Because your lumpy orange piece of shit wants to be an autocrat.

Funny such a simple thing needs to be repeatedly explained to these people. Funny as in weird, not ha ha.

 

[TamleeB]

Except "nothing" other than people protesting is what was intended. Nothing happening would be incorrect, since people showed up and protested. The goal was to make their voices heard and that was accomplished too.

Sure. They protested as is their right.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Sure. They protested as is their right.

Neat. Thanks again Captain Obvious! Your party bag is by the door.

 

[TamleeB]

Cool, thanks for stopping by!

You are welcome. Glad I could be of assistance.

 

[TamleeB]

Neat. Thanks again Captain Obvious! Your party bag is by the door.

It appears that "captain obvious" is your go to phrase tonight. It does have a nice ring to it. It is growing on me.

 

[Old 'N Chill]

The same can be said for a whole host of past protests, but the purpose of a protest isn't to affect immediate change.

You're very patient.

 

[soap box]

He's not authoritarian.

What would you call it?

Under the Inspector General Act of 1978 (as amended by the 2008 Inspector General Reform Act), the president has broad authority to remove an establishment IG.

The difference is that Trump won't replace them.

The Trump administration mirrors the 1995 Mexican peso bailout under President Clinton, where the ESF provided $20 billion in swaps (plus guarantees). That action faced lawsuits and congressional pushback but was upheld as constitutional.

I wasn't questioning the legality as much as his intentions to have leverage in a transaction for profit. He is keeping his puppet president afloat in the current financial crisis in Argentina. He will have power over Argentina while president.

Under Clinton, Mexico was, and still is a much bigger trade partner, plus we do well to have influence with them, whereas we don't share a border with Argentina. This is another sign of grift and abuse of the powers for personal profit.that aren't allowed in the Constitution, the E clause.

It was not done without evidence.

The prosecution told the judge at the arraignment that they didn't know what to present at discovery. That means they wrote the charges without matching the evidence to a crime. They filed charges because Trump ordered it in his mistakenly public post. If trump isn't an investigator and he knows who's already guilty, wouldn't the prosecution have matched the action to the crimes first?

His post declared Comey to be "guilty as hell". Trump said so and That's all the evidence. Trump said so and Bondi repeated it. There's a reason the indictment was only 2 pages. Comey is currently, under this administration, guilty until proven otherwise.

Obama.

Okies.
I can openly admit that Franklin Roosevelt broke rules, guidelines, international treaties, laws and the Constitution itself. He saw himself fighting poverty and later fighting fascists. I'm aware he considered expanding the supreme court, and the Japanese camps. I'm not going to defend him.

Conservatives were adamant in his third and fourth campaign that he would concentrate power in the presidency, thus the button,



Compare Franklins profits in 1941 dollars, adjust for inflation, and compare it to the billions trump is making in crypto after his lavish Maralago soiree.

Plus all the villianization of dissent, the president fantasizes pouring more BS on protesters in his latest video. Plus the intimidation of media sources, how many lies do we need to see? Franklin Roosevelt did nothing compared to Trump's grift and the reaction to the possibility of a concentration of power in the office of the president. Today's true conservatives and moderates are aware of power grabs and how he's effectively above the law. Why criticize No Kings now when we are seeing much worse?

 

[gbg3]

We support making sure people can afford healthcare. You're on record of opposing extending credits. So what's Republicans plan on fixing Obamacare?
View attachment 67594065

I think Obamacare has proven to be the failure many thought it would be. It will never sustain itself financially and there will be no end of subsidies needed to keep it afloat.

I think it should be done away with. With that, would be the removal of the requirement that all insurers cover everything. I think older people should be able to choose plans which don't cover maternity care and young families should be able to choose plans which don't cover ailments which only the older generations get. I think everyone should be able to choose plans that don't cover mental health, etc. I think we should go back to having options with different features and different price points.

And as far as healthcare for those with serious illnesses or little means (but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid - as in the group Medicaid was originally designed for before all the expansions), I think we should tackle that group in a separate way which doesn't impact the majority by trying to pile everyone into a one size fits all model.

Clearly, this level of a change (more like a return to a previous and I think better model) is a big lift for Congress. It's not going to happen quickly and especially with such division between the parties. So as far as right now, you're right in that I don't support the Covid expansion subsidies. I'd prefer those expire as legislated by the Dems during the Biden term. Those were meant to be temporary and should be, IMO.

 

[gbg3]

People protested, which is the purpose of a protest. What did you think the protestors thought would happen?

You didn't ask me but I assumed they wanted to express their feelings/opinions and share those among other like minded people. I totally agree with your first sentence.

But it seems many on the left are feeling even angrier since yesterday and somehow thought that day of protest would be some game changer. It wasn't until participating in this thread that I realized quite a number of people on the left viewed it as more than a protest and seem to expect some outcome beyond "people protesting". It seems several were even thinking the people protesting and the protest itself would somehow actually change the views and thinking of other political side. I'm guessing that happened with almost no one at all.

 

[CimpleMan]

I think Obamacare has proven to be the failure many thought it would be. It will never sustain itself financially and there will be no end of subsidies needed to keep it afloat.

I think it should be done away with. With that, would be the removal of the requirement that all insurers cover everything. I think older people should be able to choose plans which don't cover maternity care and young families should be able to choose plans which don't cover ailments which only the older generations get. I think everyone should be able to choose plans that don't cover mental health, etc. I think we should go back to having options with different features and different price points.

And as far as healthcare for those with serious illnesses or little means (but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid - as in the group Medicaid was originally designed for before all the expansions), I think we should tackle that group in a separate way which doesn't impact the majority by trying to pile everyone into a one size fits all model.

Clearly, this level of a change (more like a return to a previous and I think better model) is a big lift for Congress. It's not going to happen quickly and especially with such division between the parties. So as far as right now, you're right in that I don't support the Covid expansion subsidies. I'd prefer those expire as legislated by the Dems during the Biden term. Those were meant to be temporary and should be, IMO.

Your solution will result in people/families being under insured with more expensive emergency room visits and more medical bankruptcies. If Republicans can do better than Obamacare Let's see ACTUAL PLANS! Democrats have been waiting a long time for Trump's plan.

Don't think it's wise destabilize the markets.

 

[gbg3]

Neat. Thanks again Captain Obvious! Your party bag is by the door.

Well Captain Obvious, reread this thread and you'll notice a heck of a lot of comments which go far beyond thinking the expected outcome of yesterday was only to have voices be heard.

 

[gbg3]

Your solution will result in people/families being under insured with more expensive emergency visits and more medical bankruptcies. If Republicans can do better than Obamacare Let's see ACTUAL PLANS! Democrats have been waiting a long time for Trump's plan.

Don't think it's wise destabilize the markets.

I agree with the destabilizing part - prior to either or both parties coming up with a better plan. And I haven't seen an ACTUAL PLAN which is good from either party, left or right. That's why, for now, I'm simply in favor of letting the Covid subsidies expire as currently legislated.

I have heard in the last month or so that Dems plan for "healthcare" to be their main narrative and topic of 2028. I've asked on this forum if those on the left mean something like Medicare for all. The few who answered said no. Do you know even the basic ideas or points are of what the Dems have in mind for their upcoming signature issue?

 

[ElChupacabra]

It appears that "captain obvious" is your go to phrase tonight. It does have a nice ring to it. It is growing on me.

Only when applicable.

 

[CimpleMan]

I agree with the destabilizing part - prior to either or both parties coming up with a better plan. And I haven't seen an ACTUAL PLAN which is good from either party, left or right. That's why, for now, I'm simply in favor of letting the Covid subsidies expire as currently legislated.

I have heard in the last month or so that Dems plan for "healthcare" to be their main narrative and topic of 2028. I've asked on this forum if those on the left mean something like Medicare for all. The few who answered said no. Do you know even the basic ideas or points are of what the Dems have in mind for their upcoming signature issue?

Ok, then would be prudent to continue as is until concrete alternative plan can be implemented.

Healthcare hasn't been the focus of Admin and Democrats don't buy "TRUST US" if we allow a vote on clean CR we'll negotiate. Democratic Party wants Republicans to afford their Healthcare atleast acknowledge that fact.

 

[ElChupacabra]

You didn't ask me but I assumed they wanted to express their feelings/opinions and share those among other like minded people. I totally agree with your first sentence.

Ok.

But it seems many on the left are feeling even angrier since yesterday and somehow thought that day of protest would be some game changer. It wasn't until participating in this thread that I realized quite a number of people on the left viewed it as more than a protest and seem to expect some outcome beyond "people protesting". It seems several were even thinking the people protesting and the protest itself would somehow actually change the views and thinking of other political side. I'm guessing that happened with almost no one at all.

I imagine there will always be differences of opinion on the outcome of any action, but I haven't read through every post in this thread to confirm your interpretation. It would be an odd thing for anyone to think since there was nothing I read or heard communicated by the organizers to give anyone the impression there was some kind of end result other than organizing and protesting. I can't speak for others, but I did not attend the protest with any interest in changing the mind of anyone else. Do those attending MAGA events think they are changing anyone else's mind?

 

[ElChupacabra]

Well Captain Obvious, reread this thread and you'll notice a heck of a lot of comments which go far beyond thinking the expected outcome of yesterday was only to have voices be heard.

What did I say that was obvious, Admiral Assumption? Please cite some of them since you've read through this thread, then perhaps you can engage those people on their particular rationale as opposed to bringing it up with me when I haven't expressed that sentiment.

 

[ElChupacabra]

You're very patient.

 

[Cassandra]

You didn't ask me but I assumed they wanted to express their feelings/opinions and share those among other like minded people. I totally agree with your first sentence.

But it seems many on the left are feeling even angrier since yesterday and somehow thought that day of protest would be some game changer. It wasn't until participating in this thread that I realized quite a number of people on the left viewed it as more than a protest and seem to expect some outcome beyond "people protesting". It seems several were even thinking the people protesting and the protest itself would somehow actually change the views and thinking of other political side. I'm guessing that happened with almost no one at all.

Really? What posts are you referring to?

You did not seem interested in receiving a response to the question you posed :
"I've been really wondering what the long term goal of the Dem party is. That's a totally honest question. What the heck do you guys support and want for the country?"

Nor did you respond to the question I posed: 'Do you or do you not support the Russell Vought agenda?- the person who is steering this presidency?.

 

[JohnfrmClevelan]

I think Obamacare has proven to be the failure many thought it would be. It will never sustain itself financially and there will be no end of subsidies needed to keep it afloat.

I think it should be done away with. With that, would be the removal of the requirement that all insurers cover everything. I think older people should be able to choose plans which don't cover maternity care and young families should be able to choose plans which don't cover ailments which only the older generations get. I think everyone should be able to choose plans that don't cover mental health, etc. I think we should go back to having options with different features and different price points.

And as far as healthcare for those with serious illnesses or little means (but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid - as in the group Medicaid was originally designed for before all the expansions), I think we should tackle that group in a separate way which doesn't impact the majority by trying to pile everyone into a one size fits all model.

Clearly, this level of a change (more like a return to a previous and I think better model) is a big lift for Congress. It's not going to happen quickly and especially with such division between the parties. So as far as right now, you're right in that I don't support the Covid expansion subsidies. I'd prefer those expire as legislated by the Dems during the Biden term. Those were meant to be temporary and should be, IMO.

Good for you, thinking about a solution (even though it would be a terrible solution in practice), because that puts you light years ahead of Republicans in general and trump in particular.

For whatever reasons - and there are no good reasons I can think of - Republicans have simply not cared to do anything constructive about healthcare. Lots of efforts to tear the ACA down, weaken its provisions, defund it, etc., but no efforts to improve or replace it. This has been the case for the past 50 years, at least; Nixon was actually the last Republican president who wanted to fix healthcare. Expecting your party to do anything positive is a waste of time. Cheering on their efforts to dismantle the ACA is just wrong.

 

[gbg3]

Ok, then would be prudent to continue as is until concrete alternative plan can be implemented.

Healthcare hasn't been the focus of Admin and Democrats don't buy "TRUST US" if we allow a vote on clean CR we'll negotiate. Democratic Party wants Republicans to afford their Healthcare atleast acknowledge that fact.

I don't know if you think "as is" includes extending the covid era subsidies which are set to expire this year. If so, we aren't in agreement.

I consider "as is" to allow those covid era subsidies to expire as legislated by the Dems.

I do agree that ACA needs to stay in place, for now, minus the temporary covid legislative measure with an automatic expiration date. No further legislation is needed for that expiration to occur. It's in place right now.