Congressman Steve Scalise Shot. Fake News to Blame

"Being an American" really does not mean that one must agree with all the actions of the current president--certainly, I did not do so, with regard to then-President Obama--but it does mean not attempting to delegitimize him; and even hound him out of office.

And it certainly means treating him with respect--not contempt.

 

This president needs to treat Americans with respect, and not lie to suit his agenda and recreate history. This president needs to respect
the three branches of government, and he has not. He is unqualified to hold office and may well put our sons and daughters into a war.
This president has alienated our allies, upset our environment, and is fattening the wealthy, while doing little for the working middle class.
Respect goes both ways. He works for us, does he not?

 

The swing of the pendulum is key. The republicans fix the things the democrats **** up, then the democrats come in and fix the things the republicans **** up. They both **** up the country (and benefit the country) in ways that offset each other.

Obama did all the things you lament above in Trump. All of them. GWB did too. In 8 years, the next democrat potus will too. My advice: sit back, hold on, and enjoy the ride. It'll come swinging back your way before too long. If you're tired of all that bullshit, then consider a third party next time, because only then will anything really change.

 

Good post. Unfortunately, a third party can't get elected

 

You have made some very serious allegations here.

Regrettably, however, you have offered nothing to support them.

Would you attempt to do so, please?

 

Pulling out of the Paris accords (environment) and declaring that they weren't binding (they are for 3 yrs). Giving the wealthy a huge
tax benefit in the health care bill at the expense of the working middle class. Declaring the ACA a disaster when the CBO has
found it to be very sustainable (needs fixing, not repealing), which may indicate jealousy by Trump (doesn't want Obama to get
credit for anything). Costing the taxpayers millions of dollars while Congress goes through gyrations to craft a new health care bill, which will have a negative effect on the working middle class. Proposing to reduce the tax base for the wealthy to 15% while giving the working middle class very little. Arbitrarily accusing Obama of wiretapping him, obstructing justice. There is more, I am sure. The NY Times has published a list that you might be interested in reading.
He has fired the FBI Director for dubious reasons. His verbally attacked a Hispanic judge and other judges ("so called judges") when they ruled against him. He as alienated our allies, who are democracies and have supported us in our wars forever (they may not be so quick to send troops and planes).He talks about using American workers, American companies when he used undocumented immigrants and Japanese steel to build his buildings.
In my view, the problem is that President Trump does not know what he does not know. He says that he knows more than our Generals. President Reagan new what he did not know and had brilliant people in his Cabinet to advise him.

 

I will certainly give you credit for responding substantively this time.

As regarding (then-candidate) Trump's verbal abuse of a federal judge, I agree that that was uncalled for and petty.

And I am not sure as concerning the claim that Barack Obama wiretapped Donald Trump. (It is possible; but I would want more proof, before making the accusation.)

(By the way, there is, similarly, no proof as regarding a "Russia connection" with Donald Trump. Have you been equally vigilant in questioning that?)

I really do not know just where you got the idea that the Paris Accords were "binding" for awhile. In fact, Wikipedia says the following:

"In the Paris Agreement, each country determines, plans and regularly reports its own contribution it should make in order to mitigate global warming. There is no mechanism to force a country to set a specific target by a specific date..." [Bold added]

However, if they really were, that was all the more reason to pull out of them, as I fully reject globalism--or any hint thereof--as President Trump also (thankfully!) does.

And President Trump did not campaign--and he was not elected--on a promise to "fix" ObamaCare; but to repeal and replace it. (Leftists and Democrats--pardon the redundancy, please--seem to believe that ObamaCare is basically a good thing, merely in need of a few tweaks. Well, I do not. And neither does President Trump.)

 

Trump wants to destroy Obama's legacy by repealing Obama care instead of fixing it. The CBO report supports the ACA. I know what Trump ran on, saying that the reason is that Obama care is imploding. It is the law and just needs fixing (not tweaking), and this can be accomplished without going through these gyrations costing the taxpayer millions of dollars. If it can be fixed, why does he want to repeal and replace? Makes no sense.
As far as the Paris accords are concerned, there is a 3 year waiting period before a country can bow out. Trump says that it is not binding. Nothing is binding--treaties can be broken, but is it smart?

 

Did the senate ratify the treaty?

 

Don't know, but it isn't a treaty

 

How does it not fall under the definition of a treaty?

 

It is an agreement by all the countries in the world, and I guess it didn't fall under the treaty category. Let's not mince words.

 

Yes, because it doesn't matter if the Senate is required to ratify it, and hasn't.

 

Only cowards attack someone while that person is in the hospital and can not reply.

 

The senate is required to ratify treaties.
How does it not fall under the definition of a treaty?

 

I will agree that the ACA is Barack Obama's legacy item, domestically. (Internationally, it is probably the Iran deal.)

I find the assertion that ObamaCare is capable of being "fixed" to be quite problematical--to say the least. It is imploding before our very eyes. (In fact, some Republican senators actually do not want to replace it now--but just wait for it to implode; after which, Democratic senators--ex hypothesi, anyway--will come begging the Republican senators for a replacement.)

In any case, I would be thoroughly opposed to any sort of legislation that moves us a step closer to authoritarianism--as the individual mandate does.

Could you please cite a neutral source--not a left-leaning source--that says as much?

Moreover, I should point out that I have even less respect for the entire concept of "international law" than I have for, say, my bathroom tissue: Any law requires a law enforcer, if it is to be anything more than a mere joke. And who is the "law enforcer" for "international law," anyway?

 

I believe that Trump is jealous of Obama and he has made it his mission to discredit him whenever possible. The ACA can
definitely be saved with changes. The insurance companies are leaving because Trump isn't paying them. It is cheaper to fix it rather than to repeal. I don't care if they change it's name to Trump Care to satisfy his insatiable ego. Trump should be doing the right
thing for America instead of spending millions of dollars on this when it could be spent on infrastructure or inner cities. Perhaps
not giving the super rich that big tax break and instead applying those funds to the ACA would take care of those 22 million who would
lose out.
International agreements are based on honor, and if Trump is not acting in an honorable way, then why should any other country.
I learned of this 3 year notice on this site, but I will google it anyway.

 

Would you elucidate, please? (So far as I am aware, Congress holds the purse strings--not the president.)

The tax cuts, of course (which liberals simply loathe; it makes Big Government harder to achieve) would apply to all. And since the wealthy have more money (just by definition), they would, of course, save more total
money (money which is objectively their own money--not money that the government graciously allows them to keep).

But the middle class probably will feel a greater impact here.

Moreover, I should point out that I consider healthcare insurance to be a privilege.

But if you consider it to be a fundamental right (which would certainly not surprise me, given your other views), it really begs the question: Why would you not be in favor of UHC, instead of ObamaCare?

Think about it...

 

The Republicans ran under the premise that they were going to replace and repeal. The President also ran on that premise.
The insurance companies are not being paid, and they are pulling out. I would certainly favor the plan being presented if they could
make it work and not spend millions of taxpayer dollars doing so. Obamacare, according to the CBO is fixable, and it already
went through these gyrations to become law. There is no reason to kill it, except political. I do not like to be a pawn in politics. You?
And you consider health care to be a privilege until you have cancer.
In case you were not aware, the working middle class gets very little from Trump's tax proposals. They only benefit the super wealthy.

 

I guess this is a "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" sort of thing.

If President Trump were not trying to repeal and replace ObamaCare, the Democrats would be flogging him for not living up to his promises.

As it is, they are flogging him for indeed living up to his promises.

I guess he just can't win, huh?

You seem to believe that everybody responds only to expediency--not to neutral principle.

Is the former the case as regarding you?

You seem to divide all of America into just two groups: the "super wealthy" and the "working middle class" (a.k.a. the lower middle class).

No room, I suppose, for the middle-middle class (which actually encompasses a huge portion of America).

 

pjohns;.

PRESIDENT TRUMP does not need a vote of confidence from democrats, or Trump Haters on the website.

 

He ran on a 'repeal and replace', prefaced by 'fake' statements about the ACA . The CBO disagreed with him.

I am referring to those who seriously need help, the working middle class, the working and the middle class if that is more clear. Both
classes are working and need support.
Used the word 'cancer' as an example.

 

Whereas it is certainly true that some of Donald Trump's assertions may (fairly) be called into question, it is hard to see how anyone could describe his statements about ObamaCare as being "fake."

Would you care to elucidate, please?

If you truly believe that Americans in general "need support" for their healthcare--that the status quo ante (i.e. prior to ObamaCare) was insufficient--then why do you not proclaim your support for UHC?

Is it merely because you prefer to get there soon--but incrementally--because you just do not believe that Republicans (and conservatives in general) will now support UHC; but that ObamaCare is an entitlement that is destined to fail--after which, very few people will wish to return to the pre-entitlement era?

If that is your thinking, then I would far--and I do mean far--rather have full-fledged UHC than to have ObamaCare (which is better described as an ObamaNation, I believe).

And I believe that most other Republicans and conservatives (who are often one and the same) would prefer even UHC to ObamaCare, also.

So I am really hard pressed to see just why anyone would consider ObamaCare to be some sort of middle ground...