WWTBAM Bored

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Not commenting on earnedel's post. Just went to read his link. I really like the 'ONE MORE THING' at the end of the page. It reassures me that I can go to Slate for unbiased information and facts.

You're finally beginning to see the light. I guess listening to Bob and me is having an effect. Maybe there's hope for you yet Flock.

Bob78164 wrote:Senators Alexander and Murray have reached a deal. It's truly unfortunate this deal couldn't have been reached a couple of months ago. At this point it may be too late to reverse many of the premium increases (largely subsidized by the federal government) that the cutoff of cost-sharing payments necessitated.

This does not, of course, absolve Donny of his many other efforts to sabotage the federal marketplaces established under the Affordable Care Act, principally by limiting access to open enrollment and by slashing outreach efforts. --Bob

I applaud trump's strategy to get congress to actually do what they are supposed to do. I might not agree with what they end up doing, but it's a lot better than having one political partisan (the President) decide to do what he wants to do when he wants to do it, and f&*k the rest of us. It's called going back to the Constitutional process, bob. Maybe the democrats can actually get on board and do something that is actually good for the country for a change, instead of what is good for their party's election prospects.

Now, if congress can get together and make DACA constitutional, and decide whether the illegal agreement with Iran should or should not be a treaty, we may make some progress.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:Senators Alexander and Murray have reached a deal. It's truly unfortunate this deal couldn't have been reached a couple of months ago. At this point it may be too late to reverse many of the premium increases (largely subsidized by the federal government) that the cutoff of cost-sharing payments necessitated.

This does not, of course, absolve Donny of his many other efforts to sabotage the federal marketplaces established under the Affordable Care Act, principally by limiting access to open enrollment and by slashing outreach efforts. --Bob

I applaud trump's strategy to get congress to actually do what they are supposed to do. I might not agree with what they end up doing, but it's a lot better than having one political partisan (the President) decide to do what he wants to do when he wants to do it, and f&*k the rest of us. It's called going back to the Constitutional process, bob. Maybe the democrats can actually get on board and do something that is actually good for the country for a change, instead of what is good for their party's election prospects.

Now, if congress can get together and make DACA constitutional, and decide whether the illegal agreement with Iran should or should not be a treaty, we may make some progress.

If that's what Donny actually had wanted to do, he could have done it months ago. Hell, if Congressional Republicans weren't bound and determined to fight a scorched-earth war through the entire Obama Administration, this issue could have been addressed years ago.

Like the child he is, Donny threw a temper tantrum in a fit of pique. It was a tantrum that wasn't actually going to accomplish his true goal (removing as many poor people from health care rolls as possible) but was going to make the program a lot more expensive while hitting middle-class taxpayers hard in the pocketbook. The adults in the room finally intervened, and someone has apparently explained the effects of Donny's policy to him in words of one syllable, so he's backing down, as all bullies do when someone stands up to them. It's not at all clear that the Alexander-Murray deal will make it all the way through Congress (a lot of conservative Republicans are apparently prepared to oppose it) and I don't expect to see Donny leading the charge to undo the damage he's wrought. --Bob

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Not commenting on earnedel's post. Just went to read his link. I really like the 'ONE MORE THING' at the end of the page. It reassures me that I can go to Slate for unbiased information and facts.

You're finally beginning to see the light. I guess listening to Bob and me is having an effect. Maybe there's hope for you yet Flock.

No hope for me, SSS. I was one of you liberals a long time ago. I can't go back. Once you see the light, there's no regressing back to ignorance.

removing as many poor people from health care rolls as possible

Jeez, you are so indoctrinated. Sure, bob, that's what he really wants to do. If he really gets his way, maybe he can personally torture them before he takes away their healthcare, too.

After speaking in favor of the deal yesterday, Donny now has repudiated it. He's sure acting like someone who wants to actively destroy the federal exchanges. I think his problem with the deal was that because it restores funding for the outreach efforts that Donny was slashing, it might actually be effective at attracting participants, helping to keep rates down. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:Senators Alexander and Murray have reached a deal. It's truly unfortunate this deal couldn't have been reached a couple of months ago. At this point it may be too late to reverse many of the premium increases (largely subsidized by the federal government) that the cutoff of cost-sharing payments necessitated.

This does not, of course, absolve Donny of his many other efforts to sabotage the federal marketplaces established under the Affordable Care Act, principally by limiting access to open enrollment and by slashing outreach efforts. --Bob

That they've reached a deal is only the first step. Now they have to get it past both the Senate and House - the former is a possibility but the latter will be a tough slog - the Freedom Caucus will probably not go along with it.

Bob78164 wrote:After speaking in favor of the deal yesterday, Donny now has repudiated it. He's sure acting like someone who wants to actively destroy the federal exchanges. I think his problem with the deal was that because it restores funding for the outreach efforts that Donny was slashing, it might actually be effective at attracting participants, helping to keep rates down. --Bob

One of the many reasons I disavowed being 'liberal' is their reliance on notions like you have: that trump wants to take away health care access from as many poor people as he can. No, he doesn't. Nor does any other sane person, let alone elected official. He simply has an alternative idea on how to remedy the problem that you don't agree with. It might be a good idea or a bad idea, but he doesn't want poor people to die. Rather than debate which solution is better, liberalism resorts to hyperbole and marginalization by making up stories like yours. Liberalism, and especially the democrat party, wants me to actually believe that trump wants poor people to die. I can't go along with that, but apparently, it's an effective device for a lot of people. That is divisiveness personified, yet liberals are always lecturing against what they call divisiveness while they practice it at their core.
We got into this whole mess because Obama wanted to 'fix' the healthcare system. So he brought it under government control, disregarding and marginalizing those who didn't think it was a good idea, which happened to be the majority of the American people. Now we will debate time after time how to fix the problems that government control has caused, and the solution will inevitably be more government control. It will never end.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: It might be a good idea or a bad idea, but he doesn't want poor people to die.

It's not that he wants poor people die. It's that he simply doesn't care whether they die or not. The quote to that widow of the dead soldier killed in Africa pretty much sums up Trump's philosophy "he knew what he signed up for."

Trump cares about Trump, first, foremost, and almost exclusively. He is determined to dismantle as much of Obama's legacy as possible to boost his own stature, without much regard to the consequences.

And before you accuse me of "looking into" Trump's psyche, you're pretty much doing the same thing when you make statements about why he does or does not do things.

silverscreenselect wrote: The quote to that widow of the dead soldier killed in Africa pretty much sums up Trump's philosophy "he knew what he signed up for."

Considering the source, it is highly suspect, that he said those words, that way, in the context they are being portrayed. Highly.

It is about at truthful as the dossier so widely reported.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: The quote to that widow of the dead soldier killed in Africa pretty much sums up Trump's philosophy "he knew what he signed up for."

Considering the source, it is highly suspect, that he said those words, that way, in the context they are being portrayed. Highly.

It is about at truthful as the dossier so widely reported.

Here's the family's account. Given Donny's history, I don't think it'll be long before he attacks this Gold Star family.

How the hell do you make a call like that without taking the time to learn the soldier's name?

And let's not forget, the only participant in this call who we know to be a liar is Donny, who started this issue by lying about how previous Presidents had responded to combat deaths. --Bob

It's not that he wants poor people die. It's that he simply doesn't care whether they die or not.

Oh, I see. Of course he doesn't. So that means everything he says and does is to be disregarded and ignored, because we do care and we are better people than he is, and by extension we are better people than anyone who might agree with him or any of his proposed policies.
That's how it works.

I don't agree with that logic, if you want to call it that.

flockofseagulls104 wrote: So that means everything he says and does is to be disregarded and ignored, because we do care and we are better people than he is,

Well, Trump has compiled a 70-year dossier of acting exclusively in his own best interests, lying at the drop of a hat, and pretty much engaging in every disreputable sort of behavior known to man.

But in your view, as long as he says something with which you agree politically, he can't be a bad guy. About the only thing you take him to task for are his midnight tweets because they mean he might not be getting enough rest.

They know the risk, they know what they sign up for but they still volunteer to put their lives on the line for their fellow Americans. We owe them a debt that can never be repaid.

I find nothing wrong or disrespectful in the least with that statement.

BackInTex wrote:

They know the risk, they know what they sign up for but they still volunteer to put their lives on the line for their fellow Americans. We owe them a debt that can never be repaid.

I find nothing wrong or disrespectful in the least with that statement.

Of course, that's not what Trump told a pregnant widow and the parents of the dead soldier as they were driving to the airport to meet the plane bringing back his body.

He knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt.

And, of course, Trump couldn't be bothered to learn the woman's name either.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote: The quote to that widow of the dead soldier killed in Africa pretty much sums up Trump's philosophy "he knew what he signed up for."

Considering the source, it is highly suspect, that he said those words, that way, in the context they are being portrayed. Highly.

It is about at truthful as the dossier so widely reported.

These days, if it's not on video, it didn't happen.

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: So that means everything he says and does is to be disregarded and ignored, because we do care and we are better people than he is,

Well, Trump has compiled a 70-year dossier of acting exclusively in his own best interests, lying at the drop of a hat, and pretty much engaging in every disreputable sort of behavior known to man.

But in your view, as long as he says something with which you agree politically, he can't be a bad guy. About the only thing you take him to task for are his midnight tweets because they mean he might not be getting enough rest.

Let me fix that for you:

Well, Clinton has compiled a 70-year dossier of acting exclusively in his/her own best interests, lying at the drop of a hat, and pretty much engaging in every disreputable sort of behavior known to man/woman.

But in your view, as long as he/she says something with which you agree politically, he/she can't be a bad guy/girl.

You could, based on partisan propaganda on either side, pretty much apply those two sentences to any controversial politician, now or in the past. Give me a break.
Trump is a jerk. He constantly does things that a polished politician would never do, and he sticks his foot up his ass every time he tweets, and the media eats it up. But I believe he is, for the most part, trying to do what he thinks is best for the country as much as Obama, Bush, Clinton et al thought they were doing the best for the country. Like I did with Obama, I will judge him by what he does, not by the epithets thrown at him by the epithet throwers like you.

silverscreenselect wrote:And, of course, Trump couldn't be bothered to learn the woman's name either.

I think this part is pure BS. You don't think he had a card with all pertinent names and numbers in front of him during the call?

Estonut wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:And, of course, Trump couldn't be bothered to learn the woman's name either.

I think this part is pure BS. You don't think he had a card with all pertinent names and numbers in front of him during the call?

Of course he didn't. That's not the way it works. The White House switchboard would have originated the call then connected to Donny.

Bob Juch wrote:

Estonut wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:And, of course, Trump couldn't be bothered to learn the woman's name either.

I think this part is pure BS. You don't think he had a card with all pertinent names and numbers in front of him during the call?

Of course he didn't. That's not the way it works. The White House switchboard would have originated the call then connected to Donny.

Three people arguing over a small, ridiculous detail none of them can possibly know anything about? Please take this sub-discussion to CNN where it belongs.

Estonut wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:And, of course, Trump couldn't be bothered to learn the woman's name either.

I think this part is pure BS. You don't think he had a card with all pertinent names and numbers in front of him during the call?

Based on the mother's account, apparently not. One of the things she found disrespectful was the failure to know her son's name. --Bob

Bob Juch wrote:

Estonut wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:And, of course, Trump couldn't be bothered to learn the woman's name either.

I think this part is pure BS. You don't think he had a card with all pertinent names and numbers in front of him during the call?

Of course he didn't. That's not the way it works. The White House switchboard would have originated the call then connected to Donny.

No shit, Einstein. Where did I suggest that he dialed the call itself?

Estonut wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Estonut wrote:I think this part is pure BS. You don't think he had a card with all pertinent names and numbers in front of him during the call?

Of course he didn't. That's not the way it works. The White House switchboard would have originated the call then connected to Donny.

No shit, Einstein. Where did I suggest that he dialed the call itself?

So why do you assume he had the names and numbers in front of him?

Bob Juch wrote:

Estonut wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:Of course he didn't. That's not the way it works. The White House switchboard would have originated the call then connected to Donny.

No shit, Einstein. Where did I suggest that he dialed the call itself?

So why do you assume he had the names and numbers in front of him?

He was calling 4 different families. I'd think they'd have prepared a card for each, listing parents, spouses, kids, kids ages, etc.. Pertinent information for each call.

I'm surprised to see that you think he's smart enough to remember such information for each call.

Estonut wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

Estonut wrote:No shit, Einstein. Where did I suggest that he dialed the call itself?

So why do you assume he had the names and numbers in front of him?

He was calling 4 different families. I'd think they'd have prepared a card for each, listing parents, spouses, kids, kids ages, etc.. Pertinent information for each call.

I'm surprised to see that you think he's smart enough to remember such information for each call.

What you think is apparently wrong. Maybe he can't read. He didn't remember and didn't look at anything; he just didn't know.