The Trump Presidency - how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hair

LeVeL said:
Ah, so the Democrats simply didn't realize that it was a bad idea until they saw what it was actually like? Because I remember Dems feverishly defending the ACA as the greatest thing since sliced bread. I suppose it makes sense, considering they had to pass it to find out what was in it.

Let me ask you this, since now everyone is on the same page about how bad Obamacare is, isn't it a good thing that Trump is trying to dismantle it?
Click to expand...

His not providing any [good] alternatives, that's the problem. It's much like Paris and UK banning any car with an ICE by 2030, sure it's a good idea for air quality but in reality it's not something that's workable.
 
Since when do you decide what we are talking about? :p

I thought we were talking about the fact that Trump decided to dismantle a flawed healthcare act without having a working alternative, leaving even more people and families without access to healthcare.
And I think that is a success metric for any healthcare act that everyone can agree on: Percentage of the populace that can afford healthcare. If it goes down, the new solution is better than the old one. If it goes up, the new solution is worse. This neatly accounts for "healthcare leads to job losses" as well, as people losing their jobs probably will lose their healthcare as well.

Over here, it's 80K people out of an 82mio populace that don't have healthcare, that's .0001%.
 
Last edited:
LeVeL said:
We're not talking about alternatives right now, we're talking about Trump pulling back on Obama EO that was illegal.
Click to expand...

How was it illegal? IIRC the courts upheld every single aspect of Obamacare. Also from my watching of Crowder and Shapiro one of the biggest gripes they always have with the left is that left never provides solutions to problems they expose.

So yeah I want to see alternatives and solutions before he decides to dismantle what is currently in place.

- - - Updated - - -

Essentially all of the below and would also add costs associated. If your premium is higher even if you technically can afford it it's a bad solution.
Dr_Grip said:
Since when do you decide what we are talking about? :p

I thought we were talking about the fact that Trump decided to dismantle a flawed healthcare act without having a working alternative, leaving even more people and families without access to healthcare.
And I think that is a success metric for any healthcare act that everyone can agree on: Percentage of the populace that can afford healthcare. If it goes down, the new solution is better than the old one. If it goes up, the new solution is worse. This neatly accounts for "healthcare leads to job losses" as well, as people losing their jobs probably will lose their healthcare as well.

Over here, it's 80K people out of an 82mio populace that don't have healthcare, that's .0001%.
Click to expand...
 
prizrak said:
Again wasn't it upheld in court?
Click to expand...

Last I heard was in May when it was determined to be illegal, but in august were basically given allowance to democrat-lead states to defend it in court, to file briefs, etc.

I don't know what the latest is.
 
Trump rated himself on how well he helped Puerto Rico. He gave himself a 10.

:lol:
 
He was unbelievable! Trust me!
 
He's got a arm on him, tossing those generic brand Bounty clone paper towels like that...
 
93Flareside said:
Trump rated himself on how well he helped Puerto Rico. He gave himself a 10.

:lol:
Click to expand...

Notice how when talking about people in PR complaining, it wasn't a "real disaster like Katrina"... but when talking about his incredible efforts, its now "PR got it worse than Katrina. "
 
I would go back and find a post or article, but sheriff Joe is not worthy of such efforts. Since President Trump pardoned him, here is the ruling on his attempt to have his record cleared.


Federal judge refuses to erase Joe Arpaio?s conviction despite Trump pardon

A federal judge on Thursday shot down former sheriff Joe Arpaio?s bid to sweep his criminal record clean.

Arpaio, the controversial former lawman in Arizona?s Maricopa County, was granted a pardon by President Trump on Aug. 25. He had been found guilty of criminal contempt of a federal court order after a five-day bench trial earlier this year and faced the possibility of up to six months in jail. After the pardon, the 85-year-old Arpaio petitioned the court to clear his record and prevent the ruling from being used in future litigation.

The case raised the novel question of how far a presidential pardon actually reaches.

In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton said the pardon only freed Arpaio from possible punishment. In a four-page order offering a check on the president?s executive power, Bolton wrote that a pardon could not erase the facts of the case.

?The power to pardon is an executive prerogative of mercy, not of judicial recordkeeping,? Bolton wrote in the decision. ?To vacate all rulings in this case would run afoul of this important distinction. The Court found Defendant guilty of criminal contempt.?

The president issued the pardon, and Arpaio was spared ?from any punishment that might otherwise have been imposed,? the judge wrote. ?It did not, however, ?revise the historical facts? of this case.?

Arpaio?s attorney immediately filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

Arpaio?s hard-line stance on immigration and his harsh treatment of prisoners in Arizona?s Maricopa County made him a household name. Dubbed ?America?s toughest sheriff,? it also earned him fans on the political right, as The Washington Post?s Derek Hawkins has written.

The former lawman?s conviction stems from his failure to comply with a 2011 court order halting the detention of individuals on the basis of their suspected immigration status. Arpaio, a vehement proponent of stronger border control, was a vocal backer of Trump?s presidential campaign.

Trump issued the pardon before Arpaio?s sentencing.

Arpaio, who was voted out of office last fall after a 24-year run, said after his pardon that he was thinking about reentering politics. ?I think I?ve got a big political message to get out,? he told the Arizona Republic.

Presidential pardons typically forgive a person for a federal crime, but do not retroactively scrub the record of the crime from the court system. But the former sheriff?s attorneys argued that because of the timing, the ruling in the case should be thrown out. Although the move had no technical significance for Arpaio?s situation, his attorneys told The Washington Post in September it would be a ?matter of clearing his name.?

The Department of Justice concurred, filing a brief with the court arguing that due to the pardon ?the court should vacate all orders and dismiss the case as moot.?

Two groups ? Free Speech for People, and the Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center ? filed their own motions challenging the pardon itself.

?If the President may employ his pardon power to relieve government officers of accountability and risk of penalty for defying injunctions imposed to enforce constitutional rights, that action will permanently impair the courts? authority and ability to protect those inalienable rights,? the Free Speech for People brief argued. ?The result would be an executive branch freed from the judicial scrutiny required to assure compliance with the dictates of the Bill of Rights and other constitutional safeguards.?

?We are not aware of a single case in our nation?s history where the president pardoned an elected official for disobeying a court order to stop violating constitutional rights,? Ron Fein, legal director at Free Speech for People, told the Intercept in September. ?With this pardon, Trump has pushed our country into uncharted territory.?

Read the ruling
Click to expand...
 
There is more than black and white, surprise!



...not :dunno:




What is "mainstream media" anyway? Yes, it's CNN, Washington Post and what all the other "liberal" media are called, but isn't Fox News "mainstream media" as well? Remind me again, how liberal is Fox News? Additionally, "a poll found that liberals outnumber conservatives in the media by some 5 to 1"? Polls are almost always biased (intentional or not), and small differences in wordings of the same questions can make a huge difference in the outcome.

There might be more "liberals" than "conservatives" in the media, but calling "liberal media" flat out "fake news" as Trump does can't be the solution either. :dunno: Politics (and of course other things) are almost always about compromises since you can't satisfy everyone with every decision, but the Trump administration and especially Trump himself don't seem to understand that, that's one of the reasons the "liberal" media lunge out at him so hard. I'm sure the "conservative" media lunged out at Obama (and Clinton before him) in a similar way, but as Obama and Clinton were more about compromises and didn't disqualify the "conservative" media completely as "fake news" and tried to work with them as well it isn't as memorable.
 
Being liberal is also strongly correlated with college education, you are talking about an industry where a college degree is pretty much required at an entry level and many people have multiple degrees or advanced degrees. The fact that the media tends to be more liberal isn't some liberal plot, it's just that people who tend to be exposed to more ideas and cultural influences through higher education tend to end up more liberal -- or people who are prone being more liberal are more likely to go to college and seek employment in careers that require degrees.
 
The Trump Presidency - how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hair

Blind_Io said:
Being liberal is also strongly correlated with college education, you are talking about an industry where a college degree is pretty much required at an entry level and many people have multiple degrees or advanced degrees. The fact that the media tends to be more liberal isn't some liberal plot, it's just that people who tend to be exposed to more ideas and cultural influences through higher education tend to end up more liberal -- or people who are prone being more liberal are more likely to go to college and seek employment in careers that require degrees.
Click to expand...
Except college degrees != intelligence.

People who get into college do so for many reasons, which include (but are not limited to) simply wanting to delay entry into the real world (see: majority of liberal arts majors), or to meet some prerequisite before advancing to a target career, or to pursue interests in academia.

Depending on the intended careers, the academic path self selects for those who could be hard working and naturally bright; or merely crafty (at knowing how to score well on tests, which again does not automatically confer intelligence), or worse, narcissistic (see: doctors, lawyers).

Just as there are highly ?functional? professionals who have the capacity for critical thinking like a gnat, so you have so called blue collar workers with excellent deductive reasoning and above assumed intelligence.

The fact remains that academia and media are often echo chambers unto themselves, where contrasting opinions are frowned upon, or only invited in order to be publicly scolded. The media itself is concentrated on the coasts, as are many of the aforementioned academics, which goes a long way to explain the liberal pejorative of middle America as ?flyover country.?

To sum it up:
1. Not all that glitters is gold.
2. Many college graduates are not actually intelligent
3. Many farmers and blue collar workers (who may or may not have voted Trump) are not pig-fucking inbreds.
 
Last edited:
I consider myself a pretty intelligent person, yet I went to college twice and dropped out - twice. And not cos lack of intelligence or the university being shit, I had my own personal issues and challenges, and I just didn't apply myself to it the way I should have. Now, I regret it.

I'm intelligent, but I'm also quite stupid on some regards.

Intelligence != wisdom.
 
JimCorrigan said:
The fact remains that academia and media are often echo chambers unto themselves, where contrasting opinions are frowned upon, or only invited in order to be publicly scolded. The media itself is concentrated on the coasts, as are many of the aforementioned academics, which goes a long way to explain the liberal pejorative of middle America as ?flyover country.?

To sum it up:
1. Not all that glitters is gold.
2. Many college graduates are not actually intelligent
3. Many farmers and blue collar workers (who may or may not have voted Trump) are not pig-fucking inbreds.
Click to expand...

Something that really irritates me is the assumed intelligence college grads that I?ve had to deal with. They?ve got this irritating smirk when they think to know more than you while you speak.(this may be specific to just me?) My sister being one. News flash, hardly anyone follows the rules and shits made up on the spot because it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Something I didn?t get with the decision to have trump as president, you don?t like the coasts running the show yet, you voted for someone from the coast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top