Author Topic: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting  (Read 34721 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1295 on: September 11, 2017, 10:03:12 AM »
It's not compassionate to force people into exchanges with premiums that are 20, 30, or even 40% more than what they had before.   It's not compassionate to force others that don't want healthcare - of their own free will, not because of need - to pay a tax penalty for exercising their free will. 

Well that's a matter of opinion.

Not using the standards of the party he is in theory representing.


I'll go off the rails of this thread a bit here.

Captain obvious here; The issue with our healthcare system is it's tied to insurance. Sure, someone who is 22 is unlikely to have a massive medical bill. But they could, and if they don't have insurance they could be hosed. So being saddled beyond hope is not compassionate. And I would agree having to pay a penalty for choosing not to have insurance is lame- but then again, they might not get care when needed if they don't have insurance. But then we go down that road of the dirty S word.


The system failure IMO goes back to insurance and pharmaceutical running rampant in the name of profit.  So we have all this now. :-\ As I have said, I have seen the dirt with pharmaceutical first hand. They are printing money, and having billion dollar settlements swallowed like it's nothing???
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements

There is room for multiple tiers of care. There shouldn't be the option of no care however in a first world country. But then again, survival of the fittest to some. Oh wait... *grabs guns and swords to fight a group of 7 food-raiding tigers.*

Agreed with the problems of insurance. The 'free market' is a great tool - at making the best product in an industry. Insurance and health care are two very different industries that are being meshed into one with our system. Free market insurance will provide the best and most profitable insurance. It will not provide for the best healthcare, especially if healthcare is viewed the same as protection from crime (police), foreign actors (military), education (well, before college at least), etc. Stadler has often said that "number of insured" isn't a good metric. which is highlighting the problem of insurance v. healthcare. Number of insured, maybe not, if certain individuals don't want insurance. But quality of healthcare for all Americans who need it is a good metric, I'd argue. Two very different things. Obamacare went after changing how insurance was regulated, because that was the mechanism in place. I'd argue that Obamacare's flaws are not related to Obamacare itself,  but rather the inherent flaws of the industry it has to deal with. Insurance as an intermediary to healthcare is not conducive to proper care for Americans, as I see it.

You're right, by the way, though I would tweak it a little to say "I'd argue that Obamacare's flaws are not related to Obamacare itself,  but rather the inherent flaws in how it interfaces with the industry it has to deal with."

There are so many structural flaws with the system as we know it that Obamacare itself could have been perfect, but it was built onto a pre-existing system, and held in place with duct tape and baling wire.    Why are we not talking about the complete ridiculousness of half our country receiving healthcare coverage from our employers?   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1296 on: September 11, 2017, 10:05:07 AM »
Anyone see Bannon's TV interview. Wow. He left the government because he "couldn't go after who we need to go after" while a government employee. That dude is something else.

But, but.. he's a street fighter!  Isn't that what we want in our government?  A bunch of street fighters?   :)

Offline Cable

  • Posts: 1511
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1297 on: September 11, 2017, 10:08:21 AM »

It's not "survival of the fittest"; if someone CAN'T afford it, I am unequivocal that we should subsidize that.  I have no quibble there. I do have a quibble in forcing people to participate when they don't want to, AND still having it be presumably a "choice based" system.


The problem is it is moving that way. The choice system is where things are. The big term was ~access~ to healthcare when the ACA was attempted to be repealed. That's great that everyone has a choice to have access to care. Much like I have access to being able to chose between a Ferrari and Lamborghini. Too bad I can afford neither, so that is a massive problem when healthcare has been reduced to free-market solutions of choice and access. Portnoy311 already hit on this though after my post, so not sure why we are picking my comment here.


<snip>
The system failure IMO goes back to insurance and pharmaceutical running rampant in the name of profit.  So we have all this now. :-\ As I have said, I have seen the dirt with pharmaceutical first hand. They are printing money, and having billion dollar settlements swallowed like it's nothing???
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements

There is room for multiple tiers of care. There shouldn't be the option of no care however in a first world country. But then again, survival of the fittest to some. Oh wait... *grabs guns and swords to fight a group of 7 food-raiding tigers.*

Agreed with the problems of insurance. The 'free market' is a great tool - at making the best product in an industry. Insurance and health care are two very different industries that are being meshed into one with our system. Free market insurance will provide the best and most profitable insurance. It will not provide for the best healthcare, especially if healthcare is viewed the same as protection from crime (police), foreign actors (military), education (well, before college at least), etc. Stadler has often said that "number of insured" isn't a good metric. which is highlighting the problem of insurance v. healthcare. Number of insured, maybe not, if certain individuals don't want insurance. But quality of healthcare for all Americans who need it is a good metric, I'd argue. Two very different things. Obamacare went after changing how insurance was regulated, because that was the mechanism in place. I'd argue that Obamacare's flaws are not related to Obamacare itself,  but rather the inherent flaws of the industry it has to deal with. Insurance as an intermediary to healthcare is not conducive to proper care for Americans, as I see it.



Quote

By the way, don't fall into the Left's "insurers are making obscene profits" nonsense; the pharmaceuticals are, for sure, but the insurers are not, AND they are being saddled with almost all the risk in the current system.  "Profit" is just another way to measure risk, and for the insurers, the balance is way out of whack (and if you want deets, I can give them, but I've given them here before many times).


I'm not sure what "deets" are, nor do I follow everything you say Stadler so I have no idea what you have said many times. In the case of profits, I couldn't obtain a *right* perspective for my references. Not sure if this is because "the Left" continues a decline with false news,  and sourced journalism...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/business/health-insurers-profit.html?mcubz=3
https://www.axios.com/profits-are-booming-at-health-insurance-companies-2418194773.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/insurers-profits-have-nearly-doubled-since-obama-was-elected/article/2005073

I could really care less about who is making "obscene profits" between the two; clearly phrama is. Nor do I care about the risk, just noting the issues with the healthcare system. For example, my personal insurance history used to be a non-profit, more local entity to one of the big for-profit entities.
---

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1298 on: September 11, 2017, 10:14:39 AM »
But why bother trying to argue who can afford what?  Just cover everybody.  And yes without the employers supplying the majority of the coverage,  where I live they only supply coverage for prescription medication, and most big employers have options where you can pay more for eyes and dental.  For Meds there's a obligatory public plan for people who aren't covered elsewhere but it's usually kind of shitty in comparison.

I'm with you, 100%, but that's not how the system in America was put into place.  It was PREDICATED on who can afford what.  That's why I'm a libertarian/conservative who is very much for single payer.

If you're not going to make it truly market based (proven by having the employer provide it) and if you're not going to take advantages of the markets (proven by the employer providing coverage, tax penalties for not participating, and the multiple opaque layers of payment, none coming from the person that receives the services) you might as well not bother with that form of scheme to start with.  You can't do "market" half-assed.       

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1299 on: September 11, 2017, 10:23:35 AM »

It's not "survival of the fittest"; if someone CAN'T afford it, I am unequivocal that we should subsidize that.  I have no quibble there. I do have a quibble in forcing people to participate when they don't want to, AND still having it be presumably a "choice based" system.


The problem is it is moving that way. The choice system is where things are. The big term was ~access~ to healthcare when the ACA was attempted to be repealed. That's great that everyone has a choice to have access to care. Much like I have access to being able to chose between a Ferrari and Lamborghini. Too bad I can afford neither, so that is a massive problem when healthcare has been reduced to free-market solutions of choice and access. Portnoy311 already hit on this though after my post, so not sure why we are picking my comment here.

Well, I don't think we're picking exactly, because it's not that cut and dry.  One, I just wanted to offer that I DO mean "choice" purely speaking, and if it's a false choice (like the Ferrari example), we need to do something about it.  And two, I'm very criticial about the misuse and politicization of words like "access" and "choice".   If I have to choose between a new BMW and healthcare, that's not a "false choice".  That's not "access".  That's MY decision to make.  We build our budgets from the ground up.  We're guaranteed a very small number of things, and rightfully so.  We are, in 2017, still having the conversation whether "healthcare" should be one of those things in the "not subject to income" bracket, but we're not going a good enough job of having that conversation, and we're not at all doing a good enough job of implementing the decision.  I'm all for having "healthcare" be, essentially, a right, but we're not at all treating it that way, and we're not at all acting as if we really believe it when we say it.   You shouldn't have to "force" someone to accept what is their right.  You shouldn't have your right be subject to the negotiation whims of your employer.   It's all too incongruous to ever really work right, and nothing in the "Repeal and Replace" is even TALKING about these things, let alone actually DEALING with them. 

Quote

I'm not sure what "deets" are, nor do I follow everything you say Stadler so I have no idea what you have said many times. In the case of profits, I couldn't obtain a *right* perspective for my references. Not sure if this is because "the Left" continues a decline with false news,  and sourced journalism...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/business/health-insurers-profit.html?mcubz=3
https://www.axios.com/profits-are-booming-at-health-insurance-companies-2418194773.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/insurers-profits-have-nearly-doubled-since-obama-was-elected/article/2005073

"Deets" is what the kids call "details"; I turned 50 yesterday so that's my form of mid-life crisis. :0

It's not "fake news", but it's misleading news.   There has been a ton of consolidation in the industry, so using raw numbers of "$8 billion" versus "$15 billion", as the last article did, is potentially misleading. I know for a while there, companies like Cigna had a profit margin of 7, 8%, and that is INSANELY low for a business as risky as healthcare.   In the 2009 year, the largest company, United, had a profit margin of roughly 3.5%, Aetna was about 4% and CIGNA about 1.5% (these are rough numbers and not official SEC filings).   In that second comparison year, they were about 3.8%, 3.5% and 4.5%.  These are bad even for margin-thin industries, like appliance manufacturing, and with many times the risk. 

Quote

I could really care less about who is making "obscene profits" between the two; clearly phrama is. Nor do I care about the risk, just noting the issues with the healthcare system. For example, my personal insurance history used to be a non-profit, more local entity to one of the big for-profit entities.

But you very much should care where the risk is, because that's where the system is most likely to fail.  Exchanges are CRUCIAL to the Obamacare model, and yet carriers are running from them like lemmings.  Why?    Because they didn't contemplate the risk factor.  Why should a company assume - unilaterally, and with no commensurate return - all the risk for a particular population's health and wellbeing?  Moreover, under U.S. corporate law, they may not be legally able to, and yet that is what Obamacare was REQUIRING them - not asking them, not inviting them, but REQUIRING them - to do.    The insurers were made the scapegoat of the entire industry, wrongly in my view, and we're wondering why they are not accepting that?   
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 10:46:04 AM by Stadler »

Online eric42434224

  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1300 on: September 11, 2017, 06:50:06 PM »
I still think there's a fundamental difference between my approach, and "I think that fake-haired, orange-skinned dick wipe is a racist, and nothing you can say can convince me otherwise", which we get a lot of here.

No, we really don't get a lot of that here.  That is just a biased generalization.  It didn't even need much critical thinking to show it is unsupported....it merely required reading the posts of pretty much anyone in this forum.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Online eric42434224

  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1301 on: September 11, 2017, 06:53:15 PM »

See what I'm getting at? I'm not saying you're wrong in having opinions and a way of viewing things. Quite the opposite, I think that's great and how discussion happens. But I do think when you disagree with someone, or many someones, portraying it as irrational subjective actors against your objective truths is dishonest and counterproductive to actual nuanced discussions, which is the end goal we both share.

Unfortunately, I do not see.   I still think there's a fundamental difference between my approach, and "I think that fake-haired, orange-skinned dick wipe is a racist, and nothing you can say can convince me otherwise", which we get a lot of here.

No, we really don't get a lot of that here.  That is just a biased generalization.  It didn't even need much critical thinking to show it is unsupported....it merely required reading the posts of pretty much anyone in this forum.  It is simply a straw man you have created.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25464
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1302 on: September 11, 2017, 06:58:36 PM »
I still think there's a fundamental difference between my approach, and "I think that fake-haired, orange-skinned dick wipe is a racist, and nothing you can say can convince me otherwise", which we get a lot of here.

with her statements since the election, you cannot convince me she isn't as delusional, narcissistic, and self-centered as what we got.

It's not that different.

Yes I am aware you also insulted Trump in your post.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1303 on: September 12, 2017, 07:49:34 AM »
I still think there's a fundamental difference between my approach, and "I think that fake-haired, orange-skinned dick wipe is a racist, and nothing you can say can convince me otherwise", which we get a lot of here.

with her statements since the election, you cannot convince me she isn't as delusional, narcissistic, and self-centered as what we got.

It's not that different.

Yes I am aware you also insulted Trump in your post.

I don't know what to tell you.  I see a difference.  And there IS a difference.   Some of you - who wouldn't know "critical thinking" if it was nibbling their nipples, as evidenced by the fact that they haven't shown a lick of it here - can call that "bias" all day long and that doesn't make it so.   I looked at what Hillary did with the same critical eye.   As with Bernie. 

"Having a standard by which you evaluate" - if you are clear in that standard and apply that same standard to all - is not the same as "bias".  It's just not.  That would make EVERY comparison ever, "biased".  "Bias" is when you - consciously or not - disregard or undermine that standard for one case over another.   Kind of like how some here get their jollies out of being "critical" of me even when they - more often than not - haven't the first clue what they are talking about and have zero evidence of what they are claiming. Calling Hillary a "narcissist" is not "bias", in and of itself.   Finding negative things about candidates is not "bias", in and of itself.  Finding ONLY negative things about a candidate, BECAUSE it's that candidate, is "bias".   Using one case that isn't at all the same as a second case to evaluate that second case is "bias".    I haven't done that with Hillary. 

And in some cases - not liked here, because it exposes the anti-Trump bias pretty clearly - it's a matter of using the standard of others.  As is the case of Hillary's narcissism.  If you want to criticize Trump of "narcissism", and you want to use evidence of, among other things, how he seems to turn even unrelated discussions back to him (since I have to cite everything exactly correct lest I experience the wrath of DTF, google "Trump Quotes" and click the first choice - here's the link: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/donald_trump.html - for examples) then that standard is fair to evaluate other candidates.  Hillary has, in recent weeks, exhibited the same characteristics, with her steady need to "post mortem" the election in such a way that little if any meaningful criticism sticks to her.   It's Comey, it's Sanders, it's misogyny, it's this, it's that, anything but "her".   That's not bias.  That's establishing the standard, collecting the evidence - all of it, not just that which supports the claim, weighing the evidence, and drawing the conclusion.   That IS by definition "critical thinking", for those that feel it's somehow lacking.

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 25464
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1304 on: September 12, 2017, 09:00:44 AM »
Yo Stads, I tried to send you a PM but it said your inbox was full.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1305 on: September 12, 2017, 09:45:45 AM »
Yo Stads, I tried to send you a PM but it said your inbox was full.

Fixed

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21028
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1306 on: September 12, 2017, 10:59:03 AM »
I don't know what to tell you.  I see a difference.  And there IS a difference.   Some of you - who wouldn't know "critical thinking" if it was nibbling their nipples, as evidenced by the fact that they haven't shown a lick of it here - can call that "bias" all day long and that doesn't make it so.

First of all, this was entirely uncalled for, to personally attack "some of you". Second, simply saying that 'some of us' here wouldn't know critical thinking if it was on our nipples "doesn't make it so".  Just because we haven't demonstrated (in your opinion) critical thinking as it relates to Trump's behaviours/actions/actions in our posts in this thread doesn't mean A)we're not capable of it at all, or B) we didn't conduct some critical thinking and then STILL come to the conclusions/opinions we did.  How 'bout a little critical thinking on your part to consider that.  ;D

Calling Hillary a "narcissist" is not "bias", in and of itself.   Finding negative things about candidates is not "bias", in and of itself.  Finding ONLY negative things about a candidate, BECAUSE it's that candidate, is "bias".   Using one case that isn't at all the same as a second case to evaluate that second case is "bias".    I haven't done that with Hillary.

First, it's YOUR opinion that some of us are saying ONLY negative things BECAUSE it's that candidate - despite how many times I personally have said that this isn't the case... you chose not to believe or consider it.  There aren't anymore fucking "candidates".  There is ONE POTUS - it's kinda hard to criticize (or praise) any other incumbent POTUS.  I'm not going to go around the circle-jerk-wagon anymore on the what/why Trump deserves the criticism he receives.  Second, when have you offered anything other than a negative comment towards Hilary?  Look, I wasn't actively posting here much during the campaign, so maybe you did have positive and negative things to say.  However, since then, there has been nothing but shots at Hilary from your keyboard.  Also, unless you're a trained psychiatrist, you can't offer the diagnosis of "narcissist" (and the Goldwater rule would preclude you from doing it IF you were a trained psychiatrist).  How many times have you called me (and others out) for the things we've called Trump without any basis of "proof" or "fact"?  Double standard much?

And btw, I agree that Hilary is somewhat delusional and out of touch to consistently push the blame elsewhere, taking virtually no accountability for it being HER campaign, and HER candidacy that lost. 
Dream Theater Forums: Expanding musical tastes and shrinking wallets since 2009.
Note to forum, jingle is usually right.
I'm actually disappointed he's not Kim Jong-Il

Online eric42434224

  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1307 on: September 12, 2017, 10:59:26 AM »
Trump has, in recent years, exhibited the same characteristics, with his steady need to lie and shift blame in such a way that little if any meaningful criticism sticks to him.   It's Comey, it's Fake News, it's lies, its Dems, it Mainstream Media, it's this, it's that, anything but "him".   That's not bias.  That's establishing the standard, collecting the evidence - all of it, not just that which supports the claim, weighing the evidence, and drawing the conclusion.   That IS by definition "critical thinking", for those that feel it's somehow lacking.

Fixed.

Perhaps now you can see that we are simply doing LITERALLY the same thing when it comes to Trump.  We establish the standard, examine the evidence, recognize patterns, and draw conclusions.  It is EXACTLY the same thing.  Saying others aren't doing that, and that you are somehow different, is merely a straw man you have constructed.  As Jingle stated above...total double standard.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2739
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1308 on: September 12, 2017, 11:08:09 AM »
I don't know what to tell you.  I see a difference.  And there IS a difference.   Some of you - who wouldn't know "critical thinking" if it was nibbling their nipples, as evidenced by the fact that they haven't shown a lick of it here - can call that "bias" all day long and that doesn't make it so.

First of all, this was entirely uncalled for, to personally attack "some of you."

Agreed.  Stadler, you've been warned for personal attacks and off-topic baiting on a few threads now, and it needs to stop immediately.  Take the week off to think about that and hopefully put a stop to it upon your return.  This is a final warning.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21028
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1309 on: September 12, 2017, 11:29:08 AM »
I don't know what to tell you.  I see a difference.  And there IS a difference.   Some of you - who wouldn't know "critical thinking" if it was nibbling their nipples, as evidenced by the fact that they haven't shown a lick of it here - can call that "bias" all day long and that doesn't make it so.

First of all, this was entirely uncalled for, to personally attack "some of you."

Agreed.  Stadler, you've been warned for personal attacks and off-topic baiting on a few threads now, and it needs to stop immediately.  Take the week off to think about that and hopefully put a stop to it upon your return.  This is a final warning.

For the record, I didn't make that comment with any hope or intention of a temp-ban.  I think we've all said things here that are subtle jabs at one-another (heck, I did - though tongue-in-cheek - in that post).  I just thought that Stadler's comment was more of a right-hook and wanted to point that out to him.
Dream Theater Forums: Expanding musical tastes and shrinking wallets since 2009.
Note to forum, jingle is usually right.
I'm actually disappointed he's not Kim Jong-Il

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4426
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1310 on: September 13, 2017, 10:23:34 PM »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/09/13/trump-top-democrats-agree-to-work-on-deal-to-save-daca/?utm_term=.25250734b79b

Quote
Trump, top Democrats agree to work on deal to save ‘dreamers’ from deportation

Democratic leaders announced late Wednesday that they agreed with President Trump to pursue a legislative deal that would protect hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants from deportation and enact border security measures that don’t include building a physical wall.

The president discussed options during a dinner at the White House with Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that also included talks on tax reform, infrastructure and trade. Trump has showed signs of shifting strategy to cross the aisle and work with Democrats in the wake of the high-profile failures by Republicans to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

A possible alliance between Trump and the Democrats on immigration would represent a major political gamble for a president who made promises of tougher border control policies the centerpiece of his campaign and pledged to build a “big, beautiful wall” along the U.S.-Mexico border. A majority of Republicans, especially in the House, have long opposed offering legal status, and a path to citizenship, to the nation’s more than 11 million undocumented immigrants.

In a sign of the potential trouble for the president, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), an immigration hardliner and early Trump supporter, wrote that if reports of a potential immigration deal are accurate the president’s “base is blown up, destroyed, irreparable, and disillusioned beyond repair. No promise is credible.”

Trump has vacillated over the fate of the younger immigrants, known as “dreamers,” who have lived in the country illegally since they were children. Under mounting pressure from the right, Trump moved two weeks ago to begin dismantling Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, an Obama-era program that has allowed 690,000 dreamers to work and go to school without fear of deportation.

In announcing the decision, the president made clear that he expected Congress to pursue a plan to protect the DACA recipients, offering a six-month delay until their two-year work permits begin to expire in March.

In a statement, the White House described the meeting as “constructive” and said the administration “looks forward to continuing these conversations with leadership on both sides of the aisle.”

Congressional aides familiar with the exchange said that Trump and the party leaders agreed to move quickly on legislation to protect dreamers, though aides did not disclose whether they agreed that the goal should be for dreamers to eventually be offered a path to citizenship.

In a statement, Schumer and Pelosi said they had “a very productive meeting at the White House with the President. The discussion focused on DACA. We agreed to enshrine the protections of DACA into law quickly, and to work out a package of border security, excluding the wall, that’s acceptable to both sides.”

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed that DACA and border security were discussed but she said excluding border wall funding from a package deal was “certainly not agreed to.”

Earlier in the day, Trump held a bipartisan meeting with a group of House members. Afterward, several Democrats involved in those talks said the president also had made clear that he did not expect border wall funding to be included in a legislative deal on the dreamers.

“He said, the wall doesn’t have to be necessary,” Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Tex.) told reporters at the White House. “He said we’re going to add [wall funding] somewhere else….We’ve told him we don’t want to tie this [together]. He said, ‘DACA, we’re going to do it early. We’re going to do some kind of border security.’ He brought up the wall. He said that doesn’t have to be on this DACA bill.”

Democrats, and some Republicans, have resisted funding for a wall, saying such a structure is not worth the billions of dollars it would cost.

Sens. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have introduced legislation, called the Dream Act, that would offer dreamers a path to citizenship. The number of undocumented immigrants that would potentially be covered by that bill, however, is expected to be far larger than the number of those who have DACA protections, a prospect that would likely engender more Republican opposition.

Cuellar said that he told Trump the Dream Act has sufficient bipartisan support to pass and that the White House should be pushing for a vote. Trump, Cuellar said, told the group: “Oh, it will be on the floor.”

But Trump also instructed Democrats to consider tougher restrictions on legal immigration, including provisions of a bill called the Raise Act, introduced by Republican Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.) and David Perdue (Ga.), which would slash legal immigration levels by half over the coming decade. Immigrant rights groups are strongly opposed to such measures, but Trump endorsed that legislation during an appearance with the GOP senators at the White House last month.

And Republican leaders are already wary of the spending agreement Trump brokered with Democrats last week on a three-month spending plan to raise the debt ceiling and keep the government funded.

Pelosi and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) met earlier Wednesday to begin discussing the broad parameters of the forthcoming immigration debate. Ryan’s team signaled that despite the administration’s eagerness to quickly seal the deal, it will take awhile.

AshLee Strong, Ryan’s spokeswoman, said that regarding the plight of the dreamers, the speaker “reiterated that any solution needs to address border security and enforcement, which are the root causes of the problem. Discussions among the Republican conference will continue in the coming weeks.”

Ryan is already facing growing pressure from House conservatives who have begun to question his leadership and even floated names of possible replacement as speaker. An agreement between Trump and Democrats on a bill to protect dreamers could potentially put Ryan in the position of having to decide whether to bring it for a vote with the prospects that it might pass with more Democratic support than among the GOP.

Offline chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2966
  • Gender: Female
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1311 on: September 14, 2017, 07:03:41 AM »
And now Trump denies it lol

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 574
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1312 on: September 19, 2017, 10:39:24 AM »
"President Trump Addresses the UN General Assembly" - I'm not sure the times we live in fully hit me until I read that BBC headline today.

But anyway, quite a safe and uncontroversial speech I thought. Badly written towards the end, that mawkish shit about world peace, but it's probably not easy to write a long speech for Trump because you need to keep the language and ideas at a certain level.

Too much is being made of his remark about "totally destroying" North Korea, and the usual media suspects are shepherding it safely away from its context to make him look like an unhinged lunatic. I took him to mean the US can erase DPRK if Kim ever decides to attack US interests, which is fair enough (standardly hypocritical, but that's a separate issue).

His only real blunder was again referring to Kim Jong-un as 'Rocket Man'. You're addressing the world's leaders now, not your Twitter audience. Nobody in the audience laughs when you say things like that.

That said, these UN speeches are always hyped to be something more than they are, more about presentation than policy, so maybe he isn't wrong to treat it as a slight joke. As always with Trump, a better idea of his true feelings will come clear when he gets home and starts tweeting out his real thoughts. I don't buy for one second he's suddenly warmed up to the UN's "great potential".
« Last Edit: September 19, 2017, 10:46:09 AM by Dave_Manchester »

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19233
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1313 on: September 19, 2017, 11:01:59 AM »
Girl in the shop had it on so I heard the occasional snippet (I was watching The Three Stooges, which seemed appropriate at the time). I don't think anybody really takes these speeches seriously, but more importantly, I don't think anybody realistically takes Trump's words seriously. If he'd pulled a Reagan and said the missiles are on their way I doubt anybody would have cared. Honestly, I don't think he or the US has any credibility at this point.

And I just heard the local news report lead off with Trump's remarks about DPRK, and it was fair and contextual.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10555
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1314 on: September 20, 2017, 10:54:50 AM »
I'm shocked that this isn't being reported on more. I mean, why would it be? It only proves that what Trump was saying all along was true.....Trump Tower WAS wire tapped.....conversations between he and his campaign chairman WERE listened to while he was running for President....during his President Elect status and into his early Presidency.

James Comey flat out lied to congress when he said there was no credible source in the FBI or Justice Department that could lend credence to Trumps suggestion he was wire tapped....Lie....FBI was involved the entire time and was working with the Justice Department to listen in on the conversations.

US investigators wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort under secret court orders before and after the election, sources tell CNN, an extraordinary step involving a high-ranking campaign official now at the center of the Russia meddling probe.

Hmmm...who's administration was that before the election when the Wire Tapping started?

I'm sure there's a perfectly worded retort coming as to why this really wasn't wire tapping or the article says it's 'unsure' if Trump himself was captured on the recordings. I mean....who would want to talk to their campaign chairman anyway.....but what's important is that this revelation is being met with deaf ears by the people who screamed the entire time that Trump was making this up.


http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/18/politics/paul-manafort-government-wiretapped-fisa-russians/
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Online eric42434224

  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1315 on: September 20, 2017, 11:22:54 AM »
Trump was not wire tapped.  Manafort was.  Simple.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Online antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10279
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1316 on: September 20, 2017, 11:24:36 AM »
Also didn't he personally accuse Obama?

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10555
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1317 on: September 20, 2017, 11:33:04 AM »
Trump was not wire tapped.  Manafort was.  Simple.

It's not that simple. Manafort was his campaign chair....who one would correctly assume to have spoken with Trump at least two or three times a day. Manafort's residence/office is in Trump tower.

Also didn't he personally accuse Obama?

Well obama was the President when the wire taps began...it was his FBI and Justice Department that started them. To suggest he knew nothing about it would be pretty silly.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19233
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1318 on: September 20, 2017, 11:36:50 AM »
Nobody's reporting on this. Here's a link from CNN to prove it.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21028
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1319 on: September 20, 2017, 11:38:57 AM »
Manafort was the campaign manager for what, 2 1/2 months (from June to mid-August)?  The article even states "The FBI wasn't listening in June 2016". This investigation against him goes back to 2014, and even says it was suspended for some period last year.  Gary, your reigniting an issue with a very weak argument.  The way that Trump positioned it back then was that he was personally wiretapped under the orders of Obama.  And I think Comey deserves some slack for answering questions quite literally in an open senate hearing as it relates to ongoing investigations.  Hell, if that one bozo Senator is going to focus on the word "I hope you can let this go", then a former FBI director is within their right to answer literally on this matter as well.

I'd like to think that news like this is alarming for other reasons, not "Trump was right! Government corrupt! Obama bad! "
Dream Theater Forums: Expanding musical tastes and shrinking wallets since 2009.
Note to forum, jingle is usually right.
I'm actually disappointed he's not Kim Jong-Il

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10555
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1320 on: September 20, 2017, 11:59:10 AM »
Nobody's reporting on this. Here's a link from CNN to prove it.

The level of enthusiasm of the reportage was the point. But thanks for staying true to form....I was getting worried.

When Trump was insisting he and his team were being wire tapped it was non stop around the clock about 'how could he say this'....and so on....now that it's come to light that he has/had a legit gripe it's one of those little buried blurbs and won't take up much more than a 20 second clip on any news outlet.


I'd like to think that news like this is alarming for other reasons, not "Trump was right! Government corrupt! Obama bad! "

It is alarming for those other reasons. And for the record my intention is less about making trump 'right' but more directed at the fact that the national media falls all over themselves to point out every small instance of his goofball tweets or ridiculous statements but when moments arise like this that at the least shows there was substance to his claim he was wire tapped it's a blurb.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19233
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1321 on: September 20, 2017, 12:30:35 PM »
It is alarming for those other reasons. And for the record my intention is less about making trump 'right' but more directed at the fact that the national media falls all over themselves to point out every small instance of his goofball tweets or ridiculous statements but when moments arise like this that at the least shows there was substance to his claim he was wire tapped it's a blurb.
But is that any different than people like you, admittedly on the Right side of the spectrum, calling attention to perceived problems as a sort of justification? That's been a recurring theme in my posts for a while, and part of the reason why my tone towards some of you guys has changed. When I made a comment about cognitive dissonance to one of your posts* it was for this very reason. You agreed that there was a mess, you harbor suspicions about the cop, and you acknowledged that it's probably impossible for him to be held accountable.  Yet your next post was essentially deflecting to the victim and calling out people and the press for not doing the same. In this case it's a very recent development in a very long-running story, and the sole point of your post was to play the MSM card, which isn't really much of an issue.



*And you seemed to have taken some offense by it, which was not my intention. Cognitive dissonance applies to everybody. I check myself for that quite frequently in my posts, and don't necessarily catch it when it's there. Like I said, it's a bitch. We're all mixed up in our positions from time to time. I just thought your post was problematic for the reason I gave.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 21028
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1322 on: September 20, 2017, 01:12:15 PM »

I'd like to think that news like this is alarming for other reasons, not "Trump was right! Government corrupt! Obama bad! "

It is alarming for those other reasons. And for the record my intention is less about making trump 'right' but more directed at the fact that the national media falls all over themselves to point out every small instance of his goofball tweets or ridiculous statements but when moments arise like this that at the least shows there was substance to his claim he was wire tapped it's a blurb.

Fair enough.
Dream Theater Forums: Expanding musical tastes and shrinking wallets since 2009.
Note to forum, jingle is usually right.
I'm actually disappointed he's not Kim Jong-Il

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10555
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1323 on: September 20, 2017, 01:17:29 PM »
*And you seemed to have taken some offense by it, which was not my intention. Cognitive dissonance applies to everybody. I check myself for that quite frequently in my posts, and don't necessarily catch it when it's there. Like I said, it's a bitch. We're all mixed up in our positions from time to time. I just thought your post was problematic for the reason I gave.

I'll admit I did take offense to it...and I'll offer this reason as to why. I'm well aware that in most part the 'left minded' or 'liberal minded' thinkers far outweigh the 'right/conservative minded' thinkers.....in P/R. So with that in the back of my mind I automatically have the feeling of being outnumbered so to speak and pretty much know that the majority of what I post here is going to be met with a good deal of criticism so I'm nearly always in a defensive posture when answering a post....or if it's a preemptive post from me it's usually loaded with a heavy hand of grit....again because I'm expecting to be 'attacked'  anyway.

Furthermore, I am nowhere near as educated as I should be in order to have the ability to host a strong back and forth, most of the time contentious dialogue with you all. I've admitted and will continue to admit my emotions get the best of me in many occasions and also makes up the bulk of the substance of my posts. Is that a 'good' thing to base my contributions to a discussion forum on simple feelings and life experience rather than some more reliable forms of concrete ammunition....probably not but I'm 41 years old and pretty much stuck in my ways so I don't see it changing anytime soon.

I will say that other than a few instances over the years I've not received outright hostile words or posts directed at me personally. Most members here keep it respectful while still making a point with only moments here and there where things start to cross the line but those instances usually self right themselves. With the 'cognitive dissonance' remark that I took offense to it's quite likely I took offense to it because I was looking/expecting something to take offense to.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline RuRoRul

  • Posts: 1442
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1324 on: September 20, 2017, 01:45:10 PM »
Trump was not wire tapped.  Manafort was.  Simple.

It's not that simple. Manafort was his campaign chair....who one would correctly assume to have spoken with Trump at least two or three times a day. Manafort's residence/office is in Trump tower.


The media is reporting... on the newly available information about how much shit Manafort was in and what investigators might now know about.

No new explanations need to be given now about the difference between law enforcement conducting surveillance with warrants with probable cause and political spying implied by "Obama tappped my wires". If people don't understand the difference now then they never will.

Comments like this, it sounds you would want the world to walk around eyes closed so they don't risk seeing a right winger doing some corrupt shit, because that would be the real crime. If Trump didn't want his dirty business picked up by law enforcement he didn't need to make a guy under FISA surveillance since 2014 for shady deals with the Russians his campaign manager.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2017, 03:02:45 PM by RuRoRul »

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10555
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1325 on: September 20, 2017, 02:00:09 PM »
Comments like this, it sounds you would want the world to walk around eyes closed so they don't risk seeing a right winger doing some corrupt shit, because that would be the real crime. If Trump didn't want his dirty business picked up by law enforcement he didn't need to make a guy under FISA surveillance since 2014 for shady deals with the Russians his campaign manager.

of which he still hasn't been charged with anything....doesn't appear he will be....which would then start to edge towards the 'witch hunt' aspect of this whole Russian escapade.

I'm not suggesting blinders be put on and for everyone to ignore anything illegal a 'right winger' does. I'm simply stating that in this day and age of 'throw it against the wall and see what sticks' method of "reporting"....and that is a loosely used term regarding the state of the media today......when your under boiled pasta doesn't stick to the wall, the declaration of the pasta not being ready for consumption should be as bombastic as when you...the chef....jumped up and down in the kitchen to get everyone's attentions and said 'WATCH THIS!!!" then threw it.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1326 on: September 20, 2017, 02:07:40 PM »
It's not that simple. Manafort was his campaign chair....who one would correctly assume to have spoken with Trump at least two or three times a day. Manafort's residence/office is in Trump tower.


The media is reporting... on the newly available information about how much shit Manafort was in and what investigators might now about.

No new explanations need to be given now about the difference between law enforcement conducting surveillance with warrants with probable cause and political spying implied by "Obama tappped my wires". If people don't understand the difference now then they never will.

Comments like this, it sounds you would want the world to walk around eyes closed so they don't risk seeing a right winger doing some corrupt shit, because that would be the real crime. If Trump didn't want his dirty business picked up by law enforcement he didn't need to make a guy under FISA surveillance since 2014 for shady deals with the Russians his campaign manager.

Aren't there interesting parallels though that render the whole "right winger" thing moot?   Hillary just published a book blaming Jim Comey in part for her election loss (I had as much to do with her loss as Jim Comey did) and that stems from HER actions, and those of the people around her (including HER campaign chairman).   And the meme from that?  "But... her EMAILS!" is the same sort of implication, that there's nothing to see here, that her word is good (even though she perjured herself under oath in front of Congress).   

Lest the mob pounce, I'm not excusing Trump or Manafort; I think the more scrutiny on these campaigns the better; it's the ugly underbelly of our process for sure.   But I'm not sure what the answer is that ISN'T partisan.  You either follow the thread of the investigation or you don't, and I feel like politics is now indelibly part of something that it never should have been near to begin with.  If Hillary dumped her emails, prove it or not.   If Trump colluded with the Russians, prove it or not.   

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19233
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1327 on: September 20, 2017, 02:11:12 PM »
Conventional wisdom is that they're actually trying to flip Manafort. Hence the effort going into nailing him early. If that happens it'll be a real hoot, and it'll also answer a whole lot of questions.

Personally, I think the whole thing is part Witch Hunt AND part crucial matter of national security. Naturally, everybody is latching onto the aspect that suits them and dismissing the other.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline RuRoRul

  • Posts: 1442
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1328 on: September 20, 2017, 02:54:13 PM »
Comments like this, it sounds you would want the world to walk around eyes closed so they don't risk seeing a right winger doing some corrupt shit, because that would be the real crime. If Trump didn't want his dirty business picked up by law enforcement he didn't need to make a guy under FISA surveillance since 2014 for shady deals with the Russians his campaign manager.

of which he still hasn't been charged with anything....doesn't appear he will be....which would then start to edge towards the 'witch hunt' aspect of this whole Russian escapade.

I'm not suggesting blinders be put on and for everyone to ignore anything illegal a 'right winger' does. I'm simply stating that in this day and age of 'throw it against the wall and see what sticks' method of "reporting"....and that is a loosely used term regarding the state of the media today......when your under boiled pasta doesn't stick to the wall, the declaration of the pasta not being ready for consumption should be as bombastic as when you...the chef....jumped up and down in the kitchen to get everyone's attentions and said 'WATCH THIS!!!" then threw it.
He hasn't been charged with anything - yet, and I think that's the important part.

One way or another I think there's a lot, lot more news to come regarding the Russia investigation. The difference between it and the Hillary's emails investigation is that one is already concluded (and there was no prosecution), while the other is ongoing, and there actually are stories about new prosecutors being added to the team every few weeks, so I am highly doubtful it will come to nothing (even if only minor players take the fall). We must wait and see what will happen - and if you think about the severity what is being investigated, along with how difficult it would be to handle if it did turn out that it was true, it's understandable that it is taking some time. Proving that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians enough to lead to prosecutions (potentially of some of the most powerful government officials) isn't something that can be knocked out in a couple of months.

My post above regarding the "wiretapp" situation was somewhat flippant, but the basic idea for me is one of: process vs. outcome.

1. Process - Law enforcement follow proper procedure in their investigations and end up with surveillance of people involved in a political campaign in the course of their investigation.
2. Outcome - A politician or government official wants surveillance on people involved in a political campaign for political reasons, so orders / influences law enforcement to do that.

Trump's accusations are of 2 (and those are what have been refuted repeatedly by the justice department and basically everyone in government bar Donald), and the surveillance on Paul Manafort is 1. But Trump's claims and those who want to use them to deflect and muddy the waters mean that some people will read anything about evidence being collected on someone involved with Trump and act as though it backs up Trump's claim. Once you get to that stage, it means you are looking at it like 2. Outcome again (if Trump campaign people were investigated, that's bad, even if the process of investigating should have led to it).

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 10165
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trump's Presidency thread. v 100 days and counting
« Reply #1329 on: September 21, 2017, 09:53:38 AM »
Not to open any cans of worms, or otherwise, but two things:

- the investigation was concluded in part based on testimony from the principal, who was later shown to have lied repeatedly under oath; the investigation was later tabled not because of 'evidence' but other concerns;
- I'm a lawyer.  The relative merits of any law are not in the law itself but reflected in the punishment.  I will agree that colluding with the Russians is a severe crime, and perhaps it may or may not have braoder implications than the crime itself, but I don't measure that "Russian collusion = important = let's prosecute!" and "Classified emails = lesser important = let's not prosecute".   You investigate and prosecute both diligently, and let the punishments speak to any difference in impact.