The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nah, wouldn't have changed anything. :wenger:

Are these guys utterly incapable of saying or doing anything that isn't immediately rebutted by themselves a few years ago?
technically he is banning people from a certain country (presumably the ban would for example apply to a christian from syria as well... though one can imagine the extreme vetting process may be more extreme for Muslims (waterborded into saying they are a terrorist forced to build a wall and then executed is my guess)

but in theory they are allowed to apply different immigration procedures to different countries as its not discriminating officially on religious grounds - though obviously they will be applying it to predominantly Muslim countries
 
This is a pretty good breakdown, I cant wait to see what Trump does to change the ACA.
Yeah... can't wait.

It might come as a surprise, but I don't agree with Republicans - or anyone in general - moaning about individual mandates, subsidizing the expenses of the sick and/or needy by the financial might of the healthy.
Sure, as a healthy person, you are forced to pay for something you don't need, at least not all the time. Vice versa, sick/disabled/old persons who do need the medical attention are very unlikely to be able to pay for it over prolonged periods of time, especially when their workforce is impaired by their condition.
Under pre-ACA conditions (and possible future GOP plans) these people would either pay huge premiums until they were bled dry and subsequently lose their insurance, or wouldn't be able to get insurance in the first place, leading to the same financial ruin on a different route.
A health system serving the weakest, i.e. the severely ill, the elderly, those of low income, can not work without mandatory insurance for everyone. There's no way around it.
It's a simple question of solidarity a society has to answer for itself. Do we want people to get the medical help they need, even if I have to pay (more) for it, or is it everyone for themselves, even if it means poverty or ultimately death for the persons most affected?
Personal health is certainly one of the greatest goods there is, and preserving the health of its individuals should be a landmark of a great and wealthy society.

*steps off soap box and leaves*
 
That was me, sorry. I deleted my post as the link messed up. Easy enough to find with a search, this is the account in question:

https://twitter.com/WhitehouseLeaks

Most of the tweets have been deleted it seems.
If it's true then at least we know the tide is turning against him within his circle, the fact Preibus considered quiting is good news.
 
Yeah... can't wait.

It might come as a surprise, but I don't agree with Republicans - or anyone in general - moaning about individual mandates, subsidizing the expenses of the sick and/or needy by the financial might of the healthy.
Sure, as a healthy person, you are forced to pay for something you don't need, at least not all the time. Vice versa, sick/disabled/old persons who do need the medical attention are very unlikely to be able to pay for it over prolonged periods of time, especially when their workforce is impaired by their condition.
Under pre-ACA conditions (and possible future GOP plans) these people would either pay huge premiums until they were bled dry and subsequently lose their insurance, or wouldn't be able to get insurance in the first place, leading to the same financial ruin on a different route.
A health system serving the weakest, i.e. the severely ill, the elderly, those of low income, can not work without mandatory insurance for everyone. There's no way around it.
It's a simple question of solidarity a society has to answer for itself. Do we want people to get the medical help they need, even if I have to pay (more) for it, or is it everyone for themselves, even if it means poverty or ultimately death for the persons most affected?
Personal health is certainly one of the greatest goods there is, and preserving the health of its individuals should be a landmark of a great and wealthy society.

*steps off soap box and leaves*

This to me is one of the few policies that helps summise the Republican party as a whole, because this is about how much interference Government has on your day-to-day life, and how much that interference costs you (both monetary, and personally) and there's arguably nothing more personal than your healthcare.

I was surprised to find out years ago, that if you weren't insured (Pre-ACA) and you had a healthcare emergency, you had to pay everything from the ambulance ride, to the time spent in hospital, to the equipment used on you - to me that just seems so unnecessary.

I'm sure everyone* wants everyone else to have access to affordable healthcare. However not everybody wants to pay to ensure that happens especially from their own pocket, and Republicans view this as a form of Big Government.

So it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out. There are Trump supporters who have and continue to benefit from ACA, if the change is big enough they will feel the full effect.
 
Chief of Staff and son-in-law/senior adviser added to the FRAUD list.


Is amazing a country like US still in a stone age with all the voting systems they have, why moving from 1 sate to another they need to register to vote... again? Why they still use paper vote in some states? Why some states don't require a photo ID when voting?
 
You think about all the troubles there has been down the years to get different member of society the vote they would bother to use it. All those fights for nothing.

Those fights were for the ability to vote if you want to. The fights were never to make voting mandatory for everybody so nothing is lost to be fair.
 
How is Chump going to make Mexico pay for his wall ?

Here's the best part. You stopped questioning if the wall will be built and now it's just a question of price. That's what a genius Trump is.

Mexico will pay for the wall. We hold all the cards and could destroy the Mexican economy if we wanted to. Their leaders have to talk tough to their people so as not to appear weak, but they, like everyone else who has taken on President Trump, will bend the knee.
 
Here's the best part. You stopped questioning if the wall will be built and now it's just a question of price. That's what a genius Trump is.

Mexico will pay for the wall. We hold all the cards and could destroy the Mexican economy if we wanted to. Their leaders have to talk tough to their people so as not to appear weak, but they, like everyone else who has taken on President Trump, will bend the knee.

The cost of the wall is a drop of piss in the big bucket that is the US budget anyway. So nobody should really care who pays for it (but of course this is very, very important for Trump supporters for some reason).
 
Here's the best part. You stopped questioning if the wall will be built and now it's just a question of price. That's what a genius Trump is.

Mexico will pay for the wall. We hold all the cards and could destroy the Mexican economy if we wanted to. Their leaders have to talk tough to their people so as not to appear weak, but they, like everyone else who has taken on President Trump, will bend the knee.

What a disturbing post.

You couldn't do a better impression of a Der Führer follower if you tried. :lol:
 
Here's the best part. You stopped questioning if the wall will be built and now it's just a question of price. That's what a genius Trump is.

Mexico will pay for the wall. We hold all the cards and could destroy the Mexican economy if we wanted to. Their leaders have to talk tough to their people so as not to appear weak, but they, like everyone else who has taken on President Trump, will bend the knee.

I'll be honest, this is fast becoming my impression off the average American. I know that there are loads that don't think like this poster, but I'm starting to wonder how many actually do. Comments on social media and news sites, hit and run posters in here, the fact that the new president personifies this... The lack off visible fight (subjective)...

It's not a good look.

They COULD have good arguments and solutions, but the underlying current of racism and superiority just makes me feel repulsed...

Like seriously, this talk of the forgotten man and how we should listen to them... Why the fcuk would I engage?
 
Last edited:
Here's the best part. You stopped questioning if the wall will be built and now it's just a question of price. That's what a genius Trump is.

Mexico will pay for the wall. We hold all the cards and could destroy the Mexican economy if we wanted to. Their leaders have to talk tough to their people so as not to appear weak, but they, like everyone else who has taken on President Trump, will bend the knee.

Spoken like a true tyrant. Maybe if they really refuse, Trump could kidnap the Mexican president and torture him into signing a cheque or paying higher tariffs. While you're at it, you could probably blame illegal immigrants for all your problems.
 
I'll be honest, this is fast becoming my impression off the average American. I know that there are loads that don't think like this poster, but I'm starting to wonder how many actually do. Comments on social media and news sites, hit and run posters in here, the fact that the new president personifies this... The lack off visible fight (subjective)...

It's not a good look.

They COULD have good arguments and solutions, but the underlying current of racism and superiority just makes me feel repulsed...

Like seriously, this talk of the forgotten man and how we should listen to them... Why the fcuk would I engage?
Has anyone said 'he is one of us' yet? Well sorry to disappoint you, but he isn't. He wouldn't want to breath the same air as most of you.
 
Here's the best part. You stopped questioning if the wall will be built and now it's just a question of price. That's what a genius Trump is.

Mexico will pay for the wall. We hold all the cards and could destroy the Mexican economy if we wanted to. Their leaders have to talk tough to their people so as not to appear weak, but they, like everyone else who has taken on President Trump, will bend the knee.

Is not in our interest to destroy Mexico economy because then we would need our entire army to protect our borders when people would be desperate enough to try to move to US. Better than a wall would be a law penalizing anybody who gives jobs to illegals, then maybe investing in Mexico helping them with their infrastructures and black list any corrupt politician. The Mexicans I know are hard working people and they are been penalized by the bad apples that move into US.
 
Yeah... can't wait.

It might come as a surprise, but I don't agree with Republicans - or anyone in general - moaning about individual mandates, subsidizing the expenses of the sick and/or needy by the financial might of the healthy.
Sure, as a healthy person, you are forced to pay for something you don't need, at least not all the time. Vice versa, sick/disabled/old persons who do need the medical attention are very unlikely to be able to pay for it over prolonged periods of time, especially when their workforce is impaired by their condition.
Under pre-ACA conditions (and possible future GOP plans) these people would either pay huge premiums until they were bled dry and subsequently lose their insurance, or wouldn't be able to get insurance in the first place, leading to the same financial ruin on a different route.
A health system serving the weakest, i.e. the severely ill, the elderly, those of low income, can not work without mandatory insurance for everyone. There's no way around it.
It's a simple question of solidarity a society has to answer for itself. Do we want people to get the medical help they need, even if I have to pay (more) for it, or is it everyone for themselves, even if it means poverty or ultimately death for the persons most affected?
Personal health is certainly one of the greatest goods there is, and preserving the health of its individuals should be a landmark of a great and wealthy society.

*steps off soap box and leaves*
The ACA is still a terrible law despite its good intentions. Lets start from the beginning: The US health system itself is completely dysfunctional (they pay more money for worse coverage), because it is the amalgamation of various different systems. A very simplistic way of looking at the US system is to say that it is a mix of the German, Swiss, Canadian and UK model with a mix of randomness added. Often it takes the worst aspects of each system. The result is something completely incoherent, that creates a shitload of problems. One (of many) issues is the problem with pre-existing conditions. It is a very real problem, that needs to be fixed. Still the ACA is extremely flawed.
First of all it tries to hide the costs of the health-care by putting the burden not on all tax-payers, but just on few sub-group of them (e.g. young, healthy people and some people, whose premiums are skyrocketing). There is no moral or functional argument for that; that is just down to politicians trying to hide the real cost of this legislation. This mechanism ("individual mandate") doesn't work very well. Too many healthy people refuse to sign up, which means that the costs don't balance out. That means that even more hidden government subsidies have to be paid.
Additionally the government has to define what health-care plans actually have to include, which opens up another can of worms.
But the real problem is that it creates strong market incentives to offer bad health-care for people in need. Insurance companies incur a loss with people, who have pre-existing conditions, but they have to cover them. So it is not surprising that they try to lower the cost by reducing the quality of the treatment for these people. If one company attracts too many people with (expansive) pre-existing condition, they'd go broke. So the ACA institutionalizes a vicious circle, that puts down-ward pressure on the quality of coverage for the most vulnerable people.
It also leads to insurance companies dropping out of this market, which leads to less competition. Many areas have already just one insurer left in this market. It goes without saying that this is not helpful at all.

tl,dr: The ACA tries to tackle a real problem, but it isn't a sustainable solution. It also doesn't address all the other major issues of the US-system. It is terribly crafted legislation. Obviously the Republicans have no solution to any of these things either. Historically they never had any real interest in health-care politics at all. Only once Obama made it "his thing", they started to cry foul, because they are partisan idiots. Any useful reform of the US health-care system needs to create coherence, not additional patch-work.
 

The State Department’s entire senior management team just resigned

Josh Rogin
January 26 at 11:02 AM

Rex Tillerson, President-elect Trump's nominee for secretary of state, had a rocky first day facing members of the Senate during his confirmation hearing on Jan. 11 at the Capitol. The most important moments from Rex Tillerson's Senate confirmation hearing (Video: Peter Stevenson/Photo: Melina Mara/The Washington Post/The Washington Post)
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s job running the State Department just got considerably more difficult. The entire senior level of management officials resigned Wednesday, part of an ongoing mass exodus of senior foreign service officers who don’t want to stick around for the Trump era.

Tillerson was actually inside the State Department’s headquarters in Foggy Bottom on Wednesday, taking meetings and getting the lay of the land. I reported Wednesday morning that the Trump team was narrowing its search for his No. 2, and that it was looking to replace the State Department’s long-serving undersecretary for management, Patrick Kennedy. Kennedy, who has been in that job for nine years, was actively involved in the transition and was angling to keep that job under Tillerson, three State Department officials told me.

Then suddenly on Wednesday afternoon, Kennedy and three of his top officials resigned unexpectedly, four State Department officials confirmed. Assistant Secretary of State for Administration Joyce Anne Barr, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Michele Bond and Ambassador Gentry O. Smith, director of the Office of Foreign Missions, followed him out the door. All are career foreign service officers who have served under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Kennedy will retire from the foreign service at the end of the month, officials said. The other officials could be given assignments elsewhere in the foreign service.

In addition, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Gregory Starr retired Jan. 20, and the director of the Bureau of Overseas Building Operations, Lydia Muniz, departed the same day. That amounts to a near-complete housecleaning of all the senior officials that deal with managing the State Department, its overseas posts and its people.

“It’s the single biggest simultaneous departure of institutional memory that anyone can remember, and that’s incredibly difficult to replicate,” said David Wade, who served as State Department chief of staff under Secretary of State John Kerry. “Department expertise in security, management, administrative and consular positions in particular are very difficult to replicate and particularly difficult to find in the private sector.”

Several senior foreign service officers in the State Department’s regional bureaus have also left their posts or resigned since the election. But the emptying of leadership in the management bureaus is more disruptive because those offices need to be led by people who know the department and have experience running its complicated bureaucracies. There’s no easy way to replace that via the private sector, said Wade.

“Diplomatic security, consular affairs, there’s just not a corollary that exists outside the department, and you can least afford a learning curve in these areas where issues can quickly become matters of life and death,” he said. “The muscle memory is critical. These retirements are a big loss. They leave a void. These are very difficult people to replace.”

Whether Kennedy left on his own volition or was pushed out by the incoming Trump team is a matter of dispute inside the department. Just days before he resigned, Kennedy was taking on more responsibility inside the department and working closely with the transition. His departure was a surprise to other State Department officials who were working with him.

One senior State Department official who responded to my requests for comment said that all the officials had previously submitted their letters of resignation, as was required for all positions that are appointed by the president and that require confirmation by the Senate, known as PAS positions.

“No officer accepts a PAS position with the expectation that it is unlimited. And all officers understand that the President may choose to replace them at any time,” this official said. “These officers have served admirably and well. Their departure offers a moment to consider their accomplishments and thank them for their service. These are the patterns and rhythms of the career service.”

Ambassador Richard Boucher, who served as State Department spokesman for Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, said that while there’s always a lot of turnover around the time a new administration takes office, traditionally senior officials work with the new team to see who should stay on in their roles and what other jobs might be available. But that’s not what happened this time.

The officials who manage the building and thousands of overseas diplomatic posts are charged with taking care of Americans overseas and protecting U.S. diplomats risking their lives abroad. The career foreign service officers are crucial to those functions as well as to implementing the new president’s agenda, whatever it may be, Boucher said.

“You don’t run foreign policy by making statements, you run it with thousands of people working to implement programs every day,” Boucher said. “To undercut that is to undercut the institution.”

By itself, the sudden departure of the State Department’s entire senior management team is disruptive enough. But in the context of a president who railed against the U.S. foreign policy establishment during his campaign and secretary of state with no government experience, the vacancies are much more concerning.

Tillerson’s job No. 1 must be to find qualified and experienced career officials to manage the State Department’s vital offices. His second job should be to reach out to and reassure a State Department workforce that is panicked about what the Trump administration means for them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nt-team-just-resigned/?utm_term=.923d8bc8e740
 
Is not in our interest to destroy Mexico economy because then we would need our entire army to protect our borders when people would be desperate enough to try to move to US. Better than a wall would be a law penalizing anybody who gives jobs to illegals, then maybe investing in Mexico helping them with their infrastructures and black list any corrupt politician. The Mexicans I know are hard working people and they are been penalized by the bad apples that move into US.
Is some of it to do with drugs coming into the US? If yes, then if people want drugs and there is a demand for drugs, they will get drugs from other sources, or the same sources via a different route.
 
But think about all the jobs he would create with that wall.

Yeah, just like the military jobs he's creating, or the factory jobs he's bringing back (well he's not, but nvm) and the infrastructure building jobs he's creating, how will he pay for it all? And especially how will he pay for it all If he cuts taxes like he says he will? And how will he avoid putting trillions more on the national debt you always love to mention? Not forgetting the actual cost of the wall as well.... Like Trump, I really don't think you have thought this through properly.
 
The cost of the wall is a drop of piss in the big bucket that is the US budget anyway. So nobody should really care who pays for it (but of course this is very, very important for Trump supporters for some reason).

Not really, it would cost about 40billion if done properly and could run much higher if costs are overrun. The US has little leverage over Mexico since both countries would be harmed if they got into a trade/tariff problem.
 
Here's the best part. You stopped questioning if the wall will be built and now it's just a question of price. That's what a genius Trump is.

Mexico will pay for the wall. We hold all the cards and could destroy the Mexican economy if we wanted to. Their leaders have to talk tough to their people so as not to appear weak, but they, like everyone else who has taken on President Trump, will bend the knee.
As a matter of interest, how do you think he should and will deal with China ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.