Dangers of a Trump Presidency - Part 6

Status
Not open for further replies.

Artistic Skaters

Drawing Figures
Messages
7,684
It's going to be really sad when we get to Dangers of a Trump Presidency Part 12. And even worse when there is a Dangers of a Trump Presidency Part 48.

But here's a potential danger coming around the bend. Get ready.

*** Leaked Draft of Trump's Religious Freedom Order Reveals Sweeping Plans to Legalize Discrimination :
https://www.thenation.com/article/l...ls-sweeping-plans-to-legalize-discrimination/
The breadth of the draft order, which legal experts described as “sweeping” and “staggering,” may exceed the authority of the executive branch if enacted. It also, by extending some of its protections to one particular set of religious beliefs, would risk violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
“This executive order would appear to require agencies to provide extensive exemptions from a staggering number of federal laws—without regard to whether such laws substantially burden religious exercise,” said Marty Lederman, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and an expert on church-state separation and religious freedom.

The exemptions, Lederman said, could themselves violate federal law or license individuals and private parties to violate federal law. “Moreover,” he added, “the exemptions would raise serious First Amendment questions, as well, because they would go far beyond what the Supreme Court has identified as the limits of permissive religious accommodations.” It would be “astonishing,” he said, “if the Office of Legal Counsel certifies the legality of this blunderbuss order.”
Danger Ahead! Blunderbuss! Trump will probably now send a mean tweet that Georgetown U law professor does not respect the Second Amendment. :lol:
 
Last edited:

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,298
What's mostly sad is that we're already at part 6 and he's barely over the 100 days threshold. :yikes:(Although, to be fair, not everything he does is a danger, some things are just really stupid or completely ridiculous :p)


Word is that the bill is supposed to be signed on Thursday. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/02/donald-trump-religious-liberty-executive-order-237888 Sounds like it could be something else that'll end up with the courts.


And speaking of ridiculous http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...able-energy-policy-skeptic-to-lead-doe-Office
President Trump has named Dan Simmons, an opponent of policies meant to promote renewable energy, to lead the renewable energy office at the Department of Energy.
I don't have any words... this is such a farce!
 

Artistic Skaters

Drawing Figures
Messages
7,684
His buddies (the real reporters) at Fox News are also reporting he'll sign it this week. His evangelical extremist base will be completely awestruck at the thought of all the sinners they can openly discriminate against. While they make their top ten lists it will divert attention that Trump has yet to get enough support to kill all the citizens with the pre-existing conditions.
“The most sincere anger I’ve noticed comes from people who are sincerely scared, people who may have a preexisting condition who feel like they’re about to lose [coverage] and they’re going to die, and they’re going to die because of a vote that we might be taking,” Rep. Thomas J. Rooney (R-Fla.), who supports the current plan, told reporters.

“If we cannot explain to people that is not going to happen, then it is going to be very difficult to ever bring a bill to the floor.”
 
Last edited:

overedge

G.O.A.T.
Messages
28,763
“The most sincere anger I’ve noticed comes from people who are sincerely scared, people who may have a preexisting condition who feel like they’re about to lose [coverage] and they’re going to die, and they’re going to die because of a vote that we might be taking,” Rep. Thomas J. Rooney (R-Fla.), who supports the current plan, told reporters.

“If we cannot explain to people that is not going to happen, then it is going to be very difficult to ever bring a bill to the floor.”

Well, yes, it must be kind of hard to explain that to people, when that actually is what's going to happen for many folks.
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
11,994
http://www.consumerreports.org/personal-bankruptcy/how-the-aca-drove-down-personal-bankruptcy/

Consumer reports credits the ACA with cutting the personal bankruptcy rate in half.

As legislators and the executive branch renew their efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act this week, they might want to keep in mind a little-known financial consequence of the ACA: Since its adoption, far fewer Americans have taken the extreme step of filing for personal bankruptcy.

Filings have dropped about 50 percent, from 1,536,799 in 2010 to 770,846 in 2016 (see chart, below). Those years also represent the time frame when the ACA took effect.

Yes we know now how many bankruptcies are medical. 25% were solely or strongly due to medical considerations:

But a 2014 study from Daniel Austin, a bankruptcy attorney and, at the time, a professor at the Northeastern University School of Law, offers some of the most in-depth research to date.

Austin and his team selected a nationwide group of 100 bankruptcy filers meant to represent a cross-section of the U.S. population, studied their paperwork, then followed up with a survey asking filers, basically, “Why?”

His team’s research found that medical debt is the single largest factor in personal bankruptcy. First, Austin analyzed the paperwork of individual case files, which suggested that medical bills were a factor in 18 percent of filings. But when he directly asked the same filers, in a survey, the number was even higher, with 25 percent citing medical bills as a factor in their decision to file bankruptcy

Vs. Massachusetts, which had Romneycare prior to the ACA, where only 9% cite medical bills as key to their bankruptcy.

Going back to more bankruptcies will Make America Great Again? oh yeah
 
Last edited:

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
57,326
Allowing states to define “essential health benefits” could weaken ACA protections against catastrophic costs for people with employer coverage nationwide (Brookings Institution)

In particular, a single state’s decision to weaken or eliminate its essential health benefit standards could weaken or effectively eliminate the ACA’s guarantee of protection against catastrophic costs for people with coverage through large employer plans in every state. [1] The two affected protections are the ACA’s ban on annual and lifetime limits, as well as the ACA’s requirement that insurance plans cap enrollees’ annual out-of-pocket spending. Both of these provisions aim to ensure that seriously ill people can access needed health care services while continuing to meet their other financial needs.
 

Meredith

what a glorious day!
Messages
2,104
I was listening until 45 & Abbas intervened. Grrrrrrr!
I found the questions and Comey's answers interesting and leave it at that for the time being, until I see the rest of the hearing.
 

Meredith

what a glorious day!
Messages
2,104
Blue Ridge, I understand. I'm watching CNN and Comey is back on. Pubs want to talk about Clinton emails & Dems want to talk about 45/Russia, which Comey can't answer.
 
Last edited:

Vash01

Fan of Yuzuru, Three A's, T&M, P&C
Messages
49,837
It's going to be really sad when we get to Dangers of a Trump Presidency Part 12. And even worse when there is a Dangers of a Trump Presidency Part 48.

But here's a potential danger coming around the bend. Get ready.

*** Leaked Draft of Trump's Religious Freedom Order Reveals Sweeping Plans to Legalize Discrimination :
https://www.thenation.com/article/l...ls-sweeping-plans-to-legalize-discrimination/

Danger Ahead! Blunderbuss! Trump will probably now send a mean tweet that Georgetown U law professor does not respect the Second Amendment. :lol:

Unconstitutional. Anyone who approves of this level of discrimination should resign. It's unamerican.
 

Vash01

Fan of Yuzuru, Three A's, T&M, P&C
Messages
49,837
Am I alone in finding Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan totally insulting and offensive?
It's a slap in the face to every past administration; and to our history, in general.

What's to be made of this?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/03/politics/steve-bannons-white-house-whiteboard/index.html

I find it very offensive.

Sadly, my favorite radio station, which plays only classical music, has a billboard (being displayed since January, and visible to me during my daily commute) that says "Make your commute great again," I feel like vomiting ever time I see that. I am a member and I should send them a message that I would cancel my membership if they don't take down that idiotic billboard - but I am digressing.

Basically anything that relates to Trump is offensive to me, and the most offensive words are 'President Trump'
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,298
Am I alone in finding Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan totally insulting and offensive?
It's a slap in the face to every past administration; and to our history, in general.

It has been that since he came up with it. Although, I don't know if he came up with it or Bannon but it is part of a propaganda tool. The US economy was in fairly good shape, so there's no need to make anything great because it already is. Low unemployment, lower crime rate, more deportations/less undocumented immigrants coming into the country. But in order for Trump's strategy to work, you need the people to believe the opposite is the case. People need scapegoats, people need to be afraid. So, he needed to tell them that everything was in bad shape and he'd make it great again. And his slogan reminded that that it wasn't great every single time.


Blue Ridge, I understand. I'm watching CNN and Comey is back on. Pubs want to talk about Clinton emails & Dems want to talk about 45/Russia, which Comey can't answer.

That's why I think that these open hearings are a waste of money. They're not going to tell the public anything and they're not going to help Congress either. I don't want Comey to testify in front of Congress anyway because there are too many Republicans who were part of the Trump campaign and/or transition team. But if they insist, then please have him testify in a classifed setting so that members of Congress can at least get some information for all of the money they're spending.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,298

once_upon

Voter
Messages
16,659
I think I met the uninformed but hopeful Trump supporter tonight.
A highly intelligent man, business owner, successful manmade business man, who truly believes hard work and willpower has and will Mae a successful person in the US profitable and great. He is sincere in his belief that you can make yourself a better person IF you work hard enough.

Long story and several glasses of wine later, he believes the only problem in healthcare is drug companies and no one with a pre existing condition will lose healthcare under trump's plan - that the states will guarantee a pre-existing health care pool insurance plan WILL exist. He's a good and caring guy. He truly believes this. I told him Ricketts would not allow a preexisting pool to happen in Nebraska, I said day one should states be handed that responsibility.... He was thoroughly shocked. I mean totally, completely and devastating shocked.

I think he is indicative of many Trump supporters - only one part of the message is heard. He knows one thing - in this case drug companies are at fault and Trump can get them to change
 
Last edited:

skatesindreams

Well-Known Member
Messages
30,532
I'm not buying that he truly grasps what this conflict is about and that it's not as simple as "there's no reason for there not being peace". Consequently, I don't think he's capable of negotiating longterm peace.
Absolutely!
He looks at the conflict in the same way that he views the American Civil War, IMO.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,298
Susan Rice has declined to testify in front of the Judiciary Committee after she learned that the invitation wasn't bipartisan. The article also mentions that she thinks inviting her was a diversionary play. (Since her unmasking request was unrelated to the Russia investigation, what else would it be?) http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/03/politics/susan-rice-refuses-graham-russia-hearing/index.html

It's kind of like Comey and the letter - at this point, who cares why he wrote it? Clinton is not.the.one.under.investigation. But the internet is talking about it and not that he stated "It was Russia" when Trump's ongoing denial of Russia being responsible for the hacking was mentioned.
 

skatesindreams

Well-Known Member
Messages
30,532

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,298
I'm reading that the Republicans are within striking distances (around 5 votes) of having enough votes for TrumpCare :yikes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information