View Full Version : Senator Rand Paul (R) gets President Trump's ear on healthcare
Trump hits the links with Rand Paul, talks health care, WH says (http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/02/politics/donald-trump-rand-paul-golf/index.html)
<tbody>
CNN
- 13 hours ago
<tbody>
</tbody>
</tbody>
(CNN) As President Donald Trump continues to pillory House conservatives who derailed efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare, he took a different tack Sunday with one of the Republican senators who had been loudly egging them on, inviting Kentucky ...
Many Dems assert healthcare is a right. Whatever.
Why have the Republicans swilled, guzzled this Kool-aid?
Instead of Trump campaigning on repealing Obamacare, Trump campaigned on repealing Obamacare, and replacing it with much better Trumpcare. Only after he took office did he then declare:
“Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated.” President Trump
Buffoon !!
I guess that means President Obama is a nobody.
Rand Paul's a good man.
Both he and his Dad have run for the presidency. IIRC Ron Paul first ran in '88 on the Libertarian ticket.
It's sad that neither of them were able to spark the interest that Trump did. Either one of them would be a better president than the liberal, big government Trump.
The question is, will Rand Paul be able to persuade Trump to a more conservative course on it? Or are we destined to be stuck with Obamacare for the foreseeable future as Speaker Ryan described? With liberal Republicans anguishing in the wings for a "better" Republican Obamacare replacement?
jimnyc
04-03-2017, 12:27 PM
The buffoons are those on the left that passed the current shitty mess we are dealing with. Trump's only issue is wanting it better and assuming it would be easier than this. He underestimated the ability to reach across the aisle. He underestimated how much the dems would be willing to work with him.
Pass it off to Rand is what I say. This time come up with a REAL option and one that doesn't harm Americans, ignore the democrats who will fight no matter what, and push it through. Dems have no say.
The buffoons are those on the left that passed the current shitty mess we are dealing with.
Amusing.
Trump claimed he could do much better. And what Trump ended up with was so bad, Speaker Ryan didn't allow it to go to a vote.
But Trump is so ignorant, he just assumed in that sublime ignorance that he could do better.
And after he got a bracing dose of reality, Trump confessed his ignorance.
“Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated.” President Trump http://images.yuku.com/image/gif/44a259045d6bc18697b7bc4ddaaf002acfc7ea0.gif
Black Diamond
04-03-2017, 12:51 PM
"The buffoons are those on the left that passed the current shitty mess we are dealing with." jc #2
Amusing.
Trump claimed he could do much better. And what Trump ended up with was so bad, Speaker Ryan didn't allow it to go to a vote.
But Trump is so ignorant, he just assumed in that sublime ignorance that he could do better.
And after he got a bracing dose of reality, Trump confessed his ignorance.
“Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated.” President Trump http://images.yuku.com/image/gif/44a259045d6bc18697b7bc4ddaaf002acfc7ea0.gif
Yawn
jimnyc
04-03-2017, 12:53 PM
"The buffoons are those on the left that passed the current shitty mess we are dealing with." jc #2
Amusing.
Trump claimed he could do much better. And what Trump ended up with was so bad, Speaker Ryan didn't allow it to go to a vote.
But Trump is so ignorant, he just assumed in that sublime ignorance that he could do better.
And after he got a bracing dose of reality, Trump confessed his ignorance.
“Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated.” President Trump http://images.yuku.com/image/gif/44a259045d6bc18697b7bc4ddaaf002acfc7ea0.gif
Trump didn't write the healthcare plan, he was dumb enough to rely on Ryan. And now that the vote was stopped, we/he still has the chance to get it right.
I suppose he could have stated they simply needed to quickly pass it so that they could see what was in it! ;)
And Trump admitting it's complicated - IMO that's a good thing, some honesty, and then hopefully someone reaching out for help and changes.
Trump didn't write the healthcare plan, he was dumb enough to rely on Ryan.
Speaker Ryan is a good man, even if he dumped this one in the toilet.
There's no denying Ryan didn't get the job done.
But that's immaterial.
Candidate Trump made grandiose promises while campaigning about how much better Trumpcare would be than Obamacare. "Repeal & replace".
He ended up doing neither.
And now that the vote was stopped, we/he still has the chance to get it right.
Trump committed to accomplishing this very early in his term. IIRC Trump used terms like "immediately", etc.
That time window has already slammed shut. It's over. Jam a fork in it. It's done!
You may be right about:
"he still has the chance to get it right."
But his promise is already broken. Trump missed his own deadline.
I suppose he could have stated they simply needed to quickly pass it so that they could see what was in it! http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/smilies/wink.png
ha
And Trump admitting it's complicated - IMO that's a good thing, some honesty, and then hopefully someone reaching out for help and changes.
In linguistics, the counterpart to "complicated" is simple.
When Trump said:
“Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated.” President Trump
what Trump was confessing was he simply didn't know what he was talking about when he made his grandiose campaign promises in the first place. I consider President Trump a city bumpkin.
Drummond
04-03-2017, 07:26 PM
"Trump didn't write the healthcare plan, he was dumb enough to rely on Ryan." jc
Speaker Ryan is a good man, even if he dumped this one in the toilet.
There's no denying Ryan didn't get the job done.
But that's immaterial.
Candidate Trump made grandiose promises while campaigning about how much better Trumpcare would be than Obamacare. "Repeal & replace".
He ended up doing neither.
"And now that the vote was stopped, we/he still has the chance to get it right."
Trump committed to accomplishing this very early in his term. IIRC Trump used terms like "immediately", etc.
That time window has already slammed shut. It's over. Jam a fork in it. It's done!
You may be right about:
"he still has the chance to get it right."
But his promise is already broken. Trump missed his own deadline.
"I suppose he could have stated they simply needed to quickly pass it so that they could see what was in it! ;)"
ha
"And Trump admitting it's complicated - IMO that's a good thing, some honesty, and then hopefully someone reaching out for help and changes."
In linguistics, the counterpart to "complicated" is simple.
When Trump said:
“Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated.” President Trump
what Trump was confessing was he simply didn't know what he was talking about when he made his grandiose campaign promises in the first place. I consider President Trump a city bumpkin.
'Fresh' from your attack on GWB, elsewhere, now I see you have set your sights on Donald Trump.
Well, of course you have. He's another Republican, after all ....
What distinguishes Trump is his 'get up and go' approach. He makes promises. He then moves, and quickly, to do his best to satisfy them.
The Left, of course, will only attack him for it, any and every way they can. Wouldn't you agree, Sear ?
Trump may, I say MAY, have been naive in his understanding of just how much power he can personally wield as President, and of course, as is true for anyone in that position, they grow into the job. Trump is 'guilty' of just one major fault, so far as I can see ... being scrupulously honest about his intentions, AND working at top speed to at least TRY to get everything done.
You clearly don't approve.
Trump has more 'growing into the job' to do than most. But, he'll get there, I'm sure. Lefties snapping at his heels all the while, of course ... eh, Sear ? ... but, he'll manage. And in doing so, he'll work tirelessly to GET DONE what he SAID he'd get done.
'Fresh' from your attack on GWB, elsewhere, now I see you have set your sights on Donald Trump.
Well, of course you have. He's another Republican, after all ....
My very first sentence in the post you reply to here began:
"Speaker Ryan is a good man, even if he dumped this one in the toilet." s
Did you not know Speaker Ryan is a Republican?
I know no flattering way to explain this, but no gratuitous insult is intended.
I tell it like it is.
I critique and criticize Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike.
It is rarely if ever on basis of partisanship.
It's on merit.
If they earn praise, they'll get it from me, as Ryan has here.
If the boink the pooch, I won't lie or obfuscate it.
The Left, of course, will only attack him for it, any and every way they can. Wouldn't you agree, Sear ?
No.
I don't deny the hyper-partisanship.
For example, Gorsuch didn't get a single Democrat vote in committee.
BUT !!
At least Gorsuch got a vote.
When Obama nominated Merit Garland, McConnell wouldn't even allow a vote on him.
"If you're not guilty, why do you need immunity?"
If McConnell thought Garland wouldn't pass the vote, why not hold the vote?
NOPE!
McConnell blocked the vote purely to obstruct on partisan basis.
Is there any reason if the Republicans are going to do that to the Dems.
that the Dems shouldn't return the favor? "Turn the other cheek"?
Trump is 'guilty' of just one major fault, so far as I can see ... being scrupulously honest about his intentions, AND working at top speed to at least TRY to get everything done.
You clearly don't approve.
I disagree.
Trump over-promised.
Not surprising. So did Obama, promising to shut down Gitmo his first year in office.
But I credit Obama. He tried to be faithful to his commitment to the voters. Congress blocked him, to the detriment of the People.
Trump expresses himself in extreme terms, often superlatives.
He promised to build a wall, & Mexico would pay for it. (did you know you're Mexican?)
He advocated suspending immigration of all Muslims "until we figure out what the $#@! is going on!"
He advocated deporting every illegal alien in the nation.
It's all clap-trap.
But I confess, the particular shade of lipstick you've slapped on this pig is quite fetching!
he'll work tirelessly to GET DONE what he SAID he'd get done.
:lmao:
Drummond
04-03-2017, 10:17 PM
"'Fresh' from your attack on GWB, elsewhere, now I see you have set your sights on Donald Trump.
Well, of course you have. He's another Republican, after all ...." D
My very first sentence in the post you reply to here began:
"Speaker Ryan is a good man, even if he dumped this one in the toilet." s
Did you not know Speaker Ryan is a Republican?
I know no flattering way to explain this, but no gratuitous insult is intended.
I tell it like it is.
I critique and criticize Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike.
It is rarely if ever on basis of partisanship.
It's on merit.
If they earn praise, they'll get it from me, as Ryan has here.
If the boink the pooch, I won't lie or obfuscate it.
"The Left, of course, will only attack him for it, any and every way they can. Wouldn't you agree, Sear ?" D
No.
I don't deny the hyper-partisanship.
For example, Gorsuch didn't get a single Democrat vote in committee.
BUT !!
At least Gorsuch got a vote.
When Obama nominated Merit Garland, McConnell wouldn't even allow a vote on him.
"If you're not guilty, why do you need immunity?"
If McConnell thought Garland wouldn't pass the vote, why not hold the vote?
NOPE!
McConnell blocked the vote purely to obstruct on partisan basis.
Is there any reason if the Republicans are going to do that to the Dems.
that the Dems shouldn't return the favor? "Turn the other cheek"?
"Trump is 'guilty' of just one major fault ... being scrupulously honest about his intentions, AND working at top speed to at least TRY to get everything done.
You clearly don't approve."
I disagree.
Trump over-promised.
Not surprising. So did Obama, promising to shut down Gitmo his first year in office.
But I credit Obama. He tried to be faithful to his commitment to the voters. Congress blocked him, to the detriment of the People.
Trump expresses himself in extreme terms, often superlatives.
He promised to build a wall, & Mexico would pay for it. (did you know you're Mexican?)
He advocated suspending immigration of all Muslims "until we figure out what the $#@! is going on!"
He advocated deporting every illegal alien in the nation.
It's all clap-trap.
But I confess, the particular shade of lipstick you've slapped on this pig is quite fetching!
"Trump is ... being scrupulously honest about his intentions, AND working at top speed to at least TRY to get everything done." http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9823&stc=1
I'll quote this again:
My very first sentence in the post you reply to here began:
"Speaker Ryan is a good man, even if he dumped this one in the toilet." s
I'm supposed to fail to notice that even when you, as you claim, add a so-called 'favorable' comment on a Republican, you STILL have to add a qualifier to it ?
You say you're critical of Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike ? Really ? Well, then, I look forward to seeing your comparable attacks on NON Democrats and Independents, then !! Will I have long to wait ? As in ... indefinitely .. ?
... we shall see ...
Being critical, adding qualifiers, adding praise but WITH qualifiers ... do you hope to 'disguise' your intentions by doing that ? Thus far, Sear, your criticisms have been heavily weighted against Republicans. That's the point ... the weight of those criticisms, along with their numeracy.
And it's not a game. The future of your country, to say nothing of that of the West generally, is at stake from where Republican leadership will take us all.
"I'm supposed to" D #9
We are supposed to not make erroneous assumptions.
You're absolutely right. I criticize Republicans. Guess why. BECAUSE THEY'RE POLITICIANS.
Guess what. I criticize Democrats with equal zeal. THEY'RE POLITICIANS TOO!
The difference is, today, April 4, 2017, it's the Republicans that are in charge.
So the thin-skinned might easily make the mistake of assuming my bias is partisan.
No. The division of government leadership (& therefore responsibility) is partisan. THEY'RE REPUBLICANS!
So they get the credit or blame when things go right or wrong.
"I'm supposed to fail to notice that even when you, as you claim, add a so-called 'favorable' comment on a Republican, you STILL have to add a qualifier to it ?" D #9
I know of no requirement that posters also be skilled profilers.
But those that try to wrestle above their own weight range can get beat.
You read criticism of a Republican and you assume:
"you're obviously a Leftie with an agenda which you are pushing with great determination." D #163
You assume it's partisan, and that I'm a "Leftie" (your word).
There actually are other explanations. And not only are some of them more plausible. In this case, a different one happens to be correct.
"You say you're critical of Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike ? Really ? Well, then, I look forward to seeing your comparable attacks on NON Democrats and Independents, then !! Will I have long to wait ? As in ... indefinitely .. ?" D
If you want to see it in this ratio, you'll have to wait until the "Leftie" organization of your preference controls leadership in:
- the house
- the senate
- the exec
- and on verge (according to McConnell) this week of also SCOTUS)
"Being critical, adding qualifiers, adding praise but WITH qualifiers ... do you hope to 'disguise' your intentions by doing that ?" D
Simple thoughts can be expressed simply.
More complex perspectives may require more elaborate syntax. I try to avoid extraneous verbiage. But I don't wish to mis-state my position, simply to omit a word or two.
"Thus far, Sear, your criticisms have been heavily weighted against Republicans. That's the point ... the weight of those criticisms, along with their numeracy." D
Whatever you say.
But you infer and attribute not merely a partisan motive but:
"you're obviously a Leftie with an agenda which you are pushing with great determination." D #163
"Great determination"?!
I'm advancing a constructive, utilitarian agenda, with unbridled zeal. I want the greatest benefit to the largest number of my countrymen.
What do YOU want?
"And it's not a game. The future of your country, to say nothing of that of the West generally, is at stake from where Republican leadership will take us all." D
Which means it's consequential. It's determinative.
If it wasn't important, it would not be of such intense interest.
Mine was a didactic challenge D.
You harbor against me, and have explicitly expressed a partisan bias.
The easiest way to teach you you were wrong is simply challenge you to quote me.
You haven't, mainly because the "Leftie" bias you insisted was there, is not.
But I will not shill for any party, including Republicans. When they screw up, and it's relevant to the informed electorate, I'm not above posting a comment on it.
darin
04-04-2017, 06:10 AM
^^ Sear you should be banned until you fix your shitty style of quoting.
Thanks d #11
Do you know anyone that formats large posts better than me?
Are you aware that when the formal quotation feature is used here, that when that quotation is quoted, it is also automatically omitted?
BUT !!
When the format is in bold as I do, the entire selected text is preserved, not automatically reduced by the system.
I don't need an editorial overlord that with zero cognitive input alters the text of my posts. I know what it is I wish to say, and by and large, how to say it.
Now if you or any sys-op here will correct that defect, so that quoted quotations are re-quoted when cut-&-pasted, we can review our options.
Until then, I'll post MY words as I intend them, or not at all.
BTW
ANYone that doesn't like the format should try it for a week, before they assume it's a "shitty style of quoting."
I know of none other that can match it, and doubt there is any in this forum.
Thanks again d for your constructive input.
darin
04-04-2017, 06:36 AM
Thanks d #11
Do you know anyone that formats large posts better than me?
Are you aware that when the formal quotation feature is used here, that when that quotation is quoted, it is also automatically omitted?
BUT !!
When the format is in bold as I do, the entire selected text is preserved, not automatically reduced by the system.
I don't need an editorial overlord that with zero cognitive input alters the text of my posts. I know what it is I wish to say, and by and large, how to say it.
Now if you or any sys-op here will correct that defect, so that quoted quotations are re-quoted when cut-&-pasted, we can review our options.
Until then, I'll post MY words as I intend them, or not at all.
BTW
ANYone that doesn't like the format should try it for a week, before they assume it's a "shitty style of quoting."
I know of none other that can match it, and doubt there is any in this forum.
Thanks again d for your constructive input.
Everyone here quotes better than you. It's best to keep things sorted to use the quote tags. Really makes it better - I gave you examples in a couple of your posts above. Following those suggestions will make it easier for people to see wtf you're talking about.
I wouldn't have to pick up a turd from my yard, bring it in the house and let the turd sit on my coffee table to know it's a piece of shit.
There is no requirement that you provide a constructive reply.
I'm open-minded about revising my protocol.
But before I give it serious consideration, I'd like to clearly understand the scope of the problem.
This is how my format appears on my UHD desktop computer screen.
http://images.yuku.com/image/jpeg/b4f250d4186361be90f74aaf1e38dfa37273b13.JPG
On my screen it alternates bold (quotations w/ attribute), and standard text, = sear's replies.
I have wondered whether those posting via mobile devices (small, cramped display screens) may get a lower contrast image.
Is what you see significantly different from this?
And if it is, do you have any means to screen-capture, and post it, so that I can:
a) understand the scope of the problem, and
b) design a mutually acceptable solution that will solve the problems currently solved by the current protocol, plus whatever additional problems you perceive & articulate?
darin
04-04-2017, 07:13 AM
There is no requirement that you provide a constructive reply.
I'm open-minded about revising my protocol.
But before I give it serious consideration, I'd like to clearly understand the scope of the problem.
This is how my format appears on my UHD desktop computer screen.
On my screen it alternates bold (quotations w/ attribute), and standard text, = sear's replies.
I have wondered whether those posting via mobile devices (small, cramped display screens) may get a lower contrast image.
Is what you see significantly different from this?
And if it is, do you have any means to screen-capture, and post it, so that I can:
a) understand the scope of the problem, and
b) design a mutually acceptable solution that will solve the problems currently solved by the current protocol, plus whatever additional problems you perceive & articulate?
This is the way you want it to look to be more-effective and present a more-clear picture of what the hell you happen to be talking about. There are no problems to be solved - my way is better for board flow and for clarity of arguments. Your way is less-good; in fact it's awful.
Make yours look like this - Don't let ISIS win!
http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9825&d=1491307993
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.