Magox

I'm sure you felt the same way when the clear majority of Americans were against Obamacare for over 95% of it's time in existence before Donny came into power.

This is something that I strongly sense as well. It doesn't matter what politicians they had supported in the past, I think the very thought of such an unprofessional, lacking seriousness, unprepared, unqualified, pathologically lying sort of detestable person that Trump is (from their perspective) is a bridge too far for them to accept. I believe that if given the chance that some of these civil servants would do anything that they believe they could get away with to either undermine his presidency or take him down. These guys hate Trump as much as anyone, because I believe they have lived their professional lives under a certain sort of code of conduct and the very existence of Trump being president is just too much for some of them to handle.

I've made this argument going back nearly a decade now, if progressives/socialists/people from the left hadn't introduced wealth distribution schemes and punitive taxation measures this would have never have become such a polarizing issue. It's true, many mouth-breathers from the right automatically reject any data that doesn't comport with their beliefs and the same goes with all the hysterical ninny's from the left who often have no !@#$ing clue of what they are talking about in regards to this topic. If man made climate destruction is actually happening anywhere near to the degree of what the alarmists claim, punitive taxation and wealth distribution won't be the panacea that they hope it to be. It will come from some sort of scientific/innovative breakthrough. In the meantime, let's just be conscience of the climate, try to do our own part, not wreck local economies with policies that have real life detrimental effects on working families to put in place dogmatic policies that we really don't know if it would truly help more than a scintilla's worth of effect. I just don't subscribe to that.

No matter how the investigation truly turns out it has already failed. Why? Because when you hire a special investigator for matters such as this where you have a very polarized electorate on a very polarized impactful matter, you have to conduct the investigation with the appearance of impartiality. You have to have the majority of the public's confidence right from the onset. No matter what their true motives are, you've handed the supporters of DJT and skeptics of DC politics on a silver platter that the investigation is a sham. So now matter what the findings will be, unless of course there is an undeniable smoking gun of illegallity the investigation findings won't change the landscape from where we already are.

The overwhelming majority of people have no clue in what they are discussing when they talk about climate science. That's just the truth. Humor me, whenever you get a half hour of your time, read this. It doesn't argue that the climate isn't changing, or even that humans aren't A cause, it's simply makes a factual case that the science is most certainly not settled in regards to how much each cause is actually contributing to the changes we are seeing in the climate and that the majority of the testing and studies have flawed methodology.

I don't dispute that Trump brought this on himself, he is his own worst friend and enemy. He is a complete tool who knows very little about policy and is what I'd consider to be a pathological liar. But that still doesn't take away the argument I've been making.

There are a number of Republicans that loathe Trump just as much if not more than Democrats, but lets not lose sight of the fact that Mueller was a good friend of Comey. I mean, that alone should have precluded him from being in charge of the investigation. There really was very little forethought in aspect to the appearance of impartiality. This is a huge !@#$ing deal, and they couldn't have selected someone who didn't have close ties or at the very least that wasn't good friends with Comey? Let's just try to be impartial here for a second, if Hillary would have been sworn into office and someone who provided a conflicting story to hers was a key player in the investigation then had one of his best friends leading the charge against her, and then goes on to select the majority of his lawyers/investigators that were all donors of Donald J Trump, you mean to tell me you, K9 and the rest of the left wingers wouldn't question that? If you tell me no, I wouldn't believe you. Not for a !@#$ing second.

No, what is absurd is that you don't even question the fact that the overwhelming if not entirety of the lawyers/investigators who we know have donated to politicians have been all for Democrats. Here's what the idiots on the far left don't understand, is at least appearance of objectivity. This is a hugely polarizing topic, if the integrity of this investigation is to have any chance of succeeding there has to at least be the impression of impartiality. If you don't see this, then there is something wrong with you.

I am a big believer of free speech, however that does not preclude you of being free of the consequences of your speech. Clearly it hasn't done him any good with his career in the NFL, but who knows? Maybe it will lead to a career in Social Justice activism and it could end up leading to a more fulfilling career for him. Then again, maybe it won't.

I'm not even attempt to pretend to know what Trump would do, but I think if lawmakers want to craft a law for the American people that affected their healthcare then they should be willing to live with the same sort of coverage those who don't have access to employer plans do. It may not initially get lawmakers to vote how he'd like but after one short year of having these extremely tiny networks, with lower quality medical providers who have long waiting lists just to schedule a regular doctors appointment, let's see how happy they'll be having to paying astronomical health premiums with crappy coverage. I guarantee you at some point they'd act. He should do it, even if does get challenged in the courts.

I would imagine that the idea of having congress live with the same crappy ACA largely HMO network plans would be very popular. I've said all along that the idea of letting "Obamacare die" not only is a pipe dream, unless of course he actively went to sabotage the law and that despite what the conservatives of this board would like to think, that right or wrong (mainly wrong), the Trump administration would shoulder the same if not more of the blame. As unfair as that sounds they were elected to improve the system, not play games by using citizens as pawns as their political games. Specially when it comes to people's health.

That's true, but do you really see the music ending anytime soon? There is no better tune in the foreseeable future than that of the US tune.

What does this have to do with my post? Have you been paying attention to what I've been saying or are you just quoting my posts and then randomly posting your thoughts on the law?

I don't know, so many conflicting headwinds, tailwinds, disruptions and dislocations it's difficult to say.

The poll that you mentioned has very little if anything to do with stripping lawmakers of their subsidies. I'm not part of Trumps base and I very much would love to see this happen. The way I see it is if they want to craft a law for the public they should have to live with the law they've written for those that don't have the luxury of getting employer sponsored plans.

They should. This to me is a no brainer. Make them all get a plan from the marketplace

It would help, but probably not nearly as much as you'd think. The last repatriation did little to spur economic output or jobs. It would help stock holders/dividends which of course is good. I'm for it, just that it wouldn't be nearly as much of a boon as I believe people would think it to be. The idea of a territorial tax system is something that I think they should really consider, seems like more of a long-term solution.

There goes that CNN segment this morning, with a red background of Trump and Putin with their ominous faces, regarding why Trump hadn't signed the sanctions and how he may be in the pocket of the Russians.

Damn! This is why people respect you.

The media sucks both from the right and the left. There is no such thing as non biased media coverage.

I don't know what you are talking about, I have advocated bipartisanship with a tilt towards the right on economic issues for as long as I can remember. Are you new here?

We are in unchartered territory with the Fed bond buying programs, which undoubtedly did lead to higher asset values, such as stocks, commodities and bonds. The lack of real demand kept certain aspects in check so it really is difficult to decipher how much of an impact it had. Now, demand seems to be picking back up which I believe is why you are seeing the values of many of these assets continue to go up. I really don't know how the unwinding of their balance sheet is going to effect the markets, I would imagine that at some point this will begin to be priced in which is why I think real action by the government for tax reform is going to really weigh in one way or another.

Ah, the responsible pragmatic lawmakers, too bad they are far and few between. Or at least they are in hiding because they don't dare buck the base of their irrespective parties. The problem with pragmatism is that it doesn't inspire the passions that the most rigid ideological voices of the party do. People like seeing clear delineations and contrasts from one party to another. It's easier to understand, it's easier to communicate and foment. The most fervent of voters who vote and are the most politically engaged belong to the further right/left spectrum of each party, specially in the !@#$ed up primary system that we have. It rewards those politicians who either are true purists or who pretend to be rather than those who want to compromise and get things done. Which is why I lament over the way information is being disseminated, both conservative and liberal media live in their own little bubbles, only spreading "news" that their viewers want to tune into. It's a vicious cycle sort, sort of a negative feedback loop. In other words, it comes at the cost of quality of news to essentially what becomes propaganda.

And anyone who thinks that going on a party line basis can produce a working sustainable healthcare plan is also deluding themselves.

Doesn't matter what you blame it on, bottom line is they can't get it done. Democrats went with an straight line party vote and they made a mediocre at best law. Republicans attempted to do it on their own and they failed spectacularly. The way to do is in a bipartisan matter, not just so that it passes but so that you have a higher majority of the country that will initially buy into it.