**President Trump 2018 Thread**

[StrangeSox]

Constitutional Amendments require 2/3's votes from both the House and Senate and then ratification by 3/4's of the states. Given that we've seen nearly a decade of praise and defense of CU from Republicans and attacks on CU from Democrats, it doesn't seem like this issue really fits the "both sides are bad" mold very well, nor do I think the prospects of any changes coming from Republican-dominated federal and state governments look very good.

We used to have stronger campaign finance laws federally and at the state level. Conservative Justices overturned them in a contentious ruling with a particularly unusual case history (look at how CU played out, it was far from normal). Conservatives have celebrated the ruling and the outcome for nearly a decade since while Democrats have opposed it.

I don't expect a miracle court change to actually happen ever since McConnell kicked off our ongoing constitutional crisis by stealing an SC seat. As we all agreed before, Democrats are pretty ineffectual. I'm more or less resigned to the fact that we've got decades of a reactionary court striking down laws and potentially overturning a lot of good 20th century policy (Chevron, Roe, much of the New Deal, already gutted VRA, many more I'm sure) ahead of us. But I'm sure as hell not going to pretend that this is a "both sides" problem, because there's nothing in pre- or post-CU history that indicates it is.

Edited July 11, 2018 by StrangeSox

[illinilaw08]

12 minutes ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

Congress. Can. Change It. If they wanted to invest the effort - but they don't want that set of changes in reality. I said earlier how it (an amendment) could work, and would have no problem with the courts. Don't even need a super-majority - just need some will in Congress. I believe the rest of the process - the vote and the states - would take care of itself.

You are hoping for something unrealistic and legally twisted. The court, in my view, decided rightly. You hoping for some miracle court change just won't happen. I'm saying that as hard as a Constitutional Amendment seems - and it is - that path is actually the more realistic one and probably the only one that could ever work.

 

If the Republicans filibustered a law that would require heightened disclosure, I definitely think that it's super realistic that 2/3 of both houses of Congress will propose a Constitutional Amended overturning Citizen's United.  You are hoping for something unrealistic, and you are blaming both parties for a problem that one party clearly wants to do something about, and one party does not.  In support you refer to "scumbags" from both parties without any additional support.

And why do you think Citizen's United was correctly decided?  I find the dissent far more compelling than the majority opinion or either of the two concurrences.  

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Edit: I think there are certainly Democrats who are willing to sell out their principles to corporate interests.  Here's a great example!

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/12/cory-booker-joins-senate-republicans-to-kill-measure-to-import-cheaper-medicine-from-canada/

So there are definitely issues that are both sides are bad.  But campaign finance reform in the wake of Citizen's United has a pretty clear line between the parties' respective position on each.

 

Edited July 11, 2018 by illinilaw08

[StrangeSox]

While we're at it, lets go back to what CU was about, which was a challenge to the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that was designed specifically to address the increasing "soft money" influencing our politics, commonly known as McCain-Feingold.

While it did have nominal bipartisan sponsorship, lets look at the actual vote totals:

• Passed the House on February 14, 2002 (H.R. 2356) (240–189 [R – 41–176, 5 NV ; D – 198–12, 1 NV ; I – 1–1, 0 NV])
• Passed the Senate as the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002" on March 20, 2002 (60–40 [R – 11–38, 0 NV ; D – 48–2, 0 NV ; I – 1–0, 0 NV])

 

18% of R's in the House voted in favor, 94% of D's did

22% of R's in the Senate voted in favor, 96% of D's did

 

And hey, let's go back even further!

In 1992, Bush Sr. vetoed a similar measure passed by Democrats that would have restricted soft money.

Quote

 

The Senate voted today to uphold President Bush's veto of a bill limiting Congressional campaign spending, as all but two Republicans voted with him. The 57-to-42 vote was nine short of the two-thirds majority required by the Constitution to override a veto.

Two Democrats and 40 Republicans voted with Mr. Bush. Fifty-five Democrats and two Republicans voted to override. One Democrat was absent.

 

This is not a "both sides" issue. This is a "conservatives love soft money flooding our politics" issue. But it gets reduced to "scumbags in both parties" and "yeah sure I don't like the people who oppose it," completely letting Republicans off the hook for their actions going back decades. You couldn't ask for a better constructed example of the damage "both sideism" does to our politics.

Edited July 11, 2018 by StrangeSox

[LittleHurt05]

4 hours ago, StrangeSox said:

While we're at it, lets go back to what CU was about, which was a challenge to the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that was designed specifically to address the increasing "soft money" influencing our politics, commonly known as McCain-Feingold.

While it did have nominal bipartisan sponsorship, lets look at the actual vote totals:

• Passed the House on February 14, 2002 (H.R. 2356) (240–189 [R – 41–176, 5 NV ; D – 198–12, 1 NV ; I – 1–1, 0 NV])
• Passed the Senate as the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002" on March 20, 2002 (60–40 [R – 11–38, 0 NV ; D – 48–2, 0 NV ; I – 1–0, 0 NV])

 

18% of R's in the House voted in favor, 94% of D's did

22% of R's in the Senate voted in favor, 96% of D's did

 

And hey, let's go back even further!

In 1992, Bush Sr. vetoed a similar measure passed by Democrats that would have restricted soft money.

This is not a "both sides" issue. This is a "conservatives love soft money flooding our politics" issue. But it gets reduced to "scumbags in both parties" and "yeah sure I don't like the people who oppose it," completely letting Republicans off the hook for their actions going back decades. You couldn't ask for a better constructed example of the damage "both sideism" does to our politics.

"Soft" money got Obama Care passed and tens of millions of people and businesses still haven't recovered, although I'm sure I'll be told I'm the only victim in the entire country. Again. 

[Dick Allen]

3 minutes ago, LittleHurt05 said:

"Soft" money got Obama Care passed and tens of millions of people and businesses still haven't recovered, although I'm sure I'll be told I'm the only victim in the entire country. Again. 

Trump has totally sabotaged Obamacare. Instead of fixing it, he just made it worse so everyone would hate it and he could say I told you so. So thank the republicans for fucking with you. But Trump promised better, cheaper care for everyone. Funny how he seems to have forgotten about that.

[LittleHurt05]

1 hour ago, Dick Allen said:

Trump has totally sabotaged Obamacare. Instead of fixing it, he just made it worse so everyone would hate it and he could say I told you so. So thank the republicans for fucking with you. But Trump promised better, cheaper care for everyone. Funny how he seems to have forgotten about that.

What does Trump have to do with it? The ACA was implemented 6+ years before Trump was elected. That's when the problems started. Life isn't always about Trump.

[LittleHurt05]

8 hours ago, raBBit said:

What hospital do you go to? I am sure you just haven't looked into all your options.

Luckily my situation changed in 2018, so this year I was able to be on a small group plan. Despite it being absurdly expensive, there actually are options, as opposed to the limited individual options and the junk that gets pushed on the marketplace.  The issues we had with access were the previous few years.

Now dealing with the labor costs is another story.  It's easy for a large company to put on a happy face, say we support the ACA, so don't mind the 15% increase on our product.  When a small business attempts that, you can kiss your customers bye bye.  

[GoSox05]

22 minutes ago, LittleHurt05 said:

Luckily my situation changed in 2018, so this year I was able to be on a small group plan. Despite it being absurdly expensive, there actually are options, as opposed to the limited individual options and the junk that gets pushed on the marketplace.  The issues we had with access were the previous few years.

Now dealing with the labor costs is another story.  It's easy for a large company to put on a happy face, say we support the ACA, so don't mind the 15% increase on our product.  When a small business attempts that, you can kiss your customers bye bye.  

It's almost like private insurance is bad.

 

[GoSox05]

Trump at NATO trying to get the others countries so spend more money.  Wouldn't be awesome if we had a president who went and tried to convince the other countries, including ours to spend less money on it.  

[GoSox05]

"Germany is totally controlled by Russia" - Trump

What an absolute idiot and nutcase this guy is.  Going to be a miracle nothing completely devastating happens during his presidency.

 

Edited July 12, 2018 by GoSox05

[Dick Allen]

2 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

"Germany is totally controlled by Russia" - Trump

What an absolute idiot and nutcase this guy is.  Going to be a miracle nothing completely devastating happens during his presidency.

 

This is just an admission he is controlled by Putin. Just check it out. When he accuses people of things, he's usually guilty of the same. When he screams fake news? He starts telling lies, and a week or so later, the "fake news" turns out to be true. 

[Dick Allen]

11 hours ago, LittleHurt05 said:

What does Trump have to do with it? The ACA was implemented 6+ years before Trump was elected. That's when the problems started. Life isn't always about Trump.

A lot. Everyone has known there were issues with it. What has he or the republicans done to improve it? They have only made it worse so everyone will hate it, and public opinion will be it has to go, and he will be able to say, see what did I tell you?  He sabotaged it instead of working to improve it, and the result will mean millions of unnecessary deaths because we cannot afford it. We can afford to give rich people even more money they will never spend. And supposedly there will be something in the till for his claim of cheaper, better insurance for everyone, probably after the funding for his wall Mexico was paying for, believe me, goes through.   

Edited July 12, 2018 by Dick Allen

[GoSox05]

12 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

This is just an admission he is controlled by Putin. Just check it out. When he accuses people of things, he's usually guilty of the same. When he screams fake news? He starts telling lies, and a week or so later, the "fake news" turns out to be true. 

I'm not going into the whole Putin controls Trump stuff. 

It's just dumb to accuse a country that they are under control of Russia because they have a energy deal together.

Russia continues to be the boogeyman to the U.S.  Which is just beyond dumb.

[Balta1701]

18 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

I'm not going into the whole Putin controls Trump stuff. 

It's just dumb to accuse a country that they are under control of Russia because they have a energy deal together.

Russia continues to be the boogeyman to the U.S.  Which is just beyond dumb.

The committed a wide ranging series of crimes on this country's shores with extraordinary effectiveness, to the point that they have reshaped global politics as a consequence, and have shown every inkling to do it again due to the limited punishments compared to the effectiveness. They have recently murdered people on the soil of one of our allies using chemical weapons. Regardless of everything else, that is a profound statement about a boogeyman. 

[GoSox05]

3 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

The committed a wide ranging series of crimes on this country's shores with extraordinary effectiveness, to the point that they have reshaped global politics as a consequence, and have shown every inkling to do it again due to the limited punishments compared to the effectiveness. They have recently murdered people on the soil of one of our allies using chemical weapons. Regardless of everything else, that is a profound statement about a boogeyman. 

All things that this country has done in the past.  In fact we have literally overthrown democratically elected officials. 

Kinda hard to criticize Russia for the same things we do.

[illinilaw08]

15 minutes ago, raBBit said:

Keep us posted on these millions of deaths.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/07/deaths-health-care-bill/

Link to a discussion of the issue - and the article includes links to all the studies it cites.  Basically, millions is hyperbole, but people without health insurance see the doctor less, leading to serious issues not getting caught, leading to people dying.  One study found a 6.1% decrease in mortality since the ACA.  Another study attributed 18,000 deaths in 2000 in "nonelderly adults" to lack of health insurance.

It's a real issue - access to healthcare saves lives.    

[illinilaw08]

1 hour ago, GoSox05 said:

All things that this country has done in the past.  In fact we have literally overthrown democratically elected officials. 

Kinda hard to criticize Russia for the same things we do.

The fact that the US has had (and probably continues to have) terrible foreign policy - particularly in Latin and South America - does not give Russia carte blanche to interfere in US elections.  

[Soxbadger]

1 hour ago, GoSox05 said:

All things that this country has done in the past.  In fact we have literally overthrown democratically elected officials. 

Kinda hard to criticize Russia for the same things we do.

 

Can you point out a time that the US had a treaty with Russia/Ukraine where the US violated the treaty?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

Russia violated those assurances. Until Crimea is returned to Ukraine, the US should be sanctioning Russia to hell. 

[illinilaw08]

3 hours ago, LittleHurt05 said:

Luckily my situation changed in 2018, so this year I was able to be on a small group plan. Despite it being absurdly expensive, there actually are options, as opposed to the limited individual options and the junk that gets pushed on the marketplace.  The issues we had with access were the previous few years.

Now dealing with the labor costs is another story.  It's easy for a large company to put on a happy face, say we support the ACA, so don't mind the 15% increase on our product.  When a small business attempts that, you can kiss your customers bye bye.  

Health care is expensive, and I tend to agree that policy in this country far too frequently ignores the impact on small businesses. 

With that being said, the obvious solution to the problems with the ACA is Medicare for All, or some similar policy.  For profit health insurance either covers too few people, or prices people out of the market when the pool gets expanded.

[GoSox05]

1 minute ago, illinilaw08 said:

The fact that the US has had (and probably continues to have) terrible foreign policy - particularly in Latin and South America - does not give Russia carte blanche to interfere in US elections.  

Nope, but it's hard to criticize other countries for something that you are also doing to other countries. 

Also, to what extent Russia interfered in our election is arguable.  Putting up a few million dollars to run fake ads on Facebook isn't worthy to invade them. 

 

[Soxbadger]

1 minute ago, GoSox05 said:

Nope, but it's hard to criticize other countries for something that you are also doing to other countries. 

Also, to what extent Russia interfered in our election is arguable.  Putting up a few million dollars to run fake ads on Facebook isn't worthy to invade them. 

 

What about violating treaties? Or do you just conveniently forget Russia violated a treaty that we are a party to?

[Dick Allen]

25 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/07/deaths-health-care-bill/

Link to a discussion of the issue - and the article includes links to all the studies it cites.  Basically, millions is hyperbole, but people without health insurance see the doctor less, leading to serious issues not getting caught, leading to people dying.  One study found a 6.1% decrease in mortality since the ACA.  Another study attributed 18,000 deaths in 2000 in "nonelderly adults" to lack of health insurance.

It's a real issue - access to healthcare saves lives.    

Eventually it will be millions.

[LittleHurt05]

24 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

Health care is expensive, and I tend to agree that policy in this country far too frequently ignores the impact on small businesses. 

With that being said, the obvious solution to the problems with the ACA is Medicare for All, or some similar policy.  For profit health insurance either covers too few people, or prices people out of the market when the pool gets expanded.

Besides the for profit issue, I also think the direct link to employment is crazy, and that's even if you ignore the small business aspect of it.  You can work for Mega Corp A, I work for Mega Corp B doing the exact same job.  You could have a $500 deductible plan to every PPO network, while I have a $10,000 deductible limited HMO plan.  And I have no choice but to accept it, I can't really even shop for any other plans.  My health is directly related to my employer's preference and budget.

[Soxbadger]

5 minutes ago, LittleHurt05 said:

Besides the for profit issue, I also think the direct link to employment is crazy, and that's even if you ignore the small business aspect of it.  You can work for Mega Corp A, I work for Mega Corp B doing the exact same job.  You could have a $500 deductible plan to every PPO network, while I have a $10,000 deductible limited HMO plan.  And I have no choice but to accept it, I can't really even shop for any other plans.  My health is directly related to my employer's preference and budget.

Sounds like you think they should create some sort exchange for individuals so that individuals can get better rates and not be reliant on their employer...

 

[GoSox05]

33 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

 

Can you point out a time that the US had a treaty with Russia/Ukraine where the US violated the treaty?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances

Russia violated those assurances. Until Crimea is returned to Ukraine, the US should be sanctioning Russia to hell. 

I think this was the only time Russia/Ukraine and U.S have had a treaty.  So I guess none.

So sanctions on Russia.  Then what?