June 20, 2018, 09:20:38 PM

Author Topic: When will Trump be impeached?  (Read 139206 times)

Online kyndo

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4229
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #720 on: June 15, 2017, 11:09:01 PM »
But for Europe to have been truly self-sufficient defense wise during the Cold War, they would have had to undergo massive expenditures in defense and implemented things like mandatory conscription and also been involved in large-scale military conflicts that would have drained money and manpower.
   Not to detract from your points (some of which I agree with) but most NATO countries in Europe actually *did* have mandatory conscription when the USSR was around. While many dropped it in the early 90s, several still require mandatory military service.

   Worryingly, Sweden is reinstating the draft this year due to increasing tensions with Russia. I imagine that several other countries may follow suit. :sad:


Online Savant

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #721 on: June 16, 2017, 07:18:10 AM »
BS! A big massive BS!

US defense spending is a massive waste of taxpayers' dollars with little to no oversight. Many programs run over budget and over time and the US government keeps throwing money at the Pentagon.

Wasn't it in the Iraq war that billions of dollars are still unaccounted for because suitcases of cash were just handed over without any oversight.

Don't blame Western Europe and Canada for America's failings to implement a responsible and expansive health care system. America chose to throw the money at private insurance companies and allow the "market" to dictate prices.

That America could spend its defense budget more wisely and not get involved in foreign intervention does not contradict the point that the nations of Europe have had their socialized programs subsidized by U.S. expenditures on defense and foreign aid programs beginning with the Lend Lease.

Could America have a better health care system that included expansion of social medical programs? I don't doubt it. We could certainly take 20% off the top of defense spending and transfer it to health care, with another 20% to reduce debt or taxes, have little in the way of decline in military superiority, and expand health care.

But for Europe to have been truly self-sufficient defense wise during the Cold War, they would have had to undergo massive expenditures in defense and implemented things like mandatory conscription and also been involved in large-scale military conflicts that would have drained money and manpower.

One point: under the terms of the Lend-Lease with the UK in mind, the British government was not permitted to use to terms of the Lend-Lease and later the Anglo-American loan to subsidize their social welfare system. Instead, cuts were made by the UK in its overseas and domestic spending.

Once again, your coming up with a "solve" and making up your own terms of the problem.
1 + 1 does not equal 3.

Literally addressed none of the issues he just told you about.

Steels' point was primarily because of the Aid given to the Allies by the US around WW2, it helped them to subsidize their social welfare programs like health insurance, which they would have been unable to do otherwise.

My point was that although the Aid was given it did not contribute to whether or not those countries' could implement their social welfare programs. It was a condition set by the US of the Lend-Lease and other loans that they could not be used for social welfare systems.

And after WW2 the allies had to repay their loans to the US with interest; not to mention the huge transfer of technologies and foodstuffs afforded to the US by Allied nations.

That wasn't his point at all. Why would you limit the time frame to "around WWII"?

SINCE WWII the U.S. has essentially been the military of Europe. It spent unreal amounts of money during the cold war keeping the Soviet Union out of western Europe. It does all the military operations in the Middle East (and all over the world) that keep European companies operating and grant them competitive advantage.  The U.S. has built bases all over the world and uses them to not only look out for American interests but European interests as well.

The U.S. and western Europe have been partners but Europeans don't have to contribute to a giant military machine that spans the globe. You think Sweden doesn't get invaded by more powerful countries because their healthcare is good? No, its because of the military might of the U.S. You think people in Switzerland enjoy a super high quality of life because they just have a lot of natural resources or something? Nope, its because their economic interests are protected with the force necessary to control and manipulate the resources of other countries (which is what all European nations do to the global south)

Again, you're looking at the "how" they were able to implement their healthcare systems and not the "why" they were able to implement and choose an universal (socialized) healthcare system.

They were primarily financed by extra taxation and not just because the US had some troops lying around keeping the Soviets at bay. It also begs the question, did the US have to invest so heavily on militarily spending during that period?

If the US is able to put trillions into their military infrastructure over the years then why can't they implement a better and more affordable healthcare system. That is built for the people and not for the advantage of corporations? Answer that!

Offline insulimted

  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 132
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #722 on: June 16, 2017, 09:54:04 AM »
Bernie 2020
Make America Venezuela
    Or Sweden. Or Germany. Or Canada. Or Australia. Or any of dozens of other wealthy nations who have embraced socialized healthcare, subsidized education, and more regulated economies.

    Not that Mr. Sanders would necessarily transform the USA into one of those countries. I feel that while his goals are admirable, they aren't achievable in the short term: he's fighting against far too much social conditioning to effectively implement the changes he's gunning for.
    What he's espousing is a great leap forward when what is really needed are baby steps:undecided:


"These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?"

Bernie fails to mention  "Sweden. Or Germany. Or Canada. Or Australia."

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/close-the-gaps-disparities-that-threaten-america

Offline Dave Stepz

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2333
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #723 on: June 16, 2017, 10:06:28 AM »
Worryingly, Sweden is reinstating the draft this year due to increasing tensions with Russia. I imagine that several other countries may follow suit. :sad:

Swedish national service is hilarious.  One of my best Swedish friends did it years ago and he said it was just drinking and sleeping with women for a year.  Also, after you finish you are designated somewhere to go to defend IF there is any kind of invasion.  So when he finished he was given a bridge  ;D in Skåne (south Sweden), which is pretty cool as it's a little important.  A few years back he was informed, as most are yearly, that he had been downgraded to a meadow  :sad:  in Västerbotten (north Sweden).

Offline Mr.DeMartino

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4631
  • Gender: Male
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #724 on: June 16, 2017, 10:19:48 AM »

Steels' point was primarily because of the Aid given to the Allies by the US around WW2, it helped them to subsidize their social welfare programs like health insurance, which they would have been unable to do otherwise.

My point was that although the Aid was given it did not contribute to whether or not those countries' could implement their social welfare programs. It was a condition set by the US of the Lend-Lease and other loans that they could not be used for social welfare systems.

And after WW2 the allies had to repay their loans to the US with interest; not to mention the huge transfer of technologies and foodstuffs afforded to the US by Allied nations.

Lend-Lease enabled those countries to exist in the first place. Then the Marshall Plan to help Europe rebuild. Then you had the U.S. providing defense that entire time. Who do you think kept the Soviet Army out of West Berlin? It wasn't the Bundeswehr. And because West Germany didn't have to maintain a 2.5 million man strong standing army, its money could be spent on things like socialized medicine.

Not to detract from your points (some of which I agree with) but most NATO countries in Europe actually *did* have mandatory conscription when the USSR was around. While many dropped it in the early 90s, several still require mandatory military service.

   Worryingly, Sweden is reinstating the draft this year due to increasing tensions with Russia. I imagine that several other countries may follow suit. :sad:

Of course some did, but its more than just conscription (and the lost productivity it entails), it is also things like not having to develop a nuclear program. If Finland had been completely independent with no U.S. political concerns over "domino theories" and the like, the Finnish state would have essentially turned into something like North Korea, only with trade. Massive numbers of people in the military, crash course towards nuclear weapons, military first spending, etc.

They were primarily financed by extra taxation and not just because the US had some troops lying around keeping the Soviets at bay.

If you think it was just "some troops lying around to keep the Soviets at bay", you have no idea of the scale and enormity of U.S. military expenditure throughout the Cold War. The amount of money those countries individually would have had to spend to develop their own nuclear programs, their own navies capable of maintaining global trade and supply routes, the expenditure to deploy troops overseas 5-10 years fighting some war in the desert, etc. etc. There's a reason such conflicts bankrupt nations. It's not a simple matter of having an extra 100,000 guys with Lee Enfields.

Quote
If the US is able to put trillions into their military infrastructure over the years then why can't they implement a better and more affordable healthcare system. That is built for the people and not for the advantage of corporations? Answer that!
Because in order to do that it would require raising taxes which would hurt the economy. Money doesn't grow on trees. Every dollar you take in the form of taxes is a dollar that could potentially be used for growth and economic activity.

This was essentially the arrangement that was implemented in order to defeat Communism. The nations of Europe and East Asia would focus on their economies. We'd handle everything militarily. They'd help us by buying up our debt. It worked. This was the system implemented by the so called 'Wise Men' of the early Cold War. It was designed to help us win the ideological conflict with the Soviet Union. The people of Europe could live a life of growth and luxury without having to bear the costs in soldiers dying and massive armies like in the past.

I'm not saying socialized medicine is a bad thing or that America couldn't get it to work. I am saying that Europeans (and their fans) who come on here and talk about 'Stupid Americans and your huge military and crappy healthcare' are the real idiots because they have a simplistic view of history and how things have worked since WWII. 

Offline waygookkorea

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
  • Gender: Male
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #725 on: June 16, 2017, 11:14:03 AM »
BS! A big massive BS!

US defense spending is a massive waste of taxpayers' dollars with little to no oversight. Many programs run over budget and over time and the US government keeps throwing money at the Pentagon.

Wasn't it in the Iraq war that billions of dollars are still unaccounted for because suitcases of cash were just handed over without any oversight.

Don't blame Western Europe and Canada for America's failings to implement a responsible and expansive health care system. America chose to throw the money at private insurance companies and allow the "market" to dictate prices.

That America could spend its defense budget more wisely and not get involved in foreign intervention does not contradict the point that the nations of Europe have had their socialized programs subsidized by U.S. expenditures on defense and foreign aid programs beginning with the Lend Lease.

Could America have a better health care system that included expansion of social medical programs? I don't doubt it. We could certainly take 20% off the top of defense spending and transfer it to health care, with another 20% to reduce debt or taxes, have little in the way of decline in military superiority, and expand health care.

But for Europe to have been truly self-sufficient defense wise during the Cold War, they would have had to undergo massive expenditures in defense and implemented things like mandatory conscription and also been involved in large-scale military conflicts that would have drained money and manpower.

One point: under the terms of the Lend-Lease with the UK in mind, the British government was not permitted to use to terms of the Lend-Lease and later the Anglo-American loan to subsidize their social welfare system. Instead, cuts were made by the UK in its overseas and domestic spending.

Once again, your coming up with a "solve" and making up your own terms of the problem.
1 + 1 does not equal 3.

Literally addressed none of the issues he just told you about.

Steels' point was primarily because of the Aid given to the Allies by the US around WW2, it helped them to subsidize their social welfare programs like health insurance, which they would have been unable to do otherwise.

My point was that although the Aid was given it did not contribute to whether or not those countries' could implement their social welfare programs. It was a condition set by the US of the Lend-Lease and other loans that they could not be used for social welfare systems.

And after WW2 the allies had to repay their loans to the US with interest; not to mention the huge transfer of technologies and foodstuffs afforded to the US by Allied nations.

That wasn't his point at all. Why would you limit the time frame to "around WWII"?

SINCE WWII the U.S. has essentially been the military of Europe. It spent unreal amounts of money during the cold war keeping the Soviet Union out of western Europe. It does all the military operations in the Middle East (and all over the world) that keep European companies operating and grant them competitive advantage.  The U.S. has built bases all over the world and uses them to not only look out for American interests but European interests as well.

The U.S. and western Europe have been partners but Europeans don't have to contribute to a giant military machine that spans the globe. You think Sweden doesn't get invaded by more powerful countries because their healthcare is good? No, its because of the military might of the U.S. You think people in Switzerland enjoy a super high quality of life because they just have a lot of natural resources or something? Nope, its because their economic interests are protected with the force necessary to control and manipulate the resources of other countries (which is what all European nations do to the global south)

Again, you're looking at the "how" they were able to implement their healthcare systems and not the "why" they were able to implement and choose an universal (socialized) healthcare system.

They were primarily financed by extra taxation and not just because the US had some troops lying around keeping the Soviets at bay. It also begs the question, did the US have to invest so heavily on militarily spending during that period?

If the US is able to put trillions into their military infrastructure over the years then why can't they implement a better and more affordable healthcare system. That is built for the people and not for the advantage of corporations? Answer that!

You just don't quite seem to be able to grasp that without the ifrastructure of the U.S. military the economies of Europe would be 3rd world. They rely pretty much entirely on manipulating other countries and they require the threat of force to achieve economic prosperity.

Their tax rates are extremely high as it is, add in actually having to fund a military that is capable of insuring their economic interests around the globe and suddenly their system falls apart.

The military infrastructure has to be in place

The free market health care has to be in place in order to fund the advancement of medicine.

Europe doesn't have universal healthcare because of their system, its because of the U.S. system

The U.S. system undeniably funds European healthcare and is responsible for the advancement of medicine.

Offline Adel

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
  • Gender: Male
  • Pants down
laughing stock
« Reply #726 on: June 16, 2017, 01:31:18 PM »
It can't be good when one of your closest allies starts to openly take the piss out of you in a room full of reporters.


Offline waygookkorea

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
  • Gender: Male
Re: laughing stock
« Reply #727 on: June 16, 2017, 01:46:23 PM »
It can't be good when one of your closest allies starts to openly take the piss out of you in a room full of reporters.



Helping Trump get re-elected. The more uppity foreigners insult Trump the more it unites the working class that got him elected in the first place due to feeling increasingly attacked by elitists.

They are only helping him with this stuff. Every time some limp-wristed wimp like John Oliver makes a Trump joke a laborer votes for Trump.

They are successfully making a billionaire the symbol of the american rural working class - his only path to victory.

Offline Adel

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
  • Gender: Male
  • Pants down
Re: laughing stock
« Reply #728 on: June 17, 2017, 06:19:03 AM »
It can't be good when one of your closest allies starts to openly take the piss out of you in a room full of reporters.



Helping Trump get re-elected. The more uppity foreigners insult Trump the more it unites the working class that got him elected in the first place due to feeling increasingly attacked by elitists.

They are only helping him with this stuff. Every time some limp-wristed wimp like John Oliver makes a Trump joke a laborer votes for Trump.

They are successfully making a billionaire the symbol of the american rural working class - his only path to victory.

You're probably right. There isn't much that The Donald can do wrong in the eyes of his radical supporters.

Just as a matter of interest though where would you draw the line?  If he had a bout of fecal  incontinence in public would it make any difference? I don't mean metaphorically either.



Offline waygookkorea

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
  • Gender: Male
Re: laughing stock
« Reply #729 on: June 17, 2017, 10:55:23 AM »
It can't be good when one of your closest allies starts to openly take the piss out of you in a room full of reporters.



Helping Trump get re-elected. The more uppity foreigners insult Trump the more it unites the working class that got him elected in the first place due to feeling increasingly attacked by elitists.

They are only helping him with this stuff. Every time some limp-wristed wimp like John Oliver makes a Trump joke a laborer votes for Trump.

They are successfully making a billionaire the symbol of the american rural working class - his only path to victory.

You're probably right. There isn't much that The Donald can do wrong in the eyes of his radical supporters.

Just as a matter of interest though where would you draw the line?  If he had a bout of fecal  incontinence in public would it make any difference? I don't mean metaphorically either.

It would probably depend on how the media ran with it. If the people who demonize the entire middle of the country and the south and the rust belt keep making it the elite vs. everyone else and they use Trump as the symbol for everyone else... he could probably crap himself everyday on a live broadcast and the result will be the same.

People (on either side) don't vote on issues, they vote based upon feelings. Unless he goes against some super candidate I can only see him winning bigger the more the media doubles down.

Offline Adel

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
  • Gender: Male
  • Pants down
Re: laughing stock
« Reply #730 on: June 17, 2017, 11:20:26 AM »
It can't be good when one of your closest allies starts to openly take the piss out of you in a room full of reporters.




Helping Trump get re-elected. The more uppity foreigners insult Trump the more it unites the working class that got him elected in the first place due to feeling increasingly attacked by elitists.

They are only helping him with this stuff. Every time some limp-wristed wimp like John Oliver makes a Trump joke a laborer votes for Trump.

They are successfully making a billionaire the symbol of the american rural working class - his only path to victory.

You're probably right. There isn't much that The Donald can do wrong in the eyes of his radical supporters.

Just as a matter of interest though where would you draw the line?  If he had a bout of fecal  incontinence in public would it make any difference? I don't mean metaphorically either.

It would probably depend on how the media ran with it. If the people who demonize the entire middle of the country and the south and the rust belt keep making it the elite vs. everyone else and they use Trump as the symbol for everyone else... he could probably crap himself everyday on a live broadcast and the result will be the same.

People (on either side) don't vote on issues, they vote based upon feelings. Unless he goes against some super candidate I can only see him winning bigger the more the media doubles down.

So I guess your talking about a kind of unconditional love then.

That's an interesting perspective that would explain a lot of Trump supporters.
I can't say I've ever had that kind of feeling for a political leader before.  I certainly didn't feel that way about Hillary. In the case of Hillary I suspect a lot of her support came from the fact that she wasn't Trump.

Nonetheless you would acknowledge this 'unconditional love affair' would make a rational discussion/debate problematic given the propensity for purely emotive responses, wouldn't you?

Offline waygookkorea

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
  • Gender: Male
Re: laughing stock
« Reply #731 on: June 17, 2017, 11:32:32 AM »
It can't be good when one of your closest allies starts to openly take the piss out of you in a room full of reporters.




Helping Trump get re-elected. The more uppity foreigners insult Trump the more it unites the working class that got him elected in the first place due to feeling increasingly attacked by elitists.

They are only helping him with this stuff. Every time some limp-wristed wimp like John Oliver makes a Trump joke a laborer votes for Trump.

They are successfully making a billionaire the symbol of the american rural working class - his only path to victory.

You're probably right. There isn't much that The Donald can do wrong in the eyes of his radical supporters.

Just as a matter of interest though where would you draw the line?  If he had a bout of fecal  incontinence in public would it make any difference? I don't mean metaphorically either.

It would probably depend on how the media ran with it. If the people who demonize the entire middle of the country and the south and the rust belt keep making it the elite vs. everyone else and they use Trump as the symbol for everyone else... he could probably crap himself everyday on a live broadcast and the result will be the same.

People (on either side) don't vote on issues, they vote based upon feelings. Unless he goes against some super candidate I can only see him winning bigger the more the media doubles down.

So I guess your talking about a kind of unconditional love then.

That's an interesting perspective that would explain a lot of Trump supporters.
I can't say I've ever had that kind of feeling for a political leader before.  I certainly didn't feel that way about Hillary. In the case of Hillary I suspect a lot of her support came from the fact that she wasn't Trump.

Nonetheless you would acknowledge this 'unconditional love affair' would make a rational discussion/debate problematic given the propensity for purely emotive responses, wouldn't you?

On first look they would seem purely emotive but that emotion is the logical reaction to being under attack.

Thats why I'm saying if the media/elites were just treating Trump with presidential respect they would have a better chance. They aren't being bashful about who they feel Trump represents and openly attacking him/them. Logically, the "evil" working class middle of the country is going to dig their heels in and not give an inch if they can help it.

*I think none of this matters as I believe the next election results will be reported as a defeat for Trump... even if he actually wins. The media/elite seem to be all in and are creating a narrative that he is a lot more unpopular than he actually is in reality.

Offline Adel

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 431
  • Gender: Male
  • Pants down
Re: laughing stock
« Reply #732 on: June 18, 2017, 05:55:27 AM »
It can't be good when one of your closest allies starts to openly take the piss out of you in a room full of reporters.




Helping Trump get re-elected. The more uppity foreigners insult Trump the more it unites the working class that got him elected in the first place due to feeling increasingly attacked by elitists.

They are only helping him with this stuff. Every time some limp-wristed wimp like John Oliver makes a Trump joke a laborer votes for Trump.

They are successfully making a billionaire the symbol of the american rural working class - his only path to victory.

You're probably right. There isn't much that The Donald can do wrong in the eyes of his radical supporters.

Just as a matter of interest though where would you draw the line?  If he had a bout of fecal  incontinence in public would it make any difference? I don't mean metaphorically either.

It would probably depend on how the media ran with it. If the people who demonize the entire middle of the country and the south and the rust belt keep making it the elite vs. everyone else and they use Trump as the symbol for everyone else... he could probably crap himself everyday on a live broadcast and the result will be the same.

People (on either side) don't vote on issues, they vote based upon feelings. Unless he goes against some super candidate I can only see him winning bigger the more the media doubles down.

So I guess your talking about a kind of unconditional love then.

That's an interesting perspective that would explain a lot of Trump supporters.
I can't say I've ever had that kind of feeling for a political leader before.  I certainly didn't feel that way about Hillary. In the case of Hillary I suspect a lot of her support came from the fact that she wasn't Trump.

Nonetheless you would acknowledge this 'unconditional love affair' would make a rational discussion/debate problematic given the propensity for purely emotive responses, wouldn't you?

On first look they would seem purely emotive but that emotion is the logical reaction to being under attack.

Thats why I'm saying if the media/elites were just treating Trump with presidential respect they would have a better chance. They aren't being bashful about who they feel Trump represents and openly attacking him/them. Logically, the "evil" working class middle of the country is going to dig their heels in and not give an inch if they can help it.

*I think none of this matters as I believe the next election results will be reported as a defeat for Trump... even if he actually wins. The media/elite seem to be all in and are creating a narrative that he is a lot more unpopular than he actually is in reality.


Make up your mind dude.

In your previous post you just said your support for Trump was based on feelings.

The fact that your feelings are telling you that you're under attack, irrespective of the reality of the situation, doesn't make you're position anymore logical/reasoned. It is still an emotive response.  I understand that Trump validates your emotive fears and disdain for the likes of 'uppity foreigners' and other groups that you choose to use as scapegoats so there is no need to muddy the water any further with talk of media conspiracies.

Offline Dave Stepz

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2333
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #733 on: June 23, 2017, 01:42:06 PM »
Well I never, the 'President' is a lying shit again...

Quote
Trump admits: 'I did not make, and do not have' tapes of Comey conversations

Donald Trump admitted on Thursday that he is not in possession of any secret recordings of conversations with James Comey, ending a 41-day saga that began when he issued a menacing tweet about the FBI director he had just fired.

Asked if Trump now regretted that original tweet, the spokeswoman replied: “Uh, I don’t think so.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/22/trump-conversations-comey-fbi-tapes


Offline eastreef

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 271
  • Gender: Male
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #734 on: June 23, 2017, 03:03:20 PM »
Well, this action may actulally rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6IrmHI5j94

Quote
Golfers outraged after Donald Trump commits golf’s ‘unforgivable’ sin               

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/golfers-outraged-after-donald-trump-commits-golf%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%98unforgivable%e2%80%99-sin/ar-BBD2SS4?li=BBnb4R7&ocid=LENDHP

There's a lot of things you can do on a golf course that, while may not defy golf's etiquette, are very much within the laws of the game. Swearing, shouting, slamming clubs; it all happens occasionally. But what President Donald Trump just did, as any golf fan will tell you, is a step too far.

Granted, Trump did it at the golf course he owns, so in reality he can do whatever he wants, but even still: Driving a golf cart on the putting green? Ruining that impeccably-manicured putting surface? So rude.


“All of this has happened before, and will happen again.”

Offline eastreef

  • Super Waygook
  • ***
  • Posts: 271
  • Gender: Male
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #735 on: June 24, 2017, 05:46:29 PM »
Here is my recommendation for Trump that I believe would significantly enhance his election probabilities in 2020, if he wants to run in 2020. My recommendation is: go for Medicaid and/or Medicare for all.

Part of Trump’s winning coalition was created with a populist message; a message that IMHO helped him to peel away from Clinton millions of people who voted for Obama in 2012, but voted for Trump in 2016.  Going for a health program that would truly help blue collar working people, and a lot more, I believe would assist to cement his ties with many of these voters. 

Yes, some Republicans would oppose it, but many establishment Republicans already oppose Trump.  But, I also believe if he came up with a good plan, and they are out there, that rank and file Republicans would eventually follow along; especially if he introduced the health care plan with a tax reform plan and immigration reform plan that Republicans really liked.

There is Republican precedent for it.  Nixon submitted a very good national health care plan to Congress in the early seventies.  I wish it had become law back then, but unfortunately it got buried by Watergate.  You can read excerpts about Nixon’s plan at the link at the end of my post,  BTW, it is a Kaiser Health News Link.

First, here is a link to an article about why Medicaid and/or Medicare for all might be a good idea.  And note that it is a NewsMax link….
Some excerpts.

Quote
Medicaid for All: Bold Rx for What Ails the US Healthcare System?

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/medicaid-for-all-bold/2017/06/21/id/797523/

(Copyright DPC)
By John Bachman and Nick Tate   |   Wednesday, 21 Jun 2017 11:46 PM

The bruising congressional debate over what to do about Obamacare has prompted Jim DeMint, the president of the Heritage Foundation, to call the 2010 law a “cancer” on the nation’s healthcare system that must be excised.

“We don’t need to replace the healthcare system — we need to remove the cancer,” said the former U.S. senator at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference. “Once we get rid of Obamacare, we can begin to improve our healthcare system so that it works for every American.”

Whether you agree or not, DeMint’s analogy suggests a bold Rx may be needed to fix what ails the nation’s healthcare system: A radical treatment that — like chemotherapy — is not designed to merely treat the symptoms, but remove the tumor, which has spread to the point that more moderate measures won’t work.

That radical fix: Medicaid for all.

A controversial idea? No doubt. A tough pill for some GOP leaders to swallow? You bet. But workable? Without question, many experts and some political pundits say.

In fact, for a growing number of moderate and conservative voices, Medicaid for all may be the only true antidote for the healthcare crisis the Republican Party has inherited. In the minds of many, it is the only way to significantly lower premiums, increase competition and choice, and make sure every American has coverage and care……

Most Americans believe everyone should have access to some standard level of healthcare in the U.S., at the lowest possible cost — so it doesn’t bankrupt individuals, businesses, insurers, doctors, hospitals, drug companies, or the government.

If you agree with this simple premise — as polls show most Americans do, as well as members of Congress, and the current occupant of the White House — the only reasonable follow-up question is: How do we do that?

The answer, by many accounts, is Medicaid.

Congress and the White House have been gridlocked over minor Band-Aid Obamacare fixes that essentially keep the Affordable Care Act alive, while choking off funding and enforcement of many of the law’s provisions.

But even those modest prescriptions for reform have been stymied — and not just by the Democrats who oppose significant changes to Obamacare. Deep divisions within the Republican Party have also led to a standoff, with conservatives demanding full ACA repeal and moderates pushing to keep safeguards for people with pre-existing conditions and insurance subsidies for middle class voters.

Congressional leaders and the president could sidestep all of this by turning to Medicaid to cover the 7 percent of Americans who don’t now get insurance through the workplace, Medicare, the Veterans Administration, or Medicaid….

In fact, federal stats also show it costs half as much, on average, to insure a Medicaid recipient (under $5,000 per year, on average) as it does a typical American who is covered through the Obamacare exchanges, the private market, or employer-sponsored health plans (more than $10,300, on average, last year, according to Obama Administration estimates)….

Allowing Americans who now make too much money to qualify for Medicaid — or even buy into the plan by paying a nominal premium — would create a safety net that makes sure everyond is covered at half the cost of a typically insured individual in the U.S.

That would bring the nation’s average per-capita costs in line with most other Western nations. (Americans now pay twice as much per capita for healthcare than any other country on Earth, yet trail all other Western nations when it comes to the death rate from preventable conditions, according to the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund).

Another option worth a look: Allow Americans to buy into Medicare before they turn 65, the age of eligibility. Letting middle-aged Americans to pay two, three, or even four times as much as the average Medicare recipient pays ($109 monthly) would provide adequate insurance coverage at a significant savings to younger, healthier individuals. It would also produce an infusion of cash to Medicare, and keep it solvent. (Federal stats show that Americans over 65 use roughly twice as many healthcare services as those under 65).

Both options — perhaps offered in tandem, on a voluntary basis — would meet President Donald Trump’s core campaign promises to make sure “everyone will be covered” and “healthcare costs will come down.”…..
   


 http://khn.org/news/nixon-proposal/

Nixon’s Plan For Health Reform, In His Own Words

Without adequate health care, no one can make full use of his or her talents and opportunities. It is thus just as important that economic, racial and social barriers not stand in the way of good health care as it is to eliminate those barriers to a good education and a good job.

Three years ago, I proposed a major health insurance program to the Congress, seeking to guarantee adequate financing of health care on a nationwide basis. That proposal generated widespread discussion and useful debate. But no legislation reached my desk.

Today the need is even more pressing because of the higher costs of medical care. Efforts to control medical costs under the New Economic Policy have been Inept with encouraging success, sharply reducing the rate of inflation for health care. Nevertheless, the overall cost of health care has still risen by more than 20 percent in the last two and one-half years, so that more and more Americans face staggering bills when they receive medical help today:
–Across the Nation, the average cost of a day of hospital care now exceeds $110.
–The average cost of delivering a baby and providing postnatal care approaches $1,000.
–The average cost of health care for terminal cancer now exceeds $20,000.

For the average family, it is clear that without adequate insurance, even normal care can ‘be a financial burden while a catastrophic illness can mean catastrophic debt.
Beyond the question of the prices of health care, our present system of health care insurance suffers from two major flaws:…………….




                           

“All of this has happened before, and will happen again.”

Offline Dave Stepz

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 2333
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #736 on: June 27, 2017, 01:25:10 PM »
Quote
More than three-quarters of the world has little or no confidence in Donald Trump’s global leadership and his signature policies, with support for the American presidency collapsing fastest among America’s traditional allies in Europe, according to new polling by the Pew Research Center.

In many countries, support for the US president is now below that of George Bush in 2004, following the Iraq invasion. Globally, two-thirds of respondents describe Trump as “arrogant and dangerous”.

The research conducted across 37 countries shows a median of 22% have some or a great deal of confidence in Trump to do the right thing when it comes to international affairs. Almost three-quarters (74%) have little to no confidence in the Republican leader.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/26/trump-world-global-pew-research-study

Not that Trump would seem to care, he seems happy to be crapping all over the American consititution, and believing he's getting 'things' done.

I'm going to to be very interested to see what comes out of the G20 summit in Hamburg on the 7th July.  I'm pretty sure he's going to look like the fukcwit he really is.....again.

Quote
A clash between Angela Merkel and Donald Trump appears unavoidable after Germany signalled that it will make climate change, free trade and the management of forced mass global migration the key themes of the G20 summit in Hamburg next week.

The G20 summit brings together the world’s biggest economies, representing 85% of global gross domestic product (GDP), and Merkel’s chosen agenda looks likely to maximise American isolation while attempting to minimise disunity amongst others.

The meeting, which is set to be the scene of large-scale street protests, will also mark the first meeting between Trump and the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, as world leaders.

Last week, the new UN secretary-general, António Guterres, warned the Trump team if the US disengages from too many issues confronting the international community it will be replaced as world leader.

On climate change, Merkel has prepared the ground carefully, hosting in Berlin the two allies she most needs – the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, and the Chinese premier, Li Keqiang.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/26/angela-merkel-and-donald-trump-head-for-clash-at-g20-summit

Offline maximmm

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1454
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #737 on: June 27, 2017, 02:38:56 PM »
The latest news is, CNN was so eager to write crap about Donaldo, that it published a story using fabricated sources/quotes.  Now it's in the very craphole it wanted to put Donaldo. 

Offline Mr.DeMartino

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4631
  • Gender: Male
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #738 on: June 27, 2017, 03:45:53 PM »
Here is my recommendation for Trump that I believe would significantly enhance his election probabilities in 2020, if he wants to run in 2020. My recommendation is: go for Medicaid and/or Medicare for all.


I have to say, on the surface it sounds compelling. I'd support it.


Not that Trump would seem to care, he seems happy to be crapping all over the American consititution, and believing he's getting 'things' done.


Donald Trump wasn't elected to be President of the world, so who gives a crap?

Also, how is he crapping all over the American Constitution? You can't just throw out that phrase without specific examples.

Offline freddyinkorea

  • Veteran
  • **
  • Posts: 90
  • Gender: Male
Re: When will Trump be impeached?
« Reply #739 on: June 27, 2017, 11:35:16 PM »
How does someone like this have 1.5m subs?  Just crazy...

https://youtu.be/DJXE8R1gByM

Related to impeachment, these are the same crazies, let's make up and give as much misinformation as we can and maybe we can convince the world we are telling the truth.  Shame on people like this, if you are going to say something at least get your facts straight. 

 



Learn new things. Meet new people. Be inspired.
Check out a KOTESOL chapter event near you!
koreatesol.org/nc2018