Trump Presidency and the Consequences

[Atilla]

Just thinking out loud...

What happens to military weapons if they are not used?

They have a life span, date when they expire.

If they don't get used they get scrapped.

Scrapping these weapons has a big cost attached to it as they contain dangerous materials which must be tracked.


What better way to scrap them than to use them. Then it becomes somebody else's problem to clear them up.

US gets a bonus big bully factor too, if you don't accept our kind proposal offer, we'll thump you.


So one really has to question the business justification for Bush and Blair taking US and UK into war??? Could objectives not have been achieved more cost effectively by developing a scrap metal production facility in the remote and derelict coal and steel mining cities that are so desperate for work. :idea:

Don't forget once the scrap metal is discarded the military put new orders in for more costly (highly sophisticated and technologically advanced WMD).


Think about it. You are being played.

 

[dbphoenix]

I'm not an American so I concede to you as being more knowledgeable. In fact, watch it! I am looking to you and others for unbiased advice!

I thought that Obama failed to get what he promised changed because the Republicans blocked him in Congress.

In fact, I have always thought that France and US had that flaw of President and Senate being separate.

The UK and Spain select their leader who, then, becomes PM, or President,in the event their winning an election. Isn't that more advantageous?

What is the point of having a Democrat for president with a Republican House?

You thought correctly, particularly with regard to judicial appointments. But the right-wing media aren't big on facts. Except for alternate ones.

 

[dbphoenix]

“Paul Ryan wrote a health care bill that somehow covered fewer people than just repealing Obamacare, and replaced it with nothing, and it still wasn’t good enough for the Freedom Caucus. It’s like if you wrote a highway bill that made all the bridges fall down and they said, ‘Yeah, but that only kills drivers. What about the people at home?” joked [Bill] Maher.

He added: “In the last version they had cut hospitalization, doctor visits, maternity, mental health, lab tests, prescriptions, emergency room visits. Their version of health care was: if you like your doctor, go **** yourself.”

On Friday evening, Speaker Ryan even seemed to get philosophical about the defeat, letting slip that, yes, it’s a heck of a lot harder to craft legislation than merely critique it.

“We were a 10-year opposition party, where being against things was easy to do,” Ryan said. “You just had to be against it. Now, in three months’ time, we tried to go to a governing party where we actually had to get 216 people to agree with each other on how we do things.”

Cue Maher: “Republicans just have to admit: crafting legislation is just not your thing. Calling in to talk radio and screaming about Mexicans, yes! Posting Photoshops of Hillary with devil horns, yes! Naming buildings after Reagan, of course! Secret gay sex at highway rest stops, yes! But not legislation.”

 

[dbphoenix]

Nobody Knew Governing Could Be So Complicated

The Obama years left Republicans with excellent ratings from the Heritage Foundation, and no idea how to whip a vote.

 

[wackypete2]

What is the point of having a Democrat for president with a Republican House?

For the same reason we have 3 branches of government: Judicial, Legislative, and executive. It's all about checks and balances so neither party nor the president can become too powerful. It's works the same no matter which party is in the white house.

Peter

 

[Atilla]

For the same reason we have 3 branches of government: Judicial, Legislative, and executive. It's all about checks and balances so neither party nor the president can become too powerful. It's works the same no matter which party is in the white house.

Peter

There is a difference here though as the Republicans now control both chambers, the house and the senate and have a clear majority.

There is no excuse for the greatest deal maker messing up big time.

How could it possibly come to this?


Doesn't bode well for all the big talk and great hype about all the amazing wonderful fantastic things his going to be doing and how smoothly everything in the White House is working. Don't believe the press. Fake news and all that.

Big majority, control of house and senate and two slaps in first 60 days.


You still need convincing on his abilities??? :whistling

 

[Splitlink]

There is a difference here though as the Republicans now control both chambers, the house and the senate and have a clear majority.

There is no excuse for the greatest deal maker messing up big time.

How could it possibly come to this?


Doesn't bode well for all the big talk and great hype about all the amazing wonderful fantastic things his going to be doing and how smoothly everything in the White House is working. Don't believe the press. Fake news and all that.

Big majority, control of house and senate and two slaps in first 60 days.


You still need convincing on his abilities??? :whistling

It must be the same as Parliament, when there are rebel backbenchers. There are Republicans who , simply, don't like the bill in the form that it is presented.
But, still, that is not the same as having a President, who belongs to one party and a Senate, the majority of which is of another party in elections that are at different times.

France has this problem quite often, it seems to me.

In Obama's election campaigns, he promised other things, including the closing of Quantanimo, that he was unable to keep. He got the votes in two elections, so why was he blocked by Congress?

 

[dbphoenix]

It must be the same as Parliament, when there are rebel backbenchers. There are Republicans who , simply, don't like the bill in the form that it is presented.
But, still, that is not the same as having a President, who belongs to one party and a Senate, the majority of which is of another party in elections that are at different times.

France has this problem quite often, it seems to me.

In Obama's election campaigns, he promised other things, including the closing of Quantanimo, that he was unable to keep. He got the votes in two elections, so why was he blocked by Congress?

Put simply, Obama was blocked because Republicans didn't like having a black man in the White House. To explain all of this would take more than a post.

As for our form of government, the Founders didn't want, didn't like, and did everything they could to avoid a monarch. Hence the strict separation of the branches of government. Each form of government has its advantages and disadvantages. From what I've seen, the parliamentary form has its own problems.

 

[Splitlink]

You are right. Nothing is perfect.

 

[Atilla]

Humans are the weakest element in any solution. No matter what physical, logical or moral controls, checks or balances are put in place, humans can discover ways to avoid them, circumvent or subvert them or disable them for personal interest.

 

[dbphoenix]

Humans are the weakest element in any solution. No matter what physical, logical or moral controls, checks or balances are put in place, humans can discover ways to avoid them, circumvent or subvert them or disable them for personal interest.

Theoretically and technically, yes. However, if enough of the group wants to move in another direction, e.g., abandonment of the poor, the disabled, the elderly, then a new and different societal contract is in order, a new polity. This eliminates the need to avoid, circumvent, subvert, or disable. Rather whatever the dominant group wants is incorporated into the social contract. Over the next couple of years, the US will find out just what kind of country it wants to be.

 

[dbphoenix]

A few days before the American Health Care Act -- the Republican replacement bill for the Affordable Care Act -- was pulled from the floor of the House of Representatives, House Republicans had a sharp rebuke for chief White House strategist Steve Bannon when he met with them at the White House, according to a report from Axios.

The conversation started off on the wrong foot, with Bannon adopting a tone the report characterized as authoritative.

"Guys, look. This is not a discussion. This is not a debate. You have no choice but to vote for this bill," Bannon reportedly said to members of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus.

But those in the Freedom Caucus weren't buying into Bannon's opening gambit. " You know, the last time someone ordered me to do something, I was 18 years old. And it was my daddy. And I didn't listen to him, either," said one member of the caucus.

 

[Atilla]

Sometimes I care and sometimes I think stuff'm all.

Have enough brains to put a man on the moon.

Have enough money to spend on WMD killing poorest of people for shooting practice.

Saving lives probably biggest and most rewarding of human accomplishments and they can't reach an agreement on a simple delivery of basic health services.

I was stunned to read they removed birth from medicare cover. Is that like for an option for men only?


World's most powerful and richest country and they have a health system which is more complicated than my bowl of spaghetti bolognese. Dimwits or exceptionally smart people?


Have they looked at how Canada delivers health care? :idea:

 

[dbphoenix]

It's a battle between the selfish and the selfless, dimwits and smart people on both sides.

But then that's the way it is everywhere.

 

[Splitlink]

On BBC 5Live, 0200 Sunday, there is an interview, (45 minutes 16 seconds into the programme, I've got) with a profesor from Southern California. I found her to be unbiased and sincere and I hope to hear her again.

I thought that it was worth a mention on here.

 

[wackypete2]

I was stunned to read they removed birth from medicare cover. Is that like for an option for men only?

Generally, with some exceptions, medicare is for the elderly retired group, who wouldn't have need for birth coverage. Medicare was never meant to be for everyone.

Peter

 

[Atilla]

Generally, with some exceptions, medicare is for the elderly retired group, who wouldn't have need for birth coverage. Medicare was never meant to be for everyone.

Peter

I think the ideal solution is for Medicare to be for everyone; cradle to grave with a standard token allowance with scalable options above for the more rare and costly ailments and treatments.

I would hazard a guess that 20% of people and illnesses account for 80% of expenditure and cost. Same goes for looking after the elderly.

Insurance is not the way to go. It should be mandatory government led. Reason is because insurance companies will simply start to exclude people based on DNA traits, cherry picking.

Society pays considerably more supporting and prolonging the slow death of the elderly compared to what it spends on rearing young infant to teenager age range where the future lies. The first 10-15 years of life is far more important than the last which is often lived in pain and discomfort. :idea:

 

[Splitlink]

The fact is that social health care, as the dreamers want it, is unaffordable. The British one is going bust, slowly but surely. Why wish it on the US, for them to have the same problems in the future?

Who realised that old age would become a burden on social securities 70 years ago? No one.

What other unforeseen circumstance lies ahead of SS in the future?

 

[Atilla]

The fact is that social health care, as the dreamers want it, is unaffordable. The British one is going bust, slowly but surely. Why wish it on the US, for them to have the same problems in the future?

Who realised that old age would become a burden on social securities 70 years ago? No one.

What other unforeseen circumstance lies ahead of SS in the future?

Agreed Splitlink and this is why we should start thinking about a quota or token life time allowance covered by our NI and use Health Insurance for the above standard or premium cover for those who can afford it.

That would combine benefits of both whilst providing some level of standard care and choice for those on top who can afford it.


Hopefully lead to better personal responsibility on taking care of ones health and avoiding excess drink adn smoking and possibility obesity with health concerns that raises.


:idea:

 

[wackypete2]

Agreed Splitlink and this is why we should start thinking about a quota or token life time allowance covered by our NI and use Health Insurance for the above standard or premium cover for those who can afford it.

That would combine benefits of both whilst providing some level of standard care and choice for those on top who can afford it.

what happens to those who can't afford it? suffer until they die? I'm not in favor of lifetime caps on medicare.

Hopefully lead to better personal responsibility on taking care of ones health and avoiding excess drink adn smoking and possibility obesity with health concerns that raises.
:idea:

Wishful thinking I believe.