HawkShack.com

Well, let's see if we can go through all of this.

First, the Republican-led Senate voted unanimously rebuked his weak response to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia's obvious involvement in the Khashoggi murder. They will likely pass some sort of sanctions or cut off military sales.

Next, he can't find a replacement for his Chief of Staff, the latest to have said no is reportedly to be former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, once one of Trump's biggest supporters. He's down to family members.

Then Trump was implicated by his own Justice Department in the hush money funds paid to two women prior to the election. And what's Trump's lawyer Rudy G's defense? "“Nobody got killed, nobody got robbed …". I'm sure that will influence a lot of Senators.


A Russian spy plead guilty to trying to infiltrate the NRA and conservative candidates in the Republican Party, including Trump.

And if that's not bad enough, the SDNY is opening another investigation to determine if there was a pay-to-play scheme in connection with contributions to Trump’s inauguration fund (sounds like the Clinton Foundation).

Even the First Lady's popularity plunged by 11 points.

A
Time for him to take a vacation. A really long one.

One problem solved:

Jose Canseco
✔
@JoseCanseco
Hey little buddy @realDonaldTrump u need a bash brother for Chief if Staff. Got a secret reorg plan already. Also worried about you looking more like a Twinkie everyday. I will buff you up daily workouts. DM me. #yeswecanseco

23.2K
7:34 PM - Dec 12, 2018

c_hawkbob wrote:One problem solved:


Jose Canseco
✔
@JoseCanseco
Hey little buddy @realDonaldTrump u need a bash brother for Chief if Staff. Got a secret reorg plan already. Also worried about you looking more like a Twinkie everyday. I will buff you up daily workouts. DM me. #yeswecanseco

23.2K
7:34 PM - Dec 12, 2018

RiverDog wrote:Well, let's see if we can go through all of this.

First, the Republican-led Senate voted unanimously rebuked his weak response to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia's obvious involvement in the Khashoggi murder. They will likely pass some sort of sanctions or cut off military sales.

Yep, and oil prices spiked over 3% the same day on the markets. Saudi is cutting their production stating that the US lied to them about keeping production high until the sanctions were put back on the Iranians and so that the US could support their war against the Iranian backed Houti's in Yemen. France is literally on fire and the edge of a systemic collapse because of fuel prices and when those prices rise on average Americans Trump is going to place the blame exactly where it belongs - in the Senate's lap. Fuel prices are the worst attack on low to middle class populations - something Trump knows but the Senate is tone deaf to.

Next, he can't find a replacement for his Chief of Staff, the latest to have said no is reportedly to be former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, once one of Trump's biggest supporters. He's down to family members.

More unnamed sources? Do you know who he is interviewing? If so, post the link.

Then Trump was implicated by his own Justice Department in the hush money funds paid to two women prior to the election. And what's Trump's lawyer Rudy G's defense? "“Nobody got killed, nobody got robbed …". I'm sure that will influence a lot of Senators.

Already addressed and shot down in the other thread. This will also boomerang onto the TDS folks from both sides.

A Russian spy plead guilty to trying to infiltrate the NRA and conservative candidates in the Republican Party, including Trump.

Lots of foreign entities TRIED to do a lot of things. How is this reflective of Trump in any way?

And if that's not bad enough, the SDNY is opening another investigation to determine if there was a pay-to-play scheme in connection with contributions to Trump’s inauguration fund (sounds like the Clinton Foundation).

I guarantee there was pay to play in this regard. Cohen has already confessed to it. That doesn't mean it ties in his campaign or him in any way.

Even the First Lady's popularity plunged by 11 points.

Yep, I'm sure they are really concerned about the 1st lady's popularity. Remind me which "POLL" is it again and how much higher is his and her rating over congress'?

A
Time for him to take a vacation. A really long one.

He accomplishes more in one day than other president's accomplished in a week. Don't worry though, he's taking a week and half over Christmas which reminds me....

Merry Christmas everyone. Have a safe, healthy, prosperous New Year, too.

Jose Canseco
✔
@JoseCanseco
Hey little buddy @realDonaldTrump u need a bash brother for Chief if Staff. Got a secret reorg plan already. Also worried about you looking more like a Twinkie everyday. I will buff you up daily workouts. DM me. #yeswecanseco

23.2K
7:34 PM - Dec 12, 2018

c_hawkbob wrote:One problem solved:

Now that is funny.

idhawkman wrote:Next, he can't find a replacement for his Chief of Staff, the latest to have said no is reportedly to be former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, once one of Trump's biggest supporters. He's down to family members.

More unnamed sources? Do you know who he is interviewing? If so, post the link.

The guy that never references his comments with links or posts direct quotes on anything is asking for a link. How ironic! But here's the one on Christie:

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said on Friday that he doesn't want to be Donald Trump's next chief of staff, leaving the president with a dwindling list of candidates and underscoring the chaos of the search for the top West Wing aide.

Christie, an early Trump supporter who led the White House transition effort before being ousted, made the announcement just a day after he met with the president to discuss possibly taking the role. Christie's firm statement also came shortly after reports emerged that he was the front-runner for the job, showing how quickly contenders' odds can rise and fall.


https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/ ... ff-1065086

Merry Christmas everyone. Have a safe, healthy, prosperous New Year, too.

Same to you!

RiverDog wrote:
Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said on Friday that he doesn't want to be Donald Trump's next chief of staff, leaving the president with a dwindling list of candidates and underscoring the chaos of the search for the top West Wing aide.

Christie, an early Trump supporter who led the White House transition effort before being ousted, made the announcement just a day after he met with the president to discuss possibly taking the role. Christie's firm statement also came shortly after reports emerged that he was the front-runner for the job, showing how quickly contenders' odds can rise and fall.

So "reports" say he was the front runner. I imagine that's unnamed reports? How do they know if he was the front runner? Maybe.... The president said you are going to have to keep up with me and go just as hard as I do on 4 hours of sleep a night for two years. It wore out your predecessor but do you think you're up to the job. Answer: Nope, not me. Find someone else that wants to work those hours for the $187k per year that he'd make.

I'm not sure Christie would have been the right guy for him though. In fact, if it was Christie I would have been disappointed.

idhawkman wrote:So "reports" say he was the front runner. I imagine that's unnamed reports? How do they know if he was the front runner? Maybe.... The president said you are going to have to keep up with me and go just as hard as I do on 4 hours of sleep a night for two years. It wore out your predecessor but do you think you're up to the job. Answer: Nope, not me. Find someone else that wants to work those hours for the $187k per year that he'd make.

I'm not sure Christie would have been the right guy for him though. In fact, if it was Christie I would have been disappointed.

You asked for a link and I gave you one. You can believe it if you want, or do like you usually do and call it fake news. At least it references my thoughts on the matter, which is more than you ever do.

In this particular case, I don't think there's any doubt that Trump is having a hard time filling the Chief of Staff position. Just why is anyone's guess.

RiverDog wrote:
You asked for a link and I gave you one. You can believe it if you want, or do like you usually do and call it fake news. At least it references my thoughts on the matter, which is more than you ever do.

In this particular case, I don't think there's any doubt that Trump is having a hard time filling the Chief of Staff position. Just why is anyone's guess.

Well it seems like Mick Mulvaney is going to be his acting Cheif of Staff. Now we'll have to wait and see how that goes from here. I think he'll be a good choice for now since they seem to get along pretty well and we both know that chemistry between them is essential.

I'm not sure that it matters much on staffing issues though. I guess I don't get caught up in it as much as others do.

I don't mean this as yet another defense of Trump, but you guys force me into it:

Does it feel wrong to knock Trump for having trouble hiring someone when literally everyone knows half the country is going to go after any new hire as OMG LITERALLY HITLER™ for the rest of his/her natural life?

burrrton wrote:I don't mean this as yet another defense of Trump, but you guys force me into it:

Does it feel wrong to knock Trump for having trouble hiring someone when literally everyone knows half the country is going to go after any new hire as OMG LITERALLY HITLER™ for the rest of his/her natural life?

Only half the country?

The point of the COS discussion isn't who will ultimately fill the job or the reaction to the appointment. It's the difficulty he's having finding a replacement. Several candidates have turned him down and other potential candidates have asked not to be considered by expressing their desire to stay in their current positions. Considering how many of Trump's supporters he's thrown under the bus, can you blame them? You get the sense that he's becoming pretty isolated.

Trump is going through a rough time. He's a 70+ year old that has never had to deal with adversity, never had a difficult boss to work with, has always been able to buy his way out of problems, fire people when he doesn't like them, has always been in control of people and events in his daily life. Now he's in a position, especially with the House flipping, where he is not in control of events surrounding him, and he's frustrated by it. 2019 is likely to be much worse than the past 2 years.

Get out your popcorn!

Seems to me he just had a huge win overturning the signature accomplishment of the Obama administration this week. I know it wasn't known when you started the thread but it has to be considered in the whole week now.

Also, I can see how you would think that Trump has thrown people under the bus but you could also see it as holding people accountable. He's a businessman who rewards accomplishments not effort. You seem to be implying that being called out for effort and not accomplishments is a bad thing when he's holding them accountable to the American People to "DO THEIR JOB". Yes, some people won't want to be held accountable for accomplishments especially when they work for the government where in the past no one was held accountable. That said, I think many more will not want the job because of the treatment the media will give them like Burrton pointed out.

Simple question: Would you shy away from a job that held you accountable for results? Probably not. Would you shy away from a job that would not only tell lies about you, but your wife, kids and all of your friends to drag you through the mud with no basis to make the allegations? Even if you have no skeletons in your closet you would have to think more than just twice or thrice about it.

I'm thinking this is a pretty good week now for the President.

1. He put on full display the democrat's wanting to be non-transparent in the wall negotiations. Not once, not twice but 3 times in the same meeting.

2. He got Obama Care declared as unconstitutional - this will be appealed but eventually even Roberts will have to vote it unconstitutional without the "tax" provision in it.

3. He successfully replaced his Cheif of Staff with a dedicated tea party former congressman that he trusts and that supports his agenda.

4. Nikki Haley squashed rumors that she and Trump didn't get along.

5. The charges against his former attorney shows how the DOJ is going after a non-crime

6. He pretty much has settled the Russian collusion and obstruction issues.

7. A federal judge is scrutinizing the tactics by the special counsel and will probably throw out the Flynn conviction.

8. He had his combative underhanded and deceitful former FBI director admit that he did do, "Sneaky stuff and leak" as opposed to what he said to the President when he was asked for loyalty. Seems Trump's spidy sense was raised for some reason when he asked Comey to be loyal. Why? Because he was being subversive and Trump could sense it.

So depending on which side of the bottle you look at, it seems like a pretty good week for Trump.

Body language from the Trump/Pelosi/Shumer meeting this week was pretty good. Lee Carter's dials also showed that the dems got crushed in this public display of how the dems negotiate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHu0R_L_z9I

Nice spin, but you're putting lipstick on a pig. If this was a good week for Trump, I'd hate to see what a bad week looks like.

But then again, this past week could look stellar when contrasted with what lies ahead for him in 2019.

It's the difficulty he's having finding a replacement.

I understand- what I'm saying is from a disinterested party, it looks like that could be due more to how that person will be treated than to how that person feels about Trump.

When administration members are being chased out of restaurants and sitting US Reps are advocating never giving them a moment's peace, that looks like a pretty good reason to consider carefully whether to accept a position.

And before any of you pat yourselves on the back for that accomplishment, let me point out how counter-productive it is for the country. Good candidates being less likely to help gives us a less competent administration, something you should hardly welcome if you think Trump is a buffoon.

burrrton wrote:I understand- what I'm saying is from a disinterested party, it looks like that could be due more to how that person will be treated than to how that person feels about Trump.

When administration members are being chased out of restaurants and sitting US Reps are advocating never giving them a moment's peace, that looks like a pretty good reason to consider carefully whether to accept a position.

And before any of you pat yourselves on the back for that accomplishment, let me point out how counter-productive it is for the country. Good candidates being less likely to help gives us a less competent administration, something you should hardly welcome if you think Trump is a buffoon.

Good point. I'm sure there are a variety of reasons why people are turning down positions within the Administration, and your theory is as good as any.

But despite the reasons, the fact that he's having such difficulty must be a source of frustration for Trump, something he's never had to deal with. When he was in the private sector, he could throw money and perks at potential employees that he wanted, but now that he's in government, he's limited to what he can offer them. It's just one of the things that he can no longer control, which is the point I'm trying to make. He's never had to deal with adversity, with people saying no to him.

His new man is insisting that he be called "interim" COS. I wonder how long he'll last.

I see your point now, RD.

Footage surfaced of Mulvaney in 2016 calling trump a terrible person . Got that right buddy . Yeah RD he’s had a bad bad really bad week.

burrrton wrote:I don't mean this as yet another defense of Trump, but you guys force me into it:

Does it feel wrong to knock Trump for having trouble hiring someone when literally everyone knows half the country is going to go after any new hire as OMG LITERALLY HITLER™ for the rest of his/her natural life?

No Burton you do mean it as a defense of trump, you do it all the time.You carry his water almost as well as ID Hawkman.

Not only that but you're dead wrong about why people are leery of serving in this administration. Look at Reince Priebus, first chief of staff and former party chairman who was as responsible for the jackass getting elected as was Vlad Putin for allowing 16 dwarves to hang around and let Rump siphon off winner take all states with 15-20% of the vote while they knocked each other out. He wound up getting dumped out of a plane literally along the runway in a rainstorm with no limo to haul him away. HR McMaster, military hero and general thrown away without fanfare.

Jeff Sessions went from the first sitting senator to endorse Rump while wearing one of his goofy idiotic MAGA hats to being called "Mr Magoo" and publicly brutally excoriated for 2 years for actually doing the right thing, rare in this administration and recusing himself from the russia scandal .

John Kelley, former marine general who took what he called "the hardest job i ever had" trying to tame the crazy angry orange witch and bring order to the west wing wasn't even allowed to have the dignity of announcing his own departure as the crazy liar in chief did it for him after reportedly refusing to even speak to him anymore in his official capacity.

Rex Tillerson, former CEO of exxon mobil who divested himself of millions of dollars of stock and gave up chasing his grandkids to serve a man he had only met the day he was hired was described as "dumb as a rock and lazy as hell""couldn't get rid of him soon enough" by the Jackass who goes to work at 11 AM, goes home to watch faux at 2, spends half his time golfing because Tillerson simply told the truth stating in an interview" Hes undisciplined, doesn't like to read, does not read his briefings'

What person in his or her right mind would want to take any position with the crazy orange witch?

Oh but i guess Im wetting the bed again Burrton right?

Hawktawk wrote:No Burton you do mean it as a defense of trump, you do it all the time.You carry his water almost as well as ID Hawkman.

That's simply not true. Idahawk will NEVER criticize the POTUS, his only disagreement coming in the form of him not being tough enough on the DACA kids. Burrton has disagreed with him on that particular subject and has agreed with certain, limited negative characterizations of Trump. I agree that he's not nearly as anti Trump as I am and certainly not as much as you are, but comparing his positions to Idahawk is unfair and ignorant of the tenor of this forum.

Hawktawk wrote:Not only that but you're dead wrong about why people are leery of serving in this administration. Look at Reince Priebus, first chief of staff and former party chairman who was as responsible for the jackass getting elected as was Vlad Putin for allowing 16 dwarves to hang around and let Rump siphon off winner take all states with 15-20% of the vote while they knocked each other out. He wound up getting dumped out of a plane literally along the runway in a rainstorm with no limo to haul him away. HR McMaster, military hero and general thrown away without fanfare.

Sure, some people are leaving because they were disillusioned by serving with Trump. It happens in all administrations, perhaps more so in this one than previous ones. But you can't make a generalized statement because we don't always know why people have left. Some may have agreed in advance to only serve so long. My gut tells me that more are leaving because they can't work for Trump and that as a result he has a smaller pool of talent to draw from than previous POTUS's, but it's only my impression and something I can't prove.

Hawktawk wrote:What person in his or her right mind would want to take any position with the crazy orange witch?

Oh but i guess Im wetting the bed again Burrton right?

Well, I guess we can allow you just one crazy orange haired witch remark as you've done a commendable job of staying on the rails.

RiverDog wrote:Sure, some people are leaving because they were disillusioned by serving with Trump. It happens in all administrations, perhaps more so in this one than previous ones. But you can't make a generalized statement because we don't always know why people have left. Some may have agreed in advance to only serve so long. My gut tells me that more are leaving because they can't work for Trump and that as a result he has a smaller pool of talent to draw from than previous POTUS's, but it's only my impression and something I can't prove.

You also have to remember who Trump has tapped for some of these jobs. (NOTE: I DID NOT SAY ALL OF THEM)

Many of them had very successful careers where they were making $$$Millions per year. Now they are working for $187,000/year. Do you think they want to do that forever? There's other things and bigger money to be made especially in a heated economy like this one. Trump may have made those conditions for attracting staff away from his own administration much more appealing.

RiverDog wrote:Nice spin, but you're putting lipstick on a pig. If this was a good week for Trump, I'd hate to see what a bad week looks like.

But then again, this past week could look stellar when contrasted with what lies ahead for him in 2019.

Any week you can overturn the signature legislation from the previous administration's 8 years of work can not be classified as a "BAD WEEK". Sorry, it just doesn't compute. That doesn't mean it is a good week necessarily but it can't be a bad week.

idhawkman wrote:Any week you can overturn the signature legislation from the previous administration's 8 years of work can not be classified as a "BAD WEEK". Sorry, it just doesn't compute. That doesn't mean it is a good week necessarily but it can't be a bad week.

Surely you aren't crediting Trump with the court's decision to rule Obamacare as unconstitutional? And 8 years of work? It was passed in March of 2010, a little over a year after Obama took office. Besides, it's going to be appealed, and may very well end up in SCOTUS. It's far from dead. You're over dramatizing.

But I do agree that it was some good news for conservatives in an otherwise horrible week, but it's nothing of Trump's doing and has zero effect on his current predicament. As a matter of fact, the court ruling could be interpreted as really bad news as now the R's are going to have to replace it with something, which considering that the Dems control the House, is going to be a Herculean task. The two sides can't agree on the time of day let alone something as complex as Obamacare.

No Burton you do mean it as a defense of trump, you do it all the time.You carry his water almost as well as ID Hawkman.

No, tawk, I don't. In fact, I explicitly told you that. If you could stop wetting yourself long enough to process the situation rationally, you'd know this.

Oh but i guess Im wetting the bed again Burrton right?

Yes, and it's excruciatingly obvious to everyone but you. You *really* need to relax.

Any week you can overturn the signature legislation from the previous administration's 8 years of work can not be classified as a "BAD WEEK".

Not sure how you can characterize that as an accomplishment of Trump's.

RiverDog wrote:As a matter of fact, the court ruling could be interpreted as really bad news as now the R's are going to have to replace it with something, which considering that the Dems control the House, is going to be a Herculean task. The two sides can't agree on the time of day let alone something as complex as Obamacare.

Yup, and they've had 2 years to get something in place and couldn't, or wouldn't, do so. Ridiculous failure.

idhawkman wrote:Any week you can overturn the signature legislation from the previous administration's 8 years of work can not be classified as a "BAD WEEK". Sorry, it just doesn't compute. That doesn't mean it is a good week necessarily but it can't be a bad week.

RiverDog wrote:
Surely you aren't crediting Trump with the court's decision to rule Obamacare as unconstitutional? And 8 years of work? It was passed in March of 2010, a little over a year after Obama took office. Besides, it's going to be appealed, and may very well end up in SCOTUS. It's far from dead. You're over dramatizing.

But I do agree that it was some good news for conservatives in an otherwise horrible week, but it's nothing of Trump's doing and has zero effect on his current predicament. As a matter of fact, the court ruling could be interpreted as really bad news as now the R's are going to have to replace it with something, which considering that the Dems control the House, is going to be a Herculean task. The two sides can't agree on the time of day let alone something as complex as Obamacare.

I'm literally on my way out to church but yes, I do mean what I said totally. Trump's tax reform bill that he lobbied and twisted arms to get through is what brought down Obamacare which Trump announced he would do when McClain turned his thumb down.

Yes, the dems defended the act for 8 years (into the Trump admin). So yes, it is 8 years of fighting for it. It was never passed with a single republican vote and it was his signature legislation. If it had some republican support then I wouldn't be so happy about it but it didn't so it was a complete victory for Trump and the Republican party.

RiverDog wrote:As a matter of fact, the court ruling could be interpreted as really bad news as now the R's are going to have to replace it with something, which considering that the Dems control the House, is going to be a Herculean task. The two sides can't agree on the time of day let alone something as complex as Obamacare.

burrrton wrote:
Yup, and they've had 2 years to get something in place and couldn't, or wouldn't, do so. Ridiculous failure.

Remember it was the established republicans that didn't allow for the reform of Obamacare so Trump had no choice but to bring it down entirely. Now they both have to go to work to get a replacement in place.

idhawkman wrote:Remember it was the established republicans that didn't allow for the reform of Obamacare so Trump had no choice but to bring it down entirely. Now they both have to go to work to get a replacement in place.

Once again, Trump had nothing to do with this court ruling. It was filed by 20 state attorney generals, not the Trump Administration. Next thing we know, you'll be giving Trump credit for landing a man on the moon.

Secondly, it is far from having been "brought down." This is just one court ruling. You can bet your last nickel that it will be appealed, and in all likelihood, wind up in front of the Supreme Court.

I was against Obamacare when they first proposed it, but now that we have it, we can't just "take it down" without a viable replacement as too many people have become dependent on it.

Obamacare is going back to the SCOTUS and let’s recall a *conservative * court upheld it due to Roberts reversal of opinion . I wasn’t a fan of Obama or his signature legislation but nearly 8 years in and 20 million insured it’s tough to take a car doing 100 Mph and put it in reverse . My guess is scotus slaps this judge down . If not it’s chaos and makes trumps bad 2 years even worse

My guess is scotus slaps this judge down .

I'm not sure exactly how likely that is, but I bet it's more likely than not.

If not it’s chaos and makes trumps bad 2 years even worse

Probably, although there are ways to keep the acceptable stuff (grown adults on their parents' insurance plans, guaranteed issue, etc) while getting rid of the rest of garbage legislation (requiring everyone to pay more, etc).

Whether anyone in DC has the intelligence to do it is another question.

Hawktawk wrote:Obamacare is going back to the SCOTUS and let’s recall a *conservative * court upheld it due to Roberts reversal of opinion . I wasn’t a fan of Obama or his signature legislation but nearly 8 years in and 20 million insured it’s tough to take a car doing 100 Mph and put it in reverse . My guess is scotus slaps this judge down . If not it’s chaos and makes trumps bad 2 years even worse

I'm pretty much in agreement with this thought although I haven't a clue how the courts will eventually come down on Obama Care. All I can say is this:

Last week's ruling doesn't change anything, at least not yet. It will be appealed. Even the White House has acknowledged this.

The Trump Administration had absouletly nothing to do with this decision. The lawsuit was filed by 20 states.

If Obama Care is eventually taken down, they are almost certainly going to have to replace it with something, and with the current configuration/climate in Washington, it's unlikely that they'll come up with a permanent solution. The only way we're going to get a replacement is if one party controls both the Legislative and Executive branches. That's how we ended up with Obama Care in the first place. The Republicans blew their chance.

IMO at this point, we're better off leaving it alone for now.

idhawkman wrote:Remember it was the established republicans that didn't allow for the reform of Obamacare so Trump had no choice but to bring it down entirely. Now they both have to go to work to get a replacement in place.

RiverDog wrote:Once again, Trump had nothing to do with this court ruling.

I know you don't want to give him credit for it but he had everything to do with it. He got the tax law passed, he appointed the judge that ruled it unconstitutional - what more could he do as president when neither the Rep or Dems in congress wanted to take this on? It didn't happen all by itself.

It was filed by 20 state attorney generals, not the Trump Administration.

Only possible because of the tax reform bill Trump pushed through congress twisting and turning arms.

Next thing we know, you'll be giving Trump credit for landing a man on the moon.

Did we really land someone on the moon? Inquiring minds want to know.

Secondly, it is far from having been "brought down." This is just one court ruling. You can bet your last nickel that it will be appealed, and in all likelihood, wind up in front of the Supreme Court.

I totally expect it to be taken all the way to the Supreme court but the only way Roberts found it to be constitutional before was because he classified it under the tax authority of the congress. He specifically wrote in the majority opinion that it would not stand under the commerce clause. Same exact wording that the Federal Judge used in he ruling. Now it is up to the dems who ran in the midterms on "saving healthcare" to do what they promised or they will give the majority back to the reps in 2020.

I was against Obamacare when they first proposed it, but now that we have it, we can't just "take it down" without a viable replacement as too many people have become dependent on it.

I know way too many people who "have health care" as a technicality but not a functional health care policy. E.g. the deductible is way too high $15k to $20k before the benefits kick in and their premiums are anywhere from $600-900 a month. That's $22,500 minimum per year before one dime comes back to the individual. I'd rather get a disaster plan at $200/month and pay for my families routine visits and vaccines. I'd save like $15,000 a year doing that.

Hawktawk wrote:Obamacare is going back to the SCOTUS and let’s recall a *conservative * court upheld it due to Roberts reversal of opinion . I wasn’t a fan of Obama or his signature legislation but nearly 8 years in and 20 million insured it’s tough to take a car doing 100 Mph and put it in reverse . My guess is scotus slaps this judge down . If not it’s chaos and makes trumps bad 2 years even worse

It was suppose to insure 45million more Americans. Emphasis on MORE. It has a total of 20M and most of them had insurance but was forced into buying this albatross. I heard stats that this year enrollment which ended yesterday was down to 8 million - probably because they took out the TAX part of the law.

Also, the "Conservative court" upheld it by classifying it as a tax and authorized by congress under the taxing authority it had. Now that it is no longer a tax (removed under the Tax reform bill Trump passed into law) it will not withstand the scrutiny of the courts again.

So once again, Dems and Repubs MUST work together if they are truly there to help the American people and not just to get a paycheck and get reelected.

RiverDog wrote:
The Trump Administration had absouletly nothing to do with this decision. The lawsuit was filed by 20 states.

The states had no basis until Trumps Tax Reform Bill. But hey, maybe it is a good thing not to blame Trump for it. Maybe he can just sit back and say, "didn't do this" and tell Congress just to fix it. ...but we both know better.

If Obama Care is eventually taken down, they are almost certainly going to have to replace it with something, and with the current configuration/climate in Washington, it's unlikely that they'll come up with a permanent solution. The only way we're going to get a replacement is if one party controls both the Legislative and Executive branches. That's how we ended up with Obama Care in the first place. The Republicans blew their chance.

If left up to you this would never happen since you like gridlock and nothing being done. I know on the other hand that you have more knowledge of civics than you let on with this blather statement. You know having a simple majority in the Senate will create only partisan bills which won't last the test of time - witness the existing law. This must be a bi-partisan effort if it is to SERVE the American people. That said, we know the dems will NEVER give Trump another win on an issue as big as this one and that is the real road block to progress.

IMO at this point, we're better off leaving it alone for now.

It left alone, it will be THE issue in the 2020 election.

idhawkman wrote:IMO at this point, we're better off leaving it alone for now.

It left alone, it will be THE issue in the 2020 election.

Depends on how much, if any, of Obama Care is overturned by the courts.

idhawkman wrote:IMO at this point, we're better off leaving it alone for now.

It left alone, it will be THE issue in the 2020 election.

RiverDog wrote:
Depends on how much, if any, of Obama Care is overturned by the courts.

As of now, it is all of it after this year since enrollment just ended.

Uh oh. More bad news:

The Trump Foundation — the charitable foundation started by President Donald Trump years before he became a presidential candidate, which New York's top prosecutor said exhibited a "shocking pattern of illegality" — will dissolve according to a court filing.

"Our petition detailed a shocking pattern of illegality involving the Trump Foundation — including unlawful coordination with the Trump presidential campaign, repeated and willful self-dealing, and much more," Underwood said in a statement. "This amounted to the Trump Foundation functioning as little more than a checkbook to serve Mr. Trump’s business and political interests."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump ... spartanntp

Let me try to guess Idahawkman's spin: A) Fake News! B) It's not illegal! C) This doesn't have anything to do with Donald Trump! D) This is just one more example of the main street media overdramatizing a story!

RiverDog wrote:Uh oh. More bad news:

The Trump Foundation — the charitable foundation started by President Donald Trump years before he became a presidential candidate, which New York's top prosecutor said exhibited a "shocking pattern of illegality" — will dissolve according to a court filing.

"Our petition detailed a shocking pattern of illegality involving the Trump Foundation — including unlawful coordination with the Trump presidential campaign, repeated and willful self-dealing, and much more," Underwood said in a statement. "This amounted to the Trump Foundation functioning as little more than a checkbook to serve Mr. Trump’s business and political interests."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump ... spartanntp

Let me try to guess Idahawkman's spin: A) Fake News! B) It's not illegal! C) This doesn't have anything to do with Donald Trump! D) This is just one more example of the main street media overdramatizing a story!

You got it on D. Just another effort to try and find something, anything since the collusion and obstruction issues are all but gone now. What next, he spanked his kids at some point? CHILD ABUSE!!!!!