Wrestling Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
101 - 120 of 3664 Posts

·
From parts unknown
Joined
·
23,258 Posts
I want to say that Trump is trolling too. It would explain a lot.

Also, :lol at him still going on about this wall.
Sure. Trump could be trolling, but we know that his followers are the kind of followers we thought couldn't possibly be as dumb as they are.

There was a time when things like "the earth could be flat" were trolls. Now there are millions of flat earthers. We thought that people who were anti-vaxxers were morons, but now it is a genuine threat. Trump supporters and these kinds of people have a lot in common. :shrug

"Trolling" has essentially extremely effective in gaining political support in much the same way because "trolling" invites the lowest of the lowest common denominator to put their vote in. Since democracy is run by the lowest common denominator ergo society continues to sink into its current state.

Kinda sad that our president is basically just a more successful Alex Jones.
 

·
Greek God of Knowledge
Joined
·
7,098 Posts
Sure. Trump could be trolling, but we know that his followers are the kind of followers we thought couldn't possibly be as dumb as they are.

There was a time when things like "the earth could be flat" were trolls. Now there are millions of flat earthers. We thought that people who were anti-vaxxers were morons, but now it is a genuine threat. Trump supporters and these kinds of people have a lot in common. :shrug

"Trolling" has essentially extremely effective in gaining political support in much the same way because "trolling" invites the lowest of the lowest common denominator to put their vote in. Since democracy is run by the lowest common denominator ergo society continues to sink into its current state.

Kinda sad that our president is basically just a more successful Alex Jones.
What's even worse is that there are some people I know who are genuinely smart people, but are still supportive of Trump. Whether it be refusal to support a Democrat, or just lack of knowledge of what's going on in this day and age, its scary to see how many people out there still actually believe Trump has been a good president.
 

·
From parts unknown
Joined
·
23,258 Posts
Trump has been a good president.
Not to be nit-picky, but there really is no such thing and I don't think it's possible :shrug

I still believe that by and large presidency is a ceremonial role when it comes to the show that's put on for the people, and not a very powerful role when it comes to actually having an impact on our lives on a daily basis.

What matters the most is the shit that goes on behind the scenes.

All the president can do is convey the message of his masters and his party's corporate backers in a pleasing or displeasing tone.
 

·
From parts unknown
Joined
·
23,258 Posts
https://www.theday.com/article/20181230/OP04/181239984

A recession is coming and Trump could make it so very much worse


Published December 30. 2018 12:01AM

Catherine Rampell

The vital signs aren't good. The S&P 500 has fallen more than 10 percent since its September peak, which technically puts us in "correction" territory. In the past few weeks, markets whipsawed over whether we do or do not have a trade deal with China (we don't) and whether President Donald Trump will further jack up tariffs on Chinese-made goods (still unclear).

Stock wobbles alone don't necessarily imply an immediate downturn, of course. (They "forecast nine of the last five recessions," Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson once quipped.) But consumers also report rising pessimism to pollsters. The Treasury yield curve − which shows interest rates for bonds at different maturity dates − has partially inverted, which can signal that traders think the Federal Reserve will have to slash rates to goose the economy. Virtually every independent forecaster foresees a slowdown once the sugar rush of Trump's tax cuts wears off in the next year or so. And in a recent survey of economists by the Wall Street Journal, more than half predicted that we'd have a full-blown recession by 2020.

Statistically speaking, given how long the economy has been growing, a recession is overdue − and the eventual collapse may bear Trump's fingerprints. After all, his new trade barriers have lifted manufacturing costs, closed off markets and clouded the future for American firms with global supply chains. Economists say Trump's trade war is the biggest threat to the U.S. economy in 2019. In loonier moments, the president has also threatened to default on our debt, ramp up the money-printing press, reinstate the gold standard or deport all 11 million undocumented immigrants. Some of those policies would ignite not just a recession but an immediate global financial crisis.

Or perhaps the contraction will follow some non-Trump-related catastrophe, like an oil shock or a wave of defaults in the growing leveraged loan market. It's often impossible to ascribe blame accurately.

Yet there's one thing we can expect with reasonable conviction: Even if Trump isn't the direct cause of the next recession, he's likely to make it so, so much worse.

There are, alas, many ways the administration is likely to bungle a recession response − it may have even done so already. The first issue is that Trump has already shot most of our fiscal bullets, leaving us with less ammunition when we actually need it.

At times, it's justified to run up deficits: specifically, during a recession. When the private sector is shrinking, the public sector helps plug the shortfall (through higher spending and/or tax cuts). Republicans and Democrats − including Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama − have followed that standard Keynesian response over the years. When the economy is good, however, economists advise shrinking the deficit as much as possible or even running a surplus. Repair the roof when the sun is shining.

The deficit president

Instead, Trump has done the opposite. When he entered office, budget deficits were expected to rise steadily over the next decade thanks to (among other factors) more baby boomers claiming Medicare and Social Security. Trump decided to widen deficits even further, adding $2 trillion over the next decade through tax cuts and spending increases. Now, with gaping budget holes, it will become much harder to provide fiscal stimulus when the time comes.

Plus, whatever the actual cost, the Trump-led GOP seems poised to block greater spending during the next recession. National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow opposed Barack Obama's major stimulus package in the last downturn. Outside adviser Stephen Moore recently counseled the president to "veto every spending bill headed his way between now and the 2020 election." Even if Trump ignores such guidance, the tea-party-influenced GOP, which has held onto control of the Senate, will probably have even less appetite for fiscal stimulus than it did in 2009 − when just three Republican senators and zero Republican representatives voted for the Recovery Act.

Trump might also pursue policies that would inflict even more damage. As he tweeted recently, he's a "Tariff Man"; he thinks import duties make America richer by shielding struggling industries from foreign competition. (Economic research overwhelmingly says this is wrong.) It's not hard to imagine him trying to fix a contraction by throwing up even more barriers to trade.

Tariff like it's 1929

This beggar-thy-neighbor, protectionist approach has been tried at the start of a downturn before − during the Great Depression. The problems began with the 1930 Tariff Act, sometimes called Smoot-Hawley after the lawmakers who devised it. As with Trump's recent tariffs, the new rules made the cost of doing business much more expensive for U.S. firms that purchased foreign goods as components of their own products. They also triggered a cascade of retaliatory counter-tariffs around the world. Global trade crashed. Economists agree that Smoot-Hawley deepened and extended the Great Depression, not just here but worldwide.

What if, in a crisis, Trump somehow received − and then listened to − sound economic advice? Even then, he would face a nearly impossible task, especially if the advice required enacting expensive and unpopular measures such as bailouts, which rank-and-file voters on the left and the right have told pollsters that they revile. During the 2008 collapse, Obama and Bush both stuck their necks out to corral votes for politically risky bills, measures that were necessary to stop the panic but that were not obviously beneficial to the short-term interests of politicians. Both also genuinely tried to reach across the aisle to get bipartisan buy-in where possible. Trump has rarely evinced much political courage himself, much less inspired it in others. We're all in it together is not really his vibe.

Speaking of leadership, there's also the problem of our deteriorating international standing. In the last financial crisis, having good relationships with foreign central banks, finance ministers and other leaders abroad proved crucial for coordinating fiscal and monetary responses. We set up currency swaps with other countries, for example, to stanch the bleeding, and we agreed to synchronized stimulus plans at the Group of 20 meetings in London. Given this experience, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development warned its members recently that they should start planning and coordinating their responses to "a sharp downturn" far in advance.

But Trump has picked trade wars with adversaries and allies alike. He's insulted foreign leaders, such as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (whom he called "dishonest & weak"), when they even politely object. And he's otherwise proved himself an erratic, unreliable partner, with a dubious grasp of basic economics. He obsesses over bilateral trade deficits, which are driven by macroeconomic factors like savings and investment rates rather than by anyone "taking advantage"; he reportedly thinks countries can pay down their debts by simply printing more money; he says Mexico is paying for his border wall through the NAFTA replacement (it's not). Foreign leaders would understandably be skeptical of U.S. entreaties for multilateral problem-solving.

If, in fact, we even bother with such overtures. Trump views the world as zero-sum. Anytime another country is improving, it must be at our expense: If Germany runs a trade surplus, for instance, or if German economic growth picks up, that must be because it's stealing business from somewhere else. Given this outlook, he may be suspicious of any multilateral response to a global downturn, as University of California at Berkeley economics professor Barry Eichengreen observed in a recent talk.

Finally, there's this administration's unusually shallow bench of economic talent. Consider the team that led us out of the 2007-2008 financial panic. Whatever their shortcomings -- and not foreseeing the crisis was surely one of them -- they collectively offered tremendous expertise, experience and relationships. Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke had spent his academic career studying the Great Depression. Bush's treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, had been chief executive of Goldman Sachs; he knew the players on Wall Street, and they respected him. Timothy Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and later Obama's treasury secretary, understood the plumbing of both the financial system and the federal government. (In an earlier stint at Treasury in the 1990s, he was involved in responses to financial crises in Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand.)

Trump's bench is thin

By contrast, Trump chose as his treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin, a guy who had zero policymaking experience and whose top private-sector achievements include investments in "Avatar" and "The Lego Batman Movie." Mnuchin worked on Wall Street − including at Goldman Sachs − but he has largely frittered away whatever trust he built up there. Like other Trump economic officials, he has been frequently, and brazenly, deceptive about administration policies and their consequences: whether tax cuts will reduce deficits, whether we have a deal with China on trade, how quickly the U.S. economy can reasonably be expected to grow over the coming years and so on. On that last point, Mnuchin, Kudlow, Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Kevin Hassett and other administration officials have repeatedly claimed that 3 or 4 percent growth is "sustainable," despite the fact that every independent economic prognosticator says otherwise.

Such obvious fibs may seem minor, but they have consequences. If we can't trust officials to tell the truth about little things now, why would anyone trust them when they're trying to calm financial markets? Lack of credibility is a minor inconvenience when times are good; it's a disaster in a crisis.

To deal with a financial calamity, you need people in charge who not only actually know stuff but also inspire confidence that they know stuff. Trump seems to have selected very senior personnel − when he's selected them, anyway; about half of key Treasury posts remain vacant − based not on expertise or credibility, but how much they praise him, especially in public. His televised Cabinet meetings are flattery sessions. Mnuchin has averred that Trump possesses "perfect genes."

Trump's appointments at the Fed, mercifully, have been qualified. If all else fails, these politically independent technocrats, led by Chair Jerome Powell, will follow whatever theory and data suggest that economic policymakers should do, regardless of the news cycle or the proximity of the next election.

Unfortunately, Trump has been busy trying to discredit this one remaining competent economic institution, too. Rather than following decades of precedent − that administrations never comment on monetary policy − he rants about interest rate hikes and says he regrets appointing Powell. Trump seems more invested in setting up the Fed as a scapegoat in case the economy turns than in preserving the credibility it will so desperately need to do something about it.

And that is what we should be most worried about. Because if Trump destroys the central bank's hard-won political independence and convinces markets that the Fed's choices are based on political arm-twisting, rather than dispassionate analysis, he could hobble the Fed's ability to effectively intercede not only in the next recession but in every single one thereafter.

Catherine Rampell's column is distributed by the Washington Post Writers Group.
Well worth the read. She did mention several times that the blame is something that cannot be directly attributable to a president, but Trump's stamp is on several key policies that can exacerbate issues leading to the inevitable recession and also what might transpire during the next one given that Republicans are shitheads when it comes to managing the economy.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,427 Posts
What's even worse is that there are some people I know who are genuinely smart people, but are still supportive of Trump. Whether it be refusal to support a Democrat, or just lack of knowledge of what's going on in this day and age, its scary to see how many people out there still actually believe Trump has been a good president.
If you concede that these are genuinely smart people, then perhaps they have valid reasons for believing what they believe.
 

·
The Sundance Kid
Joined
·
18,392 Posts
it's weird expecting to answer "what good thing has Trump done???" when I was literally just talking about what a great week he had and listed multiple things he did that I liked. :lol Sorry for not answering redundant questions. No it doesn't make me a troll. Go watch some more mainstream news and reinforce your belief that US intervention is sometimes necessary and good when that has literally never been the case, except perhaps in WW2 which was only possible because of US intervention in WW1. Not unhappy we killed those German socialists though. :)

I was wrong about Obama though. Killing Osama was a good accomplishment, even if Osama was just a product of decades of god awful US foreign policy. So that's one for him. (Y)
 

·
Greek God of Knowledge
Joined
·
7,098 Posts
it's weird expecting to answer "what good thing has Trump done???" when I was literally just talking about what a great week he had and listed multiple things he did that I liked. :lol Sorry for not answering redundant questions.
I am not asking you what good things has he done. I am asking you what good things has he done that are better than anything Obama has done. These are two different things. Don't try to dodge the question.

And what YOU like is obviously different from what's good for the country. Explain what he has done that has benefited the country in greater ways than what Obama has.

No it doesn't make me a troll. Go watch some more mainstream news and reinforce your belief that US intervention is sometimes necessary and good when that has literally never been the case, except perhaps in WW2 which was only possible because of US intervention in WW1. Not unhappy we killed those German socialists though. :)
There are definitely cases where US intervention is a must. You can't just stay out of everything and expect things to work themselves out. It doesn't work like that.

Also, I haven't watched mainstream news in five years. I don't waste my time with that nonsense.

I was wrong about Obama though. Killing Osama was a good accomplishment, even if Osama was just a product of decades of god awful US foreign policy. So that's one for him. (Y)
So killing Osama was in fact a good accomplishment, but getting us out of the recession isn't.

Yeah, you're trolling. Don't try to deny it.
 

·
The Sundance Kid
Joined
·
18,392 Posts
I am not asking you what good things has he done. I am asking you what good things has he done that are better than anything Obama has done. These are two different things. Don't try to dodge the question.

And what YOU like is obviously different from what's good for the country. Explain what he has done that has benefited the country in greater ways than what Obama has.



There are definitely cases where US intervention is a must. You can't just stay out of everything and expect things to work themselves out. It doesn't work like that.

Also, I haven't watched mainstream news in five years. I don't waste my time with that nonsense.



So killing Osama was in fact a good accomplishment, but getting us out of the recession isn't.
I know this is gonna be a radical new idea for you since you only watch MSM, but Obama's stimulus just kicked the can down the road and ensured the economy would crash even harder. Recessions are how the market cures itself. That's why when we had a recession in the early 20s and the government did nothing, it was over very quickly. When we had another recession in 1929, the government did a LOT and it ended up leading to the Great Depression and lasting a decade. People still think FDR's massive spending is what got us out of that. :lol

The government should not interfere in the economy. It has no idea what it's doing. Politicians are not economists. Their concerns are political and their decisions will be based on political calculations.


Remember when people were saying Kanye had ditched Trump and all the people who like Trump had been fooled, all because he distanced himself from Candace Owens? :lol Told you so.
 

·
tombstone blues
Joined
·
14,293 Posts
Obama did so many good things that enough people voted for the guy who campaigned on erasing Obama's presidency to get that guy elected :bryanlol
 

·
Greek God of Knowledge
Joined
·
7,098 Posts
I know this is gonna be a radical new idea for you since you only watch MSM, but Obama's stimulus just kicked the can down the road and ensured the economy would crash even harder. Recessions are how the market cures itself. That's why when we had a recession in the early 20s and the government did nothing, it was over very quickly. When we had another recession in 1929, the government did a LOT and it ended up leading to the Great Depression and lasting a decade. People still think FDR's massive spending is what got us out of that. :lol

The government should not interfere in the economy. It has no idea what it's doing. Politicians are not economists. Their concerns are political and their decisions will be based on political calculations.


Remember when people were saying Kanye had ditched Trump and all the people who like Trump had been fooled, all because he distanced himself from Candace Owens? :lol Told you so.
Literally none of the things you just said here answered my question. What did Trump do that was better than anything Obama did? How was Trump a better President? I've asked you this three times now and you still dodge the question, all while pretending as if you already answered it.

Also, :lol what. The government did nothing. Assuming you're talking about the recession that started in 1920, yeah it's pretty obvious I'm being trolled. Governments absolutely should be involved in recessions. What they should do is increase the countries debut when the economy is doing well, like Trump has.

I think I'll follow suit with Reaper and Tater and stop wasting my time on you.
 

·
The Sundance Kid
Joined
·
18,392 Posts
Literally none of the things you just said here answered my question. What did Trump do that was better than anything Obama did? How was Trump a better President? I've asked you this three times now and you still dodge the question, all while pretending as if you already answered it.

Also, :lol what. The government did nothing. Assuming you're talking about the recession that started in 1920, yeah it's pretty obvious I'm being trolled. Governments absolutely should be involved in recessions. What they should do is increase the countries debut when the economy is doing well, like Trump has.

I think I'll follow suite with Reaper and Tater and stop wasting my time on you.
It's a dumb question. You want me to compare different things to each other and ascribe some kind of value to them. I'll say Obama didn't do anything positive on foreign policy while Trump has greatly improved the situation on the Korean peninsula (both country's leaders have praised him so idc about the fake news spin) and stopped arming Syrian "rebels" (many of which were al-Qaeda, yes Obama and Hillary literally gave weapons to al-Qaeda), he's also said we are to withdraw completely and has been standing by that position very strongly which is encouraging, given that our involvement is completely illegal by US and international law. That's Obama for you.

You're just repeating mainstream media conventional wisdom as if it's certifiable fact. "Yes, the governent should DO SOMETHING!!!~~~ when there's a recession", "Yes, the US must intervene militarily". Why? Do you ever ask yourself?


Meanwhile Kanye is on an absolute pro-Trump tweetstorm. :lol Even said he's going to start performing with his MAGA hat on. Amazing.
 

·
tombstone blues
Joined
·
14,293 Posts
Obama did so many good things he tried to spend that political capital to stop :trump and utterly humiliatingly failed :bryanlol

After he tried to treat :trump like he was the star QB and :trump the geek in an 80s high school movie, thus doubling his failure and humiliation when :trump asked him how his ass tasted in January 2017 :heston

For being so loud about how correct you are some y'all don't know much about how politics actually works. All those Obama good things you're so mad aren't getting acknowledged didnt count for shit in the clutch. Soooo good :ha

And guess what if :trump loses next year, or if a president is elected in 2024 after campaigning to erase the :trump presidency, then it'll be just as whiny and embarrassing if people get mad trying to say but look at all the good things they think :trump did. That shit don't matter when you get slapped in the face in the end

Like Obama was :lol
 

·
The Sundance Kid
Joined
·
18,392 Posts
Remember when Obama spied on American journalists?

Remember when he ran on protecting whistleblowers and then proceeded to persecute whistleblowers more than anyone?

Remember when Obama used the IRS to suppress right-wing political groups in the 2012 election?

Remember when Obama toppled a relatively secular government which was fighting Islamist rebels causing the country to descend to such a state that there is currently a SLAVE TRADE there now?

Remember when Obama tried to do the same in Syria, and then funded and armed the Islamist rebels there despite their al-Qaeda ties?

Face it, Obama was everything you TDS-sufferers say Trump is. He's the corporate fascist. He's the guy who actually attacked press freedom. He's the guy who suppressed his opposition in an election. He's the guy CAUGHT ON VIDEO making secret deals with Russia that he didn't want Americans to know about. He's the guy who started illegal wars and got tons of people killed around the world.

Obama was a god awful president.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,421 Posts
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/sending-vets-to-private-care-isnt-solving-the-vas-problems.html

Sending More Veterans to Private Care Isn’t Solving the VA’s Problems

On paper, the Veterans Choice Program sounded like a great idea. Pragmatic, even. When it launched in 2014, under the Obama administration, both parties appeared united on its merits; defenders said it would give veterans a way to bypass real problems at the Department of Veterans Affairs by allowing them to seek subsidized, private care in their own communities. In June, legislators replaced the Choice program with the $55 billion MISSION Act, which expanded and allegedly streamlined private care options. But a new report co-authored by Isaac Arnsdorf of ProPublica and Jon Greenberg of PolitiFact suggests that in practice, the Choice program mostly enriched the contractors the VA hired to manage it, while the veterans it purportedly helped still faced obstacles to care. That doesn’t bode well for the MISSION Act, nor for the VA’s broader obligation to veterans.

Of the $10.3 billion the VA spent on the Choice program since 2014, Arnsdorf and Greenberg report that most of the funds went to two private contractors, TriWest and Health Net. The two companies have spent $1.9 billion on overhead costs alone, and charge the department at least $295 each time they refer a veteran to private care. It’s not obvious, either, what the VA gets for its money, since veterans enrolled in the Choice program didn’t necessarily receive improved care. The VA inspector general and the Government Accountability Office previously found that wait times for Choice patients remained longer than is stipulated by law. As Arnsdorf and Greenberg also noted, the inspector general found that veterans and doctors both say that TriWest and Health Net failed to pay for services on time; for their part, the contractors said that the VA didn’t pay them on time, either.

The Choice program existed because of an old premise: that private care guarantees higher-quality, more efficient service. In fact, overhead costs for the Choice program are far more expensive than is average for private industry. Tricare, provided by the Department of Defense to cover active-duty service members and their dependents in addition to retirees, activated reserve, and national guard members, is less expensive still; 8 percent of Tricare’s costs go to overhead, compared to 24 percent for TriWest and Health Net. The two companies did incur some extra costs because they were also charged with setting up the Choice program, but even so, their costs remain unusually high. “Even excluding the costs of setting up the new program, the Choice contractors’ overhead still amounts to 21 percent of revenue,” wrote Arnsdorf and Greenberg.

Health Net no longer works on the Choice program, but TriWest would not provide a full breakdown of its fee to Arnsdorf and Greenberg, meaning that there’s no way to know how much the contractor charged per service. But there are some irregularities:

In many cases, the contractors’ $295-plus processing fee for every referral was bigger than the doctor’s bill for services rendered, the analysis of agency data showed. In the three months ending Jan. 31, 2018, the Choice Program made 49,144 referrals for primary care totaling $9.9 million in medical costs, for an average cost per referral of $201.16. A few other types of care also cost less on average than the handling fee: chiropractic care ($286.32 per referral) and optometry ($189.25). There were certainly other instances where the medical services cost much more than the handling fee: TriWest said its average cost per referral was about $2,100 in the past six months.

TriWest and Health Net are both under investigation for overcharging the federal government, by an Arizona grand jury and the Justice Department respectively. Despite this, the Trump administration recently expanded TriWest’s contract, and the company stands to profit significantly from the MISSION Act now that the VA has terminated its contract with Health Net. The VA is set to award Community Care Network contracts to meet its obligations under the MISSION Act, but it has yet to do so. “The VA has said it’s aiming to pick the contractors for the new program in January and February. Yet even if the VA meets this latest deadline, the contracts include a one-year ramp-up period, so they won’t be ready to start in June,” write Arnsdorf and Greenberg. “That means TriWest will by default become the sole contractor for the new program.”

Veterans’ service organizations and other veterans’ advocates have long feared that Trump intends to privatize the VA’s health care services. Those fears only ratcheted upwards when Trump fired Veterans Affairs secretary David Shulkin over scandals that look relatively mild when compared to the misdeeds of Ryan Zinke and Scott Pruitt, both of whom outlasted Shulkin in the Cabinet. Originally appointed by Barack Obama, Shulkin was widely perceived to be an opponent of privatization. His replacement, Robert Wilkie, is more conservative, and plagued by scandals of his own; a former aide to Trent Lott, Wilkie once praised Jefferson Davis as “a martyr to the ‘Lost Cause’” in a speech to the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Nevertheless, the VA itself has disputed the notion that privatization is imminent. In an April statement on its website, the department emphatically asserted that there “is no effort underway to privatize VA, and to suggest otherwise is completely false and a red herring designed to distract and avoid honest debate on the real issues surrounding Veterans’ health care.”

The Trump administration may not intend to privatize the VA fully, but its expansion of private options like the Choice program complicates the VA’s ability to fulfill its mission to veterans. ProPublica and PolitiFact have provided new evidence that Choice might not work as intended, but there are other warning signs. A recent study by researchers at Dartmouth College found that VA hospitals outperform private facilities in 121 regional markets. As reported by the Military Times, the study “rated more than half of the VA hospitals reviewed as the best local option for death rates among patients with surgery complications and treatment of bloodstream infections after surgery.” From these results, researchers recommended the reconsideration of private care options, or at least the expansion thereof. The VA responded with a press release that mostly praised its own facilities, but pivoted, at the end, to a defense of private community care. “While VA supports most of the study’s findings, the agency does not agree with the authors’ stance on community care, which ignores the fact that for decades it has served as a vital tool for ensuring VA has the ability to provide Veterans the best, most timely health care possible, and that it enjoys strong bipartisan support, as evidenced by passage of the MISSION Act,” it asserted.

Choice had bipartisan support, and so did the MISSION Act. But while the VA’s medical facilities are hardly flawless, it’s increasingly difficult for anyone to argue that expanding private options will get veterans the health care they need. Private care, it turns out, might not be the gold standard after all.
 

·
Greek God of Knowledge
Joined
·
7,098 Posts
Obama did so many good things he tried to spend that political capital to stop :trump and utterly humiliatingly failed :bryanlol

After he tried to treat :trump like he was the star QB and :trump the geek in an 80s high school movie, thus doubling his failure and humiliation when :trump asked him how his ass tasted in January 2017 :heston

For being so loud about how correct you are some y'all don't know much about how politics actually works. All those Obama good things you're so mad aren't getting acknowledged didnt count for shit in the clutch. Soooo good :ha

And guess what if :trump loses next year, or if a president is elected in 2024 after campaigning to erase the :trump presidency, then it'll be just as whiny and embarrassing if people get mad trying to say but look at all the good things they think :trump did. That shit don't matter when you get slapped in the face in the end

Like Obama was :lol
For those of you who don't feel like reading this nonsense, this pic just about sums it up.

 

·
tombstone blues
Joined
·
14,293 Posts
Yeezy calling out people who act like blacks are the property of the Democratic Party and viciously try to destroy any prominent black person who doesn't toe the line (what Democrats used to call acting uppity, for 150 years)

He's not wrong you know :cudi
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
243 Posts
For those of you who don't feel like reading this nonsense, this pic just about sums it up.

You call others trolls, but then you don't reply to the point in hand. If Obama did so many great things for the country, why were the Democrats totally shut out of the Executive, Senate and House of Representatives by 2016. Why did Trump win a presidential campaign basically built upon shitting all over the Obama legacy.

Obama was charismatic and might appear good to some in comparison to Bush jr (who was even worse), but ultimately he was a terrible president who failed to achieve anything of note. The foreign policy of Bush and Obama was literally criminal and left the middle east in a total quagmire and a breeding ground for extremists.

I used to think he was great. I was wrong.
 

·
tombstone blues
Joined
·
14,293 Posts
Obama was good for wall street billionaires and tech billionaires and those blood soaked vampires who want to keep fighting the war with Eurasia

Or Eastasia

One of the asias anyway

Too bad those people weren't enough to win the 2016 election huh
 

·
Greek God of Knowledge
Joined
·
7,098 Posts
You call others trolls, but then you don't reply to the point in hand. If Obama did so many great things for the country, why were the Democrats totally shut out of the Executive, Senate and House of Representatives by 2016. Why did Trump win a presidential campaign basically built upon shitting all over the Obama legacy.
1. Obama wasn't running for President. Hilary Clinton was. She was literally the worst option from the Democratic Party. With the controversy regarding the more favored Bernie Sanders being screwed out of the primary, public perception of the Democratic party in general went to total shit.

2. People bought into most of the garbage Trump spewed about Obama (and most of which was false) as well as believing he'd be anything good for the country as a whole. There were even people who thought Obama was in office when 9/11 happened. It isn't difficult to fool most Trump supporters into believing something negative about Obama, because they will typically buy into it without bothering to fact check or even stop and think for a moment. We're talking about a man who got elected by having one of his own promises be that he would make another country pay for something that would be made on US territory. It's pretty obvious that critical thinking isn't something Trump supporters employed when they voted for him.

3. Undecided voters went mostly to Trump, and rightfully so. Rather than try to actually fix the problems that were created by Obama, Clinton mostly praised them and wanted to keep them. Trump at least gave undecided voters a reason to want to vote for him, because he was at least giving an outlook of what his version of America would look like compared to Clinton, who basically assumed this election was hers for the taking. And in retrospect, it was hers for the taking. Trump had no business winning this election. He did it mostly due to Clinton's inability to be a proper candidate.

They are trolling because that's basically all Trump supporters can do now. It's pretty obvious at this point that Trump hasn't been anywhere close to the President Obama was. This isn't to say that Obama's time as President didn't leave a poor taste in some people's mouths, more specifically the ones who did not benefit from his ACA. After all it isn't like Obama won his two terms on complete landslides or anything. Most of this comes down to Hilary being the most unpopular candidate to have ever run for President, and unlike Trump who actually did do a decent job of pleading his case for what he'd be better, Clinton had no idea what she was doing.

Obama was charismatic and might appear good to some in comparison to Bush jr (who was even worse), but ultimately he was a terrible president who failed to achieve anything of note. The foreign policy of Bush and Obama was literally criminal and left the middle east in a total quagmire and a breeding ground for extremists.
Cleaning up the mess Bush made, creating healthcare for everyone, making it easier for people to go to college, killing Osama Bin Laden, these are noteworthy achievements. Again I say noteworthy, because once again, I am still waiting for someone to explain to me what Trump has done so far that is better than any of this. I shit on Obamacare because it deserves my criticism. It's still a greater achievement than anything Trump's done yet.

I used to think he was great. I was wrong.
Great is not something I would call Obama. Good is even a bit of a stretch. Decent? Sure. Competent? Yes. Better than Trump? Absolutely.

Obama was good for wall street billionaires and tech billionaires and those blood soaked vampires who want to keep fighting the war with Eurasia

Or Eastasia

One of the asias anyway

Too bad those people weren't enough to win the 2016 election huh
I'm still waiting for your evidence regarding climate change. You know, that time you went on that rambling about how it's not real and gave us no evidence to back that up?

Kind of like what Trump does?

Makes a lot of sense that you'd support him now that I think about it.
 
101 - 120 of 3664 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top