ChrisWeigant.com

Ryancare Immediately Attacked By Republicans

[ Posted Tuesday, March 7th, 2017 – 17:53 PST ]

Almost seven years after the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare), the Republicans have finally released their much-anticipated replacement bill. They had been content, up until quite recently, to just use "repeal" as a rallying cry without giving a whole lot of thought to replacing Obamacare with anything, and for good reason. No matter whether you agree with them or not, you have to admit that, politically, this tactic worked wonders for them. But now that there's a Republican in the White House again, the pressure was on Paul Ryan to actually show America what Republicans would do differently than Obamacare. Late yesterday, his bill was finally publicly unveiled.

It hasn't even been 24 hours yet, and already the bill is being rhetorically torn to shreds. This would be a normal political reaction, except for the fact that the biggest pushback is coming from Republicans. Democrats are indeed denouncing the bill, but their voices aren't getting as much media coverage as the Republicans who are currently savaging their own party's bill (which, to be honest, is more interesting -- explaining the media's decision to focus on it).

What's really interesting is that the GOP opposition is simultaneously coming from two diametrically-opposed directions. There are "purist" Republicans who are now insisting that "Ryancare" (as they deride the new bill) is nothing more than "Obamacare-lite" or even "Obamacare 2.0." Some are even calling it "RINOcare" (which wins my award for the most amusing portmanteau created in the past 24 hours), combining two derogatory names conservative stalwarts hate ("Republican In Name Only" and Obamacare). But whatever they're calling the new bill, they certainly don't seem to like it much.

Then there are the "pragmatist" Republicans, who instead are arguing that the new bill is going to hurt the states (with Republican governors, even!) which adopted the Obamacare Medicaid expansion. Millions of citizens will be harmed by the new law, which makes it politically impossible to support, the pragmatists warn.

So, on one side, we've got those Republicans who are arguing that the bill is too Draconian, and then on the other side we've got Republicans who are insistent that the bill is nowhere near Draconian enough. As Donald Trump recently learned, this health care reform stuff is a lot harder than it looks!

Republicans are in a tough spot of their own making, so it's hard to feel even a little bit sorry for them. Obamacare itself was initially a conservative idea (from the Heritage Foundation), which was then tried out on a state level by a Republican governor (Romneycare), and then made as conservative as possible during its drafting, in the hopes that a few Republicans would vote for it. Hundreds of conservative amendments were added, and the hopes of progressives were dashed when not only did Democrats refuse to consider single-payer, but also went out of their way to kill any mention of a public option. It wasn't exactly creeping socialism, in other words. But because of all these legislative gymnastics, the final bill was about as conservative a plan as Democrats could come up with. Insurance companies would be reined in a bit, but would still be the only choice for most Americans. What this now means is that Republicans have very little wiggle room in their efforts to replace Obamacare. It's hard for them to get to the right of a plan that was pretty far to the right to begin with, in other words.

This is what Paul Ryan and Donald Trump and the rest of them are all beginning to realize. Ryan, after much secrecy and behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing, finally had to put forth an actual plan on paper that the public (and the rest of Congress, for that matter) could read. Ryan and the Republican establishment are hopeful that they've struck a middle-of-the-conservative-road stance that most Republicans can eventually vote for. It's not as drastic as just repealing Obamacare and replacing it with nothing, but it's also nowhere near as comprehensive as Obamacare itself. But walking this tightrope is already causing Ryan some headaches -- and, once again, it hasn't even been 24 hours yet.

Rand Paul and the Tea Partiers in the House are incensed that the bill isn't a full and total repeal of all things Obamacare. They are backed by some pretty powerful conservative groups in this stance, who are threatening Republican politicians with a major pushback effort if they don't vote against the Ryan bill. Their cry, they've announced, will be: "Keep your promise!" The Koch brothers are already ramping this effort up, and they do indeed have a point -- a lot of Republicans got elected promising full and complete repeal, and Ryan's bill comes nowhere near to fulfilling that promise.

On the other side are Republican governors and senators from states that expanded Medicaid, who don't want to see the rug yanked out from under them. These are Republicans who, sotto voce, will actually admit the fact that Obamacare has helped millions of people, many of them living in red states. They are already coming out against Ryan's bill, because while Ryan has tried to make the process gradual, the end result is the same as just repealing the Medicaid expansion: the federal dollars these states have come to love will eventually disappear. And some Republicans are smart enough to foresee that this may wind up being a political problem for them in the very near future.

Ryan is now trapped between these mutually-exclusive factions. If he tried to placate the Tea Partiers by making his bill an even harsher return to the pre-Obamacare days, he would lose more of the centrists in his party by doing so. If he tried to make the bill more generous to gain the votes of the pragmatists, he's going to face even more fury from the purists.

It's impossible to tell, at this early date, how this is all going to play out. After all, Democrats were pretty divided on the subject for roughly a year and a half, but in the end they did manage to pass Obamacare. So it is indeed possible that Ryan is correct in hoping that Republicans will pretty much be forced into voting for the bill in the end, since it'll be the only "repeal and replace" bill they'll have the chance to vote for. Maybe they'll all get in line, as Ryan hopes.

Then again, maybe they won't. While Ryan can afford to lose a few dozen votes and still muster a majority, over in the Senate the margin's a lot thinner. The loss of three Republicans would doom any bill, and what's interesting is that there are already that many lined up on both sides of the issue. Four Republican senators (from states with Medicaid expansion in place) have already said they can't vote for the Ryan bill. Three senators (mostly led by Rand Paul) have said just as forcefully that they'll never vote for "Obamacare-lite." That leaves Mitch McConnell in a tough spot, since no Democrats are likely to vote for Ryan's bill.

What will quite likely happen is that the whole effort will fall apart in disarray. The Republican Congress could miserably fail its first major attempt at governing, to put it slightly differently. This should come as no real surprise, to anyone who has been paying attention for the past six years. The Tea Party has always been known for its skill in blowing things up, refusing to budge from the most extreme position imaginable, and viciously attacking fellow Republicans who weren't deemed sufficiently pure. It's kind of what they do, right? So why would anyone expect them to act any differently now? Time after time, the Tea Partiers have torpedoed conservative attempts to govern by arguing they were only getting 80 or 90 percent of what they wanted, instead of the whole cookie jar. We'll be in for another of these fights soon, as we approach a debt ceiling deadline later this year.

With the Tea Partiers being egged on by powerful conservative special interests, they're not likely to back down any time soon. So we'll be in for a whole lot of denunciations of fellow Republicans from them in the coming weeks. The problem, as always, is that the Tea Partiers have painted themselves into a pretty severe corner. These are the people who actually believe that Obamacare is so disastrous that it simply cannot have helped anyone, anywhere. They've firmly convinced themselves of this, and no evidence to the contrary will even be considered. This makes things very tough for Republicans who can actually see that Obamacare has had some very positive impacts, and who desperately want to keep as many of the good parts as they possibly can. It is arguing facts versus naked emotion, and for Tea Partiers, emotion always wins that battle.

There's a reason we haven't seen any GOP Obamacare replacement bill until yesterday. If some magic conservative plan had ever existed which was actually better than Obamacare -- either covered more people, or covered people cheaper, or had any other better outcome -- then we would have seen it by now. The simple fact is that such a plan does not exist and probably cannot exist. Obamacare certainly isn't perfect, but it has been pretty impressive in two of its main goals -- getting rid of the worst of the excesses of the insurance companies (like barring sick people from buying insurance, for instance), and getting millions more Americans insured. Any Republican plan is likely going to cover a lot fewer people, and force a whole lot more into paying more money than they do now. Now that Ryan's plan has been made public, these calculations can be made. Ryan is desperately trying to save the good parts of Obamacare and get rid of the insufficiently-conservative parts, but any effort to do so is almost guaranteed to raise prices or cover fewer people. Already, Republicans are lining up either on the side of the purists, who believe that all of Obamacare needs to be scrapped without any real replacement, or on the side of the realists, who know that when the numbers are crunched, their states are going to come out on the losing end of the stick.

The battle lines have been drawn. The crowd is being whipped into a frenzy. This intraparty Republican fight is going to get pretty vicious in the weeks to come, if previous Tea Party behavior is any guide. It's hard to imagine what tweaks Ryan could make to his bill to satisfy the purists. If Ryan's bill fails to pass, it's pretty hard to imagine any sort of compromise is possible within the GOP. Repeal and replace has been a dandy political slogan to use out on the campaign trail, but if Republicans prove unable to do so they will have failed their first big test on governing. If Paul Ryan can't get his caucus together on this, then we should all expect nothing more than total gridlock from the Republican Congress on a whole raft of other important issues as well. I'll even go out on a limb and predict that if Ryan fails to pass his Obamacare replacement bill, then he will likely step down from his speakership within the next year. Like Boehner before him, Ryan is fast learning the Tea Party is much better at blowing things up than they are at getting things done.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

104 Comments on “Ryancare Immediately Attacked By Republicans”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Democrats are indeed denouncing the bill, but their voices aren't getting as much media coverage as the Republicans who are currently savaging their own party's bill (which, to be honest, is more interesting -- explaining the media's decision to focus on it).

    This may be quite a blessing in disguise for Democrats as they continue to drive the failing strategy that doomed their last presidential campaign.

    The day the Democrats start advocating for changes to Obamacare that will address the problems of the ACA and make it more effective and efficient is the day the Democrats begin to get serious about the kinds of things they need to do to win back all they lost in 2016 and in previous election cycles.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There's a reason we haven't seen any GOP Obamacare replacement bill until yesterday.

    Is there a reason why Democrats don't offer up their own legislation to fix the problems of the ACA and make it more effective and efficient?

  3. [3] 
    michale wrote:

    Then there are the "pragmatist" Republicans, who instead are arguing that the new bill is going to hurt the states (with Republican governors, even!) which adopted the Obamacare Medicaid expansion.

    Then maybe those states shouldn't have adopted TrainWreckCare.. Eh??

    The big question is, does the new Health Care bill cause Americans to lose their insurance, like TrainWreckCare did?? Is Neil correct and 20 million Americans are going to die??

    Anyone?? Anyone?? Beuhler??

  4. [4] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    The day the Democrats start advocating for changes to Obamacare that will address the problems of the ACA and make it more effective and efficient is the day the Democrats begin to get serious about the kinds of things they need to do to win back all they lost in 2016 and in previous election cycles.

    Word....

    Is there a reason why Democrats don't offer up their own legislation to fix the problems of the ACA and make it more effective and efficient?

    Why yes... yes there is.. :D

  5. [5] 
    michale wrote:

    This intraparty Republican fight is going to get pretty vicious in the weeks to come, if previous Tea Party behavior is any guide

    Ahhhhh ANOTHER Republican Party civil war??

    yyyyyaaaaawwwwwnnnnnnn

    Whatever ya'all need to do to take the focus off the D&D (Decimation and Devastation) of the Democrat Party

    heh :D

  6. [6] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM [2]

    Is there a reason why Democrats don't offer up their own legislation to fix the problems of the ACA and make it more effective and efficient?

    I know they have in the past, yet the majority of Republicans at that time were fixated on full repeal and refused to take up any legislation. Then there was also the problem of the White House being against some of the proposed changes.

    http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/241524-dems-to-gop-were-ready-to-fix-obamacare-why-arent-you

    The GOP is doing their revisionist history dance now and blaming Democrats for all the problems they refused to consider amending because they were more concerned with total repeal.

    Seriously, a large number of GOP legislators would just as soon do away with it in its entirety and throw millions of Americans off their coverage, but the fact that it can't now be extinguished altogether means the GOP has lost this issue. Health care for Americans in one form or another is here to stay. This ultimately ends with some type of universal health care or "Medicare for all" type program, of course; it's not a matter of "if" but "when." Two steps forward, one step back... but keep moving forward. :)

  7. [7] 
    TheStig wrote:

    For the record, isn't Trump the ultimate RINO?

    Moving on, the ultimate government solution to any vexing monetary gap is a lottery....the classic application being education. So, why not take the easy and FUN way out with medical care?

    This could easily be implemented at the state level with scratch out cards sold thru convenience/gas stations for a one buck each. The most common message would be "sorry, please try again", but lower cost medical services would be fairly common to keep customers playing the game...."check-up"...."dental cleaning"..."remove precancerous skin lesion, etc." Specialist care would be much less likely, things like "colonoscopy", "bone fracture" or "appendectomy." Top tier payouts would be very, very rare, , things like "kidney transplant." Come to think of it, getting a transplant is Already A Lottery, so Just Monetize It!*

    If the states want to collaborate, they can take the glitzy TV Powerball approach. This allows coverage for the really expensive medical products....."assisted living care at a nice facility" or "Hollywood Plastic Surgeon."

    As the commercials remind will us every Christmas, Med Lot cards make great gifts! (Just remember that "facial reconstruction" payouts are pretty rare and you may get punched out).

    * Sounds like a catch phrase from Portlandia, might be copyrighted, I'll have to check.

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    From The Hill piece you cited:

    “I think there’s general willingness to sit down and talk. I just don’t think we feel like we have a partner on the other side,” he added.

    This is exactly what irks me about how Democrats operate.

    Why to they need a partner on the other side? They sure as heck don't have one now!

    But, that shouldn't stop them from tabling a comprehensive "fix" and making their case before the American people. If the Dems are serious about what they need to do to persuade a healthy majority of voters that they are ready to get to work on the many issues and challenges facing the country then laying out their case for improving Obamacare is a perfect place to start.

    This is what was missing from the Dems during the presidential campaign - they failed to take the issues head on and deal with voters' perceptions and misperceptions.

    This ultimately ends with some type of universal health care or "Medicare for all" type program, of course; it's not a matter of "if" but "when." Two steps forward, one step back... but keep moving forward. :)

    I couldn't agree more!

    It might help if Dems started talking about the nature of healthcare in intricate detail in an effort to dissuade people from thinking that healthcare insurance is like any other insurance. Because, it is not.

  9. [9] 
    altohone wrote:

    Paula
    delayed response to comment 97 from "Comey needs to clear the air"

    I see.
    Bernie supporters who insist on speaking the truth, who refuse to cave in before the fight is over, or who just disagree with you deserve to be insulted using a false, derogatory term and falsely portrayed in criminal and Orwellian terms.

    That certainly sounds like the successful path to unity.

    You should pass on your ideas to the DNC Unity Commission. A few in the Dem establishment may feel compelled to publicly disagree so they don't look like offensive lackeys of the corrupt, but don't worry, I'm guessing they'll secretly welcome the affirmation of their deeply held beliefs.

    BTW, other than the corporate lobbyist Hillary chose to lead her delegation on the DNC Unity Commission (I can see why you "like her" because she "gets it"), she seems to be dragging her feet on naming the other appointees. Hillary doesn't seem to be aware of the urgency of a unified approach for the rapidly approaching midterms.

    Bernie chose his appointees a while back despite having a full time job.
    Is Hillary too busy commenting on Trumps tweets to help the Democratic party heal, is she still clinging to misdirected hostility, or is she trying to sabotage the effort by ensuring that candidates for 2018 are chosen before the Berniecrats can influence the process?

    A

  10. [10] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz
    all your comments today

    Spot on.
    I fully agree... particularly with the last part of comment 8 which can't be said too often because most elected Dems are still in denial about it.
    I love it when you shine.

    A

  11. [11] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey gang

    Did you see the cowboy Berniecrat won the Dem primary to run in the special election for the House seat in Montana?

    He seems like a good guy.

    A

  12. [12] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    well, it's ryan one plan, 288 other republican congress critters zero plans. if they're so down on his suggestions, why don't they write some of their own? also as liz says, it would be nice if dems wrote some of their own fixes for obamacare's flaws, instead of just letting republicans and their ridiculous ideas (or lack thereof) drive the debate.

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here is an important piece written by conservative journalist Bret Stephens.

    There is often a lot of questioning here about what is truth or even if truth exists. There usually isn't much discussion about what makes a source of information reliable or trustworthy or what all of this means in the Trump era.

    Stephens meets this head-on in his address in honour of the slain and great journalist, Danny Pearl.
    http://time.com/4675860/donald-trump-fake-news-attacks/

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here is a much better link to the video of Bret Stephens' speech on journalistic integrity in hounour of Danny Pearl ...
    https://www.facebook.com/uclabruins/videos/10154521553385958/

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I know it's a Canadian thing but, hounour ... that's just one too many u's ...

  16. [16] 
    neilm wrote:

    Is Neil correct and 20 million Americans are going to die??

    Don't lie about what I said Michale.

  17. [17] 
    neilm wrote:

    Is there a reason why Democrats don't offer up their own legislation to fix the problems of the ACA and make it more effective and efficient?

    Yes. They don't need to admit there were any problems with Obamacare - the Republican Party is already doing just that. If the Democrats give their solution, it will be recast as a "replacement" in an instant, and the discussion will be which "replacement" for broken Obamacare.

    The Dems just need to sit this one out and let the American public see who is responsible for the mess that healthcare in this country is going to become.

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, the Dems can try going down that road, Neil.

    But, it is a strategy that was proven a complete and utter disaster in the 2016 presidential campaign.

  19. [19] 
    Paula wrote:

    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/03/say-it-me-again-james-comey-elected-donald-trump-president

    Once again: Clinton did nothing particularly wrong in her campaign. She didn't ignore working-class whites. She wasn't too cautious on policy. She didn't overestimate the impact of educated voters. She wasn't complacent. What happened was simple: 12 days before the election, the FBI director released a letter saying he had found a brand-new trove of emails and implying that this might finally be the smoking gun about her private email server. That's it.

    We'll never know for sure if James Comey did this because he's terminally stupid and didn't realize what impact it would have, or if he did it knowing full well what impact it would have. But he did it. And that's why Donald Trump is president.

    Couldn't resist posting although I don't have enough smelling salts to go around so those of you who's violently reject the premise will have to take care of yourselves!

    As more and more of Trump's unbelievably dense and unsavory ties to Russian actors and criminals are revealed we may eventually learn how far they went to throw the election to the GOP.

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yawn.

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    Seeing what is in front of all of our noses is an ongoing struggle.

  22. [22] 
    altohone wrote:

    You're on a roll Liz.

  23. [23] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's high praise coming from you, Al.

    I mean that sincerely, I'm not trying to be facetious, here.

    Cheers!

  24. [24] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @michale/neil,

    let's not call it a lie, just an exaggeration. it's nowhere near 20 million, but certainly north of 20 thousand per year will die if obamacare is repealed without an adequate replacement. liberal estimates exceed 40 thousand, while more conservative estimates start around 27. we're not exactly talking about another holocaust, but that's still between nine and fourteen times the casualty rate of 9/11, every single year.

    JL

  25. [25] 
    Paula wrote:

    http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/03/fbi-director-implying-one-candidate-liar-crook-material-negative-effect-candidate-shocking-research-finding-says

    Obviously, in roughly 99% of cases people demanding “MOAR EVIDENCE” about the Comey effect are making the demand in bad faith, because no alternative hypothesis to “Hillary Clinton lost because, in her perfidious neoliberalism, she failed to understand that marginal voters in every jurisdiction in the country have exactly the same policy preferences and priorities as Brooklyn socialists” is ever going to be entertained. (Sometimes, this will be followed by demands that nobody else discuss any other variable either.) But the evidence that Comey’s intervention was decisive ceteris paribus is about as clear as any such counterfactual could be.

    Stated so perfectly.

  26. [26] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Paula-
    In the interest of trying to remain one happy family is it OK if I just admit that Comey could have been a contributing factor and not give up on some other factors?
    Kind of like it takes moisture and cold to make snow. And the amount of snow can be affected by the amount of moisture in the storm but also by how fast the storm moves through.

  27. [27] 
    altohone wrote:

    Paula

    regarding your claims of "blackmail" by Berniecrats

    -
    -

    Let's imagine for a moment that you are one of two summer tour guides at a retirement resort in Colorado where guests can live out their lives.

    Let's say that your job is to lead the guests on hikes, and that you get to decide where to hike and what to do when you get there.

    You propose a hike for the guests to the top of a mountain from which everyone must jump off of a thousand foot cliff onto jagged rocks below.

    If the guests respond by saying they'd be happy to join you on the hike to the top of the mountain, but only if they can skip the cliff jumping part... that's NOT BLACKMAIL.

    It doesn't matter to the guests if you point out that the other tour guide is taking guests to climb into pits full of rattlesnakes.

    And it doesn't matter to the guests if you will lose your job if nobody goes on your proposed cliff jumping hike.

    Nor does it matter all that much to the guests if whichever tour guide convinces the most guests to go on their tour gets to become the manager and run the resort for four years, because the resort has a board of directors that puts limits on the changes the manager can make to the services the resort offers, and neither tour guide is offering attractive options.

    Now, what is more akin to blackmail, or really attempted blackmail, is if you insist that guests need to take one tour or the other, when there is a brochure in the lobby of the resort that makes it abundantly clear that guests are welcome to take self guided hikes or even just lounge by the pool.

    So, if you, the tour guide, want to become the manager, maybe instead of falsely accusing the guests of blackmail for not wanting to go on your tour, you should offer hikes that don't include cliff jumping.
    Or even better still, hikes up to a beautiful waterfall like the guests are asking for, instead of just railing about the dangers on the other tour.

    A

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    TS,

    For the record, isn't Trump the ultimate RINO?

    Of course he is!!

    That's what makes him such a great POTUS..

    Almost THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND JOBS created in ONE MONTH!!!!!

    Holy Crap, President Trump is awesome...

    Suck it, Obama!!!!! :D

  29. [29] 
    michale wrote:

    Don't lie about what I said Michale.

    You said 20 million Americans..

    It's hard to keep track of all ya'all spew, what with yer Trump Derangement Syndrome being so acute and all...

  30. [30] 
    altohone wrote:

    nypoet
    24

    Neil used the 44 thousand figure.

    It absolutely is lying to say he claimed 20 million would die.

    To be clear, I'm not talking about you.

    A

  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    Yes. They don't need to admit there were any problems with Obamacare - the Republican Party is already doing just that.

    So, DEMOCRATS are letting Republicans make Democrats' arguments??

    WOW.. :D

  32. [32] 
    michale wrote:

    let's not call it a lie, just an exaggeration. it's nowhere near 20 million, but certainly north of 20 thousand per year will die if obamacare is repealed without an adequate replacement.

    AND THAT is the rub...

    "WITHOUT ADEQUATE REPLACEMENT"..

    Ya'all are ASSUMING that there will be no adequate and ya'all are making conclusions based on that PARTISAN assumption..

    And ya'all wonder why I can never trust anything most of ya'all say???

    THAT is why...

    You make up "facts" then make conclusions based on those fake facts...

  33. [33] 
    michale wrote:

    Samsung Plans U.S. Expansion, Would Shift Manufacturing From Mexico
    Initial capital investment is expected to be around $300 million

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/samsung-plans-u-s-expansion-would-shift-manufacturing-from-mexico-1488985610

    President Trump....

    The JOBS President.... :D

  34. [34] 
    michale wrote:

    Couldn't resist posting although I don't have enough smelling salts to go around so those of you who's violently reject the premise will have to take care of yourselves!

    There is a reason why everyone who has more than two brain cells to rub together reject this premise.

    Because it's out and out bullshit with absolutely NO FACTS to support it...

    Not-45 was a shitty candidate...

    That's the beginning and the end of that tale...

  35. [35] 
    michale wrote:

    Not-45 was a shitty candidate...

    When you have a group of people who rarely agree on anything, agree on THAT, then that should tell you something about the validity of the claim...

    I'm just sayin'...

  36. [36] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Ya'all are ASSUMING that there will be no adequate[sic] and ya'all are making conclusions based on that PARTISAN assumption..

    that's not an assumption; at the moment it's a fact. speaker ryan's plan is woefully inadequate, does not have sufficient support from his own party, and people will lose insurance and die even if it does pass. that isn't an "if" it's a "how many." perhaps only half the number who would lose insurance and die in a straight repeal, perhaps more, perhaps less. the other 288 republicans in congress have proposed exactly nothing, and it's perfectly valid to operate based on what they've failed to propose so far. if they don't want people to die, they should propose a replacement that doesn't kill people.

    JL

  37. [37] 
    michale wrote:

    that's not an assumption; at the moment it's a fact.

    No, at the moment it's partisan conjecture..

    Because TrainWreckCare HASN'T been repealed yet....

    if they don't want people to die, they should propose a replacement that doesn't kill people.

    And when TrainWreckCare is finally repealed and the GOP DOESN'T have a replacement, then..

    AND ONLY THEN...

    will you have a logical and rational argument.

    Until that time, all you have is hysterical partisan fear-mongering...

  38. [38] 
    michale wrote:

    U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials said on Wednesday they have been aware since the end of last year of a security breach at the CIA and were focusing on contractors as the likeliest source of documents being passed on to anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks detailing the agency's hacking tools.

    The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told Reuters that they believed documents published by WikiLeaks on Tuesday about CIA techniques used between 2013 and 2016 were authentic.
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cia-wikileaks-idUSKBN16F2AP?il=0

    You were saying, Neil?? :D

    The 8000+ CIA documents that were released are 1% of all the documents that will be released...

    Obama gonna do da perp walk!!!! :D

  39. [39] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula [19,23] no alternative hypothesis to “Hillary Clinton lost because, in her perfidious neoliberalism, she failed to understand that marginal voters in every jurisdiction in the country have exactly the same policy preferences and priorities as Brooklyn socialists” is ever going to be entertained.

    Paula: again, spot-on. And the dezinformatsiya campaign continues. The effort isn't so much to suggest that Hillary made a few tactical errors, as it is to discredit everything she (and by extension, Obama) stood for.

    Considering that we don't know yet the extent to which Putin intervened to aid the Bernie effort, one would think they'd tread more softly in this assertion.

    I know this: it was brought to a vote nationally in the primaries last year, and a majority of Democratic voters chose the path that Obama and Hillary laid out. Those numbers don't lie.

  40. [40] 
    michale wrote:

    Considering that we don't know yet the extent to which Putin intervened to aid the Bernie effort,

    Oh.. So NOW Putin not only aided TRUMP, he also aided BERNIE!!!???

    Isn't that just SOOOOO convenient... NOT-45 is COMPLETELY blameless...

    Do you even HEAR yourself???

    And, of course, you have FACTS that prove your claim right??

    {{{cchhhiiirrrrppppp}}}

    Yea.. That's what I thought...

    Jeezus...

  41. [41] 
    michale wrote:

    Am I the ONLY one who recognizes how utterly delusional the NOT-45 sycophants are???

  42. [42] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (29)-
    Close.
    But it should be Syndrome of Trump Derangement.
    Much more appropriate when referring to Trump.

  43. [43] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Oh.. So NOW Putin not only aided TRUMP, he also aided BERNIE!?

    Do you honestly think that any anti-Hillary effort wouldn't? Putin would be guilty of espionage malpractice if he didn't. So would Trump, for that matter, but I have less surety that his people knew what they were doing (though they were, apparently, getting instructions from the Kremlin).

  44. [44] 
    michale wrote:

    But it should be Syndrome of Trump Derangement.
    Much more appropriate when referring to Trump.

    I disagree..

    Sycophancy to NOT-45 has nothing to do with President Trump and was readily apparent long before President Trump was elected....

    Do you honestly think that any anti-Hillary effort wouldn't? Putin would be guilty of espionage malpractice if he didn't. So would Trump, for that matter, but I have less surety that his people knew what they were doing (though they were, apparently, getting instructions from the Kremlin).

    And you can PROVE this, right??

    Of course you can't..

    You have absolutely ZERO FACTS that prove your wildly delusional claims that Putin not only helped President Trump but ALSO helped Bernie..

    Do you see this delusion you crafted??

    It allows you to believe that NOT-45 is the victim of a WORLD-WIDE conspiracy where she is completely and utterly blameless....

    I am sure there is a sound psychological term to describe it..

    But I prefer to go with the apt descriptive NUCKING FUTZ!!!

    President Trump AND Senator Bernie Sanders are Russian operatives..

    *NOW* I have heard it all.. :^/

    (though they were, apparently, getting instructions from the Kremlin).

    Of course they were... :^/

    I think your tin-foil cap is a bit too tight there, my friend..

    Or else you have had one tee meeny martoonies....

  45. [45] 
    michale wrote:

    Michale (29)-
    Close.
    But it should be Syndrome of Trump Derangement.
    Much more appropriate when referring to Trump.

    Sorry, I thought you were referring to comment #41.. You really need to quote the comment rather than just the #.... It makes it easier..

    But, in answer to what you posted, no... I don't think Neil, Paula, Kick et al have STDs....

    heh :D

  46. [46] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    President Trump AND Senator Bernie Sanders are Russian operatives

    No(well maybe in the first case, we don't know). But it is a certainty that they both benefited from the dezinformatsiya campaign that was waged by Putin. You have all the evidence that you need.

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, did you watch my link to Bret Stephens' speech?

  48. [48] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (45)-
    Another one of my may faults- I can be a bit lazy at times.
    For example, I don't try to avoid lying unless it absolutely necessary out of any moral obligation- trying to remember who you lied to and what you lied to them about is just too much damn work.

  49. [49] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    comment 48 was about your "you really need to quote the comment" comment. :D

  50. [50] 
    michale wrote:

    No(well maybe in the first case, we don't know).

    Of course you don't KNOW..

    But does that stop ya from claiming total bullshit is factual?? :D

  51. [51] 
    michale wrote:

    But it is a certainty that they both benefited from the dezinformatsiya campaign that was waged by Putin. You have all the evidence that you need.

    You don't even have any facts to support a disinformation campaign from Putin... :D

  52. [52] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Michale, did you watch my link to Bret Stephens' speech?

    Not yet. probably won't til in the morning..

    Just popping in here real quick before I put some steaks on the barbie.. :D

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM [8]

    This is exactly what irks me about how Democrats operate.

    Why to they need a partner on the other side? They sure as heck don't have one now!

    Yep. It's one of those annoying things that seems to be an ever present obstacle. One of my many theories is that the overall problem stems from the fact that Democrats generally tend to be reactive versus proactive, which I believe happens because they respond toward the "average" or "median voter," taking their cues from poll results and the center versus their activist base. What plays in Peoria won't necessarily play in California, but the squeaky wheel should generally get the grease: You work for us!

    RULES FOR THE ROAD
    1. You work for your constituents.
    2. The squeakiest wheel should get the grease.
    3. Get a message... stay on message.
    4. Always run like you're 20 points behind.
    5. Unite the Party.

    But, that shouldn't stop them from tabling a comprehensive "fix" and making their case before the American people. If the Dems are serious about what they need to do to persuade a healthy majority of voters that they are ready to get to work on the many issues and challenges facing the country then laying out their case for improving Obamacare is a perfect place to start.

    Yep... but proactive is not generally their style because they want to appear to be the grownups in the room versus the hell raisers. At the very least, they should be repeating in unison:

    We work for them, and we will not sit idly by while the GOP throws Momma from the Trump train and under the Billy Bush bus.

    -- OVER OUR DEAD BODIES, NOT THEIRS!
    -- FIX IT... DON'T NIX IT!

    This is what was missing from the Dems during the presidential campaign - they failed to take the issues head on and deal with voters' perceptions and misperceptions.

    And therefore failed to unite the party. They should have ignored the polls and ran like they were 20 points behind. Then it wouldn't have mattered what WikiLeaks or anyone else was doing to try to divide them.

    It might help if Dems started talking about the nature of healthcare in intricate detail in an effort to dissuade people from thinking that healthcare insurance is like any other insurance. Because, it is not.

    Oh, but isn't the devil in the "intricate detail"? It's difficult to discuss the healthcare issue due to the inordinate amount of propaganda and revisionist history rhetoric being bandied about, but that shouldn't stop them from trying.

    At the very least, Democrats should be calling it "DOA Care" -- Dump On America Care -- and reiterating that everyone knew how difficult health care was except the guy who was writing checks with his mouth that his class wouldn't keep because tax cuts for the wealthy is GOP scripture and their answer to damn near everything.

  54. [54] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You don't even have any facts to support a disinformation campaign from Putin.

    So let's review (again)-

    Supporting the claim that Putin ran a disinformation campaign: all of the US intelligence community, now bolstered by international intel.

    Against the claim: Trump, Breitbart, Alex Jones, Faux News, rank & file loyalists.

  55. [55] 
    Paula wrote:

    [39] Balthasar: yep!

  56. [56] 
    Paula wrote:

    [26] Don: Certainly.

  57. [57] 
    Paula wrote:

    [27] A: Now, what is more akin to blackmail, or really attempted blackmail, is if you insist that guests need to take one tour or the other,

    That's exactly what gets done when people start making threats to leave the party because of things like the DNC selecting Perez over Ellis. (In addition to casting all sorts of aspersions on Perez and his service as Labor Secretary as well as impugning the integrity of DNC members who voted for Perez). "We'll trash the place, then leave, if you don't give us Ellis! And screw putting him as #2, not good enough!!!!!"

    Its blackmail with a dose of slander on top.

  58. [58] 
    altohone wrote:

    Paula
    57

    Yes, the smearing of Ellison as an anti-Semite at the request of and by Big Money (along with a promise to withhold future bribes) in order to prevent a Berniecrat from threatening their grip on power was disgusting and slanderous.

    Projection rears its ugly head again.

    And telling the truth, of course, is called "trashing the place".

    Or maybe that was more projection since the Big Money Democrats have undeniably trashed the party right out of power?

    The weird thing about projection is that you'd look even worse if you were aware you were doing it.

    In the meantime, I'll try to think up an even more simplistic example to explain where you're going wrong on the false blackmail claims.

    A

  59. [59] 
    Paula wrote:

    Who smeared Ellison as an anti-semite?

  60. [60] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    My issue with Comey wasn't so much about his announcing that the FBI was investigating Weiner's phone for possible missing documents (which Comey should not have done since he has stated multiple times that the FBI does not announce what it is investigating) as it was his publicizing his personal views on what Hillary did wrong as Secretary of State. It isn't his job, as the FBI Director, to tell the country what he thinks Hillary could have done better. His job was to determine whether or not the evidence warranted charges being filed against Clinton. He did not support charges being filed, and that should have been all that he said given that we were in the midst of an election when this took place!

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It isn't his job, as the FBI Director, to tell the country what he thinks Hillary could have done better.

    Well, SOMEBODY has to tell her.

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ, if you have a problem with Comey's actions as they relate to Hillary - and I, of course, do not - then you should take it up with her campaign-sabotaging husband who is the one who set all of this in motion.

  63. [63] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Republicans had chosen to attack all things "Democrat" (not based on whatever was being discussed's merits, but solely on the fact that the Democrats supported it) as their political strategy. They wanted it to be easy for their supporters to know if they should support a piece of legislation. It's easier to just have their supporters hate everything Democrats say than it is to risk them having to think about things too much!

    It is this political strategy that prevented Republicans from viewing the ACA as anything but evil! They could not risk confusing their base by saying something good about it or they risk their supporters starting to realize that Democrats can have ideas that aren't completely awful and unAmerican! They might start to objectively look at what each party offers this country and realize that the GOP is not the party for them! They need to keep their base from becoming informed!

  64. [64] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    It wasn't Comey's job to do so during the election! Comey stated that he wouldn't say whether Trump was under investigation as it would be inappropriate to do so.

    Blame Bill for it? Why? How does Bill's meeting with the AG on the tarmac make Comey's actions OK? Two wrongs make a right? Three rights makes a left?

    The investigation was a joke to start with...and even more so now when you realize the entire White House staff is using RNC servers instead of the official government servers for their emails. This makes guaranteeing that all emails are available under FOIA laws for public record requests almost impossible.

  65. [65] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    It isn't his job, as the FBI Director, to tell the country what he thinks Hillary could have done better.

    Well, SOMEBODY has to tell her.

    Then he should have called her up and told her. He could have mailed her a letter telling her. Comey chose to give his opinion -- and that's the real problem here, it was his personal opinion being given attached to an official agency statement at a press conference with the cameras rolling. That was not OK.

  66. [66] 
    neilm wrote:

    Nypoet: let's not call it a lie, just an exaggeration. it's nowhere near 20 million

    I never mentioned 20 million - this is pure fabrication, if you want another word.

  67. [67] 
    michale wrote:

    Supporting the claim that Putin ran a disinformation campaign: all of the US intelligence community, now bolstered by international intel.

    Yea... That's what Wapoop tells you..

    ALL based on unsubstantiated claims with NO FACTS to support..

  68. [68] 
    michale wrote:

    Republicans had chosen to attack all things "Democrat" (not based on whatever was being discussed's merits, but solely on the fact that the Democrats supported it) as their political strategy.

    Yea, and Democrats would NEVER choose to attack ALL THINGS "Republican" rather than discuss merit, right???

    Like I said... Do you HEAR yerself??

  69. [69] 
    michale wrote:

    Blame Bill for it? Why? How does Bill's meeting with the AG on the tarmac make Comey's actions OK? Two wrongs make a right? Three rights makes a left?

    Remember A PRIVATE LITTLE WAR from Star Trek???

    Klingons introduced an imbalance into a stable situation, so Kirk had to introduce a counter-balance...

    So it is with the Bubba/Lynch issue..

    Bubba introduced an imbalance into a currently stable situation and Director Comey was forced to introduce a counter-balance..

    You ONLY have a problem with it because it was against NOT-45....

    If Comey had did a press conference and gave a negative opinion on candidate Trump, you would be all for it..

    Go ahead. Try and tell me I am wrong..

  70. [70] 
    michale wrote:

    For the record, I was mistaken.. It wasn't Neil who mentioned 20 million..

    Neil changed his AMERICANS WILL DIE number from 40,000 to 2,200 per 1 million in an effort to confuse and obfuscate the issue..

    And, apparently, it worked. :D In my case, that is..

    Apologies to Neil...

  71. [71] 
    michale wrote:

    I never mentioned 20 million - this is pure fabrication, if you want another word.

    No, it was a mistake.. It happens now and again and when it does, I apologize for it.

    In that, I am unique in that amongst Weigantians. I actually admit my mistakes and apologize for them... :^/

  72. [72] 
    michale wrote:

    Supporting the claim that Putin ran a disinformation campaign: all of the US intelligence community

    All of the OBAMA intelligence community..

    Haven't heard much from them since Obama took a hike, eh? :D

    Haven't heard much from Russian Hacking from the Democrats either of late..

    "Gee!! I wonder why that is!!!"
    -Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR

    :D

    It's a NON issue. There is absolutely NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE that Russians changed a single NOT-45 vote to a Trump vote.

    NONE.... ZERO..... ZILCH..... NADA.....

    All ya'all have is a bunch of hysterical wishful thinking....

    That's it...

  73. [73] 
    michale wrote:

    BORDER CROSSINGS SLOW TO TRICKLE

    As immigration rhetoric heats up, the number of families crossing the border in South Texas has slowed down
    http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/As-immigration-rhetoric-heats-up-the-number-of-10986517.php

    The President Trump effect... :D

    Thank the gods that NOT-45 wasn't elected...

    We have a HUGE Jobs Boom in progress and illegal immigrants are down to a crawl..

    Life is, indeed, good... :D

  74. [74] 
    michale wrote:

    OK? Two wrongs make a right? Three rights makes a left?

    "FOUR LEFTS IS A CIRCLE, YOU IDIOT!!!"
    -Nicholas Cage, ESCAPE FROM CHRISTMAS

    :D

  75. [75] 
    michale wrote:

    COMMENTARY
    Trump: What Real Leadership Looks Like

    "This is how a real president acts. This is what real leadership looks like."

    No doubt, those were the thoughts of tens of millions of Americans who watched President Trump's speech before a joint session of Congress last Tuesday night.

    The main reason Donald Trump was elected president in the first place was because those same tens of millions of Americans absolutely knew that over the last couple of decades, they had been abandoned by the "leadership" of their respective political parties. They knew these so-called leaders were either incompetent, were putting their re-election and the welfare of their political parties well before them, or were the creations of political correctness or a family name.

    They knew that real-world experience actually mattered and that the previous two men elected president had none or virtually none and that they were forced to pay a heavy price because of that truth.
    http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/trump-what-real-leadership-looks-like/

    Gotta love IBD!!! :D

  76. [76] 
    michale wrote:

    What Is With This Weird Obsession With Russia?

    Have you had the sense recently, and particularly so since the inauguration, that the progressive movement has completely lost its mind? I mean, start with the #Resistance movement and its pointless, often violent demonstrations that couldn't be better designed to alienate everybody who is not already fully committed to radical leftism. Or consider the climate change cult, desperately committed to keeping the poor poor and driving up everybody's cost of electricity and transportation because they believe that's the way to "save the planet." But my favorite has to be this weird obsession with Russia. I can't even begin to figure out what it is about.

    The New York Times has easily had several dozen articles since the election about the supposedly nefarious relationship between President Trump and/or his team and Russian officials. And I don't mean to single Pravda out particularly -- this obsession is all over the mainstream press. And it goes on day after day with stories of less and less consequence told in breathless tones like they mean something.
    http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2017/3/2/what-is-with-this-weird-obsession-with-russia

    Word....

    The hysteria of the Left Whinery is truly something to behold...

    What's so hilarious is that 4 short years ago, it was the Left who was downplaying any threat from Russia..

    If only the Left would have listened to candidate Romney in 2012, ALL of this Russian spying and hacking could have been avoided.. :D

    heh

  77. [77] 
    michale wrote:

    OH MY GODS!!!!!! BREAKING NEWS!!!!!

    TRUMP USED RUSSIAN DRESSING DURING CAMPAIGN!!!!!

    CNN has the "proof"!!!!

    http://neveryetmelted.com/2017/03/04/sessions-scandal-just-a-bunch-of-media-partisanship/

    Begin impeachment proceedings now!!!!

    Once again..

    Step Back.... Look.... Utterly Ridiculous....

  78. [78] 
    michale wrote:

    Michale, did you watch my link to Bret Stephens' speech?

    I didn't watch it.. I read it. Well, most of it..

    Completely self-serving attack on President Trump..

    Stephens goes on and on about how the President maligns the Leftist press, but ignores the *FACT* that the Leftis press is DESERVING of malignment..

    How many times has WaPoop and the NY Grime had to put out retractions of their bullshit claims??

    Dozens, if not hundreds of times......

    The current gaggle of so-called journalists have PUBLICLY STATED that their *GOAL* is to stop Trump...

    Now, call me silly, but I seem to recall a time where REAL journalists' *ONLY* goal was the dissemination of facts and let the public make up their own minds.

    THAT is journalism...

    The *ENTIRETY* of the media push their own agenda and facts be damned..

    President Trump simply calls the media out on that and I have no problem with it..

    There was a time... a long long LONG time ago (2009 thru 2016) where ya'all shared my disdain for the LameStream Media..

    But now that the media has proclaimed that they are the ATTACK WING of the Democrat Party, NOW all of the sudden ya'all (NEN) are in love with the media...

    Put another way??

    President Trump's approval ratings are not very good..

    The media's approval ratings are so bad that the media wishes it could have HALF of the President's approval rating..

    THAT should tell ya'all something about how patriotic Americans view the media and the press...

    The media and press deserves EVERY BIT of scorn that is heaped upon it..

    THEY made the decision to be partisan and push an ideological agenda and ignore the facts and reality to do it..

    As such, they made their bed and now they lie in it..

  79. [79] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It wasn't Comey's job to do so during the election! Comey stated that he wouldn't say whether Trump was under investigation as it would be inappropriate to do so.

    Blame Bill for it? Why? How does Bill's meeting with the AG on the tarmac make Comey's actions OK? Two wrongs make a right? Three rights makes a left?

    You won't convince my by trying to equate two wholly different things, Russ.

    The FBI investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server was hardly a joke.

    The joke is that Clinton lost a laptop and a thumbnail drive with all of those emails, don't forget.

    Wait, that's not funny. That's incompetence. Where do you think those devices are now?

    Get real!

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Stephens goes on and on about how the President maligns the Leftist press, but ignores the *FACT* that the Leftis press is DESERVING of malignment..

    Actually, he didn't ignore that at all.

    I guess you missed the part where he said that when Trump attacks the media, he's attacking a wounded animal. By which he meant that the media is not without blame or undeserving of criticism.

    Trump would get more mileage on this if he did criticize the media for the things it deserves criticism for. But, I'm sure Trump doesn't understand what that is. Sad!

  81. [81] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I know you understand the truth Stephens spoke of ... and, it hurts!

    The topic of his address was intellectual integrity. His analysis was spot on.

    We could use a little more of that around here, by the way, Michale.

  82. [82] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    The video link is better.

    After the speech, Stephens takes part in a Q&A session which should not be missed.

  83. [83] 
    michale wrote:

    Trump would get more mileage on this if he did criticize the media for the things it deserves criticism for. But, I'm sure Trump doesn't understand what that is. Sad!

    Does the President go overboard sometimes??

    Of course he does.. That's who he is..

    Does the fact that he goes overboard sometimes negate the FACT that his accusations are accurate??

    Nope..

    I know you understand the truth Stephens spoke of ... and, it hurts!

    Stephens speaks HIS truth.. But he doesn't speak of FACTS...

    Or, to be more accurate, he ONLY speaks of the facts that support his agenda and ignores the facts that don't support his agenda..

    Typical of an ideologue

    The topic of his address was intellectual integrity. His analysis was spot on.

    No, the topic of his address is to attack Trump... He fails because he doesn't address ALL the facts...

    Nowhere does he give the President any real credit for being mostly correct about the Leftist Media...

  84. [84] 
    michale wrote:

    I guess you missed the part where he said that when Trump attacks the media, he's attacking a wounded animal. By which he meant that the media is not without blame or undeserving of criticism.

    I don't think so..

    By using the imagery of a wounded animal, Stephens is invoking sympathy for the "wounded animal" and implying that Trump is a scumbag for kicking a "wounded animal"..

    If Stephens truly felt that the media was deserving of criticisms and attacks, he would have used more appropriate imagery than a sympathy-invoking "wounded animal"...

  85. [85] 
    michale wrote:

    At least, that's my take on it.. :D

  86. [86] 
    michale wrote:

    OH MY GODS!!!!!! BREAKING NEWS!!!!!

    TRUMP USED RUSSIAN DRESSING DURING CAMPAIGN!!!!!

    CNN has the "proof"!!!!

    Obama Intelligence sources confirm that Candidate Trump was spotted eating at the Russian Tea Room during the election..

    Democrat Leaders are expected to forward articles of impeachment immediately..

    Stay tuned for more late breaking news on the story that is sure to have a DEVASTATING impact on the Trump administration..

    {/hysteria}

    STEP BACK.... LOOK.... UTTERLY RIDICULOUS

  87. [87] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [78]

    How many times has WaPoop and the NY Grime had to put out retractions of their bullshit claims??

    You have that in common. Everyone makes mistakes.

    The *ENTIRETY* of the media push their own agenda and facts be damned..

    The media doesn't speak as a group, and assigning negative traits to an entire group in order to dismiss them all is demonization.

    President Trump simply calls the media out on that and I have no problem with it..

    Wrong. While I believe the part where you "have no problem with it," the fact is that President Trump and Steve Bannon have publicly stated that the media is the opposition party, and Steve Bannon said that the media should keep its mouth shut. President Trump is not simply calling the media out; he is demonizing them so that you'll dismiss them.

    There was a time... a long long LONG time ago (2009 thru 2016) where ya'all shared my disdain for the LameStream Media..

    It's oversimplification to lump everyone here into a group and to lump the "ENTIRETY of the media" into a group, but it does make it easier to push a false narrative and demonize and dismiss people.

    But now that the media has proclaimed that they are the ATTACK WING of the Democrat Party, NOW all of the sudden ya'all (NEN) are in love with the media...

    This, of course, never happened. It's true that Trump and Bannon have defined the media as their opposition, but it is a total fabrication to state "the media has proclaimed that they are the ATTACK WING of the Democrat Party." I can't speak for everybody, but I do think it's safe to say that no one here is "in love" with the media.

    President Trump's approval ratings are not very good..

    State the obvious... and ratings are very important to his fragile ego, and low ratings get under his thin skin because he has an unending need for public praise... just ask John Miller or John Barron. LOL

    The media's approval ratings are so bad that the media wishes it could have HALF of the President's approval rating..

    The "media" is not a group with a single "wish" but rather a collection of thousands of journalists, pundits, partisans, etc., and do you honestly think the majority of them give a rat's ass what the public thinks about their approval ratings? Some of them are doing their job to report the truth. While they don't always get it right, it makes them no different than any of us.

    THAT should tell ya'all something about how patriotic Americans view the media and the press...

    The fascist Cheeto has declared the "media" as his opposition so the sheeple fall in line; this ain't rocket science. LOL :)

    THEY made the decision to be partisan and push an ideological agenda and ignore the facts and reality to do it..

    Translation: Because Trump and Bannon lumped the media into one category and demonized and dismissed them, it's perfectly fine that that the masses do it. The fact is, it's by design... Fascism 101. Demonize the media as a whole in order to insulate the leaders from any negative facts that the press reports and dismiss actual facts as "fake news" while spoon feeding lies and calling it truth... pravda.

    If "facts and reality" are so precious, why is it okay for President Trump to ignore them in order to push his agenda? What will it take for reality to set in? How many Goldman Sachs appointees does it take? How many billionaires? How much legislation with tax cuts for the wealthy? How many bullshit courses did it take until the Trump University students knew they'd been suckered? At what point does one realize they've been conned?

  88. [88] 
    Paula wrote:

    Elizabeth: Russ, if you have a problem with Comey's actions as they relate to Hillary - and I, of course, do not - then you should take it up with her campaign-sabotaging husband who is the one who set all of this in motion.

    A statement breathtaking in both its stupidity and malice.

  89. [89] 
    michale wrote:

    Wrong. While I believe the part where you "have no problem with it," the fact is that President Trump and Steve Bannon have publicly stated that the media is the opposition party, and Steve Bannon said that the media should keep its mouth shut. President Trump is not simply calling the media out; he is demonizing them so that you'll dismiss them.

    Much like the entirety of the Left Whinery is demonizing President Trump for the exact same reason..

    What's yer point???

    The fascist Cheeto has declared the "media" as his opposition so the sheeple fall in line; this ain't rocket science. LOL :)

    Just like the Left Whinery did it when NOT-45 said JUMP....

    Again, what is your point??

    At what point does one realize they've been conned?

    At the point when you have some actual FACTS to support the claim..

    The recent hysteria over the AG Sessions lie that wasn't is a perfect example....

  90. [90] 
    michale wrote:

    A statement breathtaking in both its stupidity and malice.

    For some...

    But for the vast majority of Americans, dead on ballz accurate...

  91. [91] 
    altohone wrote:

    Paula
    59
    "Who smeared Ellison as an anti-semite?"

    It is amazing you are ignorant of an issue reported widely and even raised in the DNC chair debates, and are at the same time attacking the victim, condemning his supporters with false allegations, and defending the establishment Dems who were involved and the policies that are at the center of the whole mess.

    I will repeat what I wrote in comment 58 due to the obvious relevance-
    The weird thing about projection is that you'd look even worse if you were aware you were doing it.

    Insisting you are right when you aren't even paying attention explains everything.

    A

  92. [92] 
    michale wrote:

    MORE BOMBSHELLS DROPPED ON TRUMP ADMINISTRATION!!!!

    https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17103574_645290239000312_2800909370571619066_n.jpg?oh=7354ed5a311415ed309596ccd505ce08&oe=596D5652

    President Trump is not going to survive this...

  93. [93] 
    Paula wrote:

    [91] A: you didn't answer the question. Give me links.

  94. [94] 
    Paula wrote:

    http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/03/socialists-electoral-politics

    Great post.

    This is absurd. The point of politics from the left should be using the tools we have to promote the power we can muster for policy goals. That means recognizing what works and what doesn’t work within the American system of government. It means accepting some losses while moving toward some victories while recognizing that losses can actually be partial victories. The DNC Chair is an example of this. Yes, Keith Ellison should have been our preferred candidate. But if you have created a situation where Tom Perez, a man filibustered by Republicans for being Che Guevara in the flesh, is your establishment, centrist candidate, you have already won a lot! It also means playing a long game. Change does not happen overnight. Taking our balls and going home because our candidate doesn’t win a largely ceremonial internal Democratic Party position is a silly, ridiculous strategy that allows corporate forces to rule the Democrats without challenge. Talking to no one but ourselves, hanging out with other Brooklyn socialists at parties in Connor Kilpatrick’s apartment sneering at sellouts who engage the two-party system, accomplishes nothing at all except making us feel good about ourselves within our own internal bubble. This behavior is to be avoided and replaced with a smart short, medium, and long-term strategy. Bernie himself is an antidote to this sort of behavior, with a career predicated on a smart electoral strategy and working hard toward better legislation and moving American politics to the left. How Bernie can be the hero and yet the lesson of his life is missed by so many of his followers is astounding, but explainable when we go back to the emotionalism that rules the left.

  95. [95] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [89]

    Much like the entirety of the Left Whinery is demonizing President Trump for the exact same reason..

    You can't really be this obtuse! If the "entirety of the Left" demonized President Trump, he wouldn't be President... Some of them voted for him, slowflake.

    Just like the Left Whinery did it when NOT-45 said JUMP....

    Deflection to Hillary and some vague reference to god only knows what proves what? You really just might be that obtuse.

    Use your brain. Someone trashes Goldman Sachs and then stacks their cabinet and top staff with several of the same people he vilified. Use your brain. Someone talks about draining the swamp in Washington of moneyed influence and then loads up his staff with SOS Exxon-Mobil, Goldman Sachs, and several of his billionaire donors. Use your brain... because at some point you're going to need to do exactly that, and deflecting to "but, but, but... Hillary" or deflecting to other topics like "AG Sessions" is going to be of little help to you. LOL :)

    OAO

  96. [96] 
    michale wrote:

    You can't really be this obtuse! If the "entirety of the Left" demonized President Trump, he wouldn't be President... Some of them voted for him, slowflake.

    Then they are no longer of the Left. According to ya'all, they are racist deplorables.

    Once again..

    DUH....

    You are having a LOT of "DUH" moments..

    Have you hit your head recently...???

  97. [97] 
    Paula wrote:

    Altohone: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/perez-ellison-democratic-national-committee-235840

    New Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez and Deputy Chair Keith Ellison are taking their buddy show on the road.

    If Ellison is happy, what's your beef?

    Did it ever occur to you that there are bad actors out there who deliberately sow dissension -- who encourage Dem infighting because it weakens the counter forces to the traitorous GOP?

    Some schmo somewhere says something stupid about Ellison (in this case) -- and stands back to watch the fireworks. Trolls/moles, traitors -- all trying to divert attention from the real monsters in all this. Don't play their game.

  98. [98] 
    altohone wrote:

    Paula

    I responded to you on the "From the archives" thread.

    A

  99. [99] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [96]

    Then they are no longer of the Left. According to ya'all, they are racist deplorables.

    Surprise, surprise... MORE LIES! Your painting everyone with a broad brush is so pathetic. It's the safe space you retreat to so often snowflake. LOL

    Stop projecting your bullshit onto others. It's pathetic even for you.

  100. [100] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [96]

    Then they are no longer of the Left. According to ya'all, they are racist deplorables.

    Surprise, surprise... MORE LIES! Your painting everyone with a broad brush is so pathetic. It's the safe space you retreat to so often snowflake. LOL

    Stop projecting your bullshit onto others. It's pathetic even for you.

  101. [101] 
    michale wrote:

    Surprise, surprise... MORE LIES! Your painting everyone with a broad brush is so pathetic. It's the safe space you retreat to so often snowflake. LOL

    MANY people here painted ALL Trump voters as racist deplorables..

    *YOU* never corrected them..

    That means you agree with them..

    It's that simple..

    You made yer bed, snowflake..

    Now you get to lie in it...

    Of course, if you want to admit that millions of Trump voters are honest and sincere Americans, by all means..

    Do so..

    But you won't because you don't believe that...

    This is who you are, snowflake...

    Deal with it... :D

  102. [102] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [101]

    MANY people here painted ALL Trump voters as racist deplorables..

    "ALL" Trump voters? Lumping people into categories is one of YOUR favorite tools. You were asked to stop projecting your bullshit onto others... so you responded by projecting your bullshit onto others.

    *YOU* never corrected them..

    Many people here called you a troll. *I* never corrected them.

    Of course, if you want to admit that millions of Trump voters are honest and sincere Americans, by all means..

    Do so..

    But you won't because you don't believe that...

    No... I won't because I'm not like you, and attempting to function down at your pathetic little level proves nothing. I don't label groups of people that I don't know into either positive or negative categories; that's your bullshit. You need to try to grasp the concept that asking me to define "millions of Trump voters" I know nothing about is requesting I behave like you. Sad!

    I will say I believe there are Trump voters who are honest, and you prove daily that you're not one of them. LOL :)

  103. [103] 
    michale wrote:

    Many people here called you a troll. *I* never corrected them.

    That's because you believe it to be true..

    Thank you for proving my point..

    No... I won't

    yea, that's what I said..

    You won't..

    Because you believe that ALL Trump voters are racist deplorables..

    I will say I believe there are Trump voters who are honest, and you prove daily that you're not one of them. LOL :)

    Says the stalker.... :D

  104. [104] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [103]

    Because you believe that ALL Trump voters are racist deplorables..

    More of your lies... so you have no real argument except your bullshit. Thanks for further proof of your ignorance.

    Says the stalker.... :D

    Ah, you have my pity... I got your history. I understand why that gets under your super-thin skin, and thanks for letting me know! Ochen zhal. :)

Comments for this article are closed.