NationStates

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2017 1:40 pm**

New haven america wrote:So Trump is taking his 21st golf trip since becoming President.

I seem to remember him saying that he would take any vacations and constantly got Obama for taking breaks...

Yes but that was Candidate Trump. He and President Trump are two completely different people.

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2017 1:45 pm**

Ism wrote:
New haven america wrote:So Trump is taking his 21st golf trip since becoming President.

I seem to remember him saying that he would take any vacations and constantly got Obama for taking breaks...

Yes but that was Candidate Trump. He and President Trump are two completely different people.

Trump and his surrogates are placing waaaaaay too much trust on the resilience of his cult of personality if they think constantly admitting to misleading the public isn't going to have consequences.

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2017 1:59 pm**

Liriena wrote:
Ism wrote:
Yes but that was Candidate Trump. He and President Trump are two completely different people.

Trump and his surrogates are placing waaaaaay too much trust on the resilience of his cult of personality if they think constantly admitting to misleading the public isn't going to have consequences.

Are they, though? A lot of people seem to not give a shit, find it hilarious, or unironically believe anything their God-Emperor tells them.

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2017 2:20 pm**

New haven america wrote:So Trump is taking his 21st golf trip since becoming President.

I seem to remember him saying that he would take any vacations and constantly got Obama for taking breaks...

Release Trump's golf scores!

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2017 2:32 pm**

Trump's tweet about tapes of conversations with Comey is being taken very seriously on Capitol Hill. In the wake of Trump refusing to confirm or deny that he has been taping White House conversations, several lawmakers are calling for him to turn over any tapes he might have made. Some key quotes from the article linked:

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said the White House must "clear the air" about whether there are any taped conversations.

"You can't be cute about tapes. If there are any tapes of this conversation, they need to be turned over," Graham told NBC's "Meet the Press" program...

...If there are recordings, Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah told the "Fox News Sunday" program it was "inevitable" that they would be subpoenaed and the White House would have to release them.

Lee, who was on Trump's list of potential replacements for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, also said recording conversations in the White House is "not necessarily the best idea."...

...Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said Trump must immediately provide Congress with any tapes and warned that destroying existing tapes would violate the law.

Schumer also said Senate Democrats are weighing whether to refuse to vote on a new FBI director until a special prosecutor is named to investigate Trump's potential ties to Russia.

One day, hopefully, Trump will learn that people take everything the President says seriously. Maybe hearing both sides of the aisle united against him for once will get it through the famous hairdo that implying you're secretly recording your own people is a bad idea.

I seriously doubt it, though.

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2017 2:43 pm**

New haven america wrote:So Trump is taking his 21st golf trip since becoming President.

I seem to remember him saying that he would take any vacations and constantly got Obama for taking breaks...

Trump is a hypocrite.

In other news, bears have been found to shit in woods and water slides confirmed to be both wet and awesome.

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2017 2:56 pm**

Ifreann wrote:
New haven america wrote:So Trump is taking his 21st golf trip since becoming President.

I seem to remember him saying that he would take any vacations and constantly got Obama for taking breaks...

Release Trump's golf scores!

Those won't be pretty...

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2017 3:31 pm**

New haven america wrote:
Ifreann wrote:Release Trump's golf scores!

Those won't be pretty...

Small score of a million points.

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2017 3:32 pm**

New haven america wrote:
Ifreann wrote:Release Trump's golf scores!

Those won't be pretty...

And does he use a belly putter? The public has a right to know!

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2017 5:07 pm**

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
New haven america wrote:Those won't be pretty...

Small score of a million points.

No, golf scores are the only time Trump has something biglier than Obama.

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2017 5:31 pm**

Ashmoria wrote:
Ifreann wrote:This too sounds like a better criticism than "X is a pre-existing condition".

maybe we understand it more than you do.

when "cesarean section" becomes are pre-existing condition we know that we have an upwards of 1/3 cesarean rate and that in the past pre-existing conditions lead to higher rates, denial of coverage or revocation of coverage.

Apparently I don't understand it properly either.

1. Obamacare stops insurers charging more (or denying coverage) for people with certain pre-existing conditions
2. If having had a caesarian section is listed as a pre-existing condition, then insurers can't charge more if they know about it, or deny coverage because they know about it.

What did I get wrong about that?

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2017 5:57 pm**

AiliAiliA wrote:
Ashmoria wrote:maybe we understand it more than you do.

when "cesarean section" becomes are pre-existing condition we know that we have an upwards of 1/3 cesarean rate and that in the past pre-existing conditions lead to higher rates, denial of coverage or revocation of coverage.

Apparently I don't understand it properly either.

1. Obamacare stops insurers charging more (or denying coverage) for people with certain pre-existing conditions
2. If having had a caesarian section is listed as a pre-existing condition, then insurers can't charge more if they know about it, or deny coverage because they know about it.

What did I get wrong about that?

The Republicans want to repeal Obamacare to allow insurers to charge more or outright deny coverage for pre-existing conditions such as c-sections?

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2017 6:04 pm**

Gauthier wrote:
AiliAiliA wrote:
Apparently I don't understand it properly either.

1. Obamacare stops insurers charging more (or denying coverage) for people with certain pre-existing conditions
2. If having had a caesarian section is listed as a pre-existing condition, then insurers can't charge more if they know about it, or deny coverage because they know about it.

What did I get wrong about that?

The Republicans want to repeal Obamacare to allow insurers to charge more or outright deny coverage for pre-existing conditions such as c-sections?

I'm not sure if the Senate will get rid of that rule though. It was pretty popular. But if they keep the rule and make certain things no longer, legally speaking, pre-existing condition, I think they would be able to discriminate based on that. I might be wrong, this isn't really a field I've much knowledge of.

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2017 6:06 pm**

Gauthier wrote:
AiliAiliA wrote:
Apparently I don't understand it properly either.

1. Obamacare stops insurers charging more (or denying coverage) for people with certain pre-existing conditions
2. If having had a caesarian section is listed as a pre-existing condition, then insurers can't charge more if they know about it, or deny coverage because they know about it.

What did I get wrong about that?

The Republicans want to repeal Obamacare to allow insurers to charge more or outright deny coverage for pre-existing conditions such as c-sections?

Well, from what I can tell, it's a tad more complicated than that. The AHCA will retain the ACA's provisions about preexisting conditions, but it will allow states to get a waiver that will allow insurers to temporarily take a person's medical history into account when determining the cost of healthcare for that person if they allow coverage to lapse for more than 2 months. Or if their coverage lapses through no fault of their own. It's still a terrible system, but as far as I know it's not quite as straightforwardly terrible as "The AHCA lets insurers charge more for preexisting conditions."

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2017 6:58 pm**

Sean Spicer's Press Conference the other day

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2017 7:02 pm**

How does 'James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations' not constitute blackmail?

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2017 7:04 pm**

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:How does "James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations" not constitute blackmail?

It has at best a very vague threat, and no demand, specific or otherwise.

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2017 7:06 pm**

Patridam wrote:
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:How does "James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations" not constitute blackmail?

It has at best a very vague threat, and no demand, specific or otherwise.

I took it as implied that he's demanding Comey not leak stuff to the media. Especially in light of the context.

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2017 7:11 pm**

Patridam wrote:
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:How does "James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations" not constitute blackmail?

It has at best a very vague threat, and no demand, specific or otherwise.

For a vague threat, its not very vague. More like, thinly veiled.

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2017 7:15 pm**

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:
Patridam wrote:
It has at best a very vague threat, and no demand, specific or otherwise.

I took it as implied that he's demanding Comey not leak stuff to the media. Especially in light of the context.

So you have what you interpreted as a threat, and then said interpretation led to you finding an implied but not actual demand. This could only be considered blackmail if everyone thought just like you.

Ism wrote:For a vague threat, its not very vague. More like, thinly veiled.

Well, it's a threat, sort of. It's not well veiled, but it is definitely vague, with no clarity what would happen to Comey.

But a threat does not really make a crime, although it's not presidential for sure. Blackmail would be more like, "If you release things that incriminate me, Comey, I would recommend you increase your life insurance coverage."

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2017 8:22 pm**

Trump surprised at Comey backlash.

I was going to make a smart ass remark at this, but I got nothing left.

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2017 8:28 pm**

Galloism wrote:Trump surprised at Comey backlash.

I was going to make a smart ass remark at this, but I got nothing left.

Is there anything our clueless President ISN'T surprised by?

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2017 8:29 pm**

Patridam wrote:
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:I took it as implied that he's demanding Comey not leak stuff to the media. Especially in light of the context.

So you have what you interpreted as a threat, and then said interpretation led to you finding an implied but not actual demand. This could only be considered blackmail if everyone thought just like you.

Ism wrote:For a vague threat, its not very vague. More like, thinly veiled.

Well, it's a threat, sort of. It's not well veiled, but it is definitely vague, with no clarity what would happen to Comey.

But a threat does not really make a crime, although it's not presidential for sure. Blackmail would be more like, "If you release things that incriminate me, Comey, I would recommend you increase your life insurance coverage."

I don't think that's blackmail, that just seems like another threat. Blackmail would be if Trump told Comey to/not to do something, or he would do/not do something which would somehow harm Comey. So there is a threat, but just as important there is the quid pro quo aspect as well.

Galloism wrote:Trump surprised at Comey backlash.

I was going to make a smart ass remark at this, but I got nothing left.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2017 8:36 pm**

Apparently Fight For the Future bought billboards in 4 congressman/woman's districts showing exactly how they sold you out.

They're mainly centered on the Internet thing, so it was about the selling off your Internet history thing. It said who they were, exactly how much they took from Telecom companies, and that they sold you out. Also gives you their phone number.

Posted: **Sun May 14, 2017 8:55 pm**

Corrian wrote:Apparently Fight For the Future bought billboards in 4 congressman/woman's districts showing exactly how they sold you out.

They're mainly centered on the Internet thing, so it was about the selling off your Internet history thing. It said who they were, exactly how much they took from Telecom companies, and that they sold you out. Also gives you their phone number.

I completely support actions like this.

NationStates

Trump MAGAthread VI