|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jul 26, 2017 10:52:57 GMT -5
Can we please call it the Affordable Healthcare Act? Calling it Obamacare politicizes it in a way that it doesn't need to be politicized. This isn't about Obama, nor is it about Democrats vs. Republicans. It's about finding the best way to ensure that hardworking Americans don't go bankrupt for getting cancer. I think it's just short hand on my part, and making it an acronym(ACA) makes it difficult to discern from the current Republican Affordable Care Act.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,409
|
Post by shaxper on Jul 26, 2017 11:43:16 GMT -5
Can we please call it the Affordable Healthcare Act? Calling it Obamacare politicizes it in a way that it doesn't need to be politicized. This isn't about Obama, nor is it about Democrats vs. Republicans. It's about finding the best way to ensure that hardworking Americans don't go bankrupt for getting cancer. I think it's just short hand on my part, and making it an acronym(ACA) makes it difficult to discern from the current Republican Affordable Care Act. And I'm positive that was the intent of the Republicans who drafted it. Let's not help them run an anti-informatiin smear campaign by adopting their terminology. Studies show that, a year back, the vast majority of voters who opposed "Obamacare" were in favor of preserving the Affordable Healthcare Act. They are the same thing, of course.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 26, 2017 12:03:20 GMT -5
So, now Trump is reversing anti-discriminatory actions at an unprecedented level. Last year, the Sec. of Defense announced a lifting on the ban of transgender serving in the military. There are estimates as high as 25,000 currently serving transgender, with other between 10 and 15,000. Now, someone who has never served a day in his life has stripped away their right to serve their country, openly and honorably. His proclaimed reasoning of medical costs is bulls#$%. His reasoning is bulls#$%. These are men and women honorably serving their country, not selling it out to Russians, corporate interests, or personal gain. The act of taking rights away is unconscionable. And how does he announce it? Does he take the podium and address the press face to face? No, the cowardly little sh@#$ does it another f#$%ing tweet! I served in the time when gay and lesbians were openly banned from the military, before Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I saw too many good people drummed out of the service due to fear and ignorance. The institution of that policy, a minor step that it was, put a stop to that (provided the servicemember kept quiet about their orientation). It was the right thing to do. Eventually, they progressed enough to fully protect those servicemembers. Now, a pampered, draft-dodging trust-funded, conniving, con artist, sexual predator, liar, self-absorbed, autocratic, mindless euphemism for genitalia says that a class of people aren't worthy to serve. I guess he missed the part about protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I didn't when I took my oath and neither did those servicemembers. Well said, cody! You and your words are a tribute to the highest ideals of our military and our country. Thank you. The sheer stupidity of Trump never ceases to amaze. Combat roles have been opened up for women and the first female candidates for the US Navy Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL school are in the pipeline. While the US is overcommitted, militarily, around the world, the service recognized they need to expand the roles of women. The DOD supported it and Congress acted. Now, Trump wants to cut off another, significant segment, while still maintaining military operations. Personally, I'd like to see the military operations cut back and more time spent on more peaceful methods; but, if you are going to have troops posted abroad, you can't just say except these people. This is incompetence on a staggering level, which is symptomatic of this administration. We knew they were in the pocket of corporate interests from the start and his cabinet bears that out. That has been par for the course since Reagan took office (and, quite frankly, has always been the case, when you talk about economic influence); but these chuckleheads even step on corporate toes, with things like this. Major corporations have been big players in expanding rights for the LGBT community, via corporate recognition of those relationships and orientations. They strongly lobbied in favor of recognizing gay marriage and other issues. Meanwhile, Trump continues to cater to a ridiculously narrow constituency. I never thought I'd see someone who made George W Bush look like a Rhodes Scholar and a reasonable president. Trump is beyond incompetent and falls into dangerous. He's even proven to be an inappropriate speaker for a gathering of Boy Scouts. A President of the United States who makes an ass of himself at a Boy Scout gathering. It's a sad day when a group of children are more mature than the adult speaking to them.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jul 26, 2017 12:38:23 GMT -5
Major corporations have been big players in expanding rights for the LGBT community, via corporate recognition of those relationships and orientations. They strongly lobbied in favor of recognizing gay marriage and other issues. Meanwhile, Trump continues to cater to a ridiculously narrow constituency. I'm not sure it's such a narrow constituency... There are still a lot of people who would love gay marriage to cease to exist, for Roe vs Wade to be toppled, and for social mores to go back to some kind of idealized 1950s. But more importantly than their numbers, these people are very adamant; meanwhile, while many companies helped expand LGBT rights, they did so because (a) it was the right thing to do, sure, but also (b) because it was good business. I've seen few companies for whom it was a major, major issue, the kind that would decide whether they give money to the next Trump campaign or not. This is probably a calculated move on the part of Trump: by lashing out at trans people, he pleases a not inconsequential part of his base, and the people he mostly angers would not vote for him anyway. As for the president of Exxon or the Koch brothers, I doubt they will change their colours over the issue of trans soldiers. Same here. The saddest part about that fiasco, to me, was the thousands of parents who cheered Trump as he was whining over the unfair treatment given him by the press and being as unpresidential as unpresidential can get.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 26, 2017 12:44:20 GMT -5
Cynically, I think this is a calculated move. This is a move to draw attention away from the Health Care vote, the Russian investigation, the Sessions issues, etc., etc. And as RR says it will shore up the base...and they really are base.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 26, 2017 13:14:09 GMT -5
And I had not put together that the Charlatan-in-Chief announced this on the 69th Anniversary of President Truman desegregating the armed forces.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Jul 26, 2017 13:32:25 GMT -5
And I had not put together that the Charlatan-in-Chief announced this on the 69th Anniversary of President Truman desegregating the armed forces. At what point do we get beyond charges of incompetence, stupidity, greed, and so on and recognize that the man is evil?
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Jul 26, 2017 14:12:21 GMT -5
We are past that. It's time for a full court press to pull together evidence for articles of impeachment. Problem is, even with a vote of impeachment, he would still have to be removed by the Senate. Barring some major acts of voting for the good of the public, vs having their part being the only one to have a president forcibly removed from office, it isn't likely. There are certainly enough legal grounds, starting with conflicts of interest.
|
|
|
Post by impulse on Jul 26, 2017 15:19:51 GMT -5
I think it's just short hand on my part, and making it an acronym(ACA) makes it difficult to discern from the current Republican Affordable Care Act. And I'm positive that was the intent of the Republicans who drafted it. Let's not help them run an anti-informatiin smear campaign by adopting their terminology. Studies show that, a year back, the vast majority of voters who opposed "Obamacare" were in favor of preserving the Affordable Healthcare Act. They are the same thing, of course. Pedantic correction - Obamacare is the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The new Republican-pushed bill is the Affordable Health Care Act (AHCA). If we're going to use the technical acronyms it will avoid confusion to use the correct ones.
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Jul 26, 2017 17:58:28 GMT -5
And I had not put together that the Charlatan-in-Chief announced this on the 69th Anniversary of President Truman desegregating the armed forces. At what point do we get beyond charges of incompetence, stupidity, greed, and so on and recognize that the man is evil? I would save the term "evil" for true purveyors of horror and atrocity, like Hitler, Idi Amin, and Pol Pot. To use it on a douchenozzle like Trump is overblown hyperbole, because he really is just painfully clueless, tone-deaf, and incompetent, a clown who has no sense of timing or propriety, but his actions, no matter how distressing and unpopular, aren't anywhere as grievous as genocide and mass murder. Don't think, however, that I'm in any way defending him, but if he is how we now define "evil", our standards have greatly fallen or it's been too long since the world has truly experienced it.
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Jul 26, 2017 18:18:24 GMT -5
I served in the time when gay and lesbians were openly banned from the military, before Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I saw too many good people drummed out of the service due to fear and ignorance. Another pre-DADT veteran here (Army). My service was pedestrian and unromantic. I was a humble clerk processing Articles 15, Courts Martial, changes in duty status, and Chapter discharges. Many documents passed across my desk that were patently unjust, targeting LGBT service members, some of whom were known to me, for no legitimate infraction aside from being "different." Slam_Bradley would likely not approve, but in some cases I admit to having "misplaced" key documents that would have harmed the service member. The ultimate effect was merely to delay the inevitable, but I was VERY young (barely 18) and it felt as if I were striking a blow for equality. And really, it was their fault for entrusting a teen-ager with such important business. To my credit though, I was never captured by an enemy combatant, making me the sort of soldier that Dolt45 prefers, I understand. So, win!
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Jul 26, 2017 18:22:41 GMT -5
I served in the time when gay and lesbians were openly banned from the military, before Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I saw too many good people drummed out of the service due to fear and ignorance. Another pre-DADT veteran here (Army). My service was pedestrian and unromantic. I was a humble clerk processing Articles 15, Courts Martial, changes in duty status, and Chapter discharges. Many documents passed across my desk that were patently unjust, targeting LGBT service members, some of whom were known to me, for no legitimate infraction aside from being "different." Slam_Bradley would likely not approve, but in some cases I admit to having "misplaced" key documents that would have harmed the service member. The ultimate effect was merely to delay the inevitable, but I was VERY young (barely 18) and it felt as if I were striking a blow for equality. And really, it was their fault for entrusting a teen-ager with such important business. To my credit though, I was never captured by an enemy combatant, making me the sort of soldier that Dolt45 prefers, I understand. So, win! I hope your tongue is firmly in your cheek there. I would have happily defended you had you gotten into trouble. Gleefully. While I think the Charlatan-in-Chief's remarks about McCain were in ridiculously bad taste that doesn't change my thoughts that McCain's charade as a "maverick is also ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Jul 26, 2017 18:40:32 GMT -5
I hope your tongue is firmly in your cheek there. I would have happily defended you had you gotten into trouble. Gleefully.
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jul 26, 2017 21:26:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jul 26, 2017 22:03:45 GMT -5
Medical costs associated with serving trans-gendered servicemen and service women: $8 million Medical costs associated with serving servicemen with erectile dysfunction: $41 million
Which one is a superfluous cost that is a great hindrance to the armed forces again?
|
|