Make American Great Again - page 12

I am an avid supporter of our President, Donald J Trump and am willing to respond to anyone who posts here. I would like to keep this thread free of name-calling (for anyone, including the... Read More

  1. by   GrumpyRN
    Quote from itsybitsy
    But when it's warm in the winter months, then it's climate change, right? Or when we have hurricanes, climate change again, right? Never weather when the agenda fits.

    Quote from itsybitsy
    Not to mention we are saving 230B from UN cuts. Another 2.5T without the Paris Accord.
    Do you actually understand what the Paris accord is?

    I told you in another forum that Trump lied and mislead about it. I even provided references.

    You are still giving out false information. Do not confuse weather with climate.

    USA's contribution to the Paris accord would have been $3B NOT $2.5T. That is $9.41 per person in the USA. UK pledged $18.77 per person and the highest pledge was from Sweden with $59.31 per person.

    I can't discuss America's internal politics as I am in Europe but seriously, Trump is seen as a joke here. We do laugh at him and what he says and does also his inability to string a sentence together. Nobody I know has any respect for him.
    Sadly, he is a dangerous joke.


    Reality Check: What do countries spend on climate fund? - BBC News

    5 questions you’ve wanted to ask about the Paris Agreement | Human Nature - Conservation International Blog

    What Is the Green Climate Fund and How Much Does the U.S. Actually Pay? - The New York Times

    The 97% consensus on global warming
  2. by   SmilingBluEyes
    Way too much cognitive dissonance from the OP for me to even begin to participate. I agree with some others; it's fruitless and pointless. This is not a debate.
  3. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from MunoRN
    The two reform bill Trump lobbied on behalf of congressional republicans for, on most days anyway.
    Quote from MunoRN
    This only discusses three amendments to the existing bill.

    Upton-Long: Increases the budget of funds for states (who have a waiver to re-design their markets), in order to offset the premiums for those with pre-existing conditions, who have not been insured. The budget increases $8B, for a total of $138B. STATES have the ability (if they applied a waiver) to use those funds for their residents, to lower their premiums/deductibles.

    Macarther: Letting states receive waivers to decrease premiums/not allow premiums to rise. It doesn't let states refuse residents based on pre-existing conditions, or price them out. This would not affect people with private or federal insurance. Only those using the market, ~7% of the U.S. population.

    McSally Bill: Holding members of congress to the same rules as the public, dispersing equally.

    Sorry, I'm not going to read a 172-page document. If you want to give specifics on what exactly you are referencing to when using this source, I'll look for them.

    So referring back to your original post,

    Quote from MunoRN
    Healthcare was one of Trump's most prominent campaign issues, he outlined his promises for the reforms he would support as:
    Quote from MunoRN
    No cuts to medicare or Medicaid,
    Your references don't point towards DJT cutting federal funding to these programs.

    Quote from MunoRN
    no increase to the population that is uninsured,
    Are you saying there will not be an increase in the amount of people insured? Well, considering DJT doesn't want the individual mandate, I don't think he promised this, unless I'm not understanding your claim correctly.

    Quote from MunoRN
    everyone will be insured,
    Again, see above.

    Quote from MunoRN
    no increase in insurance premiums for anyone,
    I don't actually know if he promised this. However, yes, the amendments do state premiums may be increased for those with pre-existing conditions who do not currently have insurance, and ONLY those people. Again, this doesn't include private or federal insurance users, only that 7%. However, those increases would only be for a full calendar year, and after a year of continuous coverage, premiums then lower back to standard rates. It's an attempt to keep people insured and dissuade people from just getting insurance after they have been diagnosed with a condition. Additionally, the funds increased (Upton-Long), the $8B, is for this purpose. For states to apply to help their residents have lower premiums for that year.

    Quote from MunoRN
    and improved quality of care.
    As in providing essential benefits? That's not really improved quality of care... That sort of depends on where you receive care, not what your insurance is. What and where your insurance covers could impact care, and quality in a sense that insurances may only cover certain providers/facilities. However, it's against the law to prevent someone from getting insurance. It's also illegal to restrict essential coverage, as one amendment states the waiver to do so must be in combination with strict actions and reasonings as to why, the website states.

    Quote from MunoRN
    The reform plans that he supported didn't just fall short of his lofty goals, they completely contradicted them, so either he blatantly lied or he lacks basic knowledge of healthcare policy.
    I suppose of the ones you posted that he supported, it is not all he promised, but he has 7 years left... I don't know what ones contradicted them, besides higher premiums, which is a way to decrease the uninsured and only applied to 7% of the country, for ONLY the first year on coverage. Also, again, he increased funds to help states with those residents.

    Quote from MunoRN
    The individual mandate was probably the most conservative part of Obamacare, the idea that if something is required to be provided for you then you should be responsible for paying for it is core republican ideology. What the individual mandate does is say that if you have the potential to end up in the hospital and rack up hundreds of thousands in costs then you should be required to ensure that those costs will get paid if you're able to. Without the individual mandate, freeloaders get a free pass to shift those costs to others, even though they may be more capable of paying into their own potential costs than others are to pay for the freeloaders.
    I understand this. However, if one doesn't want health insurance, that it their choice and liberty over themselves. It shouldn't be mandated even if the uninsured visit the ER everyday. My views, myself, are what you explain, that if you seek care, you should pay. However, I also understand the infringements on ones livelihood, by forcing one to buy insurance for their own body.

    As explained above, the amendments have put in provisions so that if you don't have insurance, you will pay more that first year if you have existing conditions and then get insurance. I think that it is a way to not force someone to retain insurance, but does make them make up some of the difference (of not having insurance before being diagnosed), once they need it.

    Even if you are a "freeloader", with no insurance, but have the funds to have insurance, you still get billed, no matter what. Yes, the rest of us have to pay initially, but the bill doesn't just go away. It may follow them forever, may never even get paid. But, that is their life of constant collectors and such. This is the case for citizens. However, on an entirely different issue, for illegal aliens, there is no trail to follow as they aren't documented. So THOSE people are the ones we forever end up paying for, and WILL not get paid back. Hence one of the reasons for wanting to enforce our borders and deport illegal aliens.

    For what it's worth, I don't really care about any of these except the McSally bill. I think DJT wants to go further with healthcare reform, but he obviously got blocked this last attempt. So we will continue to wait.
  4. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from MunoRN
    Like the majority of the middle class, my increased share of the debt is more than the reduction in taxes, so even starting next year I'm essentially losing money. Even if we don't count increased federal debt against the cuts, the relatively small tax cuts for the middle class mostly expire by 2024, meaning either no cut or actually increase in taxes. Even when looking at the cuts as a percentage of incomes, the cuts give far more to the already wealthy, the middle class will initially get a tax cut of between 0.5 and 1.2%, falling to at or near 0% by 2027, while the top 0.1 to 1% get cuts that start at 8% now, and rise to about 10% by 2027.

    Think of our federal finances like a shared credit card. Trump/Republican tax reform charges more than a trillion dollars to that shared credit card and gives most of it to the top 1%, and gives an initial token amount to everybody else initially, and then later actually increases everybody else's share of the debt that didn't primarily benefit them. It's essentially looting the US treasury.

    Yes, the debt has already been increasing, but I don't agree that means we should drastically increase it, and about a third of the increase in debt over the last 10 years is thanks to the Bush tax cuts, so clearly it should be a concern.

    Trump hasn't actually made in progress in reducing the deficit or debt, he's significantly increased the debt with tax reform, and his budget proposals increase spending, not decrease it. And the actual costs are likely to be more since he offsets some of his spending increases with cuts to medicare/Medicaid, which are effectively cuts to hospitals, and when this inevitably results in significant hospital closures then we're likely to spend that money anyway, so his actual spending is likely even more.

    The GOP's model family gets a tax cut in year 1 ... and a tax hike in year 7 - The Washington Post
    Is the Trump tax plan a big win for middle class? Not so much - Sep. 29, 217
    The first link does show an "increase" in taxes from what the initial cuts were. However, you aren't going to be paying MORE than you do now. You are going to be paying MORE than what you will in 2018. The 0 line, is when you are paying essentially half of the tax cuts, it's not where your taxes currently are. It is correct in that it is front loaded. Every year, you pay a larger percentage of taxes, however, in the ten years that the plan has been passed, your taxes won't be larger than you pay now.

    From the graph WAPO posted, the last 3 years (2025-2027), cumulatively, you will pay essentially $1200 more in taxes that you will in just 2018. In 2027, you'll only pay $500 more than you will in 2018, so you'll still have a tax cut of ~700$ (based on the example) from 2017. So in 2027, you're taxes will still be lower than they were in 2017.

    Additionally, these articles were posted in September and November, respectively. One to two months before the reform was pasted. The articles post a lot of assumptions, and neither of them update on the actual reform that was passed.

    Quote from MunoRN
    We never actually announced specific strikes against ISIS. The forming of an 18 country coalition was known publicly, but that's part of the process of developing a coalition. But no, Obama never said "We're bombing X site tomorrow".

    Trump on the other hand actually did tell the people we were bombing that we were bombing them. After a well publicized apparent use of chemical weapons by Syrian forces, Trump ordered the bombing of the airbase the attack was launched from, but notified Russia (the airbase was staffed with Russian military personal allied with Syria) hours before the attack, allowing the Syrians and Russian staff at the base to move everything of value first, the airbase was back up and running the next morning, launching additional attacks against the same village.
    It wasn't just forming a coalition, it was MSM reporting on what the administration was doing. It was a lot like what you pointed out, happened in Syria. The difference was, DJT actually did something that showed force. It wasn't to start anything, only to remove a chemical weapons base, to prevent other people from dying. They didn't want to destabilize Syria, they wanted to stop the targeting of Assad's own people.

    Quote from MunoRN
    According to Trump, the unemployment rate isn't useful in determining if the job market is improving or not. New jobs are a more useful measure, and based on job creation Trump hasn't improved on Obama's trend. I suppose we could give him credit for at least not imploding the job market (although tax reform might do just that), but I don't really consider lack of abject failure as a "success".
    It's a non-issue to you then if to you, it's not a failure nor a success. You are neutral to this point, no?
  5. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from BCgradnurse
    I called the ideas misogynistic, not the supporters. Comprende the difference???
    You said DJT supporters are "ashamed to admit that they harbor some of the same misogynist beliefs". So if you have misogynistic beliefs, you're not a misogynist? Got it. Does that apply to racism too?

    Quote from BCgradnurse
    You are so quick to take offense. I can tell by your frantic posting that you're mad. Why so mad? Just because the majority of people here don't agree with you and don't support your president, and don't feel your sources are reliable or valid?
    I'm not taking offense. That's not my angle. I was pointing out how you said DJT supporters are misogynists, which was a name you were calling other people. I also would have let it go, but you seemed really upset that I said comprehension wasn't someone's strong suit. So I thought I would point out your own woes.

    I'm also not frantically posting. I post when I get on the forum. I read the responses and respond to them, usually at one time, of the posts on here at the time I get on. Then I leave, live my life, and when I decide to check on the forum again, I reply again. And the cycle repeats. That's usually how forums work. People reply and comment on threads. Many times, replying to multiple posts during the same visit. Is that hard to understand?

    I'm not mad at all. If my intentions were that I wanted all people to think like me, then I maybe would get mad because my intentions were not met. However, that's not my intention. I invited people to show their side and reasons why they think the way they do while I reveal my reasonings. You don't have to believe it, I've said that before. But just because you don't believe it doesn't make it untrue.

    Quote from BCgradnurse
    You can choose to live in your Trump bubble. That's your right as an American. But don't think for one minute that you're going to change the minds of many thoughtful, intelligent people. We just don't buy his crap or yours.
    I base my opinions on facts. Whether you want to willingly change your mind is up to you. I'm only providing sources for my reasonings and asking the same for other people who have a different opinion based on different sources.

    Your post seems really aggressive. We are just talking. Nothing said on this forum will change anything of importance in the political sphere. So can you stick to the topic at hand without derailing about your fantasies of "Drumpf" supporters getting upset about your posts?
  6. by   itsybitsy
    [QUOTE=MunoRN;9681707]I think you're maybe mischaracterizing views you disagree with. Where are you getting that non-Trump-style conservative's view on any of these topics is the opposite of yours, for instance on the topic of "protecting our borders" that generally non-Trump supporters believe in "open borders"?

    Mischaracterizing views I disagree with? What views have I characterized period? I was replying to BCgradnurse when she said,
    Quote from BCgradnurse
    Well, there's a lot of us here who support those things. Does that mean you'll be leaving?????
    She was replying to another poster who said this,
    Quote from Mini2544
    My reason for supporting DJT and his ideologies? Because I am an American. His policies out America and Americans first. He has tossed out over 300 job killing Obama regulations and that is why the stock market is up 5000 points. I support protecting our borders. I support people coming into the country through the LAWS THAT ALREADY EXIST. I support our law enforcement doing their job and not being scrutinized for it. I support people working and not relying on gift assistance for their entire lives. I support capitalism. I support freedom of religion and the ability to keep God in education. I support taking care of our own citizens and veterans. Not everyone else's. I don't need to go into a further dissertation on what falls into those categories. There is a fundamental moral difference between myself and a progressive. Anyone who supports open borders, sanctuary cities, really anything the past administration supported is not someone I care enough to even have a convo with. It's pointless. I think they have a serious mental imbalance
    Mini2544 talked about two different stances. Not allowing illegal aliens versus supporting open borders. BCgradnurse said she supported those things. So I asked which one, no illegal immigration or open borders? It really is simple.

    I didn't infer that conservatives had opposite views of myself. I also didn't infer they have similar views. I just asked what view BCgradnurse supports as there were two separate ones, and she didn't specify.

    This sentence, "for instance on the topic of "protecting our borders" that generally non-Trump supporters believe in "open borders"?" Doesn't make sense to me. I think you are trying to say that Trump supporters want to protect our borders and you are saying I'm inferring that non-Trump supporters want open borders? If that's the case, again, I never inferred anything. I asked BCgradnurse what her views were on that. Because open borders and being for the wall are two separate views on the matter of immigration.

    Quote from MunoRN
    As for "sanctuary cities", I'm all for reducing the backlog in the deportation process, but the Constitution is very clear that it's the federal government's responsibility to enforce and more importantly pay for what it costs to make this process happen, why should cities be required to pay for something they are constitutionally protected from having to do?
    Well, I think there is a different between doing nothing and embracing it. Why would you call yourself a "sanctuary city"? It's a place of safety. If you are breaking our law, why should you be safe from the law? THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW. Why shouldn't the police of each city be arresting them? The cities prohibit police officers from upholding the law. Sure, they don't want to do the work for the federal government, but they are still breaking a law that is an arresting offense.

    Case Study: Portland, OR state law is to not enforce federal murder laws. The FBI was investigating a serial murder, that killed a senetor, that is on the run. They televise the face and ethnicity of the murder, but the police officer didn't see the name. A police officer sees the broadcast this morning. Later that day, he pulls over a car for having a tail-light out. He recognizes the driver as the serial murder that was televised that morning. After asking for ID, he gives him a warning and lets him go. The officer couldn't ask for the murderers ethnicity, as that is against state law. The police officers' department was not investigating that person, so he shouldn't have to arrest the serial murder, as that is the FBIs' job.

    Would you stand by that? No one is asking for sting operations or information about smuggler rings. But if someone is breaking the law, let the police do their job and arrest or cite them. It's not that hard.
  7. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from Lil Nel
    Sorry, itsty-bitsy, you aren't more intelligent than a Pulitzer Prize winning author. No matter what you may personally think.
    Okay...? Did I say I was?

    Quote from Lil Nel
    Your views are perfectly laughable.

    I can't read them anymore. My sides hurt from laughing.

    Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.
    Cool.
  8. by   itsybitsy
    Quote from Lil Nel
    I don't even know why I feel the need to address such lies and misinformation as put forth by itsy-bitsy, but here it goes.

    John Adams was introduced to Abigail Smith when Ms.Smith was aged 15, by his friend Richard Cranch, whom eventually married Mary Smith, Abigail's sister. So, dear, itsy-bitsy, the pair didn't know each other for years, and weren't cousins. In fact, Abigail's mother opposed the match because she felt marrying Adams was beneath Abigail.
    Since you apparently missed it.
    Abigail Adams - U.S. First Lady - Biography.com

    Quote from Lil Nel
    And my response to your HEARING, was in direct response to your attack on BCs ability to read. Please try and be honest. So please don't try and "play" as anything else.
    I was honest. I re-said exactly what I originally said. I don't know what you think I "play as".

    Quote from Lil Nel
    I will say this much for you, you inspire me to donate as much money as possible to Democratic candidates, and to work very, very hard for the defeat of ANY Republican candidate who spouts the views that you do.
    And what if a Democrat spouts the views that I apparently do? Or are they all angels?
  9. by   traumaRUs
    Closed for staff review

close