Trump Wins!!!!!

Amy. The main problem with that meme is the fallacy that "Obama Phone" is a thing. Here is the actual history. There was a program instated by 40 (not 44) to give low or no cost Land Lines to the poor so they could have phone numbers to find jobs in 1984. 42 expanded it. 43 (not 44) expanded that to cell phones. All parts of Lifeline (the actual name) were in action by 2008 or before. In 2012 though, Obama's FCC started looking into the waste and fraud. The "Free Phone" is completely the Cell Companies competing for that business.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp

 

So. That was one woman. Then the Conservative side of the media played that over and over. Even if people elected him for that. it was not something he actually did. My response was more comparing something Trump enacted in office to something that Obama had no part of. Three of the last 4 before him built that whole program. And "Market Competition" for the Federal Dollars for Lifeline created "data included" and "Free Phones".

Should that program be looked at and made sure there is no fraud or waste? Yes. Should it be done away with? No. That is a subsidy that actually helps people get jobs. You can not get a job if you have no phone number. But it should be minutes and texting (I have sent "Call me about the job" followups before to candidates). Because I know a lot of people, just like I do, do not answer "unknown numbers".

 

The problem there is there is just enough people on the FC to knock it down if they dont get their way and a few Dems dont join. There were enough moderates who won by a thin enough margin that if they sided with the FC their days could be numbered (2018) if enough people were unhappy. The problem is, ironically, Obama was their shield for a split in the party. They could say "We cant do this and that because he will just veto and we cant beat it." Turns out the problem was the Moderates vs the Freedom Caucus. But they did not have recognize that as long as the "veto" was on the table. R seats in NY and CA are vastly different from R seats in UT, WY and KS.

 

Silver lining - regardless of what happens, Hillary is not President.

 

Let blacken that a little. If the Rs dont get together, and the only way I see that is possibly speaker Ryan telling the FC to sit down, shut up and work with the middle? There may be only a Minority Leader Ryan left. And if that does not happen and civil war within continues? The Ds could put up someone worse. President Bernie?

The honest truth is, and I say this all the time. THe government can NOT run like a business as we think of it. I knew this when Mike Bloomberg tried it as mayor. Inevitably CEOs in office forget they are NOT the final voice. The Courts and Legislature are equals that can unilaterally shut the "CEO in Chief" down. Lets look at Bloomies "Soda ban". The City Council told him "Hell no!". So he just CEOed himself an order to the NYC Heath Department to make a new rule doing what he wanted. And the courts shut his ass down.

A business owner in the Exec branch chair has trouble adjusting to the fact their are ONE voice. Not THE voice. That the other 2 branches are not there to enforce his will. That is the real difference. Trump sometimes comes across like he thinks that Congress is his Executive Advisory Board. Who suggest then obey his commands. ANd the the courts are there to defend his position, like his personal legal department.

 

I see his next REAL test happening in 2 months. Once Barron is done for the year, does he MAKE Milania and Barron move to DC full time.

It bothers me that we all of a sudden accept that there is a WH, White House North (Trump Tower) and South (Maro Lago).

 

I have a slightly different take on this. I don't like what the Republicans did on this bill to end the ACA, I think that they were stupid in the fact that they were unable to pass it. But I understand that I'm not going to agree with everything that they do. I can't say if it was good or bad, because I'm not familiar with the contents of this bill. But I think of the Democrats, whether they agreed with the Bill or disagreed with it, whether they thought it was the greatest thing on earth or that it would cause the downfall of mankind, if the Democrat's leadership told them to vote for it they would. I'm willing to accept the diversity of thought of the Republicans over the single mindedness of the Democrats.

 

The problem is, here, you have a faction who wont vote for any Healthcare bill that is much short of "Free Market Decides with a BAN on any future laws". And that is 29 seats. Only 28 are needed ATM to kill a bill with the Dems. And if the Rs vote with the 29. There are enough that had close elections who could lose them in 18 if they side with the FC. As I pointed out, a NY or CA dem is different from a midwest one. And if too many "moderate seats" are lost? The Rs lose the House. Their best bet would be to talk to the Dems and "fix" ACA rather than "Repeal ACA and pass our own new bill". They only need 28 moderates (There were Ds who were close too) on the D side to win.

In the end. We need to go back to where Congress worked together. Not "Resist and block unless we are in power". They are there to serve their little "kingdom of voters". Not the PARTY behind their name. And a NY, NJ, CA R is not REQUIRED to make the citizens of Kansas happy. Peter King (R) serves a portion of Long Island. He is there to represent them. Not the "Party Pillars". He sure as hell does not answer to people one town over from his district, let alone 2000 miles away.

 

From what I hear, several members of the Freedom Caucus were fed up with the results. A couple of members have already quit the caucus.

 

Aaahh a liberal, hiss hiss. LOL. I really don't care if you are a liberal or conservative, though I draw the line at the greenies. I think he miscalculated, he probably thought that the politicians would make intelligent choices based on a common goal. Since this has failed he will recalculate making adjustments and continue on. The next objective will be different. Being a businessman allows him to adjust and make changes on past failures. A politician would do the same thing over and over without change.

 

It's okay as long as you are not a radical liberal, and can think for yourself.