[AMV] President Trump #272

quote:

Op maandag 27 februari 2017 09:02 schreef t-8one het volgende:
Wel bijzonder altijd, een politieke partij die schreeuwt dat de overheid kleiner moet en er minder regels moeten komen en vervolgens van alles gaat lopen verbieden.

quote:

Op maandag 27 februari 2017 09:02 schreef t-8one het volgende:
Wel bijzonder altijd, een politieke partij die schreeuwt dat de overheid kleiner moet en er minder regels moeten komen en vervolgens van alles gaat lopen verbieden.

quote:

Nominee for Navy Secretary withdraws

President Donald Trump’s nominee for Navy secretary, Philip Bilden, withdrew from consideration Sunday, becoming the second Pentagon pick unable to untangle his financial investments in the vetting process.

"Mr. Philip Bilden has informed me that he has come to the difficult decision to withdraw from consideration to be secretary of the Navy," Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said in a statement. "This was a personal decision driven by privacy concerns and significant challenges he faced in separating himself from his business interests."

Mattis added that he would make a recommendation to the White House for a new nominee "in the coming days."

Bilden, who built his career in Hong Kong with the investment firm HarbourVest, was a surprise pick for the Navy post but had been Mattis’ preferred candidate.

Yet like billionaire investment banker Vincent Viola, who withdrew his nomination to be secretary of the Army earlier this month, Bilden ran into too many challenges during a review by the Office of Government Ethics to avoid potential conflicts of interest, according to sources familiar with the decision.

"I informed secretary of Defense Mattis with regret that I respectfully withdraw from consideration as Nominee for the 76th secretary of the Navy," Bilden said in a statement Sunday.

"I fully support the President's agenda and the Secretary's leadership to modernize and rebuild our Navy and Marine Corps, and I will continue to support their efforts outside of the Department of the Navy," Bilden continued. "However, after an extensive review process, I have determined that I will not be able to satisfy the Office of Government Ethics requirements without undue disruption and materially adverse divestment of my family's private financial interests."

Bilden's withdrawal leaves Mattis with just Air Force Secretary nominee Heather Wilson, a former New Mexico Republican congresswoman, in line for a top political post at the Pentagon.

Her Senate confirmation hearing has not yet been scheduled, and her ethics agreement has not been finalized with the Office of Government Ethics.

Bilden served as an intelligence officer in the Army Reserve from 1986 to 1996 and is on the board of directors of the U.S. Naval Academy Foundation and the board of trustees of the Naval War College Foundation.

He moved to Hong Kong in 1996 to launch HarbourVest’s Asian subsidiary and recently retired from the firm, according to a White House biography released when he was nominated.

Last week White House press secretary Sean Spicer denied a report that Bilden could be withdrawing. “Just spoke with him and he is 100% commited (sic) to being the next SECNAV pending Senate confirm,” Spicer tweeted.

Spicer's earlier denial came the same week that National Security Adviser Michael Flynn resigned from his post, and retired Vice Adm. Robert Harward declined to take the job. That ultimately went to Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster. Trump’s first pick for Labor Secretary, Andrew Puzder, also withdrew that same week.

quote:

Op maandag 27 februari 2017 11:57 schreef Refragmental het volgende:
In dit topic:

Trump is Hitler, Trump is autoritair, Trump is een dictator.

De feiten:

Trump heft Obama's transgender mandaat op, is van mening dat dit niet de taak is van de federale overheid. Minder regelgeving.

Trump stelt Neil Gorsuch aan. Een man die bekend staat als tegenstander van executive branch overreach.

Trump wil Flynn vervangen met McMaster. Een oud-veteraan die van mening is dat de militaire leiders altijd eerlijk en correct moeten handelen, ook al gaat dit tegen de wensen van de president in.

Toen de 9th circuit Trump's executive order blokte beloofde Trump zijn executive order opnieuw te beoordelen en herschrijven. Dit in tegenstelling tot bijvoorbeeld een Obama, die bij zulke blokkades rechtstreeks naar de supreme court ging om de president meer macht te geven en zo de 9th circuit te passeren.

Inderdaad, wat een nare dictator is het toch.

quote:

TRUMPCARE VS. OBAMACARE
Americans don’t want to lose the benefits they have gained, and Republicans are hearing about it.

The pitchforks are changing hands. In 2009, it was Democratic members of Congress supporting health-care reform who were set upon by outraged constituents. When they passed the Affordable Care Act anyway, it cost their party control of Congress in the 2010 midterm elections. House Republicans subsequently voted more than fifty times to repeal or cripple the A.C.A. Nineteen Republican-led states spurned the offer of federal funds to expand Medicaid coverage. In January, Donald Trump’s first act as President was to order government agencies to avoid implementing, as much as is legally possible, what has become known as Obamacare.

But Obamacare, it turns out, has done a lot of good. It guarantees that people with preëxisting health conditions cannot be rejected by insurers or charged more than others. It has reduced the number of uninsured people by twenty million. It has increased access to primary care, specialty care, surgery, medicines, and treatment for chronic conditions. Patients are less likely to skip needed care because of the cost. As a result, according to studies conducted at Harvard, the A.C.A. is saving tens of thousands of lives each year.

Now Republicans in Congress are facing the wrath of constituents who don’t want to lose those gains. Conservatives have had to back off from their plan to repeal Obamacare now and worry about replacement later. Instead, they must grapple with what they have tried to ignore: the complexities of our health-care system, especially in the four vital areas of employer-sponsored coverage, Medicaid, the individual insurance market, and taxes.

Half of Americans get their health coverage through their employer. For them, the A.C.A. brought such popular changes as uncapped coverage, inclusion of children up to the age of twenty-six, and requirements that insurers cover not only primary care but also pediatric dental and vision care, mental-health care, and, with no co-payments, preventive care. The Republicans probably won’t risk eliminating these provisions—except for contraceptive coverage—but they dislike the measures that have kept employers providing health benefits: tax penalties for big companies that don’t; tax credits for small businesses that do.

It was Obamacare’s dramatic expansion of Medicaid, in participating states, to all Americans living near the official poverty line that produced the largest reductions in the uninsured. Many Republicans have vowed to cut back the program’s funding, and to send the money to states as a lump sum, or “block grant.” This approach, however, is apt to throw millions out of coverage and many states into fiscal crisis, and key Republican governors and senators are opposing it.

Republicans claim that the program is in a death spiral. It isn’t; enrollment has held constant. But there is a need to draw in younger, healthier people to offset the costs of older, sicker people and keep the premiums steady. Doing so depends on promoting HealthCare.gov widely and enforcing the tax penalty for people who don’t sign up. The President, however, has issued a raft of contradictory directives that ultimately instruct the government to do neither. As a result, more and more insurers are saying that they will pull out of the exchanges, risking the collapse of the individual market.

Having promised to get rid of the insurance mandate, Republicans are considering alternatives, but so far they are all inadequate. A requirement for people to maintain “continuous coverage”—to take an example supported by the new Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan—would mean that people who lose their insurance temporarily, because they, say, change jobs or suffer a financial setback, would also lose their preëxisting-condition protections. For these people and for others left behind, Price and Ryan advocate state-run “high-risk pools.” But, in the thirty-five states that offered high-risk pools to the uninsurable before the A.C.A., inadequate funding delivered terrible coverage, with extremely high premiums and deductibles, and annual limits as low as seventy-five thousand dollars. Hardly anyone signed up.

For orthodox Republicans, the central issue is, of course, taxes. Obamacare increased them, particularly for high-income individuals and for industries that profit from the expansion of coverage, to pay for the costs of reform. (The A.C.A. actually reduces the deficit.) Many Republicans have made cutting those taxes their top priority; others see preserving coverage as the imperative. Each side thinks the other is committing political suicide. But, with so many Americans beginning to recognize how much they stand to lose, the political equations are shifting.

Governance is forcing Republicans to confront the reality that repeal without replacement is untenable. In a stalemate, Congress would likely need to delay repeal and, to reassure skittish insurers, focus on small-scale repairs, such as affirming that subsidies will continue to be funded, and either enforcing the existing mandate or revising it so that more young and healthy people sign on. (For instance, healthy people could be charged an extra ten per cent on premiums if they forgo insurance for a year, the same as the penalty for elderly people who refuse Medicare Part B.) In addition, the states that sat out the Medicaid expansion in order to thwart President Obama would be free to join in under a Republican Administration, as many would like to. “Insurance for everybody,” Trump has vowed. A Trumpcare compromise could yet bring us a step closer to it.

But legislators have no time to waste. Insurers must decide by April whether to offer a plan for the exchanges in 2018, and at what price. That requires certainty about the future. Pitchforks have their uses, but crafting health-care policy calls for more delicate instruments. The basic functioning of the health-care system is at stake. So are American lives.

quote:

Op maandag 27 februari 2017 11:57 schreef Refragmental het volgende:
In dit topic:

Trump is Hitler, Trump is autoritair, Trump is een dictator.

De feiten:

Trump heft Obama's transgender mandaat op, is van mening dat dit niet de taak is van de federale overheid. Minder regelgeving.

quote:

Trump stelt Neil Gorsuch aan. Een man die bekend staat als tegenstander van executive branch overreach.

quote:

Trump wil Flynn vervangen met McMaster. Een oud-veteraan die van mening is dat de militaire leiders altijd eerlijk en correct moeten handelen, ook al gaat dit tegen de wensen van de president in.

quote:

Toen de 9th circuit Trump's executive order blokte beloofde Trump zijn executive order opnieuw te beoordelen en herschrijven. Dit in tegenstelling tot bijvoorbeeld een Obama, die bij zulke blokkades rechtstreeks naar de supreme court ging om de president meer macht te geven en zo de 9th circuit te passeren.

quote:

Inderdaad, wat een nare dictator is het toch.

quote:

Op maandag 27 februari 2017 11:57 schreef Refragmental het volgende:

Trump heft Obama's transgender mandaat op, is van mening dat dit niet de taak is van de federale overheid. Minder regelgeving.

quote:

Trump stelt Neil Gorsuch aan. Een man die bekend staat als tegenstander van executive branch overreach.

quote:

Trump wil Flynn vervangen met McMaster. Een oud-veteraan die van mening is dat de militaire leiders altijd eerlijk en correct moeten handelen, ook al gaat dit tegen de wensen van de president in.

quote:

Toen de 9th circuit Trump's executive order blokte beloofde Trump zijn executive order opnieuw te beoordelen en herschrijven.

quote:

Op zondag 26 februari 2017 12:47 schreef Refragmental het volgende:

[..]

Oh, ik ben pro-trump omdat ik sommige acties van hem kan waarderen. En sommige acties van anti-trumpers niet kan waarderen?

quote:

Op maandag 27 februari 2017 11:57 schreef Refragmental het volgende:
In dit topic:

Trump is Hitler,

quote:

Op maandag 27 februari 2017 12:45 schreef Dagonet het volgende:

[..]

Waar dan? De naam is afgelopen week één keer eerder genoemd, niet in relatie tot Trump.

quote:

Op maandag 27 februari 2017 11:57 schreef Refragmental het volgende:
In dit topic:

Trump is Hitler, Trump is autoritair, Trump is een dictator.

De feiten:

[..]

quote:

Op maandag 27 februari 2017 12:06 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

New Yorker

quote:

Op maandag 27 februari 2017 13:01 schreef Re het volgende:

[..]

dit gaat ze echt wel wat vingers kosten qua snijwerk

quote:

Op maandag 27 februari 2017 12:52 schreef Monolith het volgende:

[..]

Het is een terugkerende trend in deze reeks. Men walst het topic binnen met drieëndertig stromannen en komt met een gebrekkige argumentatie tegen die stromannen. Van echte inhoudelijke discussie is geen sprake.

quote:

Op maandag 27 februari 2017 12:59 schreef Euribob het volgende:

[..]

Is het nou klaar met dat geziek over de uitspraken in dit topic? Je hebt alle recht om Trumpfan te zijn en te vinden wat je wil, maar alle mensen die het niet met je eens zijn wegzetten als een stel simplisten die ze allemaal niet op een rijtje hebben verpest de discussie.

Nee je bent niet de enige die zich daar schuldig aan maakt, maar je bent wel een van de weinige die elke keer het topic binnenkomt met een dergelijke denigrerende opmerking naar iedereen die jou mening niet deelt. Kap ermee.

quote:

Op maandag 27 februari 2017 13:21 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Nog even los van het feit dat niemand Trump heeft vergeleken met Hitler, noch hem een dictator heeft genoemd.

quote:

Op maandag 27 februari 2017 11:57 schreef Refragmental het volgende:
Toen de 9th circuit Trump's executive order blokte beloofde Trump zijn executive order opnieuw te beoordelen en herschrijven. Dit in tegenstelling tot bijvoorbeeld een Obama, die bij zulke blokkades rechtstreeks naar de supreme court ging om de president meer macht te geven en zo de 9th circuit te passeren.

Inderdaad, wat een nare dictator is het toch.