Fake review from a failing consumer magazine! :woohoo:
Yeah---run by a bunch of liberal loser scientists who are out to destroy a wonderful health care plan. They are conspirators who are just out to undermine the administration. They have been wrong about a lot of things. Sad losers.
We've already got two damn posts with Trump in the name that I have to look at all damn day. Please delete this crap thread.
Don't you people have anything better to do?
Trump is president. Get over it. You can try again next time.
I've gotta see this crap on Facebook and everywhere else. Do you guys really need to talk about Trump here, too?
I agree but Chelle mind your language! I haven't seen you speak like that before!
I don't ever use that kind of language and I'm angry at myself for using it. I'm just so sick of all of this, though. There's no escaping it. They work it into television shows and everything else.
And most people who post about politics never read past the headlines, so they have no idea what all the little words underneath have to say. They have strong opinions about things they know little about. I'm just sick of it.
Now I'm going to go wash my own mouth out with soap.
And if you use that kind of language in the other forum I'll mod edit your butt. 
Feel free to mod edit that rant, David!
I don't f--in care what language you use. As long as it's somewhat meaningful, not flaming, not hate-speech, etc. My general opinion on swear words is that they can be quite expressive when used correctly, like when talking about Trump!
I think we've become so desensitized to politics that we haven't appreciated what actually happened today.
-
The FBI & NSA Directors, as well as the Dept of Justice, all confirmed that the current President of the USA effectively lied when he accused President Obama of conducting surveillance against him.
-
Despite that, the current President of the United States stood by his assertions.
-
The Director of the FBI, after reaffirming that the Russian government had actively interfered in the election to ensure that Trump won, confirmed that they were investigating whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
This is a constitutional crisis. It has nothing to do with being a Democrat or Republican. It has to do with there being proven lying by the current President and enough to warrant an FBI investigation into traitorous behavior by the Trump campaign who are now running the country.
I agree---serious event. At the very least, if Trump did not lie when he accused Obama of a felony, Trumb exhibited disturbing mental behavior which indicates that he did not know the difference between right and wrong while making the accusation. There is no way out.
Lying by politicians is nothing new. I think we, as a nation, through proper existing procedures, need to consider if the statements, taken in part and overall, have a deleterious effect on our national interest, And if so, what is the proper action, for us as a people, in our national interest we as a nation, need to take.
I think there is an important distinction to be made between statements made in a personal capacity and statements made in an official capacity.
As a practical matter that can be hard to make sometimes but it is important. This is especially true when every word a person says publicly is scrutinized and "interpreted."
For instance, yesterday Director Comey made the following statements before the House Intelligence Committee yesterday:
“I have no information that supports those tweets, and we have looked carefully inside the FBI," said Comey. "We have no information that supports them."
“To put it in a homely metaphor, I hate the New England Patriots. And no matter who they play, I'd like them to lose. So I'm at the same time rooting against the Patriots and hoping their opponent beats them because it's only two teams on the field,” Comey said.
The first is clearly an official statement by the Director of the FBI while the second is a personal statement by a Giants fan whose day job is running the FBI.
He made the following statement in addition:
“Thank you. If I'm honest with myself, the reason I don't like the Patriots is they represent sustained excellence,” Comey admitted
In regard to "official" statements fairly rigorous standards should be applied while in relation to the latter it is appropriate to be less demanding.
If Director's Comey's dislike for sustained excellence is to be taken seriously he should be fired because why we would want somebody running the FBI if that person does not like "sustained excellence"?
I think the analogy (not metaphor), was not a personal statement. I think he was trying to gently tell GOP senators that when there are only two choices, being against or for one side means you are for / against the other. Some GOP senators were trying to claim that the Russians were not for Trump but only against Clinton. There is a hilarious clip of a GOP senator from Texas where he started a football analogy and then got completely confused about it.
The sustained excellence comment was a personal statement. Additionally, I interpreted that as he admitting jealousy about the sustained excellence, not that he was against it in principle.
Newsflash - This thread is appropriately placed In the "General" category. I don't recall any rules limiting the number of threads using "Trump" in the title to a maximum of two. What you "have to look at all damn[ed] day" is not a factor. It's irrelevant and does not create a basis for this thread's deletion.
This is a question you should be asking yourself.
We know Trump is President. Does that mean we can't talk about it?
Sorry you feel you've "gotta see this crap on Facebook and everywhere else." That's not our concern. No one has to filter their posts based on what you "gotta see" and the frequency at which you've "gotta see" it. Neither the world nor this forum revolves around your individual needs and preferences. Suggestion - Having determined two threads including "Trump" in the title should be the limit, what compelled you to enter this one (and comment)?
As you've suggested to others, find something else to do. Ahem, yes you do use that language. See, your previous post in which you do just that.
To this, I am obliged to thank and commend hungryghost for creating and maintaining this forum where we can freely enjoy open discussion devoid of the hypocrisy you speak of. No one cares what you'd do elsewhere. Spare us of such off topic assertions. You wield no authority nor power here.
Back on topic, quoting directly from CNN, here is a summary of one of the changes Trump has made to try to get the bill passed in the House:
"Ban excess tax credits from going into Health Savings Accounts: Enrollees whose tax credits exceed the cost of their premiums will no longer be able to put the additional funds in Health Savings Accounts. Some conservatives were concerned these funds could be used to pay for abortions."
That change probably makes no difference to anybody except the Congressperson(s) who might go back to their voters and argue that they fought hard to make sure the new Healthcare Act prevented abortions.
It looks like the situation is still quite fluid. The conservatives are very unhappy with the bill but those members who are not from highly gerrymandered constituencies are concerned about the backlash to date from the AARP and others lobbying for seniors and a number of Governors are pushing hard to fund for Medicaid expansion. There may be a CBO update before the scheduled vote to reflect the changes.
Probably it will go through on Thursday in the House but changes are likely in the Senate.
Looks like the evil plan did not pass. 
It seems as if another attempt will be made to bring the members of the House Freedom Caucus on board today.
The scoring of the revised proposal by the CBO keeps the number who would lose coverage at 24 million and reduces the "savings" at the budget level compared to the initial proposal.
It has been presented as a "take it or leave it" deal by the President so the outcome will interesting to watch. Unless somebody comes up with a clever face-saving gimmick either the President or the Freedom Caucus must lose given the way it has been set up.
Latest reports have 34 saying "No" and 15 leaning "No" and that will not allow passage in the House.