https://x.com/trumpdailyposts/status/1778618921798734014?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Remember when the GOP was against P-BO care? Yeah, not so much anymore.
https://x.com/trumpdailyposts/status/1778618921798734014?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Remember when the GOP was against P-BO care? Yeah, not so much anymore.
11 comments:
Based on his words in that video, he's clearly expressing opposition to ACA. He's deflecting against what I believe is an accusation of straight up eliminating ACA without doing anything to improve the problems not addressed by it. To improve it, as he says in the video, he is doing both...opposing ACA and by improving upon it, eliminating what is with an improved version. That's my response to a single, simple video in response to a direct charge by his opponent. In the meantime, I haven't investigated his specific health care ideas, either.
"Opposing" something, by "improving" it, acknowledges that the something is going to stay in place. If his plan is to eliminate and replace it, why wouldn't he simply say that? This ignores the fact that I haven't seen or heard Trump's specific (or general) plan to replace P-BO care with something better. It seems to me, that a presidential candidate should be able to communicate their specific policy goals in clear and unambiguous language. This seems anything but clear.
I've seen a few people suggest that Trump's policy positions are roughly equal to Clinton's. Which is probably not completely false. I think that's more a comment on how far left the DFL has gone since the 90's and the fact that that leftward swing has pulled the entire center of gravity further left than it was in the 90's.
It seems reasonable to expect any candidate (including Trump) to be able to articulate policy positions with some degree of specificity and detail in their campaign speeches. It seems great to say that there will be some vague, general "improvements" to P-BO care, but it seems important to know what those specifically are, isn't it? Maybe expecting details in campaign speeches, is just too much to ask.
Are you aware of what he had done the first time around? I had looked at his campaign website the other day to find his statement on federal abortion bans and thought I had saved that site. Now, I can't seem to find it again. All I'm seeing is donation paged focused on one of his bullshit indictments. So I looked elsewhere for info and just mostly got leftist media sites which aren't focused on the search questions I ask or any of the many alternatives I tried.
Then, I came upon this Forbes piece by John Goodman addressing Trump's health care proposals by looking at his first term and the improvements he had made to ACA already. Here it is:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2024/04/07/is-there-a-trump-health-care-plan/?sh=22f5fe662b0c
As to what you expect from presidential candidates, and seeing as how you clearly believe Trump fails to satisfy those expectations, I also tried to find anything which would speak to how common it is for any presidential candidate to have provided detailed descriptions of their intentions on any policy. Again, I can't seem to frame my search criteria to provoke a response which addresses this query specifically. My purpose was to see if what you expect of Trump was provided by anyone in the past in a manner which truly sets him apart in the negative manner you imply. I seem to recall some details in Ramaswamy's arguments, though not to any degree by which I can see how it would play out. DeSantis would often speak to how he did some things as governor, but again, that was only to assure voters he could achieve general goals. I also remember Romney having some "54 point plan" (or some number) which wasn't as detailed as it sounded.
Once again, looking at the details of what Trump did the first time around should be enough to acknowledge improvement in the state of the nation is a give by his election in November. I don't suspect he'll accomplish everything he set out to do anymore than he did the first time. But to pretend he won't do most of it is not based on his track record, and that's for sure.
If, as the article to which I linked suggests, Trump merely continues doing what he started in his first term, that should satisfy anyone wondering what his health care plan might look like.
"Are you aware of what he had done the first time around?"
Well, he didn't eliminate P-BO care, so I guess some minor tweaking of a shitty health care plan is better than nothing.
It's telling that even you, as a devout Trump supporter, can't find the information from Trump's own campaign website. That's not a good look, nor is it particularly supportive of your cause.
One of the things I liked about Vivek was the fact that he did have specific plans for many issues, and he was able to discuss the details in speeches, and one on one with detractors. I was hoping that he'd bring some of that to Trump's campaign, but I haven't seen it yet.
DeSantis has a visible track record as governor, and most of what he's done in FL would be applicable at the federal level to some degree.
But, we're talking about Trump, the absolute very best, most awesome candidate possible in the GOP. Yet you can't find anything, strange.
I'm not sure that, in hindsight, listing anything related to COVID as Trump's most significant accomplishment. Especially as the rushing of the "vaccine" (that really isn't a vaccine) and exempting Big Pharma from liability is not looking very good at this point. Nor does giving Big Pharma a blank check.
But he did so some good things, kind of nibbling around the edges. Most of it was through EOs, which are easily repeal able and not a lasting solution. I guess if he can't or won't repeal P-BO care, something is better than nothing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRx8T_yYvQo&lc=UgyInbBC7rlJwQwPNIt4AaABAg
I can't believe the likelihood of this clown getting elected president again, and the multitudes of foolish and gullible people who still think he has done good for our country.
"Well, he didn't eliminate P-BO care, so I guess some minor tweaking of a shitty health care plan is better than nothing."
Did you even read the link? Are you going to dare say that what the link presented is insignificant? You've got to be fucking kidding.
"It's telling that even you, as a devout Trump supporter, can't find the information from Trump's own campaign website. That's not a good look, nor is it particularly supportive of your cause."
First of all, you assume I've discontinued my search. That can't happen when those who should know better need to be spoon fed the facts. I notice you've done nothing to find those facts yourself, preferring instead to sit back and wait for Trump to say things in just that certain way you demand he must, as if you made the demand of anyone else.
Secondly, it's telling that in this day and age, where leftist controlled search engines limit access to anything counter to leftist bullshit, you would suppose that information on the greatest enemy of leftism would be easy to come by. You've got to be fucking kidding.
"One of the things I liked about Vivek was the fact that he did have specific plans for many issues, and he was able to discuss the details in speeches, and one on one with detractors."
A link to his health care proposals would've been nice, but you're not in to providing. My brief search hasn't yielded details of significance. The search will continue, because you're not into providing.
"DeSantis has a visible track record as governor, and most of what he's done in FL would be applicable at the federal level to some degree."
Trump has a visible track record as president and most of what he's done is more than the one or two items you continually mention to suggest his presidency wasn't as good as it actually was.
"But, we're talking about Trump, the absolute very best, most awesome candidate possible in the GOP. Yet you can't find anything, strange."
He's the best available right now, wise ass. I found his abortion position, and I've saved articles covering his successes. What the fuck have you got except for COVID and the debt, half of which was because of COVID? That I've failed to find specifics about his plans for health care is simply a matter of the state of leftist interference in accessing such on the internet making it more difficult. But at the same time, we have his record as president about which my link provided good indications of how he's got a plan you pretend doesn't exist.
Keep up the irrational hate. Dan will be proud.
"I'm not sure that, in hindsight, listing anything related to COVID as Trump's most significant accomplishment. Especially as the rushing of the "vaccine" (that really isn't a vaccine) and exempting Big Pharma from liability is not looking very good at this point. Nor does giving Big Pharma a blank check."
Immunity from civil suits for negative reactions to vaccines has been in place for decades. Trump did not institute this. There are two avenues for compensation, though one does not cover COVID and the other doesn't typically pay as much to victims.
"According to 42 U.S. Code § 300aa–22, "No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings."
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-are-pharmaceutical-companies-immune-covid-19-vaccine-lawsuits-1562793
https://www.hoover.org/research/vaccines-and-liability-0
"I can absolutely believe that he can get elected. The biggest thing Trump has going for him is that he's running against Biden."
The biggest thing he has going for him are his great track record as president and the fact that more people seem to be flocking to his candidacy.
"I firmly believe that had the DFL picked a candidate in 2016 that was better than Clinton, that it's likely Trump would have lost."
When he first ran, many were clamoring for someone not a politician, but someone who was a successful business man who knew how to get things done. He likely would have succeeded against any Dem at that point as the Dems never thought someone like him would have the appeal he did to the average American who isn't a leftist moron. What the Dem Party wanted was Obama, but had to settle for Hillary, who was Obama with a set of testicles. The Dem voter want Bernie, but Hillary and the Dem Party made sure he wouldn't be the nominee. Neither were the only two vying for the nomination, so there were plenty of options not named Hillary. To suppose that any of them were better choices, or that they had anyone not running who could have been is a stretch.
"Obviously Trump will improve things in some areas over Biden, while Biden will continue to bumble along."
How delusional! There are no areas in which Trump will not improve things over Biden. Name any exception. I'll wait here while you can't.
" I'll keep hoping for some miracle, between now and Nov."
I believe in miracles. A Trump win would be an example and a good one, too. But for anyone better to come along, that would require the criminal attacks on Trump succeed, and he's totally undeserving of such consequences just because you hate the guy. Shame on you.
Yes, I read the link. It makes some good points, and mentions some things I'd missed.
"First of all, you assume I've discontinued my search."
Not at all. My point is that if you can't find the specific information on Trump's won website, then the information is obviously not readily accessible.
" That can't happen when those who should know better need to be spoon fed the facts. I notice you've done nothing to find those facts yourself, preferring instead to sit back and wait for Trump to say things in just that certain way you demand he must, as if you made the demand of anyone else."
More assumptions. Honestly, If wanting Trump to say things in a simple, clear, direct way on the campaign trail(or on his campaign website) is asking too much, then I guess I should just accept his vague, broad, random claims without bothering to ask questions.
"A link to his health care proposals would've been nice, but you're not in to providing. My brief search hasn't yielded details of significance. The search will continue, because you're not into providing."
Perhaps you missed reading what I actually said. https://www.vivek2024.com/america-first-2-0/ This is literally the first link that came up. It's not that hard. My point remains, Vivek's trademark was his willingness to dive deep into specifics on policy any time/any place.
"Trump has a visible track record as president and most of what he's done is more than the one or two items you continually mention to suggest his presidency wasn't as good as it actually was."
Excellent point. By ignoring De Satnis' actual record and actual reelection in favor of Trump's one term mixed accomplishments, you've responded to something I didn't say.
"He's the best available right now, wise ass."
Which is no the same as the "best available". It's just the lesser evil trope writ large. It's a semantic dodge. It's "Well, he's better than Biden.". But I appreciate your techniques of persuasion.
"I found his abortion position,"
Which abortion position? He's publicly claimed to be both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" and his current position certainly isn't "pro-life", other than it allows for the possibility that some states could pass pro-life laws if Trump approves of them.
"What the fuck have you got except for COVID and the debt, half of which was because of COVID?"
Well, "the debt" was the largest one term increase in history, but that's no big deal. He also promised that he'd balance the budget, but didn't come close.
He clearly had access to the information that caused many nations to react differently, yet he chose to blindly follow Fauci. He didn't have to give Big Pharma a blank check and a free pass, but he did. He accepted the lie that the "vaccine" was actually a "vaccine", and continues (in spite of evidence to the contrary) claim that the "vaccine" was something wonderful. His hiring of "the very best people" wasn't anything of the sort. His SCOTUS nominees are a mixed bag at this point, not a failure, but certainly not a solid success. Unless you count overturning Roe as such a large success that it overcomes their other actions.
Look, I'm not saying that he didn't have some successes or that he won't be better then Biden. I am saying that pretending that his first term was some sort of unquestioned success and that a second will magically bring everything back isn't a coherent argument. Part of being an adult in a position of responsibility is the ability to acknowledge mistakes, and to come up with strategies to correct those mistakes. Trump can't/won't admit mistakes, why would he bother with a plan to correct his mistakes?
None of this matters. You'll continue to provide the same old stuff, put the same old sunny spin on it, and insist that anyone who doesn't act as you do is a "foolish, moron". Why waste the time? I've been clear that your demeanor is more likely to make me sit this one out, than jump on the bandwagon, yet you continue.
"Immunity from civil suits for negative reactions to vaccines has been in place for decades. Trump did not institute this. There are two avenues for compensation, though one does not cover COVID and the other doesn't typically pay as much to victims."
So, that makes the fact that Big Pharma falsified test results and that we're seeing literal people dying OK? Again, if Trump could bring himself to admit the reality: His "vaccine" was not a "vaccine", it was approved based on false information, and that Bid Pharma should not be exempt from legal action, that would be something. "My vaccine was the very best possible thing even created." (or whatever BS he's spouting) just makes him look absurd to people who would otherwise support him.
"The biggest thing he has going for him are his great track record as president and the fact that more people seem to be flocking to his candidacy."
As if who he's running against has absolutely zero bearing on people's voting decisions.
"When he first ran, many were clamoring for someone not a politician, but someone who was a successful business man who knew how to get things done."
Interesting, yet now it's been a complete 180 and he must be elected because he had one "successful" term as a politician, and we must NOT vote for any other GOP candidate because they don't have any experience.
"He likely would have succeeded against any Dem at that point as the Dems never thought someone like him would have the appeal he did to the average American who isn't a leftist moron."
That's quite the claim. Your arguemnet has been that both Clinton and Biden are so incredibly incompetent that nobody but a "left wing moron" could possibly vote for them, yet now you seem to be suggesting that the DFL had absolutely no one else that could have run against Trump. Hell, I'd argue that Bernie might have beaten Trump in 2016 had the DFL gotten behind him. He's a crazy left wing/socialist populist and I suspect that he would have eroded some of Trump's populism. But who knows.
" To suppose that any of them were better choices, or that they had anyone not running who could have been is a stretch."
To some degree supposing about the past or the future is a stretch. It's a stretch to suppose that Trump is suddenly going to push for a nationwide abortion ban. It's a stretch to suppose that a 2nd Trump term will automatically be spectacular. Given the DFL commitment to rig the race for Hillary, it's complete speculation to draw conclusions. Yet, to dismiss the possibility that the DFL couldn't have run a more attractive alternative, is just supposing in a different direction.
"There are no areas in which Trump will not improve things over Biden."
This is quite the stunt. The notion that you can predict with absolute certainty that there will be "no areas" where trump won't improve things, combined with the demand that I prove the future, is impressive in it's Dannishness.
Expecting someone to do better does not equal "hate", acknowledging the realty that there just might be some fire to go along with all the smoke is not "hate", acknowledging that Trump is an old man and that the elderly do sometimes run into challenges, does not equal "hate". But you keep telling yourself that, it makes it easier.
Post a Comment