President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

alastair

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Whatever way you slice it, 62. People voted for him. They saw he type of campaign he ran and they still voted for him. I think a lot of that was due to he harsh things he was willing to say. I think the 'alt right' in the normal person is closer to the surface then ever.

I looked up the unemployment rate in Pennsylvania and it's probably lower than you'd think at 5.4%. he didn't win Pennsylvania because of the unemployed vote. He won so many employed people's votes because he created a perception and made promises.

Now, Trump has never been one for keeping promises. Chances are that he will get done new jobs and spin it into success. By the time all the builders move into town to build factories, buying breakfast rolls, pints, petrol, hookers and drugs (they all contribute to the local economy), clothes, food and using local day to day service like plumbers etc. The local economy WILL experience a boost.

It will all he fuelled by debt but that's not the point over the short/meduim term

You keep closing your ears to a certain truth - the voters who lifted his vote beyond typical GOP figures did so on the back of his platform. Spin isn't going to be a viable substitute for delivery for many of these people. You don't get to square that circle. If Trump fails to deliver, and he will, then that vote withers on the vine.

El_Duderino 09

alastair wrote:

You keep closing your ears to a certain truth - the voters who lifted his vote beyond typical GOP figures did so on the back of his platform. Spin isn't going to be a viable substitute for delivery for many of these people. You don't get to square that circle. If Trump fails to deliver, and he will, then that vote withers on the vine.

Trump is we rehearsed at smoothing ruffled feathers after not keeping a promise. If employment figures aren't in his favour, he can change the narrative to something else.

Interesting point is that his numbers went up when there were terrorist attacks including the one in France this time last year. When people felt frightened and wanted security, they leaned towards him. If that's not a terrifying prospect, it should be. Once he turns the narrative to how dangerous the world is, he might not need the jobs from apple if he can get the people producing weapons instead. Nobody in the US would oppose national security. Britain has the NHS as a jobs programme and the US has the military.

He banged the drum about how terrible things are in the country and people loved him for it. How can you argue that things are great for the average American/Irish/British person? He didnt say as much about the rest of the world. Once he starts frightening the bejesus out of Americans about how dangerous the rest of the world is, they won't be able to hold him to account for exactly how many jobs have been created in Pennsylvania. It'll be impossible to wade through the dead cats. He hasn't even focused on Iran during the whole process. Imagine he has that card up his sleeve and what he'll do with it when he needs a distraction

Nobody has been as good at controlling the narrative as Trump. He can drop a dead cat on the table that genuinely distracts everyone from the media to the common man. He was always in control of the narrative for the entire 18 months since the start of the republican primaries.

alastair

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Trump is we rehearsed at smoothing ruffled feathers after not keeping a promise. If employment figures aren't in his favour, he can change the narrative to something else.

Interesting point is that his numbers went up when there were terrorist attacks including the one in France this time last year. When people felt frightened and wanted security, they leaned towards him. If that's not a terrifying prospect, it should be. Once he turns the narrative to how dangerous the world is, he might not need the jobs from apple if he can get the people producing weapons instead. Nobody in the US would oppose national security. Britain has the NHS as a jobs programme and the US has the military.

He banged the drum about how terrible things are in the country and people loved him for it. How can you argue that things are great for the average American/Irish/British person? He didnt say as much about the rest of the world. Once he starts frightening the bejesus out of Americans about how dangerous the rest of the world is, they won't be able to hold him to account for exactly how many jobs have been created in Pennsylvania. It'll be impossible to wade through the dead cats. He hasn't even focused on Iran during the whole process. Imagine he has that card up his sleeve and what he'll do with it when he needs a distraction

Nobody has been as good at controlling the narrative as Trump. He can drop a dead cat on the table that genuinely distracts everyone from the media to the common man. He was always in control of the narrative for the entire 18 months since the start of the republican primaries.

Whatever. Not buying it for a minute. Let's see where he stands in four years.

cnocbui

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Whatever way you slice it, 62. People voted for him. They saw he type of campaign he ran and they still voted for him. I think a lot of that was due to he harsh things he was willing to say. I think the 'alt right' in the normal person is closer to the surface then ever.

I looked up the unemployment rate in Pennsylvania and it's probably lower than you'd think at 5.4%. he didn't win Pennsylvania because of the unemployed vote. He won so many employed people's votes because he created a perception and made promises.

Now, Trump has never been one for keeping promises. Chances are that he will get done new jobs and spin it into success. By the time all the builders move into town to build factories, buying breakfast rolls, pints, petrol, hookers and drugs (they all contribute to the local economy), clothes, food and using local day to day service like plumbers etc. The local economy WILL experience a boost.

It will all he fuelled by debt but that's not the point over the short/meduim term

Some are now suggesting that perhaps some of Putin's hackers may have been altering votes in some of the crucial states:

In Wisconsin, Ms Clinton received 7 per cent fewer votes in counties that depended on electronic-voting machines compared to countries that used optical scanners and paper ballots, and consequently Ms Clinton may have lost up to 30,000 votes. She lost Wisconsin by 27,000 votes.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/wisconsin-michigan-pennsylvania-election-hillary-clinton-hacked-manipulated-donald-trump-swing-a7433091.html

El_Duderino 09

Trump's a social media, reality TV president. Even if his core voters are not watching reality TV, his appeal hits the very same instincts that reality TV does. You get to be on the side of right and you get to have your guy bully the guy who thinks he's the big swinging wotzit. Watch an episode of Ramsay's kitchen nightmares. The whole premise us that Gordon (your guy) encounters a bully/idiot, and you get to have your guy bully him into submission.

That's one of the things people voted for and analysis keep missing probably because political analysts don't watch much reality TV.

They want to see him bully people on their behalf. They want to see him mock black people after being shot by police (my prediction). They also want to see him being harsh on terrorists and illegal aliens and foreign countries like China and Iran.

The funny thing is that if he bullies everyone, they will be more inclined to try to impress him. Look at the way he chops and changes his leadership team. For anyone else that would look indecisive and chaotic. He creates competition to impress him by being hard on people and I bet he gets very little challenge.

Hrs not a politician and people voted for him because if that. You can't just expect him to to be held to the same standards as a politician because that's not what hey want right now.

El_Duderino 09

alastair wrote:

Whatever. Not buying it for a minute. Let's see where he stands in four years.

Nothing about his campaign has been conventional. Now you think it will all just settle back into convention? Things have changed. Trump doesn't play by the rules and people love him for that, not in spite of it. It's a strange convention and it's counter intuitive, but people love the strong man bully. I just hope he leaves office after 8 years and doesn't just hand it to one of his sons.

Wanderer78

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

Nothing about his campaign has been conventional. Now you think it will all just settle back into convention? Things have changed. Trump doesn't play by the rules and people love him for that, not in spite of it. It's a strange convention and it's counter intuitive, but people love the strong man bully. I just hope he leaves office after 8 years and doesn't just hand it to one of his sons.

I hope he leaves in 4 or less

El_Duderino 09

Wanderer78 wrote:

I hope he leaves in 4 or less

I think we all hope for that. I think we all hoped he was just running as a hit of a joke and yes drop out of the race after a few weeks...

alastair

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Nothing about his campaign has been conventional. Now you think it will all just settle back into convention? Things have changed.

His campaign doesn't change anything of the dynamics of commitments and expectations. The electorate will look for results on their concerns. No results, no faith in the platform. Things haven't changed in that regard.

El_Duderino 09

alastair wrote:

His campaign doesn't change anything of the dynamics of commitments and expectations. The electorate will look for results on their concerns.

This is where I think people are dead wrong. Trump isn't a One-off phenomenon. His election was based on different criteria from alll others in recent history. He played to the electorate's based emotions. Nothing about his election was based on facts because he didn't allow the campaign narrative to be about facts.

Who would he start allowing the normal narrative to be established agai? It wouldn't suit him.

alastair wrote:

No results, no faith in the platform. Things haven't changed in that regard.

Results? What results are you waiting for? The wall, email investigation, repealing Obama care? Don't hold your breath because his voters gave already moved on from the campaign rhetoric.

He'll tell you the objective after he reveals the results. Everything else, he will treat as rhetoric.

Mr.Micro

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I hope he leaves in 4 or less

It would not matter, as his administration would carry on. He is in for a tough 4 years IMO, all those promises he made. The huge pledges were symptomatic of a man bluffing, believing he would never be elected, so he could say anything,and he sure did, like a troll. Reality is a different animal.

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

I'll continue to point out the reality of the Muslim Brotherhood, that you don't seem to grasp. That they're not a proscribed terrorist group in the EU, in the US, in the UK, in Israel, nor in pretty much any countries beyond your pals in Saudi Arabia, and Russia, and that military junta in Egypt. Cameron's investigation concluded that there was no reason to change their designation to a terrorist group only last year. What makes you think that they've missed some vital information that you're party to? So, yeah, I'll deny it, and I'll be in good company. You enjoy your bedfellows.

The MB in every way is a terrorist organization and just because it is not on a watch list somewhere in Europe, America or Israel does not make it any less of a terrorist organization. Once again you deny the vicious sectarian violence perpetrated by the MB against anyone they don't like. They had members intimately involved in Al Qaeda and these Islamists who hate democracy and spread terror are categorized as terrorist organizations across the region precisely because they engage in violence. Morsi came to power in Egypt through violence not true democratic process. The military had to be called in to rescue the situation and a subsequent revolution overthrew the Morsi. We might have had another Iranian revolution.

Wanderer78

Mr.Micro wrote: »

It would not matter, as his administration would carry on. He is in for a tough 4 years IMO, all those promises he made. The huge pledges were symptomatic of a man bluffing, believing he would never be elected, so he could say anything,and he sure did, like a troll. Reality is a different animal.

his administration worries me more than him, hes just a bloody fool but his administration is bunch of right winged extremists nutjobs. the next 4 years should be interesting to say the least

El_Duderino 09

Wanderer78 wrote:

his administration worries me more than him, hes just a bloody fool but his administration is bunch of right winged extremists nutjobs. the next 4 years should be interesting to say the least

A man becomes president by engineering the most ingenious and value for money campaign in recent history. Gets called an idiot.

Don't be caught underestimating him like that. He's single minded and ruthless.

Wanderer78

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

A man becomes president by engineering the most ingenious and value for money campaign in recent history. Gets called an idiot.

Don't be caught underestimating him like that. He's single minded and ruthless.

in my world, he is not an intelligent man, ruthlessness can be linked to ignorance, and that is exactly what he is, ignorant, but as i said previously, im more worried about his administration.

K-9

Well the criticism of Hillary was she can't even beat Trump, Trump couldn't even get more votes than Hillary...

Really the email scandal came back in perfect timing for him. There is always lots of knee jerk reactions after campaigns, but I'd say this is an election that the incumbent party did a lot wrong in the campaign and the opposition got in by default.

Hillary just isn't liked or trusted and the FBI investigation was perfect timing to remind people of that.

RobertKK

According to CNN it was Kushner, his son in law who drove the Trump campaign to victory.

Kushner had a bunker down in Texas with computer programmers to do a load of analysis work, to push messages, to increase the turn out at Trump's rallies.
It was Kushner and his analytic's team that told Trump to target states that some thought was crazy and were clearly in Hillary's camp.
That when the Trump team thought they had lost the election it was Kushner's team telling Trump that the data showed that all was not lost.

I think a lot of people underestimated how disliked Hillary Clinton is despite winning the popular vote.
Trump may have had the better ground game via modern technology.
I don't think many voted based on Bruce Springsteen, Jon Bon Jovi, Beyonce, Jay z, JLo, Katy Perry etc...

Maybe Kushner's effect on the Trump victory is one reason why Trump wants to give him some role in his administration.

Jan_de_Bakker

alastair wrote: »

Just to be clear... What's your special non-arrogant insight that suggests your opinion is any more informed than Cox's as to why people voted the way they did? Clearly ignorance played a significant role in both the pro-Brexit campaign and the Trump platform. So he might well be right.

So what every Trump voter or Brexit voter is just uneducated ?

You do realise that millions of Obama voters in 08 and 12 voted for Trump this time round ? - why ?
Me myself I have always been for the democrats , I was over the moon when Obama won in 08 + 12 ... something has happened tho in the last few years that has caused this switch.
I'm not saying Trump is going to be a great president, but his election is a reaction - a backlash
against the ridiculous left and how far they are going.

To say it's "White supremacy, Sexism, Fascism, Islamaphobia, Ignorance/lack of education" - it´s getting old,
there is a lot more to it then that.

K-9

Well Trump definitely won the passionate online game, was it better than Obama has done before? We'll find out in time.

Trump won the economy argument despite often swaying off topic and creating distractions for himself, Hillary just wasn't trusted to change anything up, just more of the same.

But the Dems will learn a lot from this campaign, all they need is somebody fresh and different, nobody foresaw Obama in 04, nor indeed Trump on 012!

Jan_de_Bakker

This is unreal, I'm listening to Pat Kenny here ... he has a "progressive" going on about how there could be a recount due to a hack - possibly by foreign powers .

Are they SERIOUS ??

These are the people who mocked Trump when he suggested the system could be rigged, who were worried that he wouldn't accept the results - and now look at this ?

They really are unbelievable hypocrites.

swampgas

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

This is unreal, I'm listening to Pat Kenny here ... he has a "progressive" going on about how there could be a recount due to a hack - possibly by foreign powers .

Are they SERIOUS ??

These are the people who mocked Trump when he suggested the system could be rigged, who were worried that he wouldn't accept the results - and now look at this ?

They really are unbelievable hypocrites.

Actually, regardless of the outcome of the election, there are serious concerns in the security world about how reliable electronic voting machines are and how easy it is to tweak them to nudge a close result in a specific direction.

It wouldn't hurt democracy in the US to have this checked out.

Some links:
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2004/11/the_problem_wit.html (from 2004 - but good background)
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/americas-voting-machines-arent-ready-election/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/27/by-november-russian-hackers-could-target-voting-machines/?utm_term=.d93385146fb2

On a separate note, I'm really glad we have stuck with paper based voting in Ireland.

Billy86

swampgas wrote: »

Some links:
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2004/11/the_problem_wit.html
https://www.wired.com/2016/08/americas-voting-machines-arent-ready-election/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/27/by-november-russian-hackers-could-target-voting-machines/?utm_term=.d93385146fb2

Just wanted to point out that two of these three articles were written long before November 8th.

swampgas

Billy86 wrote: »

Just wanted to point out that two of these three articles were written long before November 8th.

Absolutely - the point is that there have been long-standing concerns about electronic voting in the US, and that rigging the election by hacking the machines is entirely plausible.

Billy86

swampgas wrote: »

Absolutely - the point is that there have been long-standing concerns about electronic voting in the US, and that rigging the election by hacking the machines is entirely plausible.

Oh yeah I do get ya - just pointing it out in case anyone missed it and made an incorrect assumption or whatnot.

oscarBravo

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

These are the people who mocked Trump when he suggested the system could be rigged, who were worried that he wouldn't accept the results - and now look at this ?

They really are unbelievable hypocrites.

Are they the same people, though? Do you have specific examples of people who mocked Trump for suggesting the system could be rigged, now claiming that the election was rigged?

It's not hypocrisy if different people are saying these things.

Jan_de_Bakker

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are they the same people, though? Do you have specific examples of people who mocked Trump for suggesting the system could be rigged, now claiming that the election was rigged?

It's not hypocrisy if different people are saying these things.

Good point, im jumping the gun myself a bit there, anyway was just thinking about his twitter account - surely they will take that off him when he is sworn in ?

It's a howl .. but would be very un presidential for him to be tweeting in that style from next January..

KingBrian2

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

Good point, im jumping the gun myself a bit there, anyway was just thinking about his twitter account - surely they will take that off him when he is sworn in ?

It's a howl .. but would be very un presidential for him to be tweeting in that style from next January..

Oh I don't know it has proved invaluable so far and keeps him in touch with the electorate. Obama had his Blackberry and just like Trump he is smart with technology. This election was all about Trump whereas Hillary lost the voters online and at the workplace. Will we ever forget he responded so quickly when lives were lost in Paris and Orlando. People might criticize him for laying into the Muslims but he connected with a lot of hurt people.

murphaph

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I hope he leaves in 4 or less

Exactly 4 is fine thanks or do you want Mike "gays can be cured with shock therapy" Pence running the show?! 😱

murphaph

murphaph wrote: »

Exactly 4 is fine thanks or do you want Mike "gays can be cured with shock therapy" Pence running the show?! 😱

Genius on the part of Trump unfortunately.

Jan_de_Bakker

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Oh I don't know it has proved invaluable so far and keeps him in touch with the electorate. Obama had his Blackberry and just like Trump he is smart with technology. This election was all about Trump whereas Hillary lost the voters online and at the workplace. Will we ever forget he responded so quickly when lives were lost in Paris and Orlando. People might criticize him for laying into the Muslims but he connected with a lot of hurt people.

AFAIK they took the BB off Obama as soon as he was sworn in ... could be wrong though ..

recedite

Jan_de_Bakker wrote: »

AFAIK they took the BB off Obama as soon as he was sworn in .

Yes, but for security reasons. The same reason Hillary was supposed to use the secure e-mail sever.
I assume Trump would send tweets through a secure server/system though. Whether he does so would be a political consideration; his advisors might not approve. Obama tweets a lot.

fly_agaric

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are they the same people, though? Do you have specific examples of people who mocked Trump for suggesting the system could be rigged, now claiming that the election was rigged?

It's not hypocrisy if different people are saying these things.

He wasn't really mocked afair. There was media comment about how it was quite dangerous of him to be casting aspersions on the electoral process + such remarks might gin up his supporters to take violent action when he lost the election. This was at point in the campaign
after "grab their pussies" video came out and it looked like Hillary would absolutely bury him.

example:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/17/opinions/mcconnell-call-out-trumps-rigged-election-comments-douglas/index.html

You'd have to admit it is kind of ironic now that the shoe is on the other foot.
Apparently, not only might voting machines in some states have been fiddled by Putin's hackers, but the whole basis of electoral system is fatally flawed and should be scrapped!

Amerika

K-9 wrote: »

But the Dems will learn a lot from this campaign, all they need is somebody fresh and different, nobody foresaw Obama in 04, nor indeed Trump on 012!

I don’t think they will. Democrats seem to be doubling down on everything that lost them the election. The keep on alienating the average Americans that gave the win to Trump. The Far Left (by American standards) have taken over the Democratic party and apparently don't want to give up any of their control.

Which is fine by me.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are they the same people, though? Do you have specific examples of people who mocked Trump for suggesting the system could be rigged, now claiming that the election was rigged?

It's not hypocrisy if different people are saying these things.

This one’s easy…

So is what Hillary Clinton doing now, by joining the challenge of outcome of the election ‘horrifying’ (to use her own words)?

El_Duderino 09

Amerika wrote:

So is what Hillary Clinton doing now, by joining the challenge of outcome of the election ‘horrifying’ (to use her own words)?

Well he did he was going to contest regardless of anything else - as long as he lost. He claimed there was voter fraud for weeks, then he didn't care once he won. Now he cares about the integrity of the voting system again.

That can't be convincing for a Trump supporter.

Amerika

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well he did he was going to contest regardless of anything else - as long as he lost. He claimed there was voter fraud for weeks, then he didn't care once he won. Now he cares about the integrity of the voting system again.

That can't be convincing for a Trump supporter.

Trump supporters knew going in they won’t be happy with a lot of what he will do as president. Heck, up until a few years ago he was a lifelong democrat. As long as he fights for his core policies, listed below, is about the most we can hope for. And picking Conservative Supreme Court judges. And bottom line... he’s still better than Hillary Clinton with just more of the same old, same old.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

So is what Hillary Clinton doing now, by joining the challenge of outcome of the election ‘horrifying’ (to use her own words)?

Asking for a recount isn't the same as claiming an election is rigged.

Answer me this: if Trump believes that millions of votes were illegally cast, why isn't he looking for a recount?

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

Asking for a recount isn't the same as claiming an election is rigged.

Answer me this: if Trump believes that millions of votes were illegally cast, why isn't he looking for a recount?

I’ve mentioned the reason numerous times, already. A recount based on the claim of voter fraud, after the election has taken place, is an exercise in futility. Even if the claims of voter fraud are true, it can’t be feasibly investigated and accomplished in any near timeframe. The time to stop fraud is before the election takes place. What we need to do is fight for valid photo ID required to be able to vote.

Even if the democrats do successfully get electors removed of the three states because no conclusion can be reached by the deadline, then neither candidate gets to 270. Therefore the House picks the President, which would be Trump, and the Senate picks the VP, which would be Pence. It is simply a massive waste of time. But hey... George Soros, who seems to be the money man behind this endeavor, gets his wish in helping to destroy the American system just a little bit more.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

I’ve mentioned the reason numerous times, already. A recount based on the claim of voter fraud, after the election has taken place, is an exercise in futility. Even if the claims of voter fraud are true, it can’t be feasibly investigated and accomplished in any near timeframe. The time to stop fraud is before the election takes place.

I'm impressed, that almost makes sense: except that it ignores the rather important fact that there will be other elections in the future, and - if the claims of voter fraud are true - you'd think that the candidate who bleated the most about "rigged elections" would want it proved.

It has been demonstrated repeatedly and ad nauseam, that in-person voter fraud is so rare as to be completely non-existent to a useful approximation. Considering how desperate the GOP are to make it as difficult as possible for Democrats to vote - and they are tireless in that regard - don't you think that proving voter fraud on this scale would be a massively important thing to do?

But no; all he does is mouth off on Twitter.

InTheTrees

As regards surprising consequences, trump appointed tom price secretary of Health And Human Services.

Expect repeal of the affordable care act, in addition to cuts to Medicare and Medicaid (old age healthcare).

No doubt trumps supporters many of whom depend on these programs, will be eagerly awaiting his "amazing" replacements .

El_Duderino 09

InTheTrees wrote:

As regards surprising consequences, trump appointed tom price secretary of Health And Human Services.

Who is tom price?

InTheTrees wrote:

No doubt trumps supporters many of whom depend on these programs, will be eagerly awaiting his "amazing" replacements .

I expect him to expand health care beyond Obama care after he fiddles with it a bit and rebrands it. He needs to pander to his base at some point and I wouldn't be surprised if that's one if the ways he does it. The biggest problem with Obama care was the guy who's name it carries. 'Trump Care' would be much more likely to succeed with his core voters.

It would take a lot if money to keep both the people and industry happy. He would need to borrow a lot of money but spending other people's money has never been a problem for Trump

El_Duderino 09

Another surprising consequence will he the relative silence from the republicans when he blows up the national debt. I'm sure there will be some fiscal conservatives but not nearly as loud as they've been for the last 8 years.

The way to keep fiscal conservatives quiet is to buy them off with jobs programmes for their area, using borrowed money. No half measures, just get everyone working and making money and nobody will listen to the bean counter in the corner. Think Ireland circa 2005

oscarBravo

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Who is tom price?

Congresscritter, (R) Georgia. Anti-regulation, pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-Obamacare. Believes that seniors on fixed incomes having to spend a quarter of their income on healthcare is wrong; wants them to spend half their income instead.

Your basic southern conservative Republican.

InTheTrees

oscarBravo wrote: »

Congresscritter, (R) Georgia. Anti-regulation, pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-Obamacare. Believes that seniors on fixed incomes having to spend a quarter of their income on healthcare is wrong; wants them to spend half their income instead.

Your basic southern conservative Republican.

Yes. Elderly Americans and those caring for them are going to be in for a serious shock.

K-9

I don't think he'll expand Obamacare, try and keep the good and popular parts.

Basically what Hillary said in the second debate.

El_Duderino 09

oscarBravo wrote:

Congresscritter, (R) Georgia. Anti-regulation, pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-Obamacare. Believes that seniors on fixed incomes having to spend a quarter of their income on healthcare is wrong; wants them to spend half their income instead.

Sounds harsh. Who better to expand Trump Care than Obama Care 's harshest critic.

Seriously don't be a hit surprised if he just borrows to subsidise it. It would jeep the people and industry happy

Manic Moran

In fairness, he probably knows something about the healthcare industry. The man was an orthopedic surgeon for 20 years, and then went to teach the subject at Emory, which is a pretty well-regarded institution. For better or worse, his opinions on guns and homosexuality don't have a lot of relevance in the health department.

gizmo555

Manic Moran wrote: »

For better or worse, his opinions on guns and homosexuality don't have a lot of relevance in the health department.

With over 13,000 deaths and nearly 27,000 injuries by shooting in 2015 in the US, some might say his opinions on guns are highly relevant to the health department!

recedite

Here's Tom Price's plan from last year.
that's one thing about trump, he surrounds himself with experts instead of political hacks. A businessman always knows how to delegate.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Here's Tom Price's plan from last year.

Yeah, that (or something like it) is probably what will be lined up to replace PPACA.

that's one thing about trump, he surrounds himself with experts instead of political hacks. A businessman always knows how to delegate.

I'm sure all the people who are about to lose their insurance coverage will be delighted that it was an "expert" who came up with the plan.