Trump’s Healthcare Changes Lower Costs and Improve Lives

Posted by Tina

Some Trump accomplishments just don’t get much attention.

1. Speeding up the process for approval of generic drugs. A record 971 generic drugs were approved in the last fiscal year. The year before 937 generic drugs were approved.

2. The Council of Economic Advisers report found that prescription drug price growth has slowed over the past two years saving consumers $26 billion through July.

3. The “right-to-try” law signed by Trump in May, allows terminally ill patients to access experimental treatments, without government bureaucrats interfering.

4. The administration has expanded access to more insurance coverage options — particularly short-term plans.

5. State flexibility in Medicaid is transforming that broken program in ways that get able bodied people back to work and restore the programs original purpose of serving the poor and disabled.

6. President Trump is also working to lower drug prices for Americans by getting foreign governments to pay some of the R&D costs for new treatments and drugs.

A VOTE FOR REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES IS A VOTE FOR IMPROVED LIVES AND GREATER PROSPERITY

Sources: FOX Business and The NY Post

This entry was posted in Elections, Healthcare, Liberty. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Trump’s Healthcare Changes Lower Costs and Improve Lives

  1. Peggy says:

    Growing up every town I lived in in the US had a hospital owned and operated by a religious groups, either Catholic or Seventh Day Adventist and another County hospital for the poor.

    Being young then I don’t know how it all worked and who paid for what. Except, I know a girlfriend who had a baby at the county hospital in the early 70s got a bill for her total bill during the 90s, when her income reached a level she could afford to pay it. No free ride from even the county. Those who could afford to pay were expected to pay, even if it took 20 years.

    • Tina says:

      In my experience county hospitals were run by the county and paid for by taxpayers…that was back when the number of responsible working people far outnumbered the needy and government was a bit more responsible, particularly at the local level, Americans were, in general, more self sufficient and because their taxes didn’t overburden them, they could afford to be generous when charities called. There are still an abundance of charity hospitals in America. In fact I believe I read once and posted that they make up the majority of hospitals in America.

      • Peggy says:

        Yup, that’s the world I grew up in too. Charity began at home with voluntary donations. not at the office with forced payroll deductions and on April 15th.

        The county hospital was run on our taxes, but our money stayed local and wasn’t sent to DC to be sent to another state or country.

        Plus, the list of faith based charities, like the Salvation Army was huge back then. People taking care of people without the gov’t being involved.

        Wonder why and when it changed? Was it because of LBJ, when he punished the churches for not supporting him?

        I liked the old way. It worked better for the people.

  2. Tina says:

    While prepping for a stir fry this afternoon I saw an excellent piece on You Tube. It’s called Sweden: Lessons for America. Turns out Sweden first became prosperous because of an old white guy who espoused freedom, prior to our founding fathers. Things went along well until they “did a dumb thing” and welcomed in socialist ideas which brought high taxes that everybody paid and led to a low job, living o the dole economy. They were able to agree upon the cure by reasoning together and the result is pretty spectacular, Too bad Democrats are so power and control crazy or we might be inspired to do many of the same things here. It’s really good…I highly recommend it.

    Oh, and for you bike enthusiast, An innovation was featured…an air bag helmet…must see!! Unfortunately our regulations don’t allow it,

  3. Tina says:

    Related: American Greatness, “How Trump Challenges Establishment Truths”

    what are the core criticisms of Trump, and why do his critics wear blinders?

    Trump’s detractors alternate between complaints about his character and his policies, which they deem—wrongly—to be inseparable. But they are blind to the positive aspects of Trump’s character. His successful, loyal family. His temperance. His work ethic. His stamina. His flexibility and adaptability. And—always evident if you watch his rallies—his inimitable sense of humor, which is often self-deprecating. Not least, his unswerving commitment to keeping his promises.

    Smashing a False Bipartisan Consensus
    Which brings us to what really matters—policy.

    For decades, certain “truths” have been inviolable. These truths governed the limits of acceptable public discourse, and constituted a tacit consensus between Republicans and Democrats. The consequences of these truths were a gradual but profound decline, over the last few decades, in the prospects of America’s dwindling middle class.

    Ultimately, these unchallenged “truths” represented a set of assumptions that guaranteed the eventual destruction of America’s global leadership, if not America’s sovereignty.

    Trump has challenged nearly all of these fundamental “truths.” More to the point, he has backed up his talk with action.

    Must read!

    • Pie Guevara says:

      WARNING! WARNING! The above linked article “How Trump Challenges Establishment Truths” may make Chris puke, like, gag me with a spoon barf out! So groady!

    • Pie Guevara says:

      Smashing Political Correctness
      Perhaps the most heretical of Trump’s challenges is against political correctness. Trump’s accomplishment wasn’t the dark imaginings of his detractors, that a “racist is occupying the White House.” Trump’s accomplishment is to not care if he is falsely accused of racism, sexism, or of being Islamophobic, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, and phobias yet to be invented.

      The significance of Trump’s rejection of political correctness cannot be overstated. Suddenly we can have something approaching a rational conversation about immigration, affirmative action, culture, and religion. After decades of retreat, those of us who believe in preserving American culture and American heritage can go on offense. And to the delight of millions of Americans who are open-minded enough to see it, traditional American culture welcomes all Americans to join it.

      • Chris says:

        You cannot seriously credit Donald Trump, of all people, with producing a “rational conversation” about any of those issues, nor anything else. His trademark is ranting and raving about things he does not understand. And do you really think America is more “rational,” or willing to have rational conversations, under Trump than we were before him? You can’t.

        There’s also the fact that Trump IS sexist, by any reasonable definition of the word–witness his treatment of Republican women alone during the campaign. He is also Islamophobic, having spread the blood libel that thousands of NJ Muslims celebrated 9/11, among many other anti-Islam statements and actions. He is xenophobic, as his main campaign tactic was and is spreading fear of immigrants. He banned trans people from the military against the wishes of the Pentagon, so he is transphobic. I can see fair arguments against him being racist or homophobic, even though I would disagree with such arguments. But the other phobias and isms? There is no rational counter-argument against them. To say Trump doesn’t fit the criteria for those terms is to define those terms out of existence. If Trump isn’t sexist, no one is.

        • Pie Guevara says:

          *YAWN*

          Yeah Chris, but we who lean conservative already know your mission is to spread as much hate and progressive PC snowflake trash about Trump as possible. You can take your false and phony isms and phobias and and stuff ’em. Yours is a purely political mission and, quite frankly, you suck at it. But keep it up, more and more folks are fed up with your ilk’s virtue signalling and gut-churning moral superiority political posturing garbage. Eventually you will burn most reasonable and rational people out and your pantheon of isms and phobias will become the meaningless political drivel they truly are.

          I would suggest you read the full article Tina links to but I know you will not and if you did your head is so washed with progressive propaganda an PC BS you would simply reject it all as a matter of course.

          Oh, and every time you claim there is no rational argument against this or that, you just make yourself a laughing stock of yourself, you pompous and absurd fallacy boy. You have never uttered anything rational or reasoned in these pages. You are an entirely emotionally driven animal just like your progressive comrades.

        • Pie Guevara says:

          “There’s also the fact that Trump IS sexist, by any reasonable definition of the word”

          Trump is famous for insulting women and his language is at times rude, coarse and sexist. Yet his administration has employed many women and put several in positions of authority and power. In this light, to label him a sexist is neither reasonable nor rational.

          “He is also Islamophobic, having spread the blood libel that thousands of NJ Muslims celebrated 9/11, among many other anti-Islam statements and actions.”

          Trump was incorrect to have claimed this but to say he is xenophobic because of this remark is sophomoric asininity at its lowest. Trump has no pattern of xenophobia and has repeatedly said his aim is to keep terrorists and people who hate America from coming here. There are plenty of terrorist Muslims and Muslims who hate America who should be prevented from getting visas and moving here. That is not xenophobic. It is reasoned and rational to keep persons who hate us or seek to destroy us out of the country. His call for a temporary moratorium immigration from several countries is not a sign of xenobhobia, it is a sign of a rational and reasonable caution to protect the nation from another 9/11.

          “He is xenophobic, as his main campaign tactic was and is spreading fear of immigrants.”

          This is a bald faced lie from a bald faced, politically motivated progressive extremist liar. Trump’s main campaign promise was to secure the border and stop the flow of illegal immigrants, possible terrorists and “bad people” who through legal immigration could be vetted out. It is perfectly rational and reasonable policy to secure our country’s borders from illegal immigration and people who seek to do us harm. It is also rational reasonable to, through the procedure of legal immigration, allow the vetting of people who seek to become citizens or visa workers. Yesterday at the press conference Trump again expressed FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME his desire to secure the boarder and also encourage legal immigration because, as industry returns, he thinks we will need an influx of workers. That flies in the face of your utterly asinine progressive political psycho-bable charge he is xenophobic.

          “He banned trans people from the military against the wishes of the Pentagon, so he is transphobic.”

          This nonsense is a paradigm of patently puerile progressive PC, psycho-babble political poppycock. Trump cannot be reasonably and rationally labeled as having some irrational and unreasonable fear of sexually altered people simply because he thinks it a bad idea to have them serve in the armed services and require the armed services to accommodate such people.

          Chris, you have repeatedly demonstrated yourself in these pages to be a fallacious, irrational, unreasonable, unreasoning and emotionally driven person as well as a bald faced liar, bigot and racist. Thank you for rising to the task again. Have a nice day.

          Now take YOUR fallacious Trump Derangement Syndrome isms and phobias and go suck your thumb in your safe space, snowflake.

          • Chris says:

            Trump is famous for insulting women and his language is at times rude, coarse and sexist. Yet his administration has employed many women and put several in positions of authority and power. In this light, to label him a sexist is neither reasonable nor rational.

            Pie, I am glad that you acknowledge that Trump uses sexist language. I don’t understand why you can’t acknowledge that someone who constantly uses sexist language is a sexist. Hiring lots of women doesn’t somehow negate the sexist language.

            There are rational ways to combat illegal immigration and terrorism. Constantly spreading lies about entire groups of people, such as Muslims, is not a rational way to do that. The family separation policy was not a rational way to do that. When rational fears escalate and lead to irrational actions, it is fair to call them “phobias.”

            Trump cannot be reasonably and rationally labeled as having some irrational and unreasonable fear of sexually altered people simply because he thinks it a bad idea to have them serve in the armed services and require the armed services to accommodate such people.

            “Sexually altered people” is a nonsense term, and doesn’t even accurately describe all trans people, many of whom do not have surgery. Your own refusal to use the proper, accepted terminology here indicates your own bigotry.

            And since there is zero evidence that trans people serving in the military was a problem that needed to be solved, it is absolutely fair to call Trump’s incorrect belief that they should not serve irrational and transphobic.

            I do thank you for the thoughtful rebuttal, but I hope you can see from this comment why I don’t find it convincing.

          • Tina says:

            Chris apparently believes “the Pentagon” is a leftist stronghold. While under Obama the leftists there were given the freedom to act irresponsibly, carelessly, and as bigots at times. While they pursued the perfect PC balance among the ranks, they also diddled with our nations capability to defend itself and oversaw the rise and spread of ISIS.

            Hmmm…ISIS…more disciplined heads have pretty much eliminated the pseudo-state occupied by those devils under Trump leadership and policies.

            Astounding that people like Chris believe the military is just another social engineering campus!

          • Chris says:

            Chris apparently believes “the Pentagon” is a leftist stronghold.

            What the hell are you talking about? What did I write that could possibly lead you to that interpretation?

            Is it that I said the Pentagon opposed Trump’s ban on transgender soldiers? That doesn’t make it a “leftist stronghold,” and your assertion that it does is arrogant, ignorant, and bigoted.

            Astounding that people like Chris believe the military is just another social engineering campus!

            People like you used the “social engineering” talking point when they allowed blacks in the military. You know this, and you willingly choose to associate your own argument with that term, and yet you will get outraged when such an argument is rightly identified as bigoted.

            Just embarrassing.

            Blanket bans on military service because of people’s race, religion, orientation and gender identity are stupid and baseless. We should all know this by now. Qualified trans people should be able to serve just as qualified cis people. The top brass knew this. President “I Know More than the Generals” decided otherwise, to appease the Pence wing of his base as well as the non-religious-but-still-transphobic wing. If you disagree, cite the exact national security need that justified such a ban, with actual evidence that trans soldiers en masse were causing a problem. Not hypotheticals. No one has done this because it doesn’t exist. Just as you couldn’t show evidence that the travel ban was necessary and justified. The motive of both was bigotry, or at the very least, appeasing bigots. This is obvious.

        • Tina says:

          “You cannot seriously credit Donald Trump, of all people, with producing a “rational conversation” about any of those issues, nor anything else. ”

          He can’t do anything about those who refuse to have that “rational conversation” but they do go on quote often in the Trump administration.

          Your media has spent 95% of their opportunity to have a real conversation and cover the progress bashing Trump. They could cover the rational conversations he has with people but instead choose to yammer on about a manufactured fake scandal designed to destroy. What a bunch of losers!

          Trump meets regularly with members of various industries, people in the teaching profession, people concerned with urban development, and others. He invites media in for the first few minutes while he introduces those present and talks about what the group will discuss. They are free to speak with the press after the meeting. I’ve never seen anyone who was disappointed or upset, they always seem very impressed and eager to work with Trumps administration to meet goals they discussed quite rationally in the meeting.

          You do yourself no favors by blindly following the party line. One day you will be embarrassed.

          • Chris says:

            We’ll see who’s embarrassed in the end. My guess is that it is going to be a lot harder for former Trump officials to find jobs than it was for former officials of past administrations. It’s a mark of shame.

  4. Libby says:

    “Trump has challenged nearly all of these fundamental ‘truths.’”

    And been giggled at for the liar he is.

    And the seeking out of Alt-Right propaganda on YouTube will only protect you for so long, Tina. Eventually, the rising deficit is going to rip holes in your retirement income, and the pavement outside your house, and you will have only yourself to blame.

    • Tina says:

      Only by silly ignorant sore losers.

    • Tina says:

      The rising deficit was just fine with you for eight years under Obama after bitching about it under Bush. You don’t mind overspending at all as long as Democrats are in charge of it. It’s actually been fine with your party for at least five, maybe six, decades as they wrote legislation (SS, MCare, Obamacare) that was guaranteed to add to the deficit in a geometric fashion! Your part is also find of writing useless regulations that stifle growth in the private sector, the very place you rely on to supply the revenue needed for your programs. Economically stupid, really stupid. Then you pretend it has nothing to do with you, attempt to place blame on the opposition…so you’re a bunch of insincere phonies as well.

      Libby face it…you don’t know $#*t about how this works, or how IT COULD WORK if your party quit playing power games and actually came to the table to SOLVE PROBLEMS! Trump provides you an excellent opportunity. His track record so far proves it. He is willing to negotiate to make good law for the people but he will not bend over to the my-way-or-the-highway, crap your party calls bipartisanship. Choose or go down in flames.

      • Chris says:

        Obama reduced the deficit. In fact, the deficit was cut under the past two Democrat presidents, and has risen under the last three Republican presidents.

        • Tina says:

          The House creates spending bills.

          Clinton was able to reduce the deficit under the leadership of Newt Gingrich when Republicans took control of the House, balanced the budget, cut taxes, and adopted needed reforms:

          Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign placed welfare reform front and center. Striving to act on his campaign promise to “end welfare as we have come to know it,” Clinton was hit with a Republican-dominated Congress.

          Four years later, The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act was passed that gave states control of welfare, ending six decades of federal government control of the programs. In dismantling that model, he created something new: the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, or TANF, which changed the financing and benefit structure of cash assistance. Instead of welfare being funded in a more open-ended manner, now welfare was funded by federal block grants to states, along with a requirement that states had to match some of the federal dollars.

          Building on policies that had been passed by Reagan, and a foundational principle of “personal responsibility,” TANF added work requirements for aid, shrinking the number of adults who could qualify for benefits. This legislation also created caps for how long and how much aid a person could receive, and well as instituting harsher punishments for recipients who did not comply with the requirements

          Too bad he wasn’t as smart about those home loans. Those regulations helped to set in motion the disastrous housing crisis that your party ignorantly tries to blame on Bush.

          When George Bush was president he inherited the tech Bubble and recession. On top of that came 911 and two major hurricanes. The Republican led House was challenged beyond all norms to balance the budget but they were managing to bring deficit spending into line about the time your party took control. Under Pelosi deficits once more exploded.

          It’s naive and irresponsible to think you can increase the size of government (your party’s constant aim) and keep spending in line. That’s why the party is always looking for ways to increase our taxes. That’s why they keep the divisions going, especially between the rich and poor…a distraction from their absolute fiscal irresponsibility.

          Republicans have individually added pork, and that’s got to stop, but they do not advocate or run on raising taxes OR the federal takeover of industries to solve fiscal problems. (Dodd/Frank is a disaster that is slowly being dismantled.)

          It remains true that in addition to waste, fraud, pork, and horrendous mismanagement within departments our deficit grows because of unsustainable programs…SS, MCARE, Obamacare…and it does so under all presidents.

          CBS, not exactly a supporter of republicans published the following in 2012:

          The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama’s three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.

          The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

          The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush’s last day in office, which coincided with President Obama’s first day.

          The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.

          Mr. Obama has been quick to blame his predecessor for the soaring Debt, saying Mr. Bush paid for two wars and a Medicare prescription drug program with borrowed funds.

          The federal budget sent to Congress last month by Mr. Obama, projects the National Debt will continue to rise as far as the eye can see. The budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.

          Federal budget records show the National Debt once topped 121% of GDP at the end of World War II. The Debt that year, 1946, was, by today’s standards, a mere $270 billion dollars.

          Mr. Obama doesn’t mention the National Debt much, though he does want to be seen trying to reduce the annual budget deficit, though it’s topped a trillion dollars for four years now.

          As part of his “Win the Future” program, Mr. Obama called for “taking responsibility for our deficits, by cutting wasteful, excessive spending wherever we find it.”

          His latest budget projects a $1.3 trillion deficit this year declining to $901 billion in 2012, and then annual deficits in the range of $500 billion to $700 billion in the 10 years to come.

          If Mr. Obama wins re-election, and his budget projections prove accurate, the National Debt will top $20 trillion in 2016, the final year of his second term. That would mean the Debt increased by 87 percent, or $9.34 trillion, during his two terms.

          02-02-2016, Daily Signal:

          Traditionally, Congress has set a limit for how much debt the U.S. may take on, known simply as the debt limit. But rather than put a higher limit on the debt, lawmakers and the president have repeatedly suspended the debt limit, most recently in November of last year through March 15, 2017. During a debt limit suspension, the Department of Treasury is authorized to borrow however much is needed to pay all federal obligations that come due. This means there is basically no limit on debt the U.S. may take on.

          The House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will host a hearing on “Unsustainable Federal Spending and the Debt Limit.” I’ll be among the witnesses, together with my colleagues Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute and Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center.

          Several analysts have called for a permanent debt limit suspension or full repeal of the debt ceiling statute. In their view, the debt limit is an archaic law that serves little to no useful purpose today. They argue that because Congress authorizes all spending, it’s nonsensical to have a separate limit on borrowing. Moreover, they warn that debt limit negotiations are dangerous and bring the nation to the brink of default.

          This view is wrong. At a time when more than $8 out of every $10 in additional federal spending—over the next decade—is growing on autopilot, the debt limit is a critical tool in Congress’ arsenal to bring about positive change.

          And change is desperately needed. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that outlays will grow from $3.7 trillion in 2015 to $6.4 trillion in 2026. Moreover, spending growth is projected to outpace economic growth, as outlays are expected to grow from 20.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2015 to 23.1 percent of GDP in 2026.

          Now I ask you, how is it possible that our debt continues to grow except by deficit spending? Both parties participate but the big problem is nobody is willing to face the actual causes. We can’t pay for the big federal government programs created and pushed by liberals through the decades.

          The federal government was designed to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

          Your party bastardized the highlighted words, “promote the general welfare” to mean something entirely different than was intended. They did not intend the federal government to provide but to “promote.” They did not think in terms of the specific but in the “general,” welfare. The state governments, closer to the citizens, was to have the greater power as given to them by the people who were recognized as the place where power resides.

          The founders knew the dangers of a distant powerful government. The Constitution is a miraculous document that is grossly underappreciated by your increasingly socialist party whose ideas lead to deficits and debt, naturally.

          It does no good to argue. Big government costs big money, end of discussion.

  5. Pie Guevara says:

    The only thing missing from Lippy’s comments are a bunch of “um, like, yeah” repetitions, a few “awesomes”, barf out”, “like totally”, “fer sure fer sure”, “soooo groady”, “I’m sure no way”, “I’m, like, freaking out” and a “gag me with a spoon” or two.

  6. Tina says:

    “mark of shame.”

    Your arrogance knows no bounds! The rest of the country thinks just like you, right Chris? Mark of immaturity.

  7. Pie Guevara says:

    ed by your slurs and post-modern PC garbage.

    • Chris says:

      Excellent job at the smarmy, arrogant condescension there Chris. Dang yer good.

      It was genuine, actually. When I’m smarmy and arrogant and condescending, I’m not subtle about it. For instance, the following statement will be smarmy and arrogant and condescending: Unlike you, I actually occasionally try to reach out to people who disagree with me and find common ground. You’re incapable of that, because like most Trumpists, your prime directive is owning the libs.

      You’re actually better than most Trumpists in some ways: you will occasionally admit when he does wrong, as you did above, which I tried to give you credit for. And as you always do, you refused to accept credit from a liberal, because you hate liberals more than anything in the world. The difference between us is that I don’t hate conservatives, and I try to give credit where it is due. You are an extremist, and I am not.

      Of course you don’t. You cannot see that if one uses crude and rude language towards women but then hires them to the most powerful positions in the land and nominates them to federal judgeships does not “negate” anything, it contradicts the slur you so enjoy using.

      Because it doesn’t.

      One thing conservatives consistently fail to notice about bigotry is that bigots make exceptions. Racists often point to specific black people they like who “aren’t like those other ones.” Thomas Jefferson had black babies, for God’s sakes.

      So the fact that Trump has respect for some women doesn’t change the fact that he has consistently attacked women for issues related specifically to their gender, or that he has indicated that he values women as a group primarily for their physical appearance. The list of Republican women alone he has insulted in this way is lengthy.

      That is sexist.

      And while I think some people act in ways that are sexist without deserving the label as a noun, Trump’s pattern is consistent enough that he absolutely can be called a sexist.

      There are rational ways to combat illegal immigration and terrorism…

      You mean as in your ilk’s open border policies and the elimination of ICE?

      No, that’s not what I mean. Such policies would of course not be “ways to combat illegal immigration and terrorism.” An open borders policy would make the term “illegal immigration” meaningless. Of course, ICE was created in 2003, and we fought illegal immigration long before then.

      I go back and forth on the open borders position, and whether we should abolish ICE. I generally think illegal immigration should not be a national priority. That does not mean I see all attempts to combat illegal immigration as irrational. For instance, I think prioritizing the deportation of those who have been found guilty of a crime over, say, separating families caught at the border, would be rational. Obama’s policies toward immigration were, in some instance, a bit excessive for my tastes. But for the most part, they weren’t irrational.

      …Constantly spreading lies about entire groups of people, such as Muslims, is not a rational way to do that…

      This is sheer nonsense. It is also a bald faced lie. Trump does not constantly spread lies about entire groups of people and to assert such is the lowest form of political assassination, but not too low for you.

      Of course he does. Recently he has argued, without evidence, that there are Muslim terrorists in the caravan. As there is no evidence for this, his claim is a lie, not only about the immigrants seeking asylum, but about Muslims. It’s a two-for-one deal! (Three-for-one, if you include the anti-Semitic conspiracy that a powerful Jew is funding the caravan–the exact theory that motivated the synagogue shooter, and was embraced by Trump days later.)

      Criminals (and illegal aliens are criminals as they have broken the law) are always (at least at first) separated from their families when they are processed into the legal system (i.e. prosecuted). Now the only adult criminals under prosecution who are not separated from their families are illegal aliens.

      Stop. This is disingenuous, and you know it. The “family separation policy” refers to the practice of immediately separating children and families at the border with no plan on reuniting them or tracking the children and then putting those children in detention centers. It does not refer to the normal process of arresting criminals for crimes, a process that in every other case ensures the children are taken care of, not placed in detention centers, and tracked.

      Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor. Prior to this, the policy was to release the family and give them a court date. Most of them showed up to court and were deported together.

      If you genuinely believe that this is a rational way to treat a child whose parents committed a misdemeanor offense…I don’t know how to help you.

      https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-five-year-old-who-was-detained-at-the-border-and-convinced-to-sign-away-her-rights

      Trump ultimately stopped this practice for prosecutions. Obama did nothing. On June 20, 2018 President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen (a woman, sheesh Trump is such a sexist) to keep families in custody together “during the pendency of any criminal improper entry or immigration proceedings involving their members” at least “to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations.” That sounds pretty reasonable and rational, but evidently not to you, Chris.

      You are too smart to be this misinformed, so I must assume it is deliberate. That order did literally nothing. It was entirely symbolic. It was a feint that the administration created so that Trump could take credit for solving a problem he created. And you just…fell for it. And not even because you’re gullible, but because you choose to believe stupid things even though you know better.

      https://www.npr.org/2018/06/20/622095441/trump-executive-order-on-family-separation-what-it-does-and-doesnt-do

      “The Obama administration, the Bush administration all separated families. … Their rate was less than ours, but they absolutely did do this. This is not new.”
      Press briefing – Monday, June 18, 2018, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen

      Remember like…two weeks before this, when Nielson said that there was no family separation policy at all?

      You know this was a bald-faced lie, right?

      And yet you expect me to accept her quote here?

      Yes, some families were almost certainly separated under Obama and Bush…but that was not the general policy. Trump and Sessions (and that ghoul Steven Miller) created the policy…which made thousands of children suffer for no legitimate purpose.

      That’s what I care about…you just care about passing the buck.

      Sexually altered people is not a “nonsense” term Mr. English Major. It is plain English. It clearly and succinctly refers to people who have had their bodies or appearance altered to disguise the sex they were born with because they feel they are of a sex different from their genetic biology.

      I don’t know how much more explicit I need to be…you do know that not all trans people “alter” their bodies, right?

      I am not a bigot, but thanks for again demonstrating that you are the same rude, brainwashed PC fascist slur monger you have always been for calling me one. Not using your “proper, accepted terminology” (i.e. jargon) makes me a bigot? I don’t even know what this “proper, accepted terminology” is supposed to be

      It would be really, really easy for you to learn what this community calls themselves. In fact, I am 100% sure you already know it–they are called trans people. Go ahead, tell me you don’t know this. You can’t. And yes, refusing to call a community of people by the name they are widely accepted as is indeed bigotry.

      and who these “proper” people are who have “accepted” it. I have no desire to rob nor deny trans-whatever people of their humanity and for you to call me a bigot is grotesque. It says far more about you than me and indicates your own innate bigotry.

      Ah, I knew you knew what they were called! So it becomes clear that you calling them “sexually altered people” was just you being an asshole for no real reason.

      I really wish you wouldn’t do this.

      Your accusation here is one of the most asinine and presumptive statements you have ever posted in these pages. It would not surprise me at all that this “proper, accepted terminology” you claim is actually post-modern, politically correct gibberish, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that it may actually be valid and not irrational, half-baked garbage.

      *yawn*

      Fair? Hardly. Just because you lack the intellectual capacity to think of any potential problems does not mean that they do or would not exist. Your “zero evidence” argument is patently facile and fallacious, which is your usual style. Just because you cannot think of any problems doesn’t mean there are none or would not be.

      Great evidence there, pal.

      I can think of a few practical problems. For example: Where are “trans” people going to bunk, shower and relieve themselves in a communal situation? Trans bunks, trans showers, trans latrines? How about in the close quarters of a Navy ship with limited space?

      This isn’t evidence. This is your failure of imagination.

      Do transvestite soldiers shower with the ladies?

      Again, you use incorrect terms on purpose. “Transgender” is not “transvestite.” They are literally two different things. I do not believe that you do not know this.

      I suppose these things could be worked out, but is it worth the expense?

      It was already worked out. They were already serving. Go ahead, link me to the reports that trans people as a group were causing problems. You can’t, because they don’t exist. But as Trump said during the campaign, he “knows more than the generals,” and he had to do something to satisfy his transphobic and homophobic base. So he made this decision without consulting the Pentagon.

      As for transsexuals,

      This is the fourth term you have used to identify transgender people, and the third one that is factually incorrect. Why do you make yourself look more ignorant than you really are? To what end? Because it fools people like Tina and Peggy? Aspire to better.

      there is plenty of evidence that they suffer from the same psychological maladies they had before modifying their bodies. Moreover a statistical measure of mental health could be gleaned by the fact the suicide rate in the transgender community is 40% as compared to the 4% national average. This is also something the armed services would have to deal with.

      Look at the suicide rate among veterans and then get back to me.

      Are these concerns “transphobic?” Nonsense. “Transphobia” is just more phony gibberish invented by the extreme left for use as a political weapon.

      Is it your position that transphobia does not exist? If so, I don’t think you are in a position to tell me whether or not a given position is transphobic.

      I am not trying to convince you of anything. I could not care less what you think. I don’t even think you are a rational person, but more of a cartoon of a person who believes he is rational.

      I’m a fairly moderate liberal. If you think I’m a “cartoon,” you are fundamentally incapable of interacting with people who disagree with you. That’s your problem, not mine. You’re the radical, not me. Learn to deal with difference better.

      If anyone is bigoted here it is you for slurring me as a bigot

      Yeah, yeah. “I’m rubber, you’re glue,” “He who smelt it, dealt it,” etc. That routine has been old hat since 2009. The new routine is “Democrats are the real racists because the Confederates I think should be honored were Democrats, but they weren’t really fighting for slavery, but the Democrats loved slavery!” You know, that felon Dinesh D’Souza’s beat. You know, stuff hucksters say to idiots. You are not an idiot, so you must be a huckster.

      • Tina says:

        “your prime directive is owning the libs. ”

        Man you are lousy at reading people…lousy!

        I didn’t read the rest of your blather. I’m sure it’s filled with a lot of distortions and lies. But this caught my eye:

        “…that felon Dinesh D’Souza…”

        Possibly the only man out of many, many others who was prosecuted and sent to a regular federal prison (not blue collar) for the dastardly crime of exceeding campaign donation limits .

        Most people who commit that crime are simply notified when they exceed limits and the donation is returned.

        The FEC has notified the campaign that thousands of its 2.4 million contributors may be violating federal limits.

        Yeah D’Nesh is now a felon but his crime was really that he expressed himself in a way your party didn’t like.

        You guys are the only ones who are allowed to create films and from whatever perspective you like. Anyone who has a different perspective is required to shut up or become a felon. D”Nesh’s film/s may have contained a little too much truth for the delicate, but dastardly Dems.

  8. Tina says:

    Lessons on tax cuts, government spending and deficits from a renowned educator in economics, Walter E. Williams

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *