Predictions for a Trump presidency

[MooseMom]

Kristina, if you were to ask people who, in the end, voted for Trump, they would probably tell you that they did not want to vote for Clinton because she was "untrustworthy", blah blah blah.

So, what happened was that the Russians hacked into both the Republican and the Democratic computers, but Putin decided that he would circulate Hillary Clinton's campaigns emails, not those of the Republicans.

This fed into the whole narrative of Clinton being somehow sneaky and untrustworthy.

The abovementioned voters would most likely not discuss policy disputes, rather, they would say that Clinton was "dishonest", which is a FEELING and a PERCEPTION rather than an actual policy.

It is easy to mold people's "perceptions" and "feelings", and that's exactly what the Russians aimed to do, and they succeeded.  It is no secret.  What was gained by leaking the emails of Clinton's campaign manager?  Nothing, because there was no policy news or scandals contained within them.  But on the other hand, there was everything to be gained, because when people heard the words "leaked emails" and "Hillary Clinton" contained in one sentence, those perceptions of "secrecy" and "dishonesty" only grow.

These perceptions and feelings are impossible to quantify, so there will never be any hard proof that Russian hacking either did or didn't sway the final result of the election.

So, there was Russian hacking going on, there was possibly illegal communications between a particular Trump supporter (and maybe more) and the Russian Ambassador, AND there was a refusal by Donald Trump to release his tax returns.  But no...all anyone cared about was Hillary Clinton's emails that congress has been investigating for well over a year and spent god knows how much of our taxpayers' money on.

Of course, the real problem comes when Trump is impeached because then we'd get Mike Pence as president.  So, it's really a choice between crazy and evil.  Talk about rocks and hard places!

[kristina]

Kristina, if you were to ask people who, in the end, voted for Trump, they would probably tell you that they did not want to vote for Clinton because she was "untrustworthy", blah blah blah.

So, what happened was that the Russians hacked into both the Republican and the Democratic computers, but Putin decided that he would circulate Hillary Clinton's campaigns emails, not those of the Republicans.

This fed into the whole narrative of Clinton being somehow sneaky and untrustworthy.

The abovementioned voters would most likely not discuss policy disputes, rather, they would say that Clinton was "dishonest", which is a FEELING and a PERCEPTION rather than an actual policy.

It is easy to mold people's "perceptions" and "feelings", and that's exactly what the Russians aimed to do, and they succeeded.  It is no secret.  What was gained by leaking the emails of Clinton's campaign manager?  Nothing, because there was no policy news or scandals contained within them.  But on the other hand, there was everything to be gained, because when people heard the words "leaked emails" and "Hillary Clinton" contained in one sentence, those perceptions of "secrecy" and "dishonesty" only grow.

These perceptions and feelings are impossible to quantify, so there will never be any hard proof that Russian hacking either did or didn't sway the final result of the election.

So, there was Russian hacking going on, there was possibly illegal communications between a particular Trump supporter (and maybe more) and the Russian Ambassador, AND there was a refusal by Donald Trump to release his tax returns.  But no...all anyone cared about was Hillary Clinton's emails that congress has been investigating for well over a year and spent god knows how much of our taxpayers' money on.

Of course, the real problem comes when Trump is impeached because then we'd get Mike Pence as president.  So, it's really a choice between crazy and evil.  Talk about rocks and hard places!

Dear MooseMom many thanks for your kind explanation ... and I can fully understand your distress ... and I wish to know what to say but words fail me 

[MooseMom]

That's alright, Kristina!  I'm pouring myself a nice peaty Islay scotch.   

[kristina]

Dear MooseMom I do understand    ... and ... it is so very sad    ... and ... words still fail me ... 

[Simon Dog]

A bit oblique to the topic, but....

The Trump Presidency will give us a chance to see if the various large donors to the Clinton Foundation were doing it because they wanted to support the good works of the foundation or if it was an attempt to purchase access/influence.

If it was the former, donations will continue to come in from these entities in the same large amounts.  If the donations do not continue on the past pattern, it would be suggestive on an attempt to buy influence.

Trump is demonstrating one thing - what really matters in politics is (a) Winning, and (b) Not getting indicted.   He succeeded at both.   Clinton only succeeded at the later.   That stuff like "it not whether you win or lose but how you play the game that counts" gets left behind on the grade school yard.

But no...all anyone cared about was Hillary Clinton's emails that congress has been investigating for well over a year and spent god knows how much of our taxpayers' money on.

Nobody really cared about dirt on either side (neither had a shortage).    Complaints about the other sides dirt were a proxy for either  "I don't believe the the conservative pro-market anti-tax agenda" or "I don't believe in the progressive redistributionist agenda".  If the dirt was on the other side, most people would simply switch which dirt they pretended was important.

[MooseMom]

A bit oblique to the topic, but....

The Trump Presidency will give us a chance to see if the various large donors to the Clinton Foundation were doing it because they wanted to support the good works of the foundation or if it was an attempt to purchase access/influence.

If it was the former, donations will continue to come in from these entities in the same large amounts.  If the donations do not continue on the past pattern, it would be suggestive on an attempt to buy influence.

No one is going to care.  All attention will be on Trump and Congress and whether or not they're going to gut Medicare and Social security.  The "investigation" into the Clinton Foundation achieved the desired effect, i.e., to divert attention toward Clinton's "corruption" and away from Trump's lack of any coherent policy.  It worked.

That stuff like "it not whether you win or lose but how you play the game that counts" gets left behind on the grade school yard. 

Not according to the Constitution and The Logan Act.

[Simon Dog]

Not according to the Constitution and The Logan Act.

That's why I said there are two things that matter - winning and not getting indicted.

No one is going to care.

Winner winner chicken dinner.   No one cares about the scandals/sleaze on either side, except when using them to make the other side look bad.    The Republicans that deplore the handling of Bengazi would be defending it if one of their people said "what does it matter" regarding a few people getting killed.

whether or not they're going to gut Medicare and Social security.

The real eyes are on the Obamacare replacement.   Looks like the solution is allowing insurance that doesn't pay out except for a few specific conditions after a huge deductible.

Neither party can change the basic fact - to give to someone you have to take from someone else.  Obamacare concentrated much of the "take" on persons who pay for their own insurance without a government subsidy, rather than spreading it around to everyone (though funding of the subsidy partially did that).   What was lacking from the proponents was an honest discussion of who the losers are - as in "you middle class healthy people who pay your own way will have some of your income transferred to less wealthy and less healthy people, and we will do it by force, not by "asking" you to contribute".

[MooseMom]

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-woman-denied-insurance-coverage-for-heart-10856877.php?t=296987fbda438d9cbb&cmpid=fb-premium

I am originally from Houston, and one of my childhood friends knows this woman.  I am middle class and pay my own way, and I am happy for my tax dollars to go to helping a fellow American get the transplant she needs instead of being refused by a profit making corporation.  I do not feel "forced". 

Healthy people get sick, and they have accidents.  My neighbor was in a terrible motorcycling accident 3 month ago.  He is now on dialysis because his kidneys are lacerated (he may be off D by now), and he has shattered at least 10 bones.  I don't know if he has health insurance, but if he does not, then who do you think will be "forced" to pay his costs?  You and I.

How is this "solution" to health care you mention going to work?  "Looks like the solution is allowing insurance that doesn't pay out except for a few specific conditions after a huge deductible"...so, what happens?  Are people going to think to themselves, "I might get MS, so I will buy a policy that doesn't pay for anything but MS."?  Who has proposed this?  I'd like to find out more, or maybe I've just got the wrong end of the stick.

Taxation is all about being forced to give so that money can be handed to someone else.  That is what elections are for, for electing people who will spend your forcibly paid money in the way that you would like.  I'd prefer for my forcibly paid money to go to my fellow Americans to ensure their access to health care than to subsidize Israeli defense systems while they are illegally still building settlements on occupied territory.

[Simon Dog]

  I do not feel "forced". 

It does not matter how you "feel" - the government will use whatever level of force, including guns, that is necessary to extract payment from you.

Whether or not that is a good thing is a valid question, but it confuses the issue to call it anything other than a forced taking.

Are people going to think to themselves, "I might get MS, so I will buy a policy that doesn't pay for anything but MS."?  Who has proposed this?  I'd like to find out more, or maybe I've just got the wrong end of the stick.

More like "I will accept the fact that I will pay the first $10,000 per year out of pocket and have coverage for amounts above that in return for a lower premium" and "I'll accept a more restrictive drug formulary in return for a lower premium".

[Shaks24]

Not to worry. The President Elect has now said everyone will have coverage with lower deductibles and premiums. And they will be covered beautifully. He also said no cuts to medicare. Only thing missing is the details of how this will come about. If healthcare funding is cut by a repeal bill, its hard to figure out how this could happen. It does not sound like he and the GOP are on the same path. I wonder what covered beautifully means?

[Simon Dog]

I'll stick with carbs for a while.

A flaw in the Obamacare is that only some people pay for these new extras.   Middle class people who work don't (except through the subsidies), since they are still in the employer pools of people healthy enough to work sold to companies that minimizes self-selection bias.    People who are on medicaid or get large subsidies don't.  The people who get hammered are those who buy unsubsidized polices on the exchanges where those unable to work because of illness, and population with a large self-selection bias will flee.

Ryan mentioned creating an high risk pool, and subsidizing that directly - with the payment spread across the taxpayer base rather than the unfortunate few who buy on the exchanges without a subsidy.

Obamacare has changed the game - it is going to be very difficult to take away pre-existing condition insurance, no payment cap or up to age 26 for offspring.   Too many oxen will get gored if they do that.

[Athena]

If the ACA can be amended so that it works better, I'd be all for it.  But I and everyone on here at IHD have a pre-existing condition, and our care is expensive.  So when Congress starts rabbiting on about changing Medicare and repealing the ACA, we get scared.  Can you empathize with that at all?  This might be a big game to you, but to us, it is not.

Again I will ask you:  where do you live and how is your personal health care paid for?  Can you at least answer that one question as this is the third time I've asked you!  Thank you!

Moosemum, I am not obligated to divulge any personal details on the internet so please desist from demanding anyone to do so. And what's with the KGB style of interrogation, anyway? Mind your manners. No one needs to answer any question you ask on this forum. Thank you!

And stop trying to accuse any fellow kidney patient of seeing healthcare as a big game. That is a joke and you go too far in your outlandish comments. Mind your manners.

[MooseMom]

Moosemum, I am not obligated to divulge any personal details on the internet so please desist from demanding anyone to do so. And what's with the KGB style of interrogation, anyway? Mind your manners. No one needs to answer any question you ask on this forum. Thank you!

And stop trying to accuse any fellow kidney patient of seeing healthcare as a big game. That is a joke and you go too far in your outlandish comments. Mind your manners.

AHA!!!   And there we have it at last!  You don't answer any of my questions because you CAN'T!  You can't defend one single, solitary thing you've said in this entire discussion, so instead you go all pc and tell me to "mind my manners".  That's so Trumpian, it's fantastic!! 

Where have I accused any of your fellow kidney patients of seeing healthcare as a big game?  Where have I even used the word "game" in any post on this thread?  Are you mistaking me for another IHD poster, perhaps?  Oh, I apologize.  I've asked you a question that you can't answer.  Is that a KGB tactic?  Let's ask Trump!  He'll know!!  He can ask our new president Vladdy Putin!

Since you live in some mystery country that is not the US, you probably don't understand that healthcare IS seen as a big game by those who profit from it.  Come to think of it, you may be right.  Perhaps we American kidney patients DO see it as a big game in which we are perpetually the big losers.

Your post has illustrated intellectual dishonesty at its finest.  When you can't answer or don't want to answer, you deflect and insult.  Just like your hero, Mr. Trump.

"You know nothing, Jon Snow."

[Simon Dog]

Where have I even used the word "game" in any post on this thread?

"Game" has many meanings.  In fact, the economics of medicine, insurance and pricing are a subject well suited to analysis by the branch of science known as "Game Theory".

[Athena]

Moosemum, I am not obligated to divulge any personal details on the internet so please desist from demanding anyone to do so. And what's with the KGB style of interrogation, anyway? Mind your manners. No one needs to answer any question you ask on this forum. Thank you!

And stop trying to accuse any fellow kidney patient of seeing healthcare as a big game. That is a joke and you go too far in your outlandish comments. Mind your manners.

AHA!!!   And there we have it at last!  You don't answer any of my questions because you CAN'T!  You can't defend one single, solitary thing you've said in this entire discussion, so instead you go all pc and tell me to "mind my manners".  That's so Trumpian, it's fantastic!! 

Where have I accused any of your fellow kidney patients of seeing healthcare as a big game?  Where have I even used the word "game" in any post on this thread?  Are you mistaking me for another IHD poster, perhaps?  Oh, I apologize.  I've asked you a question that you can't answer.  Is that a KGB tactic?  Let's ask Trump!  He'll know!!  He can ask our new president Vladdy Putin!

Since you live in some mystery country that is not the US, you probably don't understand that healthcare IS seen as a big game by those who profit from it.  Come to think of it, you may be right.  Perhaps we American kidney patients DO see it as a big game in which we are perpetually the big losers.

Your post has illustrated intellectual dishonesty at its finest.  When you can't answer or don't want to answer, you deflect and insult.  Just like your hero, Mr. Trump.

Wow Moosemum, I'm speechless at this. Be my guest in thinking that someone is "intellectually dishonest" for protecting their privacy under cyber interrogation. The compliment about sounding Trumpian, trumps all insults! I can't thank you enough for this compliment! 

[kristina]

If the ACA can be amended so that it works better, I'd be all for it.  But I and everyone on here at IHD have a pre-existing condition, and our care is expensive.  So when Congress starts rabbiting on about changing Medicare and repealing the ACA, we get scared.  Can you empathize with that at all?  This might be a big game to you, but to us, it is not.

Again I will ask you:  where do you live and how is your personal health care paid for?  Can you at least answer that one question as this is the third time I've asked you!  Thank you!

Moosemum, I am not obligated to divulge any personal details on the internet so please desist from demanding anyone to do so. And what's with the KGB style of interrogation, anyway? Mind your manners. No one needs to answer any question you ask on this forum. Thank you!

And stop trying to accuse any fellow kidney patient of seeing healthcare as a big game. That is a joke and you go too far in your outlandish comments. Mind your manners.

Crikey Athena !!!  What a statement !!!
... Nevertheless, I still would like to know, what makes you so sure about "political things" and especially about a successful Donald-Trump-Presidency? How can you know? You seem to be so very certain & assured and I have been wondering if you could have some insider-connections, but since you are obviously not living in America (or are you?), that seems to be very unlikely ... ? I am getting very intrigued, where on earth you get your political certainty from and I would like to kindly ask you to share it with us please! Perhaps you could put our fears at rest? The reason for my own fears and for my asking is that because of my former studies in history I can see very clearly MooseMom's fears and I can also fully understand, where her fears come from, but that is only because in the past I have been studying a bit of history, especially the "exploitation" of political PR in the early 20th century with the help of Radio, Cinema & newspapers etc. and resulting events between 1933-1945...
I very much thank you for your answers and send you my kind regards from Kristina.

[MooseMom]

Two predictions made in this discussion have already come true.

1.  Trump has already decided he will not be attending the WHCD.

2.  Trump is just not that into governing.

[Bill Peckham]

aww I missed this thread when it was started. How about new predictions - who will be the first Trump Cabinet Secretary to resign/forced out?

[Bill Peckham]

aww I missed this thread when it was started. How about new predictions - who will be the first Trump Cabinet Secretary to resign/forced out?

My prediction is our Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. His connection with the Cyprus Bank that Manafort used to launder Russian funds will be why.

[MooseMom]

Ooooh, that's a good guess, Bill.  Trump is blathering right now about something or another and said that "Wilbur" is well known as just "Wilbur" among his friends on Wall Street.  Hmmmmm.  I'm just as concerned about his friends in Russia.

Trump is now referring to Mar al Lago as the "Summer White House" and has said that he will be taking China's President there next week.  Taxpayers pay for the upkeep of The White House which is fair enough as it is "the people's house".  Anyone care to predict when the Summer White House will be open for tours?  Spicy said it's "phenomenal".

How much is it costing us to send Trump and his entourage and security detail et al to The Summer White House every damn weekend? 

What if the Obamas had a "Chicago White House"?  Can you imagine the Republican meltdown?

It's just all rubbishy, really.

[Jean]

Well, well, MM strikes again. You MUST answer all of her questions, whether you want to or not. And, if you don't then you get called all kinds of names, the only good one being, you are a Trump Lover. And Kristina, I am stunned at your post. I have never thought of you talking like that to any one EVER!!! Guess MM's remarks and attempts at bullying are rubbing off on you.  The guys here, never get personal or insulting, so I dont know why you think you can or should be rude to any one MM. So clean up your act and MIND YOUR MANNERS MM.

[MooseMom]

When have I ever called anyone a "Trump Lover"?  I have better words than that.  LOL!

MM Strikes Again!!  You betcha!

OK, Jean.  I'll play the bully role.  Show us one quote of mine on this thread where I called someone a "name".

And since I'm a big meanie, I'm sure you're expecting a question, so here's one.  Name three things that Trump has done so far that has made you feel proud and secure.  Maybe you can help me to feel better about Trump.  Here is your chance.

Oh, one last thing.  You can fuss at me all you want, but you have no business going after Kristina.  She has an historical researcher's body of knowledge that leads her to ask the questions she asked.  She doesn't need anyone's influence to guide her queries, least of all mine.  So, you can put down the pitchfork you've aimed at her.  I'm the nasty woman here, not Kristina.

[Jean]

 I think ( oh, am I allowed to think) Sure I am, this is America. No, I do not expect a question from you, it is totally due to a lack of interest. Nothing will make you feel better about Trump, and oh, you forgot to mention last years taxes. Slipping kiddo. I did not and would not ever, ever "go after" Kristina. Dont even make that up.GO after Kristina? Aim a pitchfork at her? No, not now or not ever. I was one of the first  people to welcome her back after she had left the group for awhile, and you can look that up also. As a matter of fact, in 10 years I have never picked on or made any one mad on IHD. This program was designed for all of us to get along, not demand answers or insist upon quotes, one of your favorite things to do. I try not to even look at most of your posts, even tho I am fairly sure many of them are accurate, since, evidently you know everything.
The long and short of it is, you are in fact a bully, and those were your words, not mine. But dont you now or ever dare to insult me by saying I "went after" some one. I did not.

[MooseMom]

Jean, I apologize for having a go at you for having a go at Kristina.  I obviously misinterpreted the intent of your previous post.  I am sorry.

However, I don't understand why, despite your stated lack of interest, you've suddenly popped up in this discussion for no apparent reason other than to call me a bully.

But since you ARE here, do you have any opinions on what has so far transpired during this young presidency?  I'm not demanding answers from you, but I am interested in your opinion.  What do you think the President will do about Health Care?  Do you think he will work with moderate Republicans and Democrats to fix the ACA?  How do you think he will handle the Freedom Caucus in his upcoming budget discussions with Congress?

Again, no demand for answers.  Just interested in your viewpoint. 

I ask questions precisely because I DON'T know everything.  But if you want to have a go at me, that's OK!  I really don't mind.

[kickingandscreaming]

How much is it costing us to send Trump and his entourage and security detail et al to The Summer White House every damn weekend? 

3 Million a pop.