Be careful what you wish for. That little skunk would probably do a Ford - pardon his former boss!Gaybutton wrote:I wouldn't want either of them, but at least for now I think Pence is the lesser of the evilsSmiles wrote:Not quite sure who is the most dangerous.
Consequences of Trump's Win - 5
Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 5
- Gaybutton
- Posts: 21788
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:21 am
- Location: Thailand
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 1354 times
Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 5
Even if "President Pence" would be foolish enough to do that, probably ruining his own chances of being elected, if Trump is also convicted on state charges, along with federal charges, Pence would have the authority to pardon federal crimes, but he would not be able to pardon state crimes.fountainhall wrote:Be careful what you wish for. That little skunk would probably do a Ford - pardon his former boss!
A president can pardon federal crimes, but cannot pardon state crimes.
If I were Trump I would pardon Manafort, Cohen, and Bernie Madoff - thus increasing his chances of at least getting his own private jail cell . . .
- Undaunted
- Posts: 2580
- Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 8:47 am
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 369 times
Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 5
Meet the next president:
"In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king"
- Gaybutton
- Posts: 21788
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:21 am
- Location: Thailand
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 1354 times
Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 5
Contents of the future Trump Presidential Library revealed:
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch& ... pe95CQX1k4
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch& ... pe95CQX1k4
Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 5
Errr . . . something wrong with that list. There's at least a dozen gay magazines featured!
- Gaybutton
- Posts: 21788
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:21 am
- Location: Thailand
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 1354 times
Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 5
Maybe one of the investigations will out him. I hope not, though. What a terrible insult that would be to "gaydom."fountainhall wrote:There's at least a dozen gay magazines featured!
Of course, you can never be too sure what might be going on in the Oval Office . . .
- Gaybutton
- Posts: 21788
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:21 am
- Location: Thailand
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 1354 times
Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 5
It is too soon to know what, if any, immediate effect this decision will cause. This decision is virtually guaranteed to end up in the Supreme Court. Even Trump says he wants pre-existing condition coverage to be protected.
________________________________________________________________
Federal judge in Texas strikes down Affordable Care Act
By Ariane de Vogue and Tami Luhby, CNN
December 14, 2018
(CNN) - A federal judge in Texas said on Friday that the Affordable Care Act's individual coverage mandate is unconstitutional and that the rest of the law must also fall.
"The Court ... declares the Individual Mandate ... unconstitutional," District Judge Reed O'Connor wrote in his decision. "Further, the Court declares the remaining provisions of the ACA ... are inseverable and therefore invalid."
The case against the ACA, also known as Obamacare, brought by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors, as well as two individuals. It revolves around Congress effectively eliminating the individual mandate penalty by reducing it to $0 as part of the 2017 tax cut bill.
The Republican coalition is arguing that the change rendered the mandate itself unconstitutional. They say that the voiding of the penalty, which takes effect next year, removes the legal underpinning the Supreme Court relied upon when it upheld the law in 2012 under Congress' tax power. The mandate requires nearly all Americans to get health insurance or pay a penalty.
The Trump administration said in June that it would not defend several important provisions of Obamacare in court. It agreed that the zeroing out the penalty renders the individual mandate unconstitutional but argued that that invalidates only the law's protections of those with pre-existing conditions. These include banning insurers from denying people policies or charging them more based on their medical histories, as well as limiting coverage of the treatment they need.
But the administration maintained those parts of the law were severable and the rest of the Affordable Care Act could remain in place.
Because the administration would not defend the law, California, joined by 16 other Democratic states, stepped in. They argued that the mandate remains constitutional and that the rest of the law, in any event, can stand without it. Also, they said that eliminating Obamacare or the protections for those with pre-existing conditions would harm millions of Americans.
In oral arguments in September, a lawyer for California said that the harm from striking down the law would be "devastating" and that more than 20 million Americans were able to gain health insurance under it.
The lawsuit entered the spotlight during the midterm elections, helping propel many Democratic candidates to victory. Protecting those with pre-existing conditions became a central focus of the races. Some 58% of Americans said they trust Democrats more to continue the law's provisions, compared to 26% who chose Republicans, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation election tracking poll released in mid-October.
The consumer protections targeted by the administration are central to Obamacare and transformed the health insurance landscape. Their popularity is one of the main reasons GOP lawmakers had such difficulty repealing Obamacare last year.
"Guaranteed issue" requires insurers to offer coverage to everyone regardless of their medical history. Prior to the Affordable Care Act, insurers often rejected applicants who are or had been ill or offered them only limited coverage with high rates.
Under the law's community rating provision, insurers are not allowed to set premiums based on a person's health history. And the ban on excluding pre-existing conditions from coverage meant that insurers cannot refuse to pay for treatments because of a policyholder's medical background.
All these provisions meant millions of people with less-than-perfect health records could get comprehensive coverage. But they also have pushed up premiums for those who are young and healthy. This group would have likely been able to get less expensive policies that offered fewer benefits prior to Obamacare. That has put the measures in the crosshairs of Republicans seeking to repeal the law and lower premiums.
It's no wonder that politicians on both sides of the aisle promised to protect those with pre-existing conditions during the election. Three-quarters of Americans say that it is "very important" for the law to continue prohibiting health insurers from denying coverage because of medical histories, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's September tracking poll -- 58% of Republicans feel the same way. And about the same share of Americans say it's "very important" that insurers continue to be barred from charging sick people more.
https://us.cnn.com/2018/12/14/politics/ ... index.html
________________________________________________________________
Federal judge in Texas strikes down Affordable Care Act
By Ariane de Vogue and Tami Luhby, CNN
December 14, 2018
(CNN) - A federal judge in Texas said on Friday that the Affordable Care Act's individual coverage mandate is unconstitutional and that the rest of the law must also fall.
"The Court ... declares the Individual Mandate ... unconstitutional," District Judge Reed O'Connor wrote in his decision. "Further, the Court declares the remaining provisions of the ACA ... are inseverable and therefore invalid."
The case against the ACA, also known as Obamacare, brought by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors, as well as two individuals. It revolves around Congress effectively eliminating the individual mandate penalty by reducing it to $0 as part of the 2017 tax cut bill.
The Republican coalition is arguing that the change rendered the mandate itself unconstitutional. They say that the voiding of the penalty, which takes effect next year, removes the legal underpinning the Supreme Court relied upon when it upheld the law in 2012 under Congress' tax power. The mandate requires nearly all Americans to get health insurance or pay a penalty.
The Trump administration said in June that it would not defend several important provisions of Obamacare in court. It agreed that the zeroing out the penalty renders the individual mandate unconstitutional but argued that that invalidates only the law's protections of those with pre-existing conditions. These include banning insurers from denying people policies or charging them more based on their medical histories, as well as limiting coverage of the treatment they need.
But the administration maintained those parts of the law were severable and the rest of the Affordable Care Act could remain in place.
Because the administration would not defend the law, California, joined by 16 other Democratic states, stepped in. They argued that the mandate remains constitutional and that the rest of the law, in any event, can stand without it. Also, they said that eliminating Obamacare or the protections for those with pre-existing conditions would harm millions of Americans.
In oral arguments in September, a lawyer for California said that the harm from striking down the law would be "devastating" and that more than 20 million Americans were able to gain health insurance under it.
The lawsuit entered the spotlight during the midterm elections, helping propel many Democratic candidates to victory. Protecting those with pre-existing conditions became a central focus of the races. Some 58% of Americans said they trust Democrats more to continue the law's provisions, compared to 26% who chose Republicans, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation election tracking poll released in mid-October.
The consumer protections targeted by the administration are central to Obamacare and transformed the health insurance landscape. Their popularity is one of the main reasons GOP lawmakers had such difficulty repealing Obamacare last year.
"Guaranteed issue" requires insurers to offer coverage to everyone regardless of their medical history. Prior to the Affordable Care Act, insurers often rejected applicants who are or had been ill or offered them only limited coverage with high rates.
Under the law's community rating provision, insurers are not allowed to set premiums based on a person's health history. And the ban on excluding pre-existing conditions from coverage meant that insurers cannot refuse to pay for treatments because of a policyholder's medical background.
All these provisions meant millions of people with less-than-perfect health records could get comprehensive coverage. But they also have pushed up premiums for those who are young and healthy. This group would have likely been able to get less expensive policies that offered fewer benefits prior to Obamacare. That has put the measures in the crosshairs of Republicans seeking to repeal the law and lower premiums.
It's no wonder that politicians on both sides of the aisle promised to protect those with pre-existing conditions during the election. Three-quarters of Americans say that it is "very important" for the law to continue prohibiting health insurers from denying coverage because of medical histories, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's September tracking poll -- 58% of Republicans feel the same way. And about the same share of Americans say it's "very important" that insurers continue to be barred from charging sick people more.
https://us.cnn.com/2018/12/14/politics/ ... index.html
- Smiles
- Posts: 665
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 4:12 am
- Location: Hua Hin
- Has thanked: 31 times
- Been thanked: 90 times
Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 5
There's a name for that 25%: 'The Deplorables.' Hillary Clinton gave out that name during the debates, but it turned out to be a very real characterization.And yet, his supporters don't seem to give a damn and just overlook all of it, as if none of it even matters. I wish I could understand why, but I don't.
Cheers ... ( and just one more reason why I love living in Thailand )
- Gaybutton
- Posts: 21788
- Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:21 am
- Location: Thailand
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 1354 times
Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 5
This video was published in August 2018, prior to the midterm election.
Re: Consequences of Trump's Win - 5
Inverstors "Watch Out! Prepare for the Worst!"
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/18/busi ... index.html
Greenspan is no longer acknowledged as the guru he once was after the lead up to the 2008 massive financial crisis started and continued well into his watch. As with all economists, some agree with him. Others disagree. Let's see where the chips fall. But stagflation does not sound a pleasant prospect.Alan Greenspan says the party's over on Wall Street.
The former Federal Reserve chairman who famously warned more than two decades ago about "irrational exuberance" in the stock market doesn't see equity prices going any higher than they are now.
"It would be very surprising to see it sort of stabilize here, and then take off," Greenspan said in an interview with CNN anchor Julia Chatterley.
He added that markets could still go up further — but warned investors that the correction would be painful: "At the end of that run, run for cover."
. . . The former chairman also warned that the United States may be poised for a period of stagflation, "a toxic mix" when the economy suffers from high inflation and high unemployment. The last time the country experienced such an episode was in the 1970s and early 1980s.
"How long it lasts or how big it gets, it's too soon to tell," said Greenspan. "We'll know it when we get on top of it."
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/18/busi ... index.html