What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Jacob]

In other exciting news, there's a bill in the House of Representatives to end the US's membership of the United Nations: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/193/

I suppose that will languish away in committee?

[CountDeMoney]

Collect a full set Spicey!

Just not the same.  Seriously no 22kt gold rim on these??  PASS

And, it's a horrid picture. He's smiling.

[grumbler]

it's possible that'll happen here, sure. but I'm less inclined to think a presidential commission will release a report that reads like an alex jones blog post, or whatever the feared outcome

I'm inclined to think that you are either trolling, or the most gullible person I am in contact with.  Why have a commission at all, and spend all that money, when the scientific answer is already known, but contrary to the wishes of the person ordering the study and the person chairing it?  Why not have a commission looking into whether things fall when you let go of them, or looking into whether cars really need wheels to operate?  But they are not.  Trump is only ordering commissions on things he wants to ignore the science on, and is appointing people who will tell him what he wants to hear.  I think the evidence (i.e. the ordering of the needless study and the appointment of an unqualified person who has already made up his mind to campaign against science as its chair) is precisely the evidence that the result will "read... like an alex jones blog post" that you say doesn't exist.

[LaCroix]

You wouldn't think because it hasn't been done before. But hasn't been done before so far has not proven to be any obstacle to Trump's antics.

I think chairing a presidential commission, for a non-crazy man, creates a sense of responsibility in the chairman. what you're suggesting will happen is basically a complete disregard of that responsibility. I don't know RFK, but I'm guessing he's not an alex jones-type or a troll.

[LaCroix]

I'm inclined to think that you are either trolling, or the most gullible person I am in contact with.  Why have a commission at all, and spend all that money, when the scientific answer is already known, but contrary to the wishes of the person ordering the study and the person chairing it?  Why not have a commission looking into whether things fall when you let go of them, or looking into whether cars really need wheels to operate?  But they are not.  Trump is only ordering commissions on things he wants to ignore the science on, and is appointing people who will tell him what he wants to hear.  I think the evidence (i.e. the ordering of the needless study and the appointment of an unqualified person who has already made up his mind to campaign against science as its chair) is precisely the evidence that the result will "read... like an alex jones blog post" that you say doesn't exist.

because I don't think trump has looked at any of the evidence on this. I think he heard or read about a few of these allegations and thought, hey, that makes sense. let's look into this. I don't think he realizes just how much evidence there is on this. in trump's world, placing a skeptic outsider to chair the commission probably makes sense to really dig at the truth. some people here are taking this as evidence that trump intentionally does not care and only wants to attack vaccinations. I don't think that's the case at all. he'd just do it if he wanted, like with the russian hack allegations. why even form a presidential commission? why not just go on a full blown attack.

[The Minsky Moment]

because I don't think trump has looked at any of the evidence on this.

There see finally something we can all agree on

[dps]

Not so much intrusive, but he's saying dps is a dumbass and asking for the means to prove it.

Much smarter to call him a dumbass after he gives you the evidence.

I am not trying to be clever, and I am perfectly content with letting dps know that I am skeptical of his report on his policy prior to asking to see it.

I could be wrong, of course - maybe he really does have a $100,000 co-pay max.

Ok, I'll eat crow here.  I had posted out of memory, and I was wrong.  Sorta.  My policy actually has a $12,900 out-of-pocket max.  BUT--that's for in-network care;  there is NO max on out-of-network care.  The cherry on the top of that?  Our policy is through Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and our local hospital doesn't accept BC/BS.  Just perfect.

[garbon]

I'd be more concerned if the result findings go against the scientific community

You're so calm. It's very soothing. I'm sure everything will be fine.

Well, I guess life can't get all that worse (apart from life ceasing to exist) in the Dakotas, no?

[grumbler]

Ok, I'll eat crow here.  I had posted out of memory, and I was wrong.  Sorta.  My policy actually has a $12,900 out-of-pocket max.  BUT--that's for in-network care;  there is NO max on out-of-network care.  The cherry on the top of that?  Our policy is through Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and our local hospital doesn't accept BC/BS.  Just perfect.

Soooo.... you chose an expensive bad plan that your local hospital doesn't honor.  Just perfect.  I can see why you want everyone else reduced to your level; you sure ain't gonna rise to ours.

[jimmy olsen]

it's possible that'll happen here, sure. but I'm less inclined to think a presidential commission will release a report that reads like an alex jones blog post, or whatever the feared outcome

Trump's been on Alex Jones show and praised him for telling it like it is. Why wouldn't he release a commission report that reads like that?

[DGuller]

Not so much intrusive, but he's saying dps is a dumbass and asking for the means to prove it.

Much smarter to call him a dumbass after he gives you the evidence.

I am not trying to be clever, and I am perfectly content with letting dps know that I am skeptical of his report on his policy prior to asking to see it.

I could be wrong, of course - maybe he really does have a $100,000 co-pay max.

Ok, I'll eat crow here.  I had posted out of memory, and I was wrong.  Sorta.  My policy actually has a $12,900 out-of-pocket max.  BUT--that's for in-network care;  there is NO max on out-of-network care.  The cherry on the top of that?  Our policy is through Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and our local hospital doesn't accept BC/BS.  Just perfect.

I'm going to take a guess and say that even $12,900 figure is too high.  It's probably a combined limit.  The individual limit is probably half of that.

[dps]

Ok, I'll eat crow here.  I had posted out of memory, and I was wrong.  Sorta.  My policy actually has a $12,900 out-of-pocket max.  BUT--that's for in-network care;  there is NO max on out-of-network care.  The cherry on the top of that?  Our policy is through Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and our local hospital doesn't accept BC/BS.  Just perfect.

Soooo.... you chose an expensive bad plan that your local hospital doesn't honor.  Just perfect.  I can see why you want everyone else reduced to your level; you sure ain't gonna rise to ours.

It wasn't my choice;  it was one of the 3 plans my employer offered, all of which were through BC/BS.  And it was the most affordable plan they offered.

[LaCroix]

Trump's been on Alex Jones show and praised him for telling it like it is. Why wouldn't he release a commission report that reads like that?

attending his show isn't having him chair a presidential commission

[CountDeMoney]

Ok, I'll eat crow here.  I had posted out of memory, and I was wrong.  Sorta.  My policy actually has a $12,900 out-of-pocket max.  BUT--that's for in-network care;  there is NO max on out-of-network care.  The cherry on the top of that?  Our policy is through Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and our local hospital doesn't accept BC/BS.  Just perfect.

Soooo.... you chose an expensive bad plan that your local hospital doesn't honor.  Just perfect.  I can see why you want everyone else reduced to your level; you sure ain't gonna rise to ours.

The fuck kind of hospital doesn't accept BC/BS?  Scientology? Veterinary?

[Ed Anger]

In other exciting news, there's a bill in the House of Representatives to end the US's membership of the United Nations: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/193/

I suppose that will languish away in committee?