What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[DGuller]

Everytime LaCroix puts one of his dumbass smilies in an unfunny post he should be banned for a day. Two when he types LOL.

And multiply that by the longest streak of consecutive posts in the thread (capped at 10).

[Syt]

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/07/politics/kellyanne-conway-donald-trump-falsehoods/index.html

Conway: Do falsehoods matter as much as what we get right?

Washington (CNN)White House aide Kellyanne Conway seemed to acknowledge Tuesday falsehoods spread by the Trump administration.

CNN's Jake Tapper asked Conway repeatedly about President Donald Trump's attacks on the press and spreading of misinformation. In response, she asked if those falsehoods should matter as much as what Trump does say and do correctly.

"How about the President's statements that are false?" Tapper asked at one point. "I'm talking about the President of the United States saying things that are not true, demonstrably not true. That is important."

"Are they more important than the many things that he says that are true that are making a difference in people's lives?" Conway asked in response.

At a different part in the interview, Tapper told Conway the President's words mattered and they were obscuring other things he did.

The CNN anchor said that instead of being able to focus solely on policy, the media was spending time sorting through attacks and falsehoods from the White House.

"Every day there are these sprays of attack and sprays of falsehoods coming from the White House. It would be better if they were not coming from the White House, for me and for you," Tapper said.

"Agreed, and let me just say it has to go both ways. I do, Jake, I sincerely don't see a lot of difference in coverage from when he was a candidate and when he became the Republican nominee, the president-elect and, indeed, the President," Conway said.

"This White House and the media have joint custody of our country," Conway said. "I am beseeching everybody to cool it down a little bit here and there, but look there are some stories that are false."

On Monday, Trump said any negative poll was "fake news" and said the media suppressed news of terrorism. On Tuesday, he again attacked the media and lied about the murder rate.

[Monoriu]

I hate it when people deploy logic like this.  As if telling the truth is somehow at odds with making a difference in people's lives.  So no one has been able to do a good job without telling outright lies?

[garbon]

Chantix is a hell of a drug.

Indeed!

[Syt]

Morans.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/upshot/one-third-dont-know-obamacare-and-affordable-care-act-are-the-same.html?smid=tw-share

One-Third Don't Know Obamacare and Affordable Care Act Are the Same

A sizable minority of Americans don't understand that Obamacare is just another name for the Affordable Care Act.

This finding, from a poll by Morning Consult, illustrates the extent of public confusion over a health law that President Trump and Republicans in Congress hope to repeal.

In the survey, 35 percent of respondents said either they thought Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act were different policies (17 percent) or didn't know if they were the same or different (18 percent). This confusion was more pronounced among people 18 to 29 and those who earn less than $50,000 — two groups that could be significantly affected by repeal.

Among Republicans, a higher percentage (72 percent) said they knew Obamacare and the A.C.A. were the same, which may reflect the party's longstanding hostility to the law.

When respondents were asked what would happen if Obamacare were repealed, even more people were stumped. Approximately 45 percent did not know that the A.C.A. would be repealed. Twelve percent of Americans said the A.C.A. would not be repealed, and 32 percent said they didn't know.

Confusion about the health law has been persistent. Several years ago, the late-night host Jimmy Kimmel poked fun at people who thought Obamacare and the A.C.A. were different, and similar examples spread on social media last month after Congress paved the way for repeal. (Republicans say they will replace the law with a better policy but have not agreed on any legislation.)

This confusion may affect the public debate over health care policy. If many people think repealing Obamacare would not affect the popular provisions of the A.C.A., they might not understand the potential consequences of the proposals being considered in Washington.

For instance, only 61 percent of adults knew that many people would lose coverage through Medicaid or subsidies for private health insurance if the A.C.A. were repealed and no replacement enacted. In contrast, approximately one in six Americans, or 16 percent, said that "coverage through Medicaid and subsidies that help people buy private health insurance would not be affected" by repeal, and 23 percent did not know.

Knowledge of the policy consequences of repeal without replacement differed especially sharply along partisan lines. Though Republicans were more likely to know that Obamacare is another name for the A.C.A., only 47 percent of them said expanded Medicaid coverage and private insurance subsidies would be eliminated under repeal (compared with 79 percent of Democrats), while 29 percent said Medicaid and subsidies would not be affected and 24 percent said they didn't know.

Despite this widespread confusion, Republicans in Congress have recently started to edge away from A.C.A. repeal as the politics of the issue have become more difficult. What would happen if people understood the law better?

The survey was conducted by Morning Consult on Jan. 25 and 26 among a national sample of 1,890 adults. Interviews were conducted online, and the data were weighted to approximate a target sample of adults based on age, race/ethnicity, gender, educational attainment and region. Results from the full survey have a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

[Admiral Yi]

One-Third Don't Know Obamacare and Affordable Care Act Are the Same

Frankly, this is pretty much a who gives a shit kind of poll question.

[celedhring]

"Obamacare" was pretty successful branding by the Republicans. I'm pretty sure "Affordable Care Act" wouldn't have drawn such degree of revulsion in red states.

[garbon]

One-Third Don't Know Obamacare and Affordable Care Act Are the Same

Frankly, this is pretty much a who gives a shit kind of poll question.

I think the other bits are more important - particularly if they think repealing Obamacare means they still get to keep the things they like about ACA.

[grumbler]

One-Third Don't Know Obamacare and Affordable Care Act Are the Same

Frankly, this is pretty much a who gives a shit kind of poll question.

True, except that it got Trump elected.

[FunkMonk]

Polls lol

But yeah, I think it's still safe to say that a lot of Americans know very little about the ACA. Except omg death panels and it has a black muslim's name on it so it has to be bad.

Obamacare really needed a better branding campaign

[mongers]

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump    23m

I will be speaking at 9:00 A.M. today to Police Chiefs and Sheriffs and will be discussing the horrible, dangerous and wrong decision.......

to elect me President of the United States.

?

[DontSayBanana]

education for the disadvantaged sounds like it can go. but what does the "preparing, training, and recruiting high quality teachers and principals" fund do? more $$$ to hire people with better resumes?

That's the funding for the poor that DeVos wants to replace with vouchers.  The "high quality teachers and principals" means having the funds to pay teachers that will get students passing the state-mandated testing.

The problem is vouchers are hypocritical- the same people that say we can't take in immigrants to support them are the ones who support school vouchers, which basically extends that concept to education.  Once you look at where the point of equilibrium is likely to end up, it's not tenable.  Some of the poorest students use the vouchers to go to a better private school.  The wealthiest and most-supported, usually best-performing students have parents with a "not in my backyard" mentality, so they pull those kids and use their own vouchers to go to even better schools, and the likely point of equilibrium is a school system split in two with well-performing, well-supported students at the "rich" schools and less-supported, underperforming students in the "poor" schools.

All private, because the public schools would be the first casualties closing with a lack of enrollment, so in a couple years, when the government decides they have to address the complete lack of performance of American schools, the pain point will be having to completely rebuild the public education system from the ground up.  Vouchers are just a slow-motion way of razing the system to the ground; it'd be much easier and cheaper to fix the schools in place by properly supporting them.

[Berkut]

education for the disadvantaged sounds like it can go. but what does the "preparing, training, and recruiting high quality teachers and principals" fund do? more $$$ to hire people with better resumes?

That's the funding for the poor that DeVos wants to replace with vouchers.  The "high quality teachers and principals" means having the funds to pay teachers that will get students passing the state-mandated testing.

The problem is vouchers are hypocritical- the same people that say we can't take in immigrants to support them are the ones who support school vouchers, which basically extends that concept to education.  Once you look at where the point of equilibrium is likely to end up, it's not tenable.  Some of the poorest students use the vouchers to go to a better private school.  The wealthiest and most-supported, usually best-performing students have parents with a "not in my backyard" mentality, so they pull those kids and use their own vouchers to go to even better schools, and the likely point of equilibrium is a school system split in two with well-performing, well-supported students at the "rich" schools and less-supported, underperforming students in the "poor" schools.

All private, because the public schools would be the first casualties closing with a lack of enrollment, so in a couple years, when the government decides they have to address the complete lack of performance of American schools, the pain point will be having to completely rebuild the public education system from the ground up.  Vouchers are just a slow-motion way of razing the system to the ground; it'd be much easier and cheaper to fix the schools in place by properly supporting them.

I don't disagree with most of this, except the very last clause of the last sentence.

I don't think there is a "problem" in public schools that needs fixing. There is a societal problem with how we deal with race and poverty that needs fixing, and the schools are just the symptom of that problem.

Indeed, I suspect that our attempts to "fix" the problem by "fixing" the schools is just covering up the actual problem. Fucking with public schools is a lever we can easily pull, so we keep pulling it, even when it doesn't seem to do much...

[DontSayBanana]

I don't disagree with most of this, except the very last clause of the last sentence.

I don't think there is a "problem" in public schools that needs fixing. There is a societal problem with how we deal with race and poverty that needs fixing, and the schools are just the symptom of that problem.

Indeed, I suspect that our attempts to "fix" the problem by "fixing" the schools is just covering up the actual problem. Fucking with public schools is a lever we can easily pull, so we keep pulling it, even when it doesn't seem to do much...

I agree, and I apologize for not making that clear.  When I say "fix schools," I mean change the metrics away from standardized testing scores to something that is (or multiple things that are) meaningful.  The primary way that schools are a symptom of class warfare is that the metrics as they stand now just indicate who can afford better test prep.  The fact that schools' success rates directly correlate with funding just underscores that point.

[grumbler]

The problem with the American educational system as it is currently run is that the model it uses is the factory.  It mass-produces students with only a few tweaks in the margins, when people are, in fact, very different and require different educational paths to succeed.  Schools are organized for the benefit of educators and administrators, not students.

Charter and private schools have objectively superior outcomes even when populated by students chosen in a lottery.  Why/  Because they are smaller, more focused, less bureaucratic, and more responsive to student needs.  Charter schools are better in some ways, because you don't have the potential for funding advantages for the students of rich parents, while private schools are better in that they tend to be more stable, have superior facilities, and can hire teachers and staff based on qualifications and ability rather than on meeting somewhat arbitrary credentialing standards.

Some public schools are excellent, of course.  they'd not be impacted by increasing school diversity and choice.  The factory schools need to be shut down and replaced by schools that offer more differentiation and less bureaucracy (many small schools can share the facilities of a defunct dinosaur school).  How those small schools are best funded should be the only debate.