The Second Trump Presidency

They were designed to convict someone who broke the law.

What is/was the Harris position on health care?

quote:

---

Trump was...incurious...no idea...

---

Trump doesn't have to be an expert, he has hired knowledgeable people for that, people who aren't afraid to dig in and ask tough questions of the health care industry and bureaucracies, people who aren't entrenched in those fields, people who aren't afraid of upsetting the wrong people.

Percy, you are an informed and studious guy. I'm certain you know all about the case from all angles.UPDATE
This partial list of observations apply to one or more of each of the 4 coordinated prosecutions against Trump:

• The charges were filed to acheive a felony conviction of some kind - any kind - in order to prevent Trump from getting on the ballot, and/or winning the Primary, and/or winning the General Election.
• Charges were delayed and then filed to align with the beginning of the Primary and General Election campaigns.
• The prosecutor(s) campaigned on "getting Trump".
• The prosecutor(s) and their partners/enablers (DOJ, White House, DNC,...) stated publicly that Trum[ cannot be allowed to return to the White House
• Hearings and court appearances were scheduled to conflict with major Trump campaign events.
• The prosecutor(s) insisted on moving standard court dates/timing ahead to get a conviction prior to the election.
• Exorbitant fines were handed out, while knowing they would eventually be reduced/reversed, simply to tie Trump's hands financially for as long as possible during critical periods in the campaign.

When bringing charges against a sitting or ex-President it is incumbent on legal authorities to make the case perfectly clear and to follow all rules/laws/protocols/etc. to the letter to make clear to the world that the US is not a banana republic. These prosecutions were the opposite of that, they backfired spectacularly, and were a huge embarrassment to the US. They also put the prosecutors and their cohorts in jeopardy of Conspiracy against Rights.16 Secretaries of the State across the US are also in this jeopardy for removing Trump from the ballot in their respective states based on obviously and legally misrepresented reasons.Trump could go after these people and probably be sucessful against many/all of them; however, Trump should come out and say "I could go after these people, but for the good of the country [which it would be] I am going to let it all go and focus on my agenda to MAGA."

Given that Trump’s main healthcare achievement in his last term of office was doing nothing - after promising to abolish the Affordable Care Act - vague ideas about future plans are hardly a reason to vote for him.Given that the Republican Party has been against health care for the masses for years now and is only getting worse - the appointment of cranks to office and the strict Louisiana ban on government workers even mentioning vaccine availability for example - it’s hard to see any good plan getting through a Republican Congress in the unlikely event that the Trump administration managed to produce one.

quote:

---

What gives Harris the advantage?

---

Let’s see. The Biden administration did a good job of managing the economy, while Trumps plans for tariffs - as well as the expense and consequences of the threatened mass deportations don’t bode well in that area.On healthcare, as mentioned, Trumps only record is broken promises and failing to make things worse.Increasing politicisation of the civil service is a bad thing - and lying and calling it ending “corruption” doesn’t make it a good thing, especially given Trump’s cavalier attitude to the Constitution.That’s just off the top of my head, but I think that will do for a start.

OK, if that's your opinion regarding the economy, though you are in the clear minority there, even Harris-Biden supporters conceded that the economy was not something they should focus on.You mentioned that the health care issue was the most laughable, but you still haven't indicated why Harris has the advantage - what will she do about health care? Perhaps you'd like to select a different category where you feel Harris has the advantage?Trump and his Team have already met with the Pharmaceutical companies at Mar-a-Lago to address the health care problems. One of the outcomes of that meeting was a revelation regarding Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBM's), and how these PBM's skew health care expenses toward pharmaceuticals in the pursuit of maximizing Insurance Company profits. It's all very convoluted, as most corporate profit-seeking is these days, and we'll be hearing more about it very soon.Note: These PBM's are held out as "middlemen", but they are actually employed within the Health Insurance Company web.

quote:

---

OK, if that's your opinion regarding the economy, though you are in the clear minority there, even Harris-Biden supporters conceded that the economy was not something they should focus on.

---

Yet it’s true. The problem is that world events hit everyone. America got off relatively lightly.

quote:

---

You mentioned that the health care issue was the most laughable, but you still haven't indicated why Harris has the advantage - what will she do about health care? Perhaps you'd like to select a different category where you feel Harris has the advantage?

---

It was laughable because Trump has a record of broken promises and his appointments threaten to cause problems, not solve them. (To be fair RFK Jr has at least good idea - on nutrition in school meals. But that means reversing na measure from Trump’s first term)/The Biden administration was already making attempts to control drug prices. Of course they’d be limited by a Republican Congress that does not want to improve healthcare and does not want to allow a Democratic administration to make successful reforms - especially if Trump or his cronies are sniping from the sidelines.The problems with the financials of healthcare in the US are well-known. The difficulty is in disentangling them. The Affordable Care Act itself was limited by that - and by an attempt to get Republican support. Since then the Republican attitudes to healthcare have hardly improved.

What quote of "someone who said something about yet someone else who said something"? I see no quote of anyone except Trump himself in dronestar's Message 113. I do see an excerpt from Wikipedia:

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Wikipedia:

---

Since the 1970s, at least 26 women have publicly accused Donald Trump, of rape, kissing, and groping without consent; looking under women's skirts; and walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants.
​
Trump has a history of insulting and belittling women when speaking to the media and on social media. He has made lewd comments, disparaged women's physical appearance, and referred to them using derogatory epithets.
​
In October 2016, two days before the second presidential debate with Hillary Clinton, a 2005 "hot mic" recording surfaced in which Trump was heard saying that "when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. ... Grab 'em by the pussy."

---

You called it hearsay: Which parts of that Wikipedia excerpt represent hearsay? The first paragraph saying there are 26 women who have publicly accused Trump of one form or another of sexual misconduct is not hearsay. The second paragraph is merely a summary of the article, and that's not hearsay. And the third paragraph very specifically quotes what Trump said on a recording, which is not hearsay.Dronestar didn't excerpt the rest of the article, of course, far too long, but it details one by one the accusations of each of the 26 women (or in a couple cases, group of women), and that is not hearsay either.So why did you dismiss it as hearsay and offer that as an excuse for not responding to dronestar when it quite obviously wouldn't be considered hearsay by any casual observer of average discernment or better.I have a couple questions. You're developing a history here of just casting out random accusations with no basis in fact (in this case dismissing very specific validated information as hearsay). Is that the kind of reputation you want? If Trump's a wonderful guy then the evidence will show that. But if the only way you can support your man is through misrepresentations and deflections then maybe you should reconsider your take on him. EvC Forum is not intended to mirror Congress where members lie for living. This is a place where truth is supposed to flourish.And how does a Christian reconcile his beliefs with his support of such a man? Please let us not go in a circle with you repeating your claim that you "don't look to political leaders for moral-spiritual guidance." (Message 159). The issue is moral character and why a Christian would support a man who has none.--Percy

What is your evidence that the prosecutions were coordinated? You say they couldn't admit collusion publicly, so how do you know this? Any prosecutor bringing charges always has very clear intentions, which would be to conduct successful prosecutions of the alleged crimes. You have no evidence of anything more that. I think those in the conservative echo chamber "know" plenty of things that aren't true. What objections are you referring to? It is true that the New York criminal felony conviction did not resonate with the public as much of a negative. That's on the public. They know not what they do.--Percy

You're not here to hand out reading assignments. From the Forum Guidelines:

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

--Percy

That's not an answer. Where do you see animus from either one toward your religion? I already responded to this in Message 162: You ignored this in your two responses (Message 169, Message 170). This is an "already asked and answered" type of thing. You're just circling back without answering. I answered this, too - my answer just happens to be the quote you opened this message with. You're just going in circles. Trump is against many things a moral Christian stands for. How can you vote for him? You said this before and then didn't answer the question asking what way this is so. Leaving aside the truth/accuracy of your list, none of this has anything to do with Christian morality. The question remains. How can a moral Christian vote for Trump. How many times do I have to say that I'm not a supporter of anyone. I'm an independent. I vote for who I think will be best for the country. If you peruse The Biden Presidency you'll see I was often critical of Biden. In August of 2021 after Biden had been in office only a little over six months I began Message 126 like this: And that wasn't the only message I posted criticizing him.So why don't you stop the partisan nonsense and just answer the question. Given the measure of the man, how can a moral Christian vote for Trump?--Percy

I thought about this question and wanted more information. Had the question been answered before, or at least attempted to be justified?I found some stuff.

Christian Post, 8/27/2024:

---

Why, then, vote for Trump?

​

When pressed further on this issue, the answer would sound something like this: “We still believe that character counts and morality matters, but things have become so extreme in America that we have to elect a streetfighter, someone who stands up for our cause – not just for our good, but for the good of the generations to come.”

​

In short, the battle we are fighting is an existential one, with our most fundamental liberties under attack. And many of us reason, Donald Trump, with all his shortcomings, is the best man for the job.

​

As Tucker Carlson said in December 2019, “If you're wondering why so many Christians have been willing to support this president despite his personal life, this is why: It's because whatever his flaws, he's made it clear that he's not the enemy of Christians.” Many a Trump supporter would say, “Precisely so!”(...)Many would still argue that, despite his caving in on some of the issues most important to us and despite his many glaring character weaknesses, he will still do a better job on the economy, on securing our borders, on standing with Israel, on standing up to our international enemies. And so, overall, balancing out the pros and the cons, Trump is the better choice.

​

This could well be true.

​

But let’s stop pretending that Trump is someone that he isn’t. The cards are on the table for all to see.

---

In other words, the majority mandate was needed to fix America for future generations. The end justifies the means. Many conservatives disagree with current methodologies and solutions.Here is another article:

The Atlantic:

---

“In Christ there is no east or west / In him no south or north, / But one great family bound by love / Throughout the whole wide earth,” goes the old hymn.

​

But in Donald Trump, there is division among American Christians. On one side are those who insist that the president is a Christian hero who is standing up for religious rights. On the other are critics who counter that white evangelical Christians have struck a corrupt but convenient bargain with an immoral leader whose inclinations are dictatorial, not religious.

​

Into this debate strides former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who remains a die-hard backer of the president and his ideological agenda despite his excommunication from Trump's good graces. Yet in a masterful profile in The New York Times Magazine by Elaina Plott, he comes down solidly, if unwittingly, on the side of the skeptics. Sessions suggests that the president’s own religious convictions are irrelevant, compares him to the dictators Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Bashar al-Assad, and makes the case for choosing a strongman who can defend Christians over democratic politics.

---

It appears to be a bit of a Faustian bargain. The majority wanted security more than morality. We, in essence, wanted our own Netanyahu.

No, it’s simple. They see freedom under threat - and work to make that threat reality.In particular they want to get rid of the Establishment Clause which holds back the theocratic tyranny they desire. There’s a lot of falsehood nd misinformation being spread about that Clause in Evangelical circles - which again is intended to gut it.

I'm not responding to a post where your words are outnumbered 427 to 59 by the words you quoted.--Percy

I counted 80. But your point stands. You are encouraging *demanding* that I use more of my own words in a post. Fair enough. (You are as subtle as a Mack Truck!) You will notice that I found quotes that defended Trump vs attacking and vilifying him. The reason is that I needed more of a balanced argument, which I wont get around here. I have studied Trump a bit. The other day I watched an old documentary that showed his two earlier failed marriages, his failed business attempts in Atlantic City, and his public persona and reactions to these setbacks. I know that the man is no saint, but I agree with the articles I quoted where they said

Tucker Carlson:

---

If you're wondering why so many Christians have been willing to support this president despite his personal life, this is why: It's because whatever his flaws, he's made it clear that he's not the enemy of Christians.”

---

Harris was less impressive in this area.
Christians in general feel that a mans character can change and evolve. We are more forgiving than secular humanists in general. It could, however, be to our detriment.

quote:

---

But let’s stop pretending that Trump is someone that he isn’t. The cards are on the table for all to see.

---

As I have said, the jury is still out.