You want us to take Trump literally, not seriously. That's the problem.

Greetings, article 4 free inhabitant!

What's fascinating here though, is that he's kind of right in a way.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.3807165a2e15

Costing $12 a month isn't factually correct, but I'm not surprised a Billionaire doesn't know what things costs.

However, this statement is a lot more correct than some intellectual might give one credit for:

"So preexisting conditions are a tough deal. Because you are basically saying from the moment the insurance, you’re 21 years old, you start working and you’re paying $12 a year for insurance, and by the time you’re 70, you get a nice plan. Here’s something where you walk up and say, “I want my insurance.” "

Insurance is kind of a ponzi scheme - you pay into it while you're young and don't need it and hope it's there for you when you're older. Yes, I know, technically you're paying for other people's coverage in the present and hope there are people paying for your coverage in the future - but you are paying into a system that hopes to maintain its solvency. To dismiss it is as "hur hur, Drumpf is stoopid, is simply missing the point".


Yeah, I don't think Trump is going to "take it out" on the media, but let's see. Let's put it this way - the Washington Post has been really ****ty towards Trump. If Trump tries to 'level the playing field' between Amazon and their competition - then I wouldn't be surprised, or necessarily opposed. I'm not a supporter of Amazon's business model for several reasons, even though I use them constantly. It's quite a nice business you have when your competition's customers have to pay sales tax and you don't (although that's changing in multiple states).

I'm also curious what will come of the Supreme Court decision on social media:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.717fb2497a40

Was this a one trick show or part of something larger?


I'm for trade with other countries. Fair trade. I do think China and Mexico and other countries cheat. I think Trump can get us better deals - and I support bilateral agreements. He made a fair point. You have these 17 way deals (like TPP) and you can't get out of them. Then everyone cheats while the United States plays fair. At the end of the day, other countries want what we've got - the best market in the world in which to trade and sell goods. We should be dealt with fairly.

I support Reagan's Voluntary Export Restraint agreement:
http://www.heritage.org/environment/...-import-quotas

And I know that Milton Friedman hated it. But those factories that Reagan got built here are still building cars to this day. I buy American - Hondas, and Toyotas, and BMWs are all made in America.

Nice of jiggy to apologize for trump thinking insurance could possibly cost $12 per year while making it a cornerstone of his agenda. It really does warrant an apology.

Where jiggy is fine with a president picking winners and losers based on how they treat him. How is that possibly a good thing for the country? Additionally, he perpetuates some fake news about Amazon, just like his clown god.

I'm not surprised your incapable of getting the point here.


Do you remember when Bill Clinton shook down Microsoft because they wouldn't "play ball"? Would've had Gates too if it wasn't for GW Bush's election.

It's easy to compete with companies when you're a WallStreet darling that doesn't have to care about profits:

https://qz.com/1040856/amazon-amzn-h...past-20-years/

And considering Amazon makes its profits from AWS and not its core business, that's a double whammy.

Or maybe you're aware of how they mistreat their workers:
http://www.businessinsider.com/bruta...ehouses-2013-8

The Executive has large discretion on where it directs its resources. It's not like previous administrations haven't picked winners and losers as well - *cough* Solyndra *cough*.

Trying to making the point that it's OK because he's (supposedly) a billionaire and billionaires have other people pay their insurance bills is laughable. He is also the POTUS and made health care a cornerstone of his campaign. He should know and you know that.


None of that addresses the fact that his threats were retaliation because, in your words, "the Washington Post has been really ****ty towards Trump"

Please tell us more about Clinton and Obama while apologizing for trump's behavior.

Some knowledge of the facts is important. Should we expect him to know how big healthcare is as a percent of GDP?

But I agree with the model you present, which seems to be an argument for a mandate. Without that you have younger healthy people taking their chances and opting out of the system.

I don't know of anything else being argued in the courts right now but I'm sure there are a bunch of cases that will help shape our understanding of free speech as it relates to social media coming in the future.

The fact that these companies are the platform for a huge and growing percentage of communication, it seems like they should have some responsibility to encourage free expression. Best case scenario is still the users holding them responsible though.

Trump deciding to level the playing field on Amazon as a retaliation for the Washington Post being "unfair" is an unacceptable abuse of power that cannot be tolerated.

I was just pushing back against the implication that exporting jobs is always a bad thing. Some amount of that seems to me to be an expected consequence of growth.

When you have a CEO like Bezos, you can't hide behind the Left hand not knowing what the Right hand is doing. It's sort of like a money laundering operation. Yes, your car wash is a legitimate business, while your meth lab is highly suspect. (hyperbole, but you get this gist. ).

The Washington Post isn't being "unfair", they're downright abusing their position. They are literally fake news - the CNN of Newspapers if you will.

Amazon has suspect business practices on its own merits. I'm just suggesting Trump might want to take a look.

It's not always a bad thing. Milton Friedman is for 100% free trade, even if it hurts domestic production. He gave some remarkable talks - YouTube them. That said, the economy is a complicated beast, and I don't agree with all of his positions - but Friedman is directionally correct.

In other news:
Trump brings Olympics to the Los Angeles in 2028, in spite of Travel Ban:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...les/527919001/

And yet Nobel Prize winning Obama couldn't bring the Olympics to Chicago, his home town.

Funny that.

They are more accurate then fox and most of the right wing media/propaganda. Hope they go at him harder.

Well, it IS a cornerstone of Fat Hitlerism.

Even granting everything you say about the Washington Post as true, it cannot be up to the government to try to correct for that. It has to be the responsibility of the people to hold the media responsible. This is especially true as it relates to any criticism of the government. Anything else is a direct violation of the first amendment.

A government with the ability to shut down unfair criticisms will also be able to shut down more appropriate ones.

We may not disagree here as much as I thought. Though I suspect I'd land closer to the side of free trade on the whole.

Somebody tell Jiffley that Friedman was a proponent of a UBI and watch his head explode.

This is what you get when attempting a reasonable discussion of issues with jiggy. He simply wont be straight with you.

Also, we should impeach Bill Clinton again for playing with Bill Gates' balls.

In other news: Trump credited with the sun rising in the morning. Go clown god, bringer of light! *\o/*

No - and I don't think Trump would take direct action against a news organization.

To be fair, simply calling out these organizations is a lot more effective than Obama was at dealing with an adversarial press.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/o...pagewanted=all

I'd prefer Trump just use his persuasion to retaliate. No need to target them economically - they seem to be destroying themselves just fine.


I'm pretty free trade. I do think our government should be in favor of agreements that allows our country to provide the opportunities of a middle-class lifestyle without the requirement of a college education. Something that gets lost in the mix. I'm nowhere near a protectionist however, and Trump isn't either. Fair Trade is Free Trade.

Seeing Trump fight for those jobs, even if he couldn't save all of them, was still something I want in a President. I'm more encouraged by FoxConn's $10 Billion investment in Wisconsin.

If you focus on jobs, the rest of the nation's issues get solved - including allowing people to purchase healthcare.

I missed one of your questions though:

No - the President does not need to know how big Healthcare is as a percentage of GDP. He is not an economist and has advisors to help make those decisions.

Obama seemed to know and wanted the government to overtake that portion of it. This is a bad idea.

jiggy totally fine with POTUS using the bully pulpit to violate the 1st amendment.

Why would I be against UBI?



We are already spending that money. Kill all government poverty programs and write a check. A lot cheaper than what we're doing today.

Thread title needs to be updated to Presidents Trump/Obama/Clinton, oh and Secretary of State Clinton..

...

Fritzing out is fine. He's a billionaire and they sometimes fritz, but he has advisers to handle the details requiring sanity. No worries.

The guy who lied about fake agitators at Berkley:

http://www.newsweek.com/robert-reich...erkeley-552577

Reich wasn't relevant two decades ago. Sounds like he's off his meds again. He's still a nutjob.

Trumps a nutter. Sorry you cant see that.