Why did Trump flip on Obamacare?
Outside observation: He had to.The GOP doesn’t have a solution to the current health care crisis. They have had eight years (well previous decades AND eight years) to create a workable plan (or plans) and they have yet to do so. Many of their supporters have (both comically and ironically) availed themselves of Obamacare and they would be very unhappy if it was ended and they were again left with no medical coverage.Donald Trump made a great deal about ending Obamacare as it tapped into the virulent anti-Obama mindset that exists within the GOP’s base. He never bothered to create a viable plan of his own as he never seriously considered that he would win (his failure to create blind trusts for his assets which prevents the appearance of conflicts of interest is indicator of this) and because he figured (correctly) that he could simply use the ACA’s existing framework to create his own “plan” on the remote chance that he might win.Now that he won, he actually has to demonstrate that he has plans and keeping aspects of the ACA intact allows his transition to do so without having to do any heavy lifting. There's also the unpleasant fact facing the Trump administration that many of the best and brightest aren’t going to want to work for him given the way the election played out and the stigma it might cause them. As a result, much of his early term is going to be adopting existing structures and adapting them to his administration’s needs.Trump will leave much of the ACA intact simply because he doesn’t have a viable plan of his own and because few qualified health care professionals will want to be associated with a Trump administration due his reputation and the campaign that he ran.
The House of Representatives voted 54 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act; why haven't they voted to ban abortion? See comment for more details.
As in most legal matters, the devil is in the details.If the Republicans tried to criminalise abortions, they'd be opening up debates that they would lose. Courts are not beholden to religious theory. They are required to consider facts.Ectopic pregnancies must be aborted to save the mothers life. So, some abortions must be allowed. This paves the way for arguments to allow other abortions for health reasons. What about a pregnant mother who is in a coma? What if a woman is raped and becomes pregnant? What about a suicidally depressed or drug addicted mother who can't cope physically or mentally with the considerable strain of pregnancy.The exceptions that would be allowed would create the need for a list of allowable circumstances. These circumstances would broaden, ultimately clogging the court system with lawsuits from women who justifiably sue after being wrongfully forced to carry to term.These legal precedents could easily pave the way to women suing over failed contraception or botched vasectomies for the cost of raising a child.This is where the anti-abortion movement comes unstuck.Banning abortion in a largely civilised and educated country creates too many problems in maintaining such a ban.Then there are glaring, political inconsistencies.The anti abortionist movement calls itself pro-life and claims that an embryo is a life. Yet, it does not support murder investigations when miscarriages occur due to stress or injury, nor does it support medical research into implantation failures.A system that condones a law that is founded on the principle that an embryo is a life, must allow a woman to sue an employer, partner, assailant or any particular inflicter of stress who may have caused her to miscarry.The reason the Republicans haven't pushed for a ban on abortions is that it's impossible to justify as a blanket rule, and too costly and complicated to manage on a case by case basis.
Why did 29% of Louisiana Republicans blame Obama for the response to Hurricane Katrina?
This is just astonishing. Hurricane Katrina happened years before Obama even took office. It shows that Obama will be blamed for anything, even things that happened before he even took office in the White House. An equally valid question is, what percentage asked questions about global warming and whether it might have played a role... and how many are still demanding inaction on climate. Scientists agree that no single weather event can be attributed to global warming. The weather is chaotic and there have always been hurricanes. However, 98% of scientists in the field do believe that global warming is real, that humans are causing it, and that it makes things like this more likely to happen. At a Home Depot somewhere in the area, you can no doubt see a truck filled with building supplies to repair a home that was damaged by a hurricane. And, on that truck, you can see a bumper sticker claiming that global warming is a hoax and demanding inaction on this issue from the government.... even as they're rebuilding a house that was damaged by a hurricane. Because, you know, Al Gore owns a large house that uses lots of CO2, and Fox News reported on that climategate scandal. Many people repairing their hurricane damaged houses are no doubt angry that liberals actually want to do something about global warming, when it is they, themselves, who are suffering the very consequences that scientists have been warning us about for decades. Liberals and their socialism global warming scam..... Has there ever been a better example of someone being played by the rich to fight against their own best interests? The Koch brothers must really laugh all the way to the bank whenever they see this happening. These are the oil/industrial billionaires who have spent millions of dollars convincing the Tea Party base that global warming is a hoax concocted by Al Gore so that liberals can raise their taxes and implement "socialism".
Why won't Senator Ted Cruz denounce Representative Steve King?
“Why won’t Senator Ted Cruz denounce Representative Steve King?”The three foremost reasons I can think of:Steve King only said what Ted Cruz was thinking.Both Steve King and Ted Cruz are Republicans.Refer to #1.King made the gamble to go all out racist/bigot because he knows that this is what motivates tRump’s voter base in his district, where tRump carried the 2016 election by a large margin. Despite that factor, king could still lose the gamble, but what else does he have to offer: Repeal Obamacare?Cruz can’t afford to make the same bet because O’Rourke is running even with Cruz in the polls, and criticizing a fellow racist could cost Cruz votes in November. Cruz understands the value of racist dog-whistle as well as King, and he also knows his constituents.
What do you feel about President Trump postponing getting votes for the replacement of the ACA until after the 2020 elections?
You shouldn’t try to cancel health care for millions if you don’t have a plan to replace it. A serious president, who living up to campaign promise to replace the ACA with a better, cheaper plan would have begun to assemble health care professionals, representative from big pharma and the health care industry. DJT didn't. He doesn’t plan, he reacts. Just look at his tweets. They are all reactions to what someone said, did or didn’t do that provokes his ire. It’s too much work for him to do anything now. It would interfere with his television time and phone affair with Hannity. He’s got nothing to offer. His Trumper’s in the Senate were mortified knowing nothing about his announcement. It was a “Who? Us?” moment for the DJT Senate. You don’t have to worry, this is DJT’s only term of office.
As of October 2018, what are the chances Democrats could win back the Senate in the foreseeable future?
2020 has always been their best shot, but that depends largely on their performance in 2018.If Democrats pick up Nevada and Arizona at the loss of North Dakota and nothing else (not improbable at this point), then they’ll net one seat and freeze the Senate at 50–50.In 2020, Democrats might then be reasonably expected to pick up Maine from Susan Collins and Colorado from Corey Gardner - and maybe get Arizona’s second Senate seat if things really go well. Assuming that they don’t lose anywhere else, then they’d have a (slim) majority in the Senate.But if the Democrats completely fall apart in 2018 - losing North Dakota and Florida (and likely, then, Indiana and Missouri) - and fail to pick up Arizona and Nevada, then it’s doubtful that they’d be in a place to capture the Senate in 2020 and might have to wait until 2022 when some more blue-ish states come into play (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida).
What is the worst case scenario for a Trump presidency in combination with a republican controlled house and senate?
When the Republicans won the House of representatives they said they couldn't repeal Obamacare because they didn't have the Senate and the presidencythen they won the senate and they said they couldn't repeal Obamacare because it didn't have the presidencyand now they've won the presidency but now they are not going to repeal Obamacare anywaythey are politicians they lie