Trump retweets animated gif of him hitting Clinton with golf ball

[Elixir]

Look, I have no problem saying it again, and even again, like I did last month. I said Trump should not actually want to sign a health care bill that replaces ACA, and it does not matter how much he loudly declares to really want one. I predicted that there will not be a bill for him to sign and/or he will not sign the bill. So, if there is a health care bill that replaces ACA, and Trump signs it, then I am wrong.

None of that argues that he won't sign "just anything". He WOULD sign "just anything" - all it has to do is make it to his desk. That he "shouldn't" sign it wasn't the contested point. So, if there is a health care bill that replaces ACA, and Trump signs it, then you are wrong. Or if he signs some other equally stupid piece of shit bill, you're wrong. Likewise, if a bill - ANY bill - gets to his desk and he doesn't sign it, then I'm wrong. Fair enough?
The guy is damn near illiterate - no way he can actually read legaleze, let alone think through the consequences of signing something. So the content of whatever might be put under his nose is irrelevant - he's just itching to sign something. The fact that Congressional rethuglicans are too hapless to get anything to his desk (so far) is irrelevant to that point.

 

[sharon45]

Look, I have no problem saying it again, and even again, like I did last month. I said Trump should not actually want to sign a health care bill that replaces ACA, and it does not matter how much he loudly declares to really want one. I predicted that there will not be a bill for him to sign and/or he will not sign the bill. So, if there is a health care bill that replaces ACA, and Trump signs it, then I am wrong.

None of that argues that he won't sign "just anything".

It was not meant to.

He WOULD sign "just anything" - all it has to do is make it to his desk.

As I said above, I am not talking about post office buildings, but big laws, that if they really stink, are going to be extremely hard to explain otherwise. This is mostly what I mean by with "just anything." Yet he is definitely going to make it look like he is very eager even for things that he is honestly not, so it at least seems as though he sincerely cares.

That he "shouldn't" sign it wasn't the contested point.

Right.

So, if there is a health care bill that replaces ACA, and Trump signs it, then you are wrong.

Correct.

Or if he signs some other equally stupid piece of shit bill, you're wrong.

I would not be wrong on this, because I did not make a specific prediction concerning it.

Likewise, if a bill - ANY bill - gets to his desk and he doesn't sign it, then I'm wrong. Fair enough?

If that is your prediction, you are free to go with it.

The fact that Congressional rethuglicans are too hapless to get anything to his desk (so far) is irrelevant to that point.

It is not to me, because they should have to ultimately take the fall in making sure a bad bill (not simply one that you or I disagree with) does not get to his desk.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It is not to me, because they should have to ultimately take the fall in making sure a bad bill (not simply one that you or I disagree with) does not get to his desk.

Why would you disagree with a good bill? That is to say, I would think that you generally disagree with bad bills and agree with good bills. So, why bother to make a semantic distinction between a bad bill and one you disagree with? Or are you trying to say that when you normally formulate your opinions about things, you don't give it much thought or research?

 

[ZiprHead]

MAGA - Millionaire Asshole Golfing Again

 

[sharon45]

It is not to me, because they should have to ultimately take the fall in making sure a bad bill (not simply one that you or I disagree with) does not get to his desk.

Why would you disagree with a good bill? That is to say, I would think that you generally disagree with bad bills and agree with good bills. So, why bother to make a semantic distinction between a bad bill and one you disagree with? Or are you trying to say that when you normally formulate your opinions about things, you don't give it much thought or research?

I am leaving the unknown open, since a bill can be sound in its language, do a lot of good, and the CBO is fine with it and all, but I, and/or someone else here, could still disagree with it even needing to be implemented for a number of reasons.

 

[sharon45]

MAGA - Millionaire Asshole Golfing Again

Now it is "M.U.N.G.;" make the U.N. great, or make its members play golf.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump held a Republican circle jerk on the White House lawn for the passed House bill for the ACA 'repeal' and 'replace', then bemoaned later about how it was mean and the Senate needed to do better.

Which I, again, went over, and then left for around a month, because it did not seem like this consuming premise was moving on yet, Trump included. As I have said back then, if I am wrong in my prediction, I will not talk about Trump here anymore.

Trump clearly has no vision, literally and figuratively. He can't even stick to anything. DACA, Paris, Transgenders in military. He hedges on everything.

Trump should not want any of these, but we'll see how it ultimately turns out.

sharon45 seems to be the boneyard bill equivalent for Trump (vs Ron the Kingmaker Paul).

 

[sharon45]

Ah, I just saw this on Wikipedia: Mung (computer term), the act of making several incremental changes to an item that combine to destroy it. Yeah, this is a work of Trump.

 

[sharon45]

Which I, again, went over, and then left for around a month, because it did not seem like this consuming premise was moving on yet, Trump included. As I have said back then, if I am wrong in my prediction, I will not talk about Trump here anymore.

Trump clearly has no vision, literally and figuratively. He can't even stick to anything. DACA, Paris, Transgenders in military. He hedges on everything.

Trump should not want any of these, but we'll see how it ultimately turns out.

sharon45 seems to be the boneyard bill equivalent for Trump (vs Ron the Kingmaker Paul).

I remember this guy from years ago in the political sections, I think he leaned Libertarian; at that time, I was doing strategy and predictions with Obama and Romney.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Ah, I just saw this on Wikipedia: Mung (computer term), the act of making several incremental changes to an item that combine to destroy it. Yeah, this is a work of Trump.

Nah, mung is the stuff that comes out of a pregnant woman's belly button.

 

[funinspace]

Ah, I just saw this on Wikipedia: Mung (computer term), the act of making several incremental changes to an item that combine to destroy it. Yeah, this is a work of Trump.

Nah, mung is the stuff that comes out of a pregnant woman's belly button.

Pregnant women eject beans out of their belly button? Not sure if I want Mung Dal anymore if that is the case...