Trump indictment - what does this mean for the US?

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, Blaine at the Peace Arch border crossing right along the Pacific ocean. If it's too busy there you can head East 5 minutes and cross at the Truck crossing - also into Blaine. If it's too busy there and worth the drive, head East another 10-15 minutes and cross at the Aldergrove border crossing that's closest to Lynden Wa. If it's worth going even farther East - which is almost Never unless you're out that way, then it's the Huntingdon/Sumas border crossing.

:roll:

No one says single payer healthcare has to be an "unlimited health budget."

I came here to say “I hear Obamagate is getting big”.

Well, nobody except Bernie Sanders, whose “Medicare For All” plan explicitly:

- covered all treatment, including dental, vision, and in-home care as well as, for example, cosmetic surgery
- allowed patients to choose any doctor (“no networks”)
- would require no contribution from the user: “no premiums, no deductibles, no copays, no surprise bills.”
- would ban all private health insurance and private healthcare without restricting access

Sanders wasn’t proposing Canadian style healthcare for the US. He was proposing giving every American the same healthcare that billionaires pay through the nose for. There is no country on Earth that resembles that.

Even if it did turn out to cost about the same as the bureaucratic nightmare that is the current US system… it doesn’t really matter, because the President is not a dictator. President Sanders could not simply walk into his office and shout “MEDICARE FOR ALL!”. At the very least, he would need the support of 50 Senators to pass it through budget reconciliation, and there is no universe in which red-state Democrats like Jon Tester or Joe Manchin do that.

There is a huge difference between “single payer healthcare” and “Medicare for All, as proposed by Bernie Sanders”.

I was referring to the popular vote. Trump would win the Electoral College.

I seriously doubt that. Just where would he find the votes? I can't imagine that many very many people who didn't vote for Trump in 2020 would suddenly turn around and vote for him in 2024.

Among people who did vote for Trump in 2020, there seems to be a strong movement away from him from people who basically held their nose to vote for him then.

Not really that much difference.

We used to have to pay an annual fee for medical in BC (that was income dependent) and were one of the last Provinces to still have a separate fee. They scrapped it several years ago so now we don't pay yet we receive healthcare. We don't get optical coverage for glasses, but do get coverage for eye surgeries. We don't get dental coverage except the rare case of emergency extractions in a hospital ER. Only some people on disability/social assistance get some form of dental coverage - but it's minimal. There are some in government trying to change that and include dental coverage/cleanings etc. Optical, too. But so far we don't get those things from our Provincial healthcare plan. Private plans/union benefit plans etc tend to have optical and dental coverages, otherwise it's out of pocket. But besides eyeglasses and dental, we don't pay premiums, copays, fees of any kind - nada - Except for prescription drugs, and even then the amount you pay depends on your income as is Very Reasonable. Chemo, radiation, surgery, GP visits, allergists, specialists of all kinds.. no invoice, zip zilch zero nada nothing - we do Pay for it, but it's all within the enormous amounts of taxes we pay on income/sales/properties/capital gains etc.

For the amount of money Americans collectively pay for healthcare vs. the amount actually spent on the healthcare they receive they could Very Likely have all of the coverages Bernie Sanders proposed with money leftover. They pay a lot and get squat. They have layer upon layer of insurance companies charging obscene amounts of money for very low cost things - $400 for administering Tylenol, $600 for a bandaid, fees for allowing new mothers to hold their own babies under observation of nurses.. every possible line item maxed out to the absurd. If they got rid of the Zero Value adding layers of insurance company profits they'd be able to afford to provide everyone with full head to toe healthcare.

Anyone who says it's impossible for the USA to provide that on the money Americans already pay can't do math. I believe it's 100% possible as they spend nearly 50% more per capita on healthcare costs than is spent in Canada. (Google says $7k/yr in Canada, $10k/year USA) With a nearly 50% higher budget there's no way that can't cover eyeglasses and dental cleanings/fillings etc. Dental work is very expensive in Canada, and we still don't spend an average of 3 grand a year per person for dental & eye glasses.

It is not about him finding votes, it is about Biden losing them due to a combination of ageism, actual age-related decline, and Republican demonization.

Not just Republican demonization. The Left also hates him for not being Bernie Sanders. They'll sit the election out or vote 3rd party. There are a lot of them on WP although I haven't seen them in this thread.

They won't sit such a high stakes election out. They might not vote "for," Biden, but they'll select Biden at the ballot box just to vote against trump or anyone that might pardon trump.. just for the stability/sanity and continuation of US democracy and all that stuff. They can vote for some more conservative politician that promises smaller government and lower taxes later when the crazy man is gone.

:roll: No one says single payer healthcare has to be an "unlimited health budget." It simply requires systemic reform to cut out the non-value adding layers of insurance corporation profits. They may also need to revisit how they value specialist salaries etc, too. But it's completely nuts to suggest that a better healthcare system requires an "unlimited health budget." USA spends more money per capita than any other developed country and doesn't provide healthcare to all of their citizens for that $. CLEARLY they could make PROGRESS and do better than that. Perhaps with a Progressive leader.

A week after Donald Trump’s federal indictment, some Democrats are breaking with President Joe Biden’s decision to stay silent about his opponent’s legal troubles, warning that Trump can’t be allowed to shape voters’ views of a criminal case that could decide the 2024 election.

Biden has given a message to White House aides and his broader re-election team that they should say nothing about Trump's legal troubles to avoid leaving the impression that he's misusing power for political advantage. But a variety of pro-Biden allies believe his stance isn't sustainable.

Worried that Trump's claim of political persecution might take hold if it's left unanswered, some Democrats insist the party needs to mount a full-throated defense of the law enforcement agencies that charged Trump with mishandling sensitive national security records. They also want to paint the indictment as a fresh example of the chaos another Trump presidential term would bring.

“It’s malpractice to let them dominate,” a Senate Democratic aide said. “The president needs to be above this, but his allies should be hitting him hard. Democrats should not be waiting until a general election to start defining this.”

The aide, who helped run a successful competitive midterm campaign and who requested anonymity to offer a frank assessment of his party's strategy, said Democrats are committing a grievous political error by allowing Trump to frame the indictment on his terms.

Tell voters: “These are serious charges. Look at Mike Pence. He was investigated, and he was cleared,” the aide said. “You have to hit it, hit it and hit it. You can’t rely on the public to interpret it the way you want them to.”

A Democratic donor, who also requested anonymity, echoed the sentiment, saying of the silence strategy: “I think he [Biden] is going to have to adjust that. I don’t think it’s sustainable to say nothing.”

Even first lady Jill Biden dipped a toe in the fight at a fundraising event Monday in New York City. In her remarks, she mentioned a poll she’d seen on television on her flight to New York that showed most Republicans were still planning to vote for Trump. “They don’t care about the indictment. So that’s a little shocking, I think,” she said.

After the 37-count indictment was released, Biden and a small cadre of top aides gave “explicit direction” to the re-election campaign, the Democratic National Committee and the White House staff not to comment on the matter, said a person familiar with the directive.

The message was to respond with: “We do not comment. We respect the independence of the Department of Justice,” the person said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the White House’s private instructions.

The guidance was relayed to Democratic members of Congress, including those who have volunteered to serve as surrogates — the people the campaign taps to appear on television and promote Biden's re-election bid.

’Go on offense'
For some Democrats, however, the incentive to speak out may be too strong and the party may be too far-flung and decentralized to keep quiet. Even as Biden tries to avoid the appearance of influencing the prosecution, allies are filling the vacuum in ways that protect his interests while ensuring voters don't shrug off Trump's legal woes.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is looking to put Republicans on the spot about whether they’ll echo Trump’s calls to defund the Justice Department and the FBI — two agencies that investigated his handling of sensitive national security records.

"The DCCC will continue holding vulnerable House Republicans accountable for putting fealty to their party and federally-indicted, twice-impeached president over public safety,” spokesperson Courtney Rice said in a statement.

Far from standing down, the committee is seizing the chance to neutralize Republican attacks on Democrats as soft on crime, pointing to Memorial Day billboards it bought in swing districts spotlighting Republican lawmakers for not denouncing Trump’s attacks on law enforcement agencies.

In a Substack post this week, Dan Pfeiffer, who was a senior adviser in Barack Obama's White House, argued that Democrats’ “silence could end up being a mistake.”

“Democrats need to go on offense to push back on Trump’s messaging before he discredits the investigations and distracts the public,” Pfeiffer wrote.

Democratic consultant Tyler Law said Biden’s primary task in the 2024 campaign is “clarifying the choice” for voters, adding that Trump’s status as a “twice-indicted narcissist” will help drive home the difference between the two.

Another Democratic strategist, who requested anonymity, said Democrats shouldn't focus solely on an economic message, arguing it's short-sighted to forfeit the opportunity to showcase Trump’s legal peril — even when voters say they care most about so-called kitchen table issues.

“We’re often as a party too driven by ‘the polling shows people care about the economy the most,’ [therefore] we have to make the economic critique,” the strategist said. “In a lot of ways, we’re almost allowing him to fight on his own turf.

“Imagine during Watergate being like ‘What people really dislike about Nixon is his handling of the economy,’” the strategist said. “Economic mismanagement is not why Nixon resigned.

“There are a lot of Democrats who are not President Biden who can be making voters aware of this threat.”

'Must be some truth to this'
There’s nothing stopping Biden from discussing the indictment if he chooses, legal experts said. But having promised to bolster the Justice Department’s independence, he has steered clear of Trump's legal entanglements.

“The age-old wisdom in politics is not to get in the way of your opponent impaling himself,” said Jamal Simmons, a former communications director for Vice President Kamala Harris.

But the calculation may be different for lawmakers trying to tie their opponents to Trump.

“Being politicians, most of them will” speak out about Trump when asked, said Democratic former Sen. Dennis DeConcini of Arizona. “They can’t help themselves.”

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who represents a state Trump won by nearly 40 points, was unsparing.

“Everyone should be concerned about this,” Manchin said in an interview. “The rule of law is for all of us.”

Biden might be betting that voters are tired of hearing about Trump. The research firm Engagious recently convened a focus group with 11 North Carolina voters who backed Trump in 2016 and switched to Biden in 2020, asking them about the indictment and other issues.

Steve Shurtleff, a Democratic former speaker of New Hampshire’s House of Representatives, said he would like a member of Congress, at least, to step forward and defend the law enforcement agencies Trump has targeted.

“Someone needs to push back,” Shurtleff said. “Otherwise, people will say there must be some truth to this — no one is saying anything in rebuttal.”