Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Cruising the Web

Jan Crawford of CBS reports that Trump is leaning toward Judge Neil Gorsuch for his Supreme Court nominee. I had never heard of Judge Gorsuch so I headed to the go-to site on the Court, Scotusblog, for their profile of his positions on several important issues and was much encouraged. He sounds like the closest we might get to a worth replacement for Justice Scalia. I am especially encouraged by his strong opinions against the expansion of the administrative state, an issue where he is more conservative than the position that Scalia took.
In short, Gorsuch definitely has a different take from Scalia on the administrative state — one that grants it less power, and so accords even more closely with the conservative conception of small government. Indeed, this is an area in which Gorsuch is plainly a thought leader, expressing judicial sentiments many conservatives with similar concerns have rarely voiced, and which even Scalia might have bristled at. But given their parallel commitments to textualism and their parallel understandings of the relative roles of agencies and courts, even this seems like a bridgeable divide between Gorsuch and the justice he might replace. Gorsuch is still a very natural choice for any Republican president to nominate as a replacement for Scalia — someone who would espouse similar principles, stand firm on similar doctrinal commitments, reach similar outcomes, and even fill a similar role as one of the court’s most articulate defenders of conservative judicial theory.
He sounds like someone conservatives could strongly support. And, while the Democrats are going to be sure to demonize and attempt to Bork whomever Trump nominates, Gorsuch might be harder to do so than Judge William Pryor whom the Democrats already filibustered into the Gang of 14 stepped in to get onto the courts.

I suspect that Jan Crawford has good sources when it comes to the Supreme Court though I'm not sure how good her sources within the Trump administration are but maybe Trump's advisers on the Supreme Court nomination are within the same community from which Crawford got her information for her excellent book, Supreme Conflict, on the Court. I highly recommend her book if you're interested in the Supreme Court. TO a degree uncommon for mainstream journalists, she is particularly fair in how she covers the conservative justices, especially Clarence Thomas.

Allahpundit adds in this analysis about the strategic decision to nominate Gorsuch.
Maybe, though, the White House has calculated that Democrats will filibuster the first pick no matter who it is, in which case they’re better off leading with someone like Gorsuch who’s harder for the left to demonize than Pryor is. Gorsuch is from a purple state, Colorado; Pryor is from the deep south. There’s no Lawrence-style ammo against Gorsuch as there is for Pryor. Democrats will have a harder sell convincing the public that Gorsuch is an “extremist,” but if they end up filibustering anyway — as their base will probably demand — that’ll give McConnell a reason to eliminate the filibuster on more favorable political terrain.

TurboTax Home & Business 2016 Tax Software Federal & State + Fed Efile PC download

TurboTax Business 2016 Tax Software Federal + Fed Efile PC download

Quicken Deluxe 2017 Personal Finance & Budgeting Software [Download]

Norton Security Deluxe- 5 Devices; Amazon Exclusive 15-month Subscription

H and R Block Tax Software Deluxe + State 2016 Win + Refund Bonus Offer

David Catron looks
at the executive order that Trump issued on his first day in office to slow down implementation of Obamacare anc concludes that it is more than a sop to his supporters to show that he means to end the law. Jonathan Adler writes on the same question to analyze how much can be unraveled through executive order. Since so much of what the Obama administration did with the law was through executive order, the precedents have been set for Trump.
Under normal circumstances, this would not mean much, as it would simply direct agency officials to use whatever discretion they have to loosen the ACA’s constraints and burdens on states, individuals and insurance companies, and the ACA offers only so much flexibility. Therein lies the rub.

The Obama administration was particularly aggressive in asserting the authority to grant waivers, defer burdens and delay implementation of various ACA provisions, even where the law did not authorize such acts. Put in the most charitable terms, the Obama administration took a particularly elastic view of what the executive branch could do under the law....

As [Nicholas] Bagley notes with regard to this EO, many of the Obama administration’s actions implementing the ACA will make it easier for the Trump administration to take equivalent actions of questionable legality. The lawfulness of executive action is often evaluated by reference to prior executive practice, so the Obama administration’s success in taking such steps (and the relative silence of the legal commentariat, Bagley excepted) will strengthen the Trump administration’s hand when it begins granting questionable waivers, suspends requirements under the guise of exercising enforcement discretion and opts to place a hold on unpopular provisions. And as the initial steps toward repeal-and-replace further destabilize insurance markets, this will only justify additional waivers and suspensions, all made in the name of minimizing disruption and enhancing administrability.
Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, warns about problems if Trump delays the individual mandate tax.
If the IRS “delays” the individual mandate, the insurance markets in many states could go into a tailspin. Rates for 2018 will skyrocket and some insurers could fold. In addition, delaying the mandate would preempt any debate in Congress about whether to keep the mandate in place during a transition period to a yet-to-be-disclosed replacement.
Josh Blackman comments about the instruction to the Secretary of HHS to grant waivers, defer, and grant exemptions for any provision of the ACA that places a "fiscal burden" on any state.
There is, of course one proviso: HHS can only act here “to the maximum permitted by law.” What is that extent? Under the precedents of the Obama administration, there are no meaningful bounds. Secretary Sebelius deemed it a hardship if anyone had difficulty affording insurance under the ACA, permitting a waiver of the individual mandate. (As Ezra Klein famously put it, “Obamacare itself is the hardship”). Trump’s order follows a similar pattern. If the Obamacare “tax” (thank you John Roberts) imposes a “burden” on individuals, the Secretary now has the authority to defer the mandate.

This discretion is not limited to states. Secretary Sebelius also permitted states to suspend enforcement of “minimum essential coverage,” and allow the sale of non-compliant policies, citing the unfairness of people whose plans would otherwise be cancelled. Thus, if “minimum essential coverage” impose a “fiscal burden on any state,” the Secretary can now suspend it. Using all of the precedents developed by the Obama administration, Trump can now take systematic steps to unravel Obamacare.
Blackman also points to this delicious irony.
On cue, ardent defenders of President Obama’s executive actions have now discovered the separation of powers:
I suspect that there will be many such delicious ironies in the future.

Byron York's analysis o
f Trump's first Monday in office is that he demonstrated how a president has the ability to change the conversation, something Trump really needed after a weekend spent talking about turnout numbers for the inauguration and the protests against his presidency.
There was dark speculation that the Trump White House had moved into an "alternative facts" era, lying with impunity while blocking the press's role as the representative of the public's right to know what its government is doing.

All that pretty much disappeared within an hour or two. The Trump White House pushed out word that the president would meet with business leaders in the morning, and with labor leaders in the afternoon, with a heavy focus on jobs. On trade, Trump signed an executive order pulling the United States out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. He issued a freeze on the hiring of new federal workers. He re-instated the Mexico City policy. Then he met with a bi-partisan group of congressional leaders. Then a meeting with House Speaker Paul Ryan....

Trump's first day combined real substance with the imagery of Trump meeting with people in the Oval Office, in the Roosevelt Room, signing measures, discussing policy — in other words, the basic images of the presidency. Each act was covered breathlessly on television — We have new video just in from the White House! — reinforcing Trump's role.

The bottom line was that in the course of a few hours, Trump moved the political conversation far beyond the events of the weekend — so much so that critics who insisted on re-litigating the events of Friday, Saturday, and Sunday seemed behind the curve.
Hopefully, the Trump administration will learn from their mistakes and have more days like today and will better manipulate the power of the White House to change the subject of the media's conversation. Perhaps Trump can discover that he can dominate media coverage of what he is actually doing rather than what he's tweeting. But then, perhaps that is too much to hope for...

Maybe he does better in such staged and well-orchestrated events than he does when he's allowed to riff on his own as he did when he basically gave one of his stream-of-consciousness rally speeches when he visited the CIA this past weekend. He stood in front of the Memorial Wall for those who have died in the CIA and then started in on the equivalent of an oral tweetstorm on his favorite topics.
But Mr. Trump also couldn’t resist turning the event into an extended and self-centered riff about the size of his campaign rallies, the times he’s been on Time magazine’s cover and how the “dishonest” media misreported his inaugural crowds. He all but begged for the political approval of the career CIA employees by suggesting most there had voted for him.

Such defensiveness about his victory and media coverage makes Mr. Trump look small and insecure. It also undermines his words to the CIA employees by suggesting the visit was really about him, not their vital work. The White House is still staffing up, but was it too much to ask National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s staff to write up five or 10 minutes of formal remarks that had something to do with the CIA?

Mr. Trump may think he’s succeeded by breaking the normal rules of politics and that he can keep doing it. But he’s now President, and Americans expect a level of seriousness and decorum that is consistent with the responsibility of the office. He should meet their high expectations, not live down to the media’s.
Then Trump spent time when he met with congressional leaders asserting that he should have won the popular vote.
Days after being sworn in, President Trump insisted to congressional leaders invited to a reception at the White House that he would have won the popular vote had it not been for millions of illegal votes, according to people familiar with the meeting.

Trump has repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that widespread voter fraud caused him to lose the popular vote to Hillary Clinton, even while he clinched the presidency with an electoral college victory.

Two people familiar with the meeting said Trump spent about 10 minutes at the start of the bipartisan gathering rehashing the campaign. He also told them that between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused him to lose the popular vote.
This guy just can't get over himself. I think of Ronald Reagan's attitude, “There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don't care who gets the credit.” Trump has the opposite attitude: "There is no limit to the amount you can do if you claim credit for things you have nothing to do with or didn't even happen.

The WSJ reports
on something that I hadn't seen elsewhere as the Obama Education Department slipped it by the public at the last minute.
In early January the department disclosed that it had discovered a “coding error” that incorrectly computed College Scorecard repayment rates—that is, the percentage of borrowers who haven’t defaulted and have repaid at least one dollar of their loan principal. The department says the error “led to the undercounting of some borrowers who had not reduced their loan balances by at least one dollar.”

The department played down the mistake, but the new average three-year repayment rate has declined by 20 percentage points to 46%. This is huge. It means that fewer than half of undergraduate borrowers at the average college are paying down their debt.
Hmmm, this administration certainly did have its problems in computer usage, didn't' they? The result is that loan forgiveness for borrowers could cost more than $108 billion.
The other scandal is that the Obama Administration used the inflated Scorecard repayment data as a pretext to single out for-profit colleges for punitive regulation. The punishment was tucked into a rule finalized in October allowing borrowers who claim their college defrauded them to discharge their debt. It requires for-profits in which 50% or fewer borrowers are paying down their principal to post the equivalent of a surgeon general’s warning in all promotional materials.

When proposing the regulation, the department claimed that its analysis of Scorecard data showed that a large number of for-profits have repayment rates below 50% while very few public or nonprofit schools do. The department said it would not be fair to “burden” public and nonprofit colleges with a regulation that would apply to so few. Yet based on the updated data, 60% of two-year public colleges and nearly all historically black institutions have repayment rates below 50%.

Marc Jerome, president of for-profit Monroe College in the Bronx, discovered the Scorecard rate inflation last August. In several emails to Education officials, he urged the department to hold off on finalizing the regulation. If the regulation were applied evenly, a large number of nonprofit and public institutions would fail to meet the standard. But then the justification for the department’s selective regulation of for-profits would vanish.

The department finalized the regulation in October anyway, perhaps anticipating a Hillary Clinton victory that would allow the repayment inflation game to keep going. Yet now it’s taking credit for discovering and fixing the Scorecard error that likely would have been uncovered by the new Trump Administration.

This combination of cynicism and incompetence is what made the Obama Administration’s regulatory machine so destructive. One of the biggest messes it leaves behind is the government takeover of student loans that is likely to saddle taxpayers with hundreds of billions in losses. The Trump Administration now has to begin the cleanup job.

Congress ought to use the Congressional Review Act to overturn the latest rule, while new Secretary Betsy DeVos will have to recruit a top-flight finance executive to do a top-to-bottom review of student-loan records for other goofs or deceptions. Then lay out the real facts to the American public as soon as possible.
Ed Morrissey writes,
Call it … bad math with a purpose. Had it just been a routine “coding error,” and without any malice, then Jerrome’s repeated entreaties pointing out the problem would have resulted in a correction and a new report. This looks more like a deliberate attempt to cook the books in order to blame student-loan defaults on poor career performance for those who matriculate from for-profit schools. Instead, we now know that long-term performance, as measured by student-loan defaults, looks about the same between the for-profit and not-for-profit education centers. That knowledge would have undercut the regulatory hostility toward the former for almost the entirety of the Obama administration, which is why the DoEd only revealed it on Barack Obama’s entry into retirement.

Shop Amazon - Our Best-Selling Kindle - Now Even Better

Shop Amazon - Top Gift Ideas

Shop Amazon Outlet - Clearance, Markdowns and Overstock Deals

There has been some discussion on the left that the Women's Marches on Saturday across the country could serve as the Democrats' version of the Tea Party movement. Perhaps this will be the start of a grassroots effort, united by their opposition to the President, that could mobilize for victories in 2018 just as the Tea Party movement did for Republicans in 2010. Jim Geraghty writes on this idea,
It now appears that as the Trump presidency dawns, angry liberals are building something akin to the Tea Party movement. It will look different, it will be geographically concentrated in different areas, and of course, it will get much more sympathetic media coverage. But it will be there, and it could be a big factor in 2018 midterms.

It’s also worth remembering that the Tea Party was ultimately a mixed bag for the Republican party. Yes, it brought them Mike Lee, Nikki Haley, Marco Rubio, Paul LePage, Trey Gowdy, Ron Johnson, etc., but it also brought Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Carl Paladino, and Richard Mourdock. An impassioned grassroots movement giveth, and an impassioned grassroots movement taketh away.
Dan McLaughlin adds in that the Democrats might want to be careful of what they're wishing for. First of all, there is the irony.
To start with, it’s worth remembering what Democrats thought, or at any rate said, until this week. First, they spent the past eight years calling the Tea Party a bunch of racist, unpatriotic terrorists — and now they want in on that! Second, they also spent the past eight years chortling about how self-defeating the Tea Party was for Republicans — and even if the outcomes in the House, the Senate and all the other states had been exactly the same, they’d still be saying the same thing today (even louder) if Hillary Clinton had won Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
However, are Democrats ready for the disruptive forces that can be unleashed by such a populist forces. After all, as McLaughlin writes, The Democrats are "the same political party that gloried in using its superdelegates to cut off Bernie Sanders’ path to the nomination, and that takes great pride in its top-down organizing structure." But perhaps, they've learned their lessons. However, as the Republican establishment could tell the Democrats, the Tea Party movement also led to quite a few GOP incumbents losing out in primaries to Tea Party challengers. Some were quality candidates and some were extremely weak and led the Republicans to lose winnable seats with candidates like Christine O'Donnell in Connecticut and Sharron Angle in Nevada.
Tea Party challengers forcibly retired GOP veterans in the safest of deep-red states and districts, and they cost the party winnable elections in swing races (the Castle–O’Donnell primary being the most obvious example). Even if you think the movement has been on balance a boon to Republicans, the costs have been undeniable, and they fell disproportionately on the party’s efforts to control its own strategy.
As McLaughlin argues, if a Tea Party of the Left targeted the more moderate Democrats who come from red states such as Joe Manchin of West Virginia or Jon Tester of Montana, they might find themselves primarying themselves out of their most winnable candidates. They would do better to follow the model that Rahm Emanuel set for them in 2006 by running more moderate candidates in red districts and states. Of course, such strategizing for 2018 based on wishful thinking of how to mobilize the activism we saw this weekend is futile now, but it's still fun.

Jim Talent has an interesting proposal about the presidential pardon power concerning last-minute pardons and commutations.
There is a simple remedy available. Congress should consider a constitutional amendment making clemency decisions during presidential transitions provisional only, subject to reversal by the new president within 60 days after he assumes office, and inoperative, unless confirmed by the new president, until the 60 days had passed. (Special provision could be made for death-penalty cases.)

I see no reason why the debate on such an amendment should be partisan. Presidents Clinton and Obama may have opened Pandora’s box, but there is zero reason to believe that future presidents of both parties won’t take advantage of the precedent they have set. It would be a sign of health — a small but important step towards constitutional propriety — if Congress and the states acted on a bipartisan basis to prevent these abuses. By all means, presidents should have the power to extend mercy when they think it’s justified, but they also should be required to show some principle, and some courage, in how they do it.
Given that presidents have four or eight years for issuing the pardons and reprieves they want to do, I like the idea of channeling such actions to before the election.

Best-selling Vitamins

Interesting Finds at Amazon: Updated Daily

Spring Savings in Grocery and Gourmet Food

The MSM reporters in the White House pool are upset that Sean Spicer didn't call on the usual suspects in today's press briefing.
He first called on the New York Post. Then, the Christian Broadcasting Network. That was followed by Univision and Fox Business.

Spicer then took a question from Urban Radio Network, and then finally the Associated Press, which up until now has usually gotten the first question.

Fox News was next, followed by ABC.

Under Obama, the AP and Reuters had gotten the first shot at questions each day, followed by networks like NBC, ABC and CBS.

The unprecedented decision ruffled the feathers of some. NBC'S Kelly O'Donnell said Spicer was skipping over major news outlets that cover the White House all day, every day.

She tweeted later that the mainstream serves "the most Americans with expertise, depth of commitment to fair coverage."
They'll have to get used to there being a new sheriff in town. I like this idea that Spicer announced to allow four journalists from outside the DC region to Skype in to the press briefings. I think that's a neat idea.

Ah, the irony.
The limousine that was set on fire during the anti-Trump anarchist protest in downtown Washington on Inauguration Day is owned by a Muslim immigrant who says the damage could cost his company $70,000.

Muhammad Ashraf, the owner of Nationwide Chauffeur Services, spoke with the Washington Examiner's sister publication, Red Alert Politics, about what happened:
In an exclusive interview with Red Alert Politics, Ashraf said he wasn’t a supporter of Donald Trump during his campaign, but Friday’s protests were completely counter-productive.
“I have a different point of view,” Ashraf told Red Alert. “I did not agree with many of the things he said, but that still does not give me the right to go and affect someone’s livelihood.”
Ashraf noted that the Women’s March on Washington and in other cities around the country was a model for how to peacefully protest.
“I really don’t think we need to take this [violent] route.”
Ashraf’s employee, Luis Villarroel, 58, was dropping a client off at their destination when things turned ugly. Protesters smashed doors and windows in the vicinity, but then turned their attention to Villarroel and the limo. People began pounding on the car and started throwing stones and bricks in his direction. The driver ended up going to the hospital for cuts on his hands and arms from glass being shattered by thrown projectiles.


george boggs said...

Gorsuch looks like a good choice for that high-profile fight. I'm still a Pryor man, but Gorsuch would be fine, too.

But some of the most powerful figures in DC fly under the press radar because, as Ben Rhodes famously observed, members of the press don't know anything. One such appointment is Ajit Pai at the FCC. Consider "net neutrality" dead, and onward to the future of advanced telecommunications! This is a Very Big Deal.

Also, I recently discovered that human fetal skin is invoiced at $325. Hawking the skins of dead babies is surely a top career choice for the ambitious Progressive, but having skinned more than a few dead game animals in my time, I can imagine the extreme delicacy and skill it would require to skin an unborn child. I just had to wonder where the Progressives find ghouls to do that job. Job fairs at abortion marches?

Finally, I understand that Betsy disapproves of Trump's tweets. But I have a different view. Trump's tweets are like the maestro's baton taps on the music stand. Tap-tap-tap and the Progressosphere and media volcanically erupt. How many politicians wield the power to bring millions pouring into the streets, reinforcing the political views and stiffening the spine of one's electoral base? Meanwhile, he meets with union leaders, the lifeblood of the opposition's donor base, and receives their praise. Masterful.

mardony said...

"We thought Hair Fuhrer's inauguration speech was wunderbar, but it sounded so much better in the original German".
(Quote from Kameraden Booger and ithr)

tfhr said...


Can you actually feel the relevance of your comments slipping through your fingers as you type?

Pro tip: When you get to the point that you can no longer feel any relevance at all - your finger tips are as numb as your skull - go ahead and type with your forehead! Nobody that reads your stuff we be able to tell the difference and you'll save time - tons of it over the next four years...eight years...Pence!

tfhr said...


You've done it now! That summary of the fur trade at Planned Parenthood will have mark curled up with his jammies and juicebox for months. I once asked him if his "Baby on Board" sign on the back window of his Prius was made of real baby and he's cried about that for about five or six years now.

WHATEVER you do, don't ask mark about his unrestricted support for trafficking children!

Warmongerel said...

You seem to have a problem with Trump responding to every media provocation that comes along. Perhaps he learned from the Bush administration, which responded to none of the media's slanders and let the media control the narrative completely.

Leftist, including the MSM, are, emotionally, children. If they think that they can get away with something with no consequences, they will do it every time.

george boggs said...

tfhr: Apparently, they netted over $2k for the various parts. Eyeballs, brain, etc were all sold separately.

tfhr said...

Yeah, I've never been able to grasp how they can dehumanize a person the way they do but I guess that's necessary if you're going to slaughter them in the millions but then I'm not a leftist, so I can't understand.

The unspoken irony of this grand money making scheme is that it does actually put vegans and vegetarians to work in abattoirs around the country. That's progress for Progressives!

mardony said...

Betsy ~

I'm clapping. You nailed it with this.

"This guy just can't get over himself. I think of Ronald Reagan's attitude, “There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don't care who gets the credit.” Trump has the opposite attitude: "There is no limit to the amount you can do if you claim credit for things you have nothing to do with or didn't even happen."

As far as I know, Reagan never took credit for the quote, even though it was engraved on a small plaque on his oval office desk. Of course, it had to be written for Reagan so he might be able to remember it.

The actual quote has an interesting history, with origins as far back as 1863.


tfhr said...

Wait, are you arguing about who gets credit for something said about doing good versus taking credit when Betsy was talking about attitude?

I know as an angry, addled leftist, you are immune from seeing the irony of your own blather but thanks for the laugh. I'm laughing with you. Really.

george boggs said...

tfhr: Not to be argumentative, but suggesting Monloni is addled gives more credit than deserved, at least in my opinion. Like most Proglodytes, his commentary is more like Galvani's famous frog leg. Stimulate it, and it twitches.

tfhr said...


Moboney has reached a condition of tetanus but then he was already pithed. That's pithed as in brains scrambled, not the way mark says he's angry when someone violates his safe space.

tfhr said...


This excerpt from a linked article seems to miss the point:

Tea Party challengers forcibly retired GOP veterans in the safest of deep-red states and districts, and they cost the party winnable elections in swing races (the Castle–O’Donnell primary being the most obvious example). Even if you think the movement has been on balance a boon to Republicans, the costs have been undeniable, and they fell disproportionately on the party’s efforts to control its own strategy.

McLaughlin apparently sees this a lot differently than I do. The Republican Party was and still largely is broken and poorly led. Republican leadership has been feckless for years and the result is Trump. The Tea Party was an opportunity to stop doing business as usual and when the party failed to respond effectively the opportunity was lost. In steps the Opportunist and STILL we have Republicans unable to see that the base, the rank and file, were nearly as unhappy with them and their business as usual approach as they were with Obama. How many times did the Republicans fail to use their majorities to stop Obama and force him to compromise? Power of the Purse is useless if you're willing to go along to get along.

I feel like the Republicans and Democrats are merely two sides of the same wooden nickel. As a conservative living in the Gerrymander State, I have absolutely no voice in DC and precious little in Annapolis. (In case you wonder if snakes can cross the Bay Bridge, look at the shapes of the Congressional Districts in MD: see wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland's_congressional_districts )

Despite the corrupt redistricting that has stunted Maryland for decades and continues its precipitous decline, voters did reach their limit and Republican Larry Hogan comfortably stomped a jug-eared Obama clone to become governor. Anthony Brown missed his ever so certain coronation by strenuously applying his super power of ineptitude to MD's futile effort at joining the lemmings' rush to establish ObamaCare here. Despite personally driving Maryland's attempt at the ACA into a muddy ditch, idiots were able to vote Brown in as a Congressman because his district looks like a blood stain smeared by dragging a body from PG County to south Baltimore.

Even in places where the deck may appear to be stacked against the Republicans, someone that cares to listen can still get a chance to win when the left falters but they won't get there and they won't stay if they refuse to listen. Establishment Republicans tuned out the Tea Party when turning their noses up wasn't enough to make them go away. (There's a term limit tangent ready for this paragraph but I'll pass on it today)

I don't know exactly what Trump hears or how much he can deliver on what he has said but the notion so far stands in stark contrast to the collective performance of the establishment Republicans for so many years.

And before Mardony / mark have anything to snivel about regarding the comments above, I'd just like to add that Trump would never have achieved his victory without the tremendous assist he got from Hillary, the queen in waiting, and her moonbat minions that supported her so blindly and continue to do so today.

mardony said...

Welcome to the Fourth Reich and its campaign of alt-facts. This was posted Sunday on Pence's official Facebook page.

"Our Administration is proud to stand with American women and of our supporters' significant role in this cause. Despite the misleading Liberal Media's claims, we clearly saw that well over half of the participants in yesterday's march were Trump supporters."

tfhr said...


"Fourth Reich"?

The Nazis were socialists, like you. Is this a case of wishful thinking on your part or just hysteria?

mark said...

Nope. No "curling up" or "crying" for me, trumpkins. You clearly bought into the concept of "alternative truth" long before Conway put a name to it.
I've not been too surprised to see the sheer idiocy and lies posted by you and others regarding, among other things, the march on Saturday.
Despite the occasional platitude about respecting her colleagues and students, Betsy has allowed them to be smeared, maligned and slandered with insane accusations about about being clueless shrews who enjoy abortion and support child-molesting. You recently claimed that my criticism of Breitbart proved my support of terrorists.
Betsy rightly called "pizza-gate" disgusting, while allowing something just as disgraceful to fill her blog.
I did think she and you and others might clean up this blog up a bit and restore a little dignity. My bad!

mardony said...

Betsy still chooses to belittle the Women's marches nationally and ignore those that were international. No surprise then that she cheers the demise of the ACA. One of the major themes of the U.S. marches was to protest the damage to women's health promised by the groper-in-chief and his like-minded agents. For example, before the ACA took effect:

Women in the individual insurance market were victims of "gender rating", meant women were charged more than men by 92% of companies offering insurance in the individual market.

Women's policies rarely covered birth control, and when they did charged high deductibles.

Rape and pregnancy were pre-existing conditions.

Only 12% of plans in the individual market offered maternity coverage.

The list goes on, but the ACA overcame much of the prejudice against women's health practiced by the health care industry. And the groper-in-chief wants to return to pre-ACA years for women.

Since I've not noticed Betsy showing any sensitivity for women's (or minority) issues, and some of her most frequent commenters are uber-deplorables, my comment is likely of no consequence, but one never knows.

tfhr said...

Oh mark,

I'm glad you are so concerned about facts and truth now - it is a brave new step for you following your abject supplication to serial liars that said things to you like "If you like your plan you can keep your plan", "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", "Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported", "And I remember landing under sniper fire", “I, like everyone else, would like to know the answer about how those documents showed up, after all these years.” and all sorts of gems about Benghazi and private email servers.

Having to process and hold onto all of the many lies of Hillary and Obama's along with Trump's victory has you sounding so beat down. You really don't seem able to deliver your usual self-righteous indignation with any conviction. The Hillary collapse has left you hollowed out. It's as if your lack of principles has left you with absolutely nothing after the implosion of the queen's cult of personality. (You know, an objective observer might have seen her inevitable failure when you consider her candidacy was built on a personality cult meant to make a person with no human appeal appear to have a personality! Her ruin just got her sooner than expected!)

In December I asked you if you wanted to turn over a new leaf this year and you refused, so we're back at it. It was your choice to continue with your lead-off insults as you blabber your way to the next episode of feigned indignance over some terrible grievance you have suffered.

Act now and order a feinting couch from Amazon and don't forget to use Betsy's gateway to kick some cash her way. Imagine that! Such a simple act and you can actually contribute here. For once.

tfhr said...

"my comment is likely of no consequence"
~ Mardony

Why stop at that one comment?

This one jumps out though: "uber-deplorables"

You've more or less defaulted to a lot Germanic lingo and Nazi references lately as you thrash about trying to find your footing. Are you attempting to reveal a little something about the nature of your socialist leanings?

Finally, if you think the "ACA" was ever more than an method to push the nation into government run healthcare you're a fool. When Obama said, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", he was lying right to your face. He wasn't going to convince a single conservative with that lie. It was all about duping chumps on the left or people that were already so dependent on the government they could no longer make a choice but to go further into that dependency.

Either way, ObamaCare was never about healthcare or helping women. Just ask Jonathan Gruber.

mardony said...

tfhr germil ~

"And if you like your Addiction Psychiatrist, you can keep your Addiction Psychiatrist." That's how Obamacare failed you.

tfhr said...

Well, mardony, I only pay for ObamaCare, like other taxpayers - but I'm positioned well enough to not have to use it. But as with the taxpayers and the people unfortunate enough to have been forced into this scam, we have all been failed by ObamaCare

I use TriCare and when I'm feeling lucky and want to flirt with danger, the VA. As a user of government run health care, I can tell you truly what not having a choice can be like. Fortunately, in the case of TriCare, I now live in an area where there are more military treatment facilities than just about anywhere in the country, so I do have a choice and I don't have to depend on the VA. Better yet, TriCare refers people out into the civilian market to make up for all of the services it cannot provide, which means in most cases my family and I get to see a civilian provider. If left to itself, TriCare would fold up over night because it cannot provide by itself the volume or quality of care needed to support the people it is supposed to serve.

If you were anywhere close to being clever enough to having a sense of humor, we could trade insults some more but instead, why don't you talk to me some more about the greatness you see in Gruber's masterpiece? Perhaps you can explain why the “Obamacare architect” said the scam had to be sold as a lie and hinged on the "stupidity of the American voter".


mardony said...

tfhr germil ~
You want a conversation? Then speak to the point -women's health under Obamacare vs. the previous status quo -- rather than go off on some deranged neuron-free self abuse. You don't use the ACA, but you're expert on it. Sorry, no cred.

tfhr said...

Reading comprehension, mardony. Try it.

I've had my fair share of government health care and I can tell you it is lacking, requires much external support to avoid collapse, and it is very, very expensive. But thanks for paying for mine for going on about 50 years.

ObamaCare is a resounding failure and a fraud. You don't have to believe me, just ask Hillary and Gruber.

mardony said...

tfhr germil ~
You're still unable to focus. It's women's healthcare, junior. Not about you. So mansplaining. You need help. Seek it.

tfhr said...


Obamacare fails to deliver for women,children and men. Get it?

Why must you pander to women? Why would you want to divide health care recipients into competing groups to be played? Why wouldn't you want to make health care cost less for everyone? I guess that doesn't really interest you.

Why would you believe that politicians can run health care better than medical professionals? Why would you believe that government can run something that involves costs more efficiently than a business? Why would you - someone that marches around in a funny pink hat symbolizing female genitalia in the name of "choice" - want to limit health care to a one size fits all government scam?

I know it's all about the politics for you - not actual health care - but look what ObamaCare did for Hillary. Believe me, she's one woman did realize the "benefits" of ObamaCare.

mardony said...

Germil junior ~
You need to either quit your psychotropic meds or double your dose. Use your Obamacare, but make sure your provider doesn't think you're a woman.

tfhr said...


It sounds like you've thrown in the towel.

No surprise that you could not respond to the simple question of why not try to reduce medical costs for everyone? I'd like to hear you explain why you don't want to do that.

These years ahead are going to be a very rough ride for you - better tighten the chin strap on your little pink hat, Precious!