Trump learns politics - starts backtracking on campaign promises

[rotor]

Do you really want national reciprocity? You can't argue that each state should control abortions but the feds should control gun carry reciprocity. Some things better left to the states. You don't like Commiefornia, move.

False equivalency. There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to abortions. There is a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. That right is currently being infringed by the states unconstitutionally. It's the duty of the federal government to do something about that. Abortion should be regulated by the states, as it is not a constitutional right, there is no power given specifically to the federal government to regulate it, and support for it varies drastically from state to state.

I know these are sensitive subjects. Please don't take this as an attack. It's really not. Just discussion.

I am not arguing the constitutional right for abortion although the supreme court has interpreted this. And I really would like to be able to carry in my birth state, NY. I see the difficulty with Trump trying to argue that the feds should control the states over gun rights and the states should control abortion rights and the feds should be out. The supreme court has upheld abortion as a constitutional right, at least for now. I doubt that it will be taken away.

[Soccerdad1995]

Do you really want national reciprocity? You can't argue that each state should control abortions but the feds should control gun carry reciprocity. Some things better left to the states. You don't like Commiefornia, move.

False equivalency. There is no constitutionally guaranteed right to abortions. There is a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. That right is currently being infringed by the states unconstitutionally. It's the duty of the federal government to do something about that. Abortion should be regulated by the states, as it is not a constitutional right, there is no power given specifically to the federal government to regulate it, and support for it varies drastically from state to state.

I know these are sensitive subjects. Please don't take this as an attack. It's really not. Just discussion.

I am not arguing the constitutional right for abortion although the supreme court has interpreted this. And I really would like to be able to carry in my birth state, NY. I see the difficulty with Trump trying to argue that the feds should control the states over gun rights and the states should control abortion rights and the feds should be out. The supreme court has upheld abortion as a constitutional right, at least for now. I doubt that it will be taken away.

I can see a couple potential issues with national reciprocity.

First, we would presumably still allow states to set laws on where and even how you can carry. For example, in Texas, certain signs have the force of law to prevent carry. I can't see the feds requiring us to lessen this requirement for someone with an LTC issued from a state where signs do not carry force of law. So where do we draw the line? What if NY or CA says fine, you can carry, but only if a private property owner first obtains a sign explicitly allowing carry (kind of a reverse 30.06), and then the gun has to be state compliant, of course, and must not have a round in the chamber. Hollow points are banned, etc, etc. Maybe I am skeptical given the obstructionism we are seeing over the "fines for signs" law here.

Second, I am not sure I want the feds to have any control over where I can carry if it means that a future administration could go the other way and say that they can restrict my carry even if the state allows it. For this reason, I would much prefer that this happen as a result of a SCOTUS case than by executive order.

[Soccerdad1995]

There are a couple of things at play here. First Trump is trying to moderate his positions to calm the temper tantrums from the left. Second, some of his promises, such as Mexico paying for the wall, are so outrageous as to never have been taken serious in the first place.

I don't know that Mexico paying for the wall is outrageous. We give them a little over $50 million a year in foreign aid. Seems like we could net the bond payments against that amount and raise enough funds to finance a pretty darn nice wall. Maybe also issue a special tariff on Mexican goods, after renegotiating NAFTA or course.

[bblhd672]

Lets see what he actually does after inauguration.

If he doesn't deliver and forgets what got him elected, then We the people will throw him out.

But in the meantime, again, let's wait-and-see. For now let's just enjoy watching the Libs cry.

[LucasMcCain]

I am not arguing the constitutional right for abortion although the supreme court has interpreted this. And I really would like to be able to carry in my birth state, NY. I see the difficulty with Trump trying to argue that the feds should control the states over gun rights and the states should control abortion rights and the feds should be out. The supreme court has upheld abortion as a constitutional right, at least for now. I doubt that it will be taken away.

It's a fair point that SCOTUS has ruled abortion a constitutional right. I don't personally believe it is, but it is currently the law of the land. I think I see what you're saying, that it would be a hard sell. However, the 2A is a right that is currently being taken away and infringed. Changing this would involve protecting people's rights. Abortion is currently being viewed as a right, and the goal is to take away that right. I think the gun law changes would be an easier sell overall. I could certainly be wrong, though. I've often been wrong about a variety of things.

However, if we're just talking about what we want, then yes. I want national reciprocity. Really, I want constitutional carry. I want anyone who can legally own a gun to be able to carry that gun any way they want, pretty much anywhere they want.

[Pawpaw]

Lets see what he actually does after inauguration.

If he doesn't deliver and forgets what got him elected, then We the people will throw him out.

But in the meantime, again, let's wait-and-see. For now let's just enjoy watching the Libs cry.

Am I a bad person for how much I'm enjoying all the liberal tears? We've just been bullied and lied to for so long; I'm really enjoying seeing and hearing all the bullies and liars pout and cry and throw their little tantrums.

Yes! You're deplorable!!! (Just like me. )

[LucasMcCain]

I can see a couple potential issues with national reciprocity.

First, we would presumably still allow states to set laws on where and even how you can carry. For example, in Texas, certain signs have the force of law to prevent carry. I can't see the feds requiring us to lessen this requirement for someone with an LTC issued from a state where signs do not carry force of law. So where do we draw the line? What if NY or CA says fine, you can carry, but only if a private property owner first obtains a sign explicitly allowing carry (kind of a reverse 30.06), and then the gun has to be state compliant, of course, and must not have a round in the chamber. Hollow points are banned, etc, etc. Maybe I am skeptical given the obstructionism we are seeing over the "fines for signs" law here.

Second, I am not sure I want the feds to have any control over where I can carry if it means that a future administration could go the other way and say that they can restrict my carry even if the state allows it. For this reason, I would much prefer that this happen as a result of a SCOTUS case than by executive order.

I too have fears of allowing the federal government to regulate any firearms issues. However, they already are. ACoE property, post offices, GFSZA (you're welcome, Scott), ATF, NICS, NFA, and the list goes on. The feds are supposed to be protecting our constitutional rights, not whittling away at them, or allowing the states to do so. If we've got an opportunity to get some protection for our rights out of the feds, I think we should go for it.

[Soccerdad1995]

I can see a couple potential issues with national reciprocity.

First, we would presumably still allow states to set laws on where and even how you can carry. For example, in Texas, certain signs have the force of law to prevent carry. I can't see the feds requiring us to lessen this requirement for someone with an LTC issued from a state where signs do not carry force of law. So where do we draw the line? What if NY or CA says fine, you can carry, but only if a private property owner first obtains a sign explicitly allowing carry (kind of a reverse 30.06), and then the gun has to be state compliant, of course, and must not have a round in the chamber. Hollow points are banned, etc, etc. Maybe I am skeptical given the obstructionism we are seeing over the "fines for signs" law here.

Second, I am not sure I want the feds to have any control over where I can carry if it means that a future administration could go the other way and say that they can restrict my carry even if the state allows it. For this reason, I would much prefer that this happen as a result of a SCOTUS case than by executive order.

I too have fears of allowing the federal government to regulate any firearms issues. However, they already are. ACoE property, post offices, GFSZA (you're welcome, Scott), ATF, NICS, NFA, and the list goes on. The feds are supposed to be protecting our constitutional rights, not whittling away at them, or allowing the states to do so. If we've got an opportunity to get some protection for our rights out of the feds, I think we should go for it.

We are in general agreement, as usual. But I do have one minor nitpick on the part I bolded.

By it's very nature, government (at all levels) will infringe on the rights of the governed. So I don't know that I would say the feds are "supposed to be protecting our rights" as mush as I would say that the constitution guarantees our rights and it is up to us to protect them from this natural tendency of the government.

[rotor]

I am not arguing the constitutional right for abortion although the supreme court has interpreted this. And I really would like to be able to carry in my birth state, NY. I see the difficulty with Trump trying to argue that the feds should control the states over gun rights and the states should control abortion rights and the feds should be out. The supreme court has upheld abortion as a constitutional right, at least for now. I doubt that it will be taken away.

It's a fair point that SCOTUS has ruled abortion a constitutional right. I don't personally believe it is, but it is currently the law of the land. I think I see what you're saying, that it would be a hard sell. However, the 2A is a right that is currently being taken away and infringed. Changing this would involve protecting people's rights. Abortion is currently being viewed as a right, and the goal is to take away that right. I think the gun law changes would be an easier sell overall. I could certainly be wrong, though. I've often been wrong about a variety of things.

However, if we're just talking about what we want, then yes. I want national reciprocity. Really, I want constitutional carry. I want anyone who can legally own a gun to be able to carry that gun any way they want, pretty much anywhere they want.

I can see the issue being one of constitutional carry. Let some NRA types go to the Supreme Court and have them restore constitutional carry rights among all states. I like that better than having the feds pass a law that says there has to be reciprocity.

[LucasMcCain]

I can see the issue being one of constitutional carry. Let some NRA types go to the Supreme Court and have them restore constitutional carry rights among all states. I like that better than having the feds pass a law that says there has to be reciprocity.

By it's very nature, government (at all levels) will infringe on the rights of the governed. So I don't know that I would say the feds are "supposed to be protecting our rights" as mush as I would say that the constitution guarantees our rights and it is up to us to protect them from this natural tendency of the government.

I agree with both of you on both of these points 1000%.

[parabelum]

I sure hope his #1 agenda will be our borders and illegals. Mind you that many of our issues, 2A notwithstanding, would in fact be self mitigating if the former two would be reconciled.

It is in my opinion the largest reason why California is so left wing...it's not necessarily that the tax paying Californians are so far to the left as much as all the illegal and non-English speaking "voters" Libs drag out to vote.

Oh and ballot language needs to be in English only. You can't speak English, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. My opinion.

[Skiprr]

On backtracking: I believe we all have to be political realists, here just as we have been in our two-decade-long, and ongoing, effort to improve Texas gun laws and carry statutes.

The U.S. is a democratic republic, not a dictatorship. Only in a dictatorship can the person at the top of the chain simply declare that something be done. Even in modern western-nation monarchies this doesn't happen. To expect otherwise is not realistic.

I've seen nothing that tells me reliably that Donald Trump has rescinded or negated anything he said during the campaign. His job now is to formulate strategy and build coalitions that can get things done. I'm thrilled that he got elected with some outlandish-sounding, far-reaching goals on the platform. That gives him room to negotiate. Kinda like negotiating a salary for a new job: if you ask too much, you can negotiate down; if you ask too little, you're already stuck in a corner before you ever start.

This is the 60 Minutes episode that aired a little over 18 hours ago. Ignore the title in the link and of the webpage. Some newsroom stoner evidently decided that marijuana was the most important subject on the agenda. It contains a full complement of commercials and I can't vouch for whether ot not the complete interview is there; but from the first 10 minutes or so, it seems to be. Wish I'd DVRed the show, but thought it was going to be only a short segment on the Trump election, not a full segment interviewing him.

http://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minutes/vid ... pot-vote-/

If you haven't seen it and believe that Trump has already ditched all his campaign promises, I very much suggest setting aside the 45 minutes to watch it.

If nothing else, I believe it illustrates that we need to careful about semantics and, despite the legion of people who thought he was a joke, that he very likely is the negotiating deal-maker he says he is. That he has so many liberal feathers ruffled is a good thing. He's started that metaphorical job interview off by setting the expectation--and has sold the belief of the expectation--that he demands a $1 million salary. If he gets $900K, he'll win, and the hiring manager on the other side of the table will walk away grateful that he bargained down the asking price.

As one example, the border wall. Trump had everyone envisioning some massive, turreted wall running 50-feet high running unbroken like something out of a science fiction movie from San Diego to the mouth of the Rio Grande. His, again metaphorical, $1 million ask.

If he'd said he would build "a suitably secure barrier, which may differ in places in applied construction, to help close our border with Mexico," would that have had the same impact as the simple word "wall"? Nope. He would have gone in starting too low in the negotiation. If we end up with a secure, enforceable, physical barrier at the border, in the end do we really care if it looks like a 21st century version of Hadrian's Wall? Some parts of the border simply aren't used for illegal crossings; some already have heavily monitored entry checkpoints on both sides; some already have significant physical structures in place that, arguably, only need better monitoring; and some are simply too dangerous or expensive to use as a crossing for illegal aliens. The border is 1,989 miles long, and remember that the vast majority of it in Texas, from the Gulf to El Paso, is demarcated by the Rio Grande river. In some spots, like near Box Canyon, the river itself is likely enough of a barrier.

Too, remember that much of the border--especially in South Texas--runs through privately owned property. Telling a South Texas rancher that some of his land is going to taken by the federal government via writ of eminent domain in order to build a massive, military-reinforced wall complete with access roads, parking lots, and troop barracks may not sit well with that no-doubt conservative voter. Negotiation with those ranchers and the provision of funds to help beef-up (no pun intended) border security on their lands in a manner that is acceptable to them? A win-win.

One that hits my pocketbook directly--and hard--is Obamacare. I'm still too young for Medicare, have a pre-existing condition, am/was (depending on how you look at it) self-employed. When Obamacare went into law, it became my only option for health insurance. The number of plans available in Texas have halved almost every year since inception. Last year, the nation's premier cancer hospital system, M.D. Anderson, stopped accepting Obamacare plans completely. This year, some of the country's largest health insurance providers have pulled out entirely. Every year since it began, insurers have cancelled existing plans and/or raised premiums on plans that would still be offered.

I was among those with "Affordable Care" sticker shock this month. Blue Cross will continue to offer plans in Texas (good news); my plan will still exist with minor modifications to in-plan physicians and approved pharmacies and a tolerable increase in deductible (also good news); my monthly premium will go up 68% (not so good news). If I keep my Obamacare plan in 2017--which is unlikely--the cost of the monthly premium would cover the combined costs of my mortgage payment, average electric bill, gas bill, home phone bill, cellphone bill, internet bill, water and sewer bill, trash pick-up bill, home security monitoring service, and overpriced Comcast cable television.

Well, I exaggerate. The equivalent health insurance plan premium would fall about $15 short of covering everything mentioned. I've had this same plan since 2014 (the plan I had in 2013 was discontinued by Blue Cross) and, with a starting point of what I paid in 2013, my premium will have gone up--as of 2017--by 278%. And mine you, this no Platinum level plan. Not a dime for any provider, physician, or hospital out of network, and only one major hospital system in Houston is included; I can't touch Methodist, Memorial Hermann or, of course, M.D. Anderson.

Do I really care if Trump demolishes Obamacare? I do very much want that common nomenclature to go away, but otherwise, no, I don't care. Do I want it to be overhauled down to the smallest nuts and bolts so that it can be restructured and be made realistically useful to people who pay their premiums, like me? You bet I do.

Trump set campaign expectations of a full and outright appeal of Obamacare. He's made a lot of people very nervous. He's set his entry into any future negotiations very high. If he gets the healthcare system fixed, I don't care if it's by full repeal, by single or multiple extreme amendments, or if it's come to be known as IvankaCare. Getting it fixed and sustainable should be the endgame.

I'll shut up now with this note: The DOW closed at an all-time record high again today. That's two all-time record closings in the four business days since the election was decided. Clearly the stock market thinks Donald Trump is going to destroy the country. </sarcasm>

[rotor]

Skiprr
I am in Wichita Falls. The only plan here is BC HMO which the major hospital doesn't take, there are almost no doctors, the premium is over $1000 a month, the deductible is $6,000, no meds are covered, they do give you an insurance card and that is it. That's for my wife as I am on Medicare. She presently has United Healthcare but they are pulling out end of December. My wife is going to go with that Medi-share program, Christian based healthcare program. Before Obamacare my wife had a good BC plan for about $220 a month. Such is the word affordable. I can only hope that the Obama's have to use the same lousy program they have forced down our throats. I am sure though that he will soon be a multi-millionaire and able to afford whatever the Clinton's use.

[Pawpaw]

Probably the best way to fix healthcare (and keep it fixed) would be to pass a law that all members of congress are subject to the same system.

[Skiprr]

Skiprr
I am in Wichita Falls. The only plan here is BC HMO which the major hospital doesn't take, there are almost no doctors, the premium is over $1000 a month, the deductible is $6,000, no meds are covered, they do give you an insurance card and that is it.

I hear ya. Loudly. I live in the home of the largest medical center in the world (http://www.tmc.edu/about-tmc/facts-and-figures/), and have access to only one hospital system and, unless a physician is affiliated with Baylor College of Medicine, he or she is out of plan. My plan has me paying 100% of everything until the deductible is met, so in 2017--if I keep the plan--I'll be out over $25,000 before I see any net-dollar insurance benefit.

More evidence that the Dems were way, way off base about popular opinion. And they thought Trump was laughably out of touch with the people of the United States.