I still like him. I just think he’s wrong here.
it is not the freedom caucus that needs to be challenged, it is the democrat wing of the republican party that needs challenging.
The Freedom Caucus responded to Trump that The Swamp Has Now Drained President Trump.
I’ve heard that supposedly Freedom got what they asked for and still voted no.
Then I heard the Parlimentarian was inferring Ryan was full of shit as to how far he could take repealing, then replacing Obamacare.
Then this morning Trump lumps Freedom as being as bad as Democrats.
I think Trump is AFRAID.
I SMELL here that Trump does not want to deal with handling all the voters that could be on freebees getting mad. He is AFRAID to send the culture to the right again requiring people to “Work for what they want, not government gifting”.
In other words, the swamp has in deed at least in part drained Trump IMO as I read this so far.
Based on the most recent Parlimentarian revelations that we can go farther than Ryan said in the bill, does that not crumble the case for Freedom or others to jump on board?
If there is a better bill to be had Freedom did the right thing. If we are supposedly restricted, then Ryan would be correct.
Then there is the third reason, they maybe wanted a part three to vote more Democrats out of office and Freedom is blocking a multi-part strategy to regain a super majority in the Senate.
Anyone know what is going on here? Any mind readers out here?
All I know is I don’t like the feeling of this which at this point is tilting me most toward the Freedom caucus.
I agree, but maybe for a different reason.
Until patriots get Trump up to speed on the fed’s constitutionally limited powers, regulating, taxing and spending in the name of INTRAstate healthcare not among those powers, Trump is likely going to be continuing the Democratic job of establishing an unconstitutional national healthcare program.
I foresee constitutionally low-information (imo) Trump running the wrong way with the politically correct healthcare “football” that he has intercepted, like wrong-way Riegels did in 1929 Rose Bowl.
Roy Riegels wrong way run in the Rose Bowl
Keep in mind: the HFC ALL voted for Ryan. Not ONE of them challenged Ryan for the Speakership.
So they got to have their cake and eat it too, being the “purists” while going along with the insiders.
I love Brat and Jordan. I think their positions were correct, but wrong in terms of the reconciliation bill. Moreover, the HFC is only 10% of the entire GOP House membership, and now lost one more member (Poe), and it takes an 80% consensus of the HFC to support or reject a bill. What I’m saying is that they have some clout, but not that much and have to be careful lest they be totally CRUZ-ized.
The best thing HFC could do right now would be to get their “health care” bill out of committee asap. If Ryan’s blocking, go straight to Trump. Believe me, he’ll deal.
For the Freedom Caucus to get as much as it can is great. But 30 members of the House cannot control the government. They are going to lose not their seats, but the House and Senate in 2018. There will be no Obamacare repeal or replace. If they think that’s great, at some point to hell with them.
I believe his strategy of implementing MAGA is to destroy the democrats in 2018 by dominating congress with trump endorsed members. Trump has the power of speech and tweet to influence elections at this point (something that even Mr. Charm himself, Barack Obama failed at) and it will only grow by next year.
In essence he wants to re-brand the GOP into a Trump party.
Who the hell cares about the Freedom Caucus give me a break!
I, also, think this will be counterproductive. Trump needs more Republicans, not Bolshekrats. Counting on Bolshies, means higher taxes and bigger government. This is a non-starter.
ALL of them took an oath to defend the Constitution.
It’s long past time they get properly schooled in just what the Constitution actually says.
Frankly, I see tweets like that being addressed in this thread as a venting of pique, not a true reversal of President Trump's underlying Conservatism. But that said, I see your comments, otherwise, as constructive. We have to bridge all unnecessary party conflicts--all that is, that do not reflect a real difference in American objectives.
In this spirit, let me suggest a compromise on Health Care, which could satisfy both the strict Constitutionalist & strict Jeffersonian, on our side, while reassuring the "moderates," who fear the result of an abrupt abandonment of the present Federal involvement in Civilian Health Care. This approach, understood, is intended to be acceptable in principal by almost all Republicans, as well as some Democrats in districts where everyone is not a Leftist "whack job."
We start with a brief recital of medical history, to postulate the ideas--the long term objectives--first, what the framers of our Constitution intended, when they left health care legislation to the States; and secondly to the honorable intentions of the class of physicians, who assumed the responsibility of the Hippocratic oath.
{Why this is important as a unity gesture, is not just that it would appeal to the hard core right--of which I am one. It actually leads to a public debate as to an ideal that argues for a Republican approach. It leads to an ability to demonstrate why Obama care has simply worsened the already grossly inflated medical costs that LBJ's 1965 intrusions have directly contributed to. The fact is that it is lunacy to allow the Federal Government, via various mandates, to meddle in something as immediate as the relation between a physician and patient, and expect the two certain results that anyone able to picture the dynamic interaction of factors, would expect: to wit, soaring costs & declining efficiency of service. Properly employed, this discussion will help public attitudes.)
Next, there needs to be what at first blush will appear as a factual recital in the opposite direction, relating only the factors now present in American Health Care, which actually have to be taken into account, as we endeavor to pursue a reasonable strategy, acceptable to all fair minded people of all persuasions, to back the bureaucrats in Washington out of American medicine. Here is the essential legal analogy:
We have in the law a doctrine that provides an exception to ordinary contract law, which allows the creation of a binding obligation, where one party--even without legal consideration for the promise--induces another party to commit to something, or part with something of value; where the party inducing the commitment is deemed to be estopped from denying the benefit promised. Under such an understanding, it would be unfair to immediately cancel the benefit promised to those who voluntarily signed up for Obamacare, under the promises made at the time.
Note, I am not suggesting a permanent continuation of any Federal entitlement; only that we recognize the concept that people who committed their future medical needs under the fallacious--but for many over-powering--inducements, have a legitimate situation--from a lay perspective--that needs to be addressed in a satisfactory manner.
We have to acknowledge these concerns--both sets of concerns--the reality of what worked without the Federal Government for 2200 years, and what works in human concerns generally, and the mess that the Socialist manipulators have created by their misuse of Federal power, for functions never delegated to those Socialist manipulators.
Just starting with a brief discussion of both factors, will elevate the level of public trust that we are not bulls in the proverbial china shop.
Now before someone accuses me of compromising principle, this is how Medicare & Medicaid are handled in the appropriate Chapter of the Conservative Debate Handbook:
democrat wing of the republican party