4 ms·

This doesn’t seem like a bad rule - but I’m surprised to being agreeing with something this administration is trying to do. Is there some argument against this

This doesn’t seem like a bad rule - but I’m surprised to being agreeing with something this administration is trying to do. Is there some argument against this that I don’t see?

AlexTWithBeard 7y ago
Or may be, well, not everything current administration is trying to do is bad.
- geuis 7y ago
  Exception to the rule
  - dnautics 7y ago
    I dislike trump probably more than the median american (and have and will continue to put my money where my mouth is) but let's see: 1) lobbied for criminal justice reform (first step act) 2) has at least tried to make peace with north korea 3) pulled back some hawks from war with iran (and in three years has not initiated a new foreign war - by this time in his presidency Obama had already started to bomb Libya)
- tiles 7y ago
  Ruling by executive fiat isn't necessarily bad, but it's a hell of a trend. Should you be able to sidestep Congress to implement mandatory listing of drug pricing (especially when you also control one chamber of Congress)? Should you be able to sidestep a Supreme Court ruling by issuing an executive order? What legislative issue is the administration working around exactly?
  - tehlike 7y ago
    Sometimes you do need someone with a vision to make the calls instead of a consensus. Especially when that consensus involves people on the receiving end of lobbying. Which is to say, maybe we can start making lobbying less of a thing.
tropo 7y ago
There is probably more you'd agree on, but only the inflammatory stuff really makes the news. I see that the news did actually cover Trump going into North Korea last week, but it sure was buried -- did you see that it happened? Also regarding drug prices, Trump is trying to do a sort of most-favored-nation status for the prices, and/or allow reimporting. That too will be fought in court I'm sure, even if it goes through congress. If it survives court challenges, then Americans no longer pay more for drugs than the rest of the world.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tiles 7y ago
  The visit was pretty widely covered on cable news, after all this was the first president to enter the DPRK. Why did no president before now want to visit the DPRK, and what public good did this administration secure in exchange for doing so?
  - whamlastxmas 7y ago
    It's diplomacy. It's a gesture. Not everything has to be transactional when it doesn't cost anything but a couple hours of time.
    - tiles 7y ago
      Sure, and it's objectively a diplomatic win for North Korea. But what diplomatic outcome is expected for the U.S. for visiting the DPRK for the first time?
      - tehlike 7y ago
        Time will tell. Instead of a hostile approach, a little gesture on both ends could go a long way... Or nowhere... But it is an attempt, no?
        7y ago
tayo42 7y ago
The way the article reads seems to suggest that this is like the bare minimum the administration can do to appear to be doing something about health care costs. The judge is probably right though. America's congress is broken and so healthcare in this country :( Hopefully they help with something soon.. I did think the exact same thing you did though when I read the headline.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tomatotomato37 7y ago
Just the usual stuff over federal/corporate overreach paid for by big pharma; the party of either the judge or the president is kinda irrelevant in this context. I'm surprised some higher up didn't lean on the judge to throw out the case however; the optics of this whole thing are horrendous for the Democrats considering all the noise Trump makes over the deep state and whatever

This doesn’t seem like a bad rule - but I’m surprised to being agreeing with something this administration is trying to do. Is there some argument against this that I don’t see?

AlexTWithBeard 7y ago

Or may be, well, not everything current administration is trying to do is bad.

geuis 7y ago
Exception to the rule
- dnautics 7y ago
  I dislike trump probably more than the median american (and have and will continue to put my money where my mouth is) but let's see: 1) lobbied for criminal justice reform (first step act) 2) has at least tried to make peace with north korea 3) pulled back some hawks from war with iran (and in three years has not initiated a new foreign war - by this time in his presidency Obama had already started to bomb Libya)
tiles 7y ago
Ruling by executive fiat isn't necessarily bad, but it's a hell of a trend. Should you be able to sidestep Congress to implement mandatory listing of drug pricing (especially when you also control one chamber of Congress)? Should you be able to sidestep a Supreme Court ruling by issuing an executive order? What legislative issue is the administration working around exactly?
- tehlike 7y ago
  Sometimes you do need someone with a vision to make the calls instead of a consensus. Especially when that consensus involves people on the receiving end of lobbying. Which is to say, maybe we can start making lobbying less of a thing.

tropo 7y ago

There is probably more you'd agree on, but only the inflammatory stuff really makes the news. I see that the news did actually cover Trump going into North Korea last week, but it sure was buried -- did you see that it happened? Also regarding drug prices, Trump is trying to do a sort of most-favored-nation status for the prices, and/or allow reimporting. That too will be fought in court I'm sure, even if it goes through congress. If it survives court challenges, then Americans no longer pay more for drugs than the rest of the world.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tiles 7y ago
The visit was pretty widely covered on cable news, after all this was the first president to enter the DPRK. Why did no president before now want to visit the DPRK, and what public good did this administration secure in exchange for doing so?
- whamlastxmas 7y ago
  It's diplomacy. It's a gesture. Not everything has to be transactional when it doesn't cost anything but a couple hours of time.
  - tiles 7y ago
    Sure, and it's objectively a diplomatic win for North Korea. But what diplomatic outcome is expected for the U.S. for visiting the DPRK for the first time?
    - tehlike 7y ago
      Time will tell. Instead of a hostile approach, a little gesture on both ends could go a long way... Or nowhere... But it is an attempt, no?
      - 7y ago

tayo42 7y ago

The way the article reads seems to suggest that this is like the bare minimum the administration can do to appear to be doing something about health care costs. The judge is probably right though. America's congress is broken and so healthcare in this country :( Hopefully they help with something soon.. I did think the exact same thing you did though when I read the headline.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

tomatotomato37 7y ago

Just the usual stuff over federal/corporate overreach paid for by big pharma; the party of either the judge or the president is kinda irrelevant in this context. I'm surprised some higher up didn't lean on the judge to throw out the case however; the optics of this whole thing are horrendous for the Democrats considering all the noise Trump makes over the deep state and whatever