Originally Posted by zargof

If Clinton won, I imagine Republicans would have pushed through Merrick Garland in the lame duck session because he's centrist and Clinton's pick would have been more liberal.

As it is, I don't see Democrats filibustering Trump's pick for the next two (or more) years, so there will be a conservative majority again. Also, look at who else is on the court. Will RBG, Breyer and/or Kennedy still be around in another four years? It could very easily start to look a lot more conservative without any packing. Not to mention all the openings on lower courts that Republicans have dragged their feet on.

Originally Posted by Ebonhawke

My original thought was that the Romney meeting was a Trump vengeance plot. By having the meeting with Romney, it allowed the media to bring up all the bad things that he said about Trump, and then all of the Trump's spokespeople could go on the various media shows and slam Romney's record and feel that they got their payback for the things that Romney said on the campaign trail. If true, would continue to lower the bar for political conduct, and further dissuade qualified people from joining his administration. However, this tactic doesn't seem to be out of the realm of possibility for those that perceive a vindictive temperament by Trump and some of his advisors.

However, just saw a brief where apparently Romney has a second meeting with the Trump transition team tomorrow - so perhaps not. Appointing Romney to a cabinet position, even if it's not SoS, to possibly appease some Republicans who weren't in his camp will simply infuriate his base.

Originally Posted by Boiler

Originally Posted by Giantaxe

Unattributed Daily Fail link... ho hum.

Originally Posted by Nutmegger

And "Heba"? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by Ebonhawke

Did you ever wonder why the ACA Marketplace had its renewal period (with higher rates) come out in November, just a week prior to the Election?

Originally Posted by Giantaxe

Unattributed Daily Fail link... ho hum.

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP

This is a typical open enrollment period for employer-based health insurance, since the policies are based upon the calendar year and are priced based upon coverage for the calendar year. Nothing to do with the election.

Originally Posted by Ebonhawke

I'm not trying to be a Trump supporter, nor an apologist - I fully believe that a Trump administration is going to do some significant damage to American citizenry and America's perceived place in the world. However, I'm trying to take an optimistic approach ("Is there even a drop of water in this glass?") that Trump's 'overt' controversies will enable a constant critical vigilance on this administration that may prevent us from 'waking up' five years from now and realizing that we're really screwed.

Trump's policy positions have always seemed to be set in sand. He's had so many flip-flops and policy easing statements that it's hard to pin down what he will actually enact. As a narcissist, he wants to be seen in a positive light by others, so it will be interesting to see his reaction when faced with mounting protests, and condemnation from other world leaders on policies, especially with regards to climate change.

Originally Posted by zargof

I get that, but you did suggest that it was better to have a President Trump than a President Clinton in certain circumstances, and I can't think of any instance where that is true. Well, maybe if Trump had picked Bernie Sanders as his VP and then slipped and fell off the podium at his inauguration and cracked his head open. Maybe then, but otherwise no.

What this should do is wake up the left so they remember that using drones to kill brown people is bad, or section 1021 of the NDAA is a bad thing because habeas corpus was a good idea, or the 4th Amendment does actually exist. Maybe they could remember some of those, I dunno.

Originally Posted by Boiler

You sort of contradicted yourself with your second paragraph.

We will never know what Hillary would have done and we have yet to find out what Trump will do, I can think of a few things where Hillary is likely to have done some nasty things and Trump will not. And vice versa.

Originally Posted by Boiler

You stated an absolute, life is not about absolutes.

As they said at least Mussolini made the trains run on time.

Now if you had said on balance Hillary would be better than Trump, then that strikes me as a valid opinion. But in all cases?

There are very few changes where there are not winners and losers, so if you accept that a change is for the common good and we all agree that, well there is still likely to be a loser, maybe even us.