Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

enid602

(9,355 posts)

27. medicare

Reply to FBaggins (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 05:42 PM

Dec 2016

Might they not be less likely to vote tRump after tRump's announcement this past Wednes that he will 'phase out' Medicare? He did not say he was presenting a program to Congress, he said flatly that he will phase out Medicare very soon. His pick as HHS Secretary is one of the major authors of this school of thought. With control of ALL branches of Government, there is nothing to stop the Republicans from accomplishing this long sought after goal. Seems like there might be a lot of folks dependent upon Medicare in these deep Red States. And will the Republicans stop with tossing Obamacare and Medicare? Why not go after Social Security as well. You know they want to. . .

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

29 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hamilton electoral voters. Is this worth backing? [View all] TrogL Dec 2016 OP

No portlander23 Dec 2016 #1

Donald Quixote might say yes. n/t PoliticAverse Dec 2016 #2

Why not? That's subsidizing them by $42,000 in order to support a 2.1 million popular vote. ancianita Dec 2016 #3

Do you have a source for that citood Dec 2016 #4

Politico. Among the "Faithless" electors. ancianita Dec 2016 #5

Nothing in that link indicates Trump electors are bailing citood Dec 2016 #7

Okay. Well, I saw that reference but didn't give it enough thought. ancianita Dec 2016 #14

These "faithless" electors are NOT going to vote for Hillary! Shemp Howard Dec 2016 #6

What exactly does Hillary need electoral votes for? LisaL Dec 2016 #9

She doesn't need those electoral votes. Shemp Howard Dec 2016 #10

If none of the republicans are going to do it then obviously the whole scheme makes no LisaL Dec 2016 #11

Link for this, please. Of the fifteen states that have 'faithless' electors, only one is blue, IIRC. ancianita Dec 2016 #13

Yes. You're missing something FBaggins Dec 2016 #15

Okay. But how can you disregard that a majority of faithless electors are from red states ancianita Dec 2016 #17

I can disregard it easily - because it isn't true. FBaggins Dec 2016 #19

So that's it? Just give up? As I said to TrogL, Georgia, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, ancianita Dec 2016 #20

We are not left with just "give up" or "get behind nutty notion with no chance of victory" FBaggins Dec 2016 #24

Don't you think electors of those states would hold their intentions away from media scrutiny? ancianita Dec 2016 #22

I think the electors in those states are almost all Trump voters FBaggins Dec 2016 #23

medicare enid602 Dec 2016 #27

Republicans FBaggins Dec 2016 #29

Link? triron Dec 2016 #8

It was supposed to be breaking at the time, and names not given. ancianita Dec 2016 #12

Hamilton Electors are sneakily fooling Democrats! They are anti-HRC! Madam45for2923 Dec 2016 #16

We could try to trust them. I tend to doubt they'll see DT for what he is, but stuff happens. ancianita Dec 2016 #18

Popular vote margin now 2,597,156. Coyotl Dec 2016 #21

No, because even if every single one picks Clinton, the House rejects and we get Trump Amishman Dec 2016 #25

Suppose Trump doesn't get 270 and neither does Hillary. TrogL Dec 2016 #26

What would be the point? J_William_Ryan Dec 2016 #28