It would have replaced the government penalty with a penalty paid to the insurance companies. It didn't include any free market reforms or anything that would help lower the costs, in fact costs would have kept increasing.
Uh, no, everything is going according to plan. If Bannon had Trump opposing AHCA or Paul Ryan, Trump would be framed as dis-uniting the party and he would get all the heat for the bill's failure, which he knows is inevitable because he talks to Rand. By promoting it and promoting Paul Ryan, the failure of the bill falls squarely on Paul Ryan's shoulders, and both Trump and Bannon are one step closer to realizing their goals.
I'm not sure how someone who is infallible can drone innocent people :confused:
I mean, I think ultimately we will have a more peaceful foreign policy and right now he just is testing the waters and such, but I don't want to throw him under the bus and get some deep state stooge like Mike Pence in there.. but ya I really don't see where this infallible stuff is coming from. I just believe he has different motivations than you do, it's pretty simple.
Ya, like I said that was doubling down. I totally expected this kind of behavior, Trump has to SELL IT HARD. He has to push for the bill, support Paul Ryan and make it look like he is unified with the party. Then when the vote fails, it is Paul Ryan's fault. If Trump didn't put 100% of his effort into it, and make it look like he was unified with the party, it would be framed as Trump's fault.
I'm ok with him posting that thread because he was mocking the media, and I recalled that he was the one who posted it. Your intention of posting a thread like that would be to mock Trump...
Do you see the difference?