Mike Pence: Almost as bad as Trump but he might not get us killed

[milkteeth]

On 7/15/2017 at 0:50 PM, fraurosena said:

I agree that he's going to attempt to deny at the very least! But I think that once procedures start against the tangerine toddler, no matter what basis is used to remove him, Pence will go down too. Because the presidunce will do his utmost to blame others for everything, Pence among them.

You're right about the Repubs. If irrefutable evidence of collusion / attempted collusion like Junior's emails doesn't get them all up in arms, then nothing will. The Democrats NEED to get their shit together, gather under an inspiring leader, and win in 2018. 

 

I'm afraid to come bearing very bad news....

[GreyhoundFan]

"Vice President Pence’s bushel of false and misleading claims about health care"

Spoiler

Vice President Pence recently spoke at the National Governors Association meeting in Providence, R.I., and made several questionable claims about the Senate GOP health-care proposal, the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA).

When he gave his speech, on Friday, the new version of the Republicans’ health proposal was released but had not been analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency that studies the budget impact of legislation. But analysis by an independent health-care consulting firm found that the revised version, which still contains steep reductions to Medicaid that the first version did, would greatly restrict state options for their Medicaid program. We dug into some of Pence’s talking points below.

As this is a roundup, as is our practice, we will not award Pinocchios. But readers should be able to tell that many of these were worthy of three or four Pinocchios.

“I know Governor Kasich isn’t with us, but I suspect that he’s very troubled to know that in Ohio alone, nearly 60,000 disabled citizens are stuck on waiting lists, leaving them without the care they need for months or even years.”

This is false. In fact, if Ohio Gov. John Kasich were there, he would have disagreed.

Under Medicaid, there are wait lists for optional services for specific populations, such as people with intellectual and developmental disabilities or chronic illnesses. States can offer these services so that certain people can get care at home or in their own community, rather than in an institution. Pence is referring to the roughly 60,000 people waiting for enrollment in these home- and community-based services.

Pence’s staff pointed to an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal that argued that Medicaid expansion “diverts resources from the program’s traditional targets. . . . Sure enough, in 2015 Ohio redesigned its disability determination system to remove some 34,000 people from the safety-net rolls. Nearly 60,000 disabled Ohioans are on waiting lists that last for months or years to receive supplemental state services. A temporary enrollment freeze might lead Ohio to prioritize resources for the truly needy.”

But there’s no evidence the wait lists are tied to Medicaid expansion. We previously gave four Pinocchios to a similar claim.

Nearly all of the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, was paid for by the federal government, so it’s different from the state waivers that pay for the optional services when people get off the wait list. The expansion and wait list populations are separate, and expansion doesn’t necessarily affect the wait list population.

Whether people move off the wait list depends on many factors, such as how urgent their needs are, how long they’ll need services and whether the states have money to pay for them. Many times, a slot opens up only if someone receiving services moves out of the state or dies.

After Pence’s speech, Kasich spokesman John Keeling told the Columbus Dispatch: “To be clear, there is zero connection between those asking for support services and Medicaid expansion. In fact, after we expanded, the governor signed into law the largest investment in the system for the developmentally disabled in the history of the program — $286 million. To say Medicaid expansion had a negative impact on the (developmental disabilities) system is false, as it is just the opposite of what actually happened.”

“And when it comes to receiving this funding, your states will have two options — a per capita cap or a block grant. The per capita cap gives each state the money you need to cover Medicaid’s traditional beneficiaries, who need the most assistance. And with the block grant option, you’ll be able to determine how to best use your Medicaid dollars. And you can provide for your most vulnerable in ways that’s best for your state.”

The amended version of BCRA contains steep reductions in Medicaid funding similar to the original version. Currently, federal reimbursement for Medicaid medical services is open-ended. But under the Senate proposal, federal reimbursements would shift to a fixed funding structure. There would be a per capita cap on federal reimbursements, and states would have the option for a block grant to pay for certain adults to receive medical services.

The Congressional Budget Office found that the per capita caps would not give states any more substantial flexibility. In fact, the most expensive 5 percent of Medicaid enrollees account for about half of Medicaid spending, according to a 2015 analysis by the Government Accountability Office. The least expensive 50 percent of Medicaid enrollees accounted for less than 8 percent of Medicaid spending. This means a small number of people heavily depend on the program for their medical needs, and would be affected the most if a state has a fixed amount of federal money to spend on each person.

“States that choose the block grant would have broad flexibility to design state-specific programs for certain adult populations, including unprecedented freedom to tailor benefits, eligibility, and delivery systems while also streamlining burdensome reporting requirements,” according to Pence’s staff. The CBO also notes that the block grant option would give states flexibility in making changes to their Medicaid program. States would set their own eligibility criteria; impose premiums, deductibles, cost-sharing and other similar changes; have flexibility to keep and reinvest their money; and more.

However, block grants do not fluctuate automatically based on the number of people enrolled in Medicaid. They also “would disconnect the level of funding from the number of Medicaid beneficiaries and the cost of providing care,” according to the Commonwealth Fund’s November 2016 analysis of proposals for per capita caps and block grants. Moreover, block grants under the Senate bill is for medical assistance to non-disabled adults, excluding the newly eligible adults under Medicaid expansion in Obamacare, so it’s not exactly the “most vulnerable” population, like Pence says.

“The bill actually rolls back restrictions on waivers, giving states the ability to stabilize your insurance markets after they’ve been virtually destroyed in recent years. And when it comes to Medicaid, not only does the Senate’s healthcare bill expand state flexibility, it ensures that every state in America has the resources you need to take care of your most vulnerable.”

This is misleading. Experts say the measure would put pressure on states to make changes to their Medicaid programs that they otherwise would not have made. We addressed this in depth here.

At least seven expansion states have “trigger” laws under their expansion legislation. These laws require states to reduce or eliminate eligibility or benefits if enhanced federal funding is reduced.

Other states may make a combination of decisions to make up for the reduced federal reimbursements. They may narrow eligibility criteria, increase cost sharing for enrollees, reduce provider payment rates (which could lead to fewer providers giving care), or limit the types of benefits that are covered, according to an analysis that Avalere Health presented at the National Governors Association.

States also may raise taxes or reduce spending in other parts of the state budget. Most states are required by state law to maintain a balanced budget, so some states would re-prioritize their spending.

Under the current version of BCRA, states might face other challenges beyond direct funding changes, such as an increased number of people without health insurance coverage, increased uncompensated care for providers, and reduced state economic activity because of lower revenues, Avalere Health found.

Pence said the bill would give states stability to manage their insurance markets. This is a reference to the State Stability and Innovation Program in BCRA, which provides $182 billion in federal funding over nine years for states to help stabilize their insurance markets in the face of large cuts under the bill. It’s worth noting that this would only be a partial offset to the reductions in Medicaid spending that states otherwise would have had under current law.

“Under the Senate healthcare bill, federal Medicaid spending will be $300 billion to $500 billion higher over the next decade relative to current amounts.”

This figure represents a cumulative total of raw dollars spent over 10 years, above the amount spent in 2017. This is rather unusual budget accounting. It leaves an exaggerated impression of the level of spending and skews the budget impact out of context.

In 2017, the federal government spent $393 billion on Medicaid. If no change is made to the current law, that spending is expected to be $624 billion by 2026. The CBO’s analysis of the original BCRA showed spending would still increase, but at a much slower rate than under current law. By 2026, Medicaid spending would grow to $464 billion instead — a difference of $160 billion in 2026. This means a reduction of $772 billion from current policies over 10 years (2017 to 2026).

These changes would be comparable under the revised version of BCRA, according to Avalere Health. Moreover, these graphics show further federal funding reductions by 2036:

...

“When Obamacare passed, we were promised that families would save up to $2,500 in premiums, but the average Obamacare plan today costs nearly $3,000 more than the average plan did in 2013. And while costs are skyrocketing, choices are plummeting.”

This is a favorite talking point among Republicans, and almost verbatim what President Trump says about Obamacare premiums. But it’s still misleading.

President Barack Obama, when campaigning in 2008, did misleadingly say that his plan would reduce premiums for families by $2,500. This promise came with a big asterisk that he did not always make clear: He was not saying premiums would fall by $2,500 or save up to $2,500 in premiums, but that health-care costs per family would be that much lower than anticipated. In other words, if overall costs — not just premiums — were expected to rise by $5,000 by 2012, they would only rise by $2,500. We gave him Pinocchios for this misleading claim at the time.

Under Obamacare, health costs for employer-provided plans have grown much slower than expected. The average family premium is now almost $3,600 lower than if premium growth had kept pace with the rate in the decade before Obamacare was passed, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

We fact-checked Pence’s $3,000 claim before. We found that he is citing an HHS report that claimed Obamacare premiums have increased 105 percent from 2013 to 2017. But this is an apples-to-oranges calculation, and it does not take into account the impact of premium tax credits, which shield 84 percent of people in the exchanges from premium hikes.

On average, eight out of 10 marketplace enrollees receive government premium subsidies, and they are protected from a premium increase (and may even see a decrease) if they stay with a low-cost plan. The White House, meanwhile, previously said that it is not accounting for the cost after subsidies because two out of 10 enrollees do not receive any subsidy, and therefore face the full impact of the premium hikes. Of course, the whole point of Obamacare was to provide subsidies to the majority of people on the exchanges.

...

He lies like a rug.

[Childless]

21 hours ago, milkteeth said:

 

I'm afraid to come bearing very bad news....

But the Republicans are?  They can't get together enough to pass a damn bill they've been trying for 8 years to pass.  Face it.  Both parties are fractured.  It makes sense though.  How can a mere two parties represent 320 million people effectively?  This is why most sane countries have more than two major parties.  We would do well to emulate them.  More parties means more compromise and less money funneled into any one party.  Not to mention less gerrymandering.

[candygirl200413]

The so called divide comes from an outsider group of people who don't necessarily align with the core democrat group as well.

[GreyhoundFan]

"Pence tries his best to keep unsaid what Trump then says about election integrity"

Spoiler

Shortly before a planned lunch with Republican senators during which he hoped to twist some arms on the issue of health care, President Trump stopped by the inaugural meeting of his Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity to offer a few words of support.

The commission was formed in May, when Trump signed an executive order calling for a body that would “study the registration and voting processes used in Federal elections” with an eye toward “enhanc[ing] the American people’s confidence in the integrity of the voting processes used in Federal elections” and identifying “vulnerabilities in voting systems and practices used for Federal elections that could lead to improper voter registrations and improper voting.”

All of that was executive-order-speak for the investigation Trump actually sought: An effort to suss out any and all examples of people demonstrably — or possibly — having voted illegally.

Before the 2016 election, Trump warned ominously of the threat of illegal votes, a long-standing boogeyman on the right that was often used as an excuse to impose new voting restrictions that had the not-always-accidental side effect of making it harder for Democrats to vote. (There is, we hasten to note, zero evidence of even relatively frequent illegal voting.) Trump raised this ghoulish specter because, it’s safe to assume, he wanted a fail-safe in the event that he lost: It wasn’t that he was not the choice of the American people, he could argue, it was that the other side cheated. (It’s certainly the case, though, that a man whose media diet slants heavily toward the far right and the conspiratorial may actually have believed the argument he was making.)

Then something weird happened: He won and lost the election. He would be president, but the votes indicated that the country actually preferred the other candidate by a pretty wide margin. So Trump, oddly, embraced the idea that there was rampant fraud in the election anyway, despite it yielding the result he wanted. He championed a random guy’s tweet that claimed to prove that millions of votes were cast illegally — a figure that would make Trump, not Hillary Clinton, the choice of real Americans.

Hence the commission: Prove that Clinton’s victory wasn’t what it appeared.

Vice President Pence, though, knows the political world better than that. Trump’s commission faced hostility out of the gates, as Democratic states realized that it could be the first step in rolling back access to the polling place. So Pence’s introduction at the first meeting of the commission that he chairs was careful to paint a picture that was broader than just Trump’s concerns.

“President Trump knows that the integrity of our electoral system transcends party lines,” he said, “and I’m grateful this commission has brought together a bipartisan group from the federal, state and local level. Together, this bipartisan group will perform a truly nonpartisan service to the American people.”

All well and good. And then he introduced his vice chair: Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.

For those unaware, this is a bit like a wolf standing up and giving a speech about how predators and prey will work together to establish peace on the prairie, and then introducing his vice chair, a bobcat.

Kobach made a national name for himself fighting the scourge of voter fraud in Kansas — a fight which has resulted in a handful of actual convictions. He’s never been able to demonstrate any significant voter fraud but has continued to make the case that it exists nonetheless, like a frustrated gold prospector returning to a fruitless mine time and time again.

Pence continued. He explained that the commission had “been charged to study the registration and voting processes used in federal elections” and that it would “identify the laws, rules, policies, activities, strategies and practices that will enhance the American people’s confidence in the integrity of our electoral system.” Oh, and also? It would “explore the vulnerabilities in our system that could lead to improper voter registration and even improper voting.”

He made a sweeping promise:

This commission — let me be clear — this commission has no preconceived notions or preordained results. We’re fact-finders. And in the days ahead, we will gather the relevant facts and data, and at the conclusion of our work, we will present the president with a report of our findings.

Evenhanded. About election integrity. About protecting the vote. No preconceptions at all — except that Kobach argued last November that there were more illegal votes cast for Clinton than her margin of victory.

After Pence was done, Trump appeared from behind an American-flag backdrop and offered his view.

This commission is tasked with the sacred duty of upholding the integrity of the ballot box and the principle of one citizen, one vote. Every time voter fraud occurs, it cancels out the vote of a lawful citizen and undermines democracy. Can’t let that happen.

Any form of illegal or fraudulent voting, whether by noncitizens or the deceased, and any form of voter suppression or intimidation must be stopped. I’m pleased that more than 30 states have already agreed to share the information with the commission and the other states that information will be forthcoming.

If any state does not want to share this information, one has to wonder what they’re worried about. And I ask the vice president and I ask the commission: What are they worried about? There’s something. There always is.

This issue is very important to me because throughout the campaign and even after, people would come up to me and express their concerns about voter inconsistencies and irregularities which they saw, in some cases, having to do with very large numbers of people in certain states.

Emphasis added, since we should look at each of these claims.

To the first bit, about how there’s “always something”: Trump is stoking the fires of his slow-burning conspiracy theory that Democrats in Democratic-run states used illegal voting to undercut Republican candidates, including himself. Why would a state not acquiesce to a simple data request from the federal government unless they were terrified that the feds were about to uncover their fraudulent voting systems?

Well, one reason was offered by the secretary of state from Mississippi, who responded to the commission’s request for data by saying that his state had the “right to protect the privacy of our citizens by conducting our own electoral process.” He further invited the commission to “go jump in the Gulf of Mexico.”

Mississippi, students of politics will recall, is not a particularly liberal state. The “something” at the heart of its decision to reject the original data request — a decision shared by most other states — was an interest in protecting resident privacy.

Now the second bit.

Trump said that “throughout the campaign and even after, people would come up to me and express their concerns about voter inconsistencies and irregularities which they saw.” Well, sure. Trump was using his campaign megaphone to say “this thing exists,” and people would come up to him and say “I saw it, too!” Having written about this subject repeatedly, I will often receive emails from people who claim to have witnessed fraud. In no case was any actual voter fraud witnessed; instead, people often point to wisps in the air, declare them to be smoke and announce that they’ve spotted a fire.

If there were rampant fraud observable by random individuals, it’s hard to understand why that fraud wouldn’t be rooted out. In fact, there have been efforts to uncover pervasive fraud in the past, including by the George W. Bush administration. When contesting a voter recount effort in Michigan, in fact, Trump’s campaign lawyers admitted that there was no evidence of fraud in the election. But people tell Trump what he wants to hear and then he relays those comments as evidence in support of what he wants to do.

After the comments above, Trump quoted Teddy Roosevelt on election integrity (eliding the salient detail that, in Roosevelt’s era, the situation was very different). He then praised the “bipartisan panel consisting of both Republican and Democratic leaders and experts on voter integrity,” which itself glosses over the fact that the panel includes a few token Democrats and a lot of more-prominent Republicans and people who have spent years focused on unearthing alleged fraud.

“I’ll share your report as soon as I can and as soon as possible with the American people so the full truth will be known and exposed if necessary in the light of day,” Trump concluded, strongly hinting at the preconceived notion he of course doesn’t have.

Trump, as he often does, had said the thing he wasn’t supposed to say. The meeting was not supposed to be about his conspiracy theory. It was supposed to be about an evenhanded look at voting systems, a lot of chin-stroking academics who were weighing the evidence impartially.

So Pence was given the microphone and did a little cleanup.

This is a bipartisan group that will perform a nonpartisan service to the American people. Our goal, as the executive order asserts, is to help promote free and honest federal elections. Our charge is to study the registration and voting process used in federal elections, and our charge is to explore vulnerabilities in the system that could lead to improper voter registration and improper voting.

Let me reiterate the point I made earlier, now that we’re on the record. We have no preconceived notions or preordained results. Our duty is to go where the facts lead and to provide the president and the American people with a report on our findings that can be used to strengthen the people’s confidence in our electoral system.

Over the course of the 2016 campaign, we saw two Trumps: The one speaking off the cuff and the one reading from the teleprompter. As the election wound down, Trump figured out a balance; he’d read some remarks from the prompter and then riff on them a bit.

But that bifurcation remains within the administration. Trump is the guy who says what he wants. Pence is the guy who reads the stuff that goes on the teleprompter.

There’s a reason that so many voters preferred Trump’s way of communicating: At least it matched with what he really believed.

 

[milkteeth]

22 hours ago, Childless said:

But the Republicans are?  They can't get together enough to pass a damn bill they've been trying for 8 years to pass.  Face it.  Both parties are fractured.  It makes sense though.  How can a mere two parties represent 320 million people effectively?  This is why most sane countries have more than two major parties.  We would do well to emulate them.  More parties means more compromise and less money funneled into any one party.  Not to mention less gerrymandering.

Of course the Republicans aren't as well, but they've learned that if they at least pay lip service to their base in their messaging ("Make America great!" "Boo immigrants!" "War is awesome y'all!) they'll be voted back into power.

Meanwhile, the best that the Democrats can come up with in a nation that has 27 million people without health insurance (and millions more losing their health insurance if the Republicans get their way), massive wealth inequality, flat lining wages and a looming environmental catastrophe is "Uhhh, vote for us guys we're not Trump!!1"

I hope the United States develops more major political parties, and quickly.

[GrumpyGran]

21 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

If any state does not want to share this information, one has to wonder what they’re worried about. And I ask the vice president and I ask the commission: What are they worried about? There’s something. There always is.

Oh, I don't know, I guess I'm worried that the commission will treat my voter information the same way they did  the complaints sent to them by e-mail regarding this "information collection"- make it public.

19 hours ago, milkteeth said:

Of course the Republicans aren't as well, but they've learned that if they at least pay lip service to their base in their messaging ("Make America great!" "Boo immigrants!" "War is awesome y'all!) they'll be voted back into power.

Meanwhile, the best that the Democrats can come up with in a nation that has 27 million people without health insurance (and millions more losing their health insurance if the Republicans get their way), massive wealth inequality, flat lining wages and a looming environmental catastrophe is "Uhhh, vote for us guys we're not Trump!!1"

I hope the United States develops more major political parties, and quickly.

Or that the Democratic party will at least figure out a way to represent the vastly more diverse population that would like something other than the hypocrisy and deception of the Republican party.

Edited July 20, 2017 by GrumpyGran
wine last night

[milkteeth]

4 hours ago, GrumpyGran said:

Or that the Democratic party will at least figure out a way to represent the vastly more diverse population that would like something other than the hypocrisy and deception of the Republican party.

Well, I guess their first slogan "Learn to code, peasants" didn't do so well in the focus groups.

[fraurosena]

Oh Pencey-poo, we know you love Russia too!

 

[Childless]

10 minutes ago, fraurosena said:

Oh Pencey-poo, we know you love Russia too!

 

Of course he loves Russia.  A dictatorship that bows to the church and outlaws gay people.  It's Pence's wet dream.

[GreyhoundFan]

Hmmm: "Pence takes tough tone on Russia after Moscow retaliates against sanctions legislation"

Spoiler

TALLINN, Estonia — Vice President Pence, on his first full day in Eastern Europe, twice offered a clear and direct message to Russia, warning the Kremlin that the United States will not tolerate Russian force or intimidation toward its neighbors and reassuring the Baltic States that the United States supports them in the face of “the specter of aggression from your unpredictable neighbor to the east.”

“Under President Donald Trump, the United States of America rejects any attempt to use force, threats, intimidation, or malign influence in the Baltic States or against any of our treaty allies,” Pence said Monday morning, speaking alongside three Baltic leaders at the Estonian president’s office here. “To be clear, we hope for better days, for better relations with Russia, but recent diplomatic action taken by Moscow will not deter the commitment of the United States of America to our security, the security of our allies, and the security of freedom loving nations around the world.”

Pence’s comments came in response to President Vladimir Putin’s announcement Sunday that U.S. diplomatic missions in Russia will have to reduce their staffs by 755 people — a retaliatory measure to the Russia sanctions legislation Trump plans to sign this week.

The vice president’s remarks, at a joint news conference with the presidents of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, gave a preview of the roughly 20-minute speech Pence delivered just hours later outside the headquarters of the Estonian Defense Forces, in which he again offered a stern rebuke of Russia’s recent actions to undermine democratic nations, including the United States.

The tableau of Pence and the three Baltic leaders also underscores one of the themes of his three-and-a-half-day trip to Estonia, Georgia and Montenegro: That the United States is standing — literally — with its Eastern European allies now feeling increased pressure from Russia.

Touting Trump’s decision, in the face of mounting bipartisan political pressure, to sign the sanctions legislation, Pence criticized Russia for seeking “to redraw international borders by force, undermine the democracies of sovereign nations, and divide the free nations of Europe.”

Though Pence said he was delivering a message directly from Trump, his stern remarks at times were far more forceful than those of his boss, who has often opted for a softer tone on Russia, including repeatedly refusing to definitively accept the conclusion of his intelligence community that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections.

The vice president also — and perhaps optimistically, in the face of Russia’s retaliatory gesture — held out the prospect of what he called “a constructive relationship with Russia, based on cooperation on common interests.”

“President Trump has made it clear: America is open to a better relationship,” Pence said. “But the president and our Congress are unified in our message to Russia — a better relationship, and the lifting of sanctions, will require Russia to reverse the actions that caused the sanctions to be imposed in the first place.”

Despite Trump’s repeated assertions on the campaign trail, and then again in the White House, that he would like to have improved relations with Putin, the prospect currently seems unlikely. Though the two men met on the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit in early July — and had a second, undisclosed and more informal meeting at a group dinner later than evening — Putin told the Rossiya-1 television channel in an interview Sunday that he planned to cap the number of American diplomatic and technical personnel in Russia at 455.

Putin also signaled Russia’s plans to seize two U.S. diplomatic properties — a dacha in Moscow and a warehouse — in a response that mirrors the U.S. decision to revoke access to two of Russia’s diplomatic compounds, in the wake of Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

In his speech, the vice president not only promised solidarity against Russian aggression, but also reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to the shared defense cornerstone of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

“And be assured: The United States rejects any attempt to use force, threats, intimidation, or malign influence in the Baltic States or against any of our treaty allies,” Pence said. “And under President Donald Trump, the United States of America will stand firmly behind our Article 5 pledge of mutual defense.”

Estonia is one of only five countries that currently meets its Article 5 commitment to spend 2 percent of its gross domestic product on defense, a fact Pence mentioned several times. But, the vice president noted with enthusiasm, Latvia and Lithuania are both on track to meet their defense spending goals by the end of 2018.

The only good thing I can say is that, unlike his tangerine boss, it's doubtful Pencey made inappropriate remarks to any women during his meetings.

[Audrey2]

6 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Hmmm: "Pence takes tough tone on Russia after Moscow retaliates against sanctions legislation"

  Reveal hidden contents

TALLINN, Estonia — Vice President Pence, on his first full day in Eastern Europe, twice offered a clear and direct message to Russia, warning the Kremlin that the United States will not tolerate Russian force or intimidation toward its neighbors and reassuring the Baltic States that the United States supports them in the face of “the specter of aggression from your unpredictable neighbor to the east.”

“Under President Donald Trump, the United States of America rejects any attempt to use force, threats, intimidation, or malign influence in the Baltic States or against any of our treaty allies,” Pence said Monday morning, speaking alongside three Baltic leaders at the Estonian president’s office here. “To be clear, we hope for better days, for better relations with Russia, but recent diplomatic action taken by Moscow will not deter the commitment of the United States of America to our security, the security of our allies, and the security of freedom loving nations around the world.”

Pence’s comments came in response to President Vladimir Putin’s announcement Sunday that U.S. diplomatic missions in Russia will have to reduce their staffs by 755 people — a retaliatory measure to the Russia sanctions legislation Trump plans to sign this week.

The vice president’s remarks, at a joint news conference with the presidents of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, gave a preview of the roughly 20-minute speech Pence delivered just hours later outside the headquarters of the Estonian Defense Forces, in which he again offered a stern rebuke of Russia’s recent actions to undermine democratic nations, including the United States.

The tableau of Pence and the three Baltic leaders also underscores one of the themes of his three-and-a-half-day trip to Estonia, Georgia and Montenegro: That the United States is standing — literally — with its Eastern European allies now feeling increased pressure from Russia.

Touting Trump’s decision, in the face of mounting bipartisan political pressure, to sign the sanctions legislation, Pence criticized Russia for seeking “to redraw international borders by force, undermine the democracies of sovereign nations, and divide the free nations of Europe.”

Though Pence said he was delivering a message directly from Trump, his stern remarks at times were far more forceful than those of his boss, who has often opted for a softer tone on Russia, including repeatedly refusing to definitively accept the conclusion of his intelligence community that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections.

The vice president also — and perhaps optimistically, in the face of Russia’s retaliatory gesture — held out the prospect of what he called “a constructive relationship with Russia, based on cooperation on common interests.”

“President Trump has made it clear: America is open to a better relationship,” Pence said. “But the president and our Congress are unified in our message to Russia — a better relationship, and the lifting of sanctions, will require Russia to reverse the actions that caused the sanctions to be imposed in the first place.”

Despite Trump’s repeated assertions on the campaign trail, and then again in the White House, that he would like to have improved relations with Putin, the prospect currently seems unlikely. Though the two men met on the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit in early July — and had a second, undisclosed and more informal meeting at a group dinner later than evening — Putin told the Rossiya-1 television channel in an interview Sunday that he planned to cap the number of American diplomatic and technical personnel in Russia at 455.

Putin also signaled Russia’s plans to seize two U.S. diplomatic properties — a dacha in Moscow and a warehouse — in a response that mirrors the U.S. decision to revoke access to two of Russia’s diplomatic compounds, in the wake of Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

In his speech, the vice president not only promised solidarity against Russian aggression, but also reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to the shared defense cornerstone of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

“And be assured: The United States rejects any attempt to use force, threats, intimidation, or malign influence in the Baltic States or against any of our treaty allies,” Pence said. “And under President Donald Trump, the United States of America will stand firmly behind our Article 5 pledge of mutual defense.”

Estonia is one of only five countries that currently meets its Article 5 commitment to spend 2 percent of its gross domestic product on defense, a fact Pence mentioned several times. But, the vice president noted with enthusiasm, Latvia and Lithuania are both on track to meet their defense spending goals by the end of 2018.

The only good thing I can say is that, unlike his tangerine boss, it's doubtful Pencey made inappropriate remarks to any women during his meetings.

Of course not. He refuses to be in the same room as a woman without his wife present, as I recall. 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Who’s worse for the nation — Trump or Pence?"

Spoiler

Mike Pence is denying reports that he is positioning himself to run for president in 2020 if, for some reason, Donald Trump falls by the wayside or decides that one term is enough. The vice president’s denial was so over-the-top — “disgraceful and offensive,” he called the New York Times article — that had he been on a polygraph, he would have frizzled the wires and blown the circuits. The only thing wrong about the article was its timing. Pence’s presidential ambitions are nothing new. He’s been running his entire life.

Pence is the very personification of the career politician. With the exception of a few years doing talk radio and television shows, he has done nothing but run for office, winning all but the first two times. In Congress, he set out to shimmy up the leadership of his party — chairman of the Republican Study Committee, etc. — finally running for Indiana governor in 2012 and then, with all humility, becoming Trump’s running mate. Pence is not a man to look a gift horse in the mouth. He’s got his eye on 2020.

In the meantime, Pence has become a parlor game in certain circles: If President Trump leaves office before his term is up — if either lightning or Robert S. Mueller III strikes — would it be a good thing for the nation? In other words, who’s worse — Trump or Pence?

This is a hard one. Trump is a menace, both ignorant and chaotic. His saving grace is his incompetence. In his first six months in office, he has made a hash of our foreign policy, set back efforts to contain global warming, exploited public land and depopulated the State Department. But these efforts — as bad as they might be — have been so far confined to the margins. Trump has not passed any major legislation or, for that matter, built any walls.

On the other hand, his most significant and appalling contribution has been to normalize lying as an ordinary tool of the presidency. He has ghettoized truth, confining it to something characterized as the lying and disloyal mainstream media. He lies for purpose and he lies just for the hell of it. His lying is such that it ought to be a mental ailment. Call him politically insane.

That is not Pence. He is predictable, steadfast and experienced, but not conventional. His views, especially regarding social and cultural issues, are to the right of the right. He is famously antiabortion, recommends abstinence as the entire key to sex education and has taken the unique view that condoms are useless in AIDS prevention. As for global warming, back in 2000 he said it “is a myth.”

In 2002, Pence took to the floor of the House to declaim on evolution. Like many of its opponents, he misused the term “theory,” making it seem like a guess or a speculation. In science, a theory is an explanation of how things work. This is quite different from what Pence cited as a comparison — “that God created man in his own image.” That’s religion and not a theory — and that’s a fact.

To anyone other than an adamant social conservative, Pence is shockingly unreasonable. But he is also shockingly hypocritical. Throughout his career, he has billboarded himself as “a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order.” But what about Trump is any of those? Trump is a virtual pagan. He has never been ideologically nor culturally conservative and is a Republican of convenience only. Nonetheless, Pence not only leaped into Trump’s arms but rebuked him only once — for his “Access Hollywood” crack — and never for what he said about Mexicans, Muslims or the disabled, or, for that matter, how he denigrated his primary-election opponents. Pence is all faith and no morality.

So now Pence stands to Trump’s side, his head nodding at every inanity. He is the cardboard cutout for a soulless and opportunistic Republican Party, a display to put in the window of some Trump souvenir shop. In a sense, he is worse than the man he serves. Trump is a child — undisciplined, capricious and self-involved. Pence is none of those things. Trump knows nothing. Pence knows better.

So who would be worse? To me, this is like the Iran-Iraq War. I cannot pick a side and, to my relief, I don’t have to. But if I were Trump, I’d keep an eye on that nodding head over my shoulder. Pence professes loyalty to Trump, but when it comes to principles, he’s not even loyal to himself.

This...so much this: "Pence is all faith and no morality."

[candygirl200413]

It's like he's like "Hi I'm Mike Pence, while I am just as horrible of a fucking person as orange fuck face I come off much more calm and not as off-hinge!".

A few of my friends in conversations had said we could kind of live with Pence as a President but we can't. Like I said before, don't let his calm facade fool you he is just as shitty.

[fraurosena]

6 minutes ago, candygirl200413 said:

It's like he's like "Hi I'm Mike Pence, while I am just as horrible of a fucking person as orange fuck face I come off much more calm and not as off-hinge!".

A few of my friends in conversations had said we could kind of live with Pence as a President but we can't. Like I said before, don't let his calm facade fool you he is just as shitty.

I for one will not forget his outright lying about knowing nothing about Flynn. He is just as much involved in the Russian connection as everybody else in this administration. 

[AmazonGrace]

On the bright side, he might not impulsively start a nuclear war because he gets mad. 

[GrumpyGran]

2 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

"Who’s worse for the nation — Trump or Pence?"

  Hide contents

Mike Pence is denying reports that he is positioning himself to run for president in 2020 if, for some reason, Donald Trump falls by the wayside or decides that one term is enough. The vice president’s denial was so over-the-top — “disgraceful and offensive,” he called the New York Times article — that had he been on a polygraph, he would have frizzled the wires and blown the circuits. The only thing wrong about the article was its timing. Pence’s presidential ambitions are nothing new. He’s been running his entire life.

Pence is the very personification of the career politician. With the exception of a few years doing talk radio and television shows, he has done nothing but run for office, winning all but the first two times. In Congress, he set out to shimmy up the leadership of his party — chairman of the Republican Study Committee, etc. — finally running for Indiana governor in 2012 and then, with all humility, becoming Trump’s running mate. Pence is not a man to look a gift horse in the mouth. He’s got his eye on 2020.

In the meantime, Pence has become a parlor game in certain circles: If President Trump leaves office before his term is up — if either lightning or Robert S. Mueller III strikes — would it be a good thing for the nation? In other words, who’s worse — Trump or Pence?

This is a hard one. Trump is a menace, both ignorant and chaotic. His saving grace is his incompetence. In his first six months in office, he has made a hash of our foreign policy, set back efforts to contain global warming, exploited public land and depopulated the State Department. But these efforts — as bad as they might be — have been so far confined to the margins. Trump has not passed any major legislation or, for that matter, built any walls.

On the other hand, his most significant and appalling contribution has been to normalize lying as an ordinary tool of the presidency. He has ghettoized truth, confining it to something characterized as the lying and disloyal mainstream media. He lies for purpose and he lies just for the hell of it. His lying is such that it ought to be a mental ailment. Call him politically insane.

That is not Pence. He is predictable, steadfast and experienced, but not conventional. His views, especially regarding social and cultural issues, are to the right of the right. He is famously antiabortion, recommends abstinence as the entire key to sex education and has taken the unique view that condoms are useless in AIDS prevention. As for global warming, back in 2000 he said it “is a myth.”

In 2002, Pence took to the floor of the House to declaim on evolution. Like many of its opponents, he misused the term “theory,” making it seem like a guess or a speculation. In science, a theory is an explanation of how things work. This is quite different from what Pence cited as a comparison — “that God created man in his own image.” That’s religion and not a theory — and that’s a fact.

To anyone other than an adamant social conservative, Pence is shockingly unreasonable. But he is also shockingly hypocritical. Throughout his career, he has billboarded himself as “a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order.” But what about Trump is any of those? Trump is a virtual pagan. He has never been ideologically nor culturally conservative and is a Republican of convenience only. Nonetheless, Pence not only leaped into Trump’s arms but rebuked him only once — for his “Access Hollywood” crack — and never for what he said about Mexicans, Muslims or the disabled, or, for that matter, how he denigrated his primary-election opponents. Pence is all faith and no morality.

So now Pence stands to Trump’s side, his head nodding at every inanity. He is the cardboard cutout for a soulless and opportunistic Republican Party, a display to put in the window of some Trump souvenir shop. In a sense, he is worse than the man he serves. Trump is a child — undisciplined, capricious and self-involved. Pence is none of those things. Trump knows nothing. Pence knows better.

So who would be worse? To me, this is like the Iran-Iraq War. I cannot pick a side and, to my relief, I don’t have to. But if I were Trump, I’d keep an eye on that nodding head over my shoulder. Pence professes loyalty to Trump, but when it comes to principles, he’s not even loyal to himself.

This...so much this: "Pence is all faith and no morality."

The morality ship sailed for the "Christian" republicans last year, but it will still be interesting to see how Pence will explain his devout loyalty to Trump when he campaigns. Especially if we discover something truly diabolical. "I didn't know" makes him seem stupid, especially at this point. He's walking a thin line.

And if he has to challenge Trump in 2020 because they can't get rid of him before, the pearl-clutching now is going to come back to haunt him. 

[Childless]

6 hours ago, candygirl200413 said:

It's like he's like "Hi I'm Mike Pence, while I am just as horrible of a fucking person as orange fuck face I come off much more calm and not as off-hinge!".

A few of my friends in conversations had said we could kind of live with Pence as a President but we can't. Like I said before, don't let his calm facade fool you he is just as shitty.

No, we cannot kind of live with him.  As someone who has had to live in the state he governed, I can tell you a President Pence is a horrible idea.  We've got an HIV epidemic which is entirely his fault (when it was obvious that the opioid epidemic was causing the rapid spread of HIV, he refused to institute a needle exchange program, a program his successor promptly started as soon as he took office and it has drastically slowed down the spread of HIV).  His reason for not starting it was solely theologically driven.  That is the leadership you would get.  Discrimination and a lack of caring for those who don't fit a specific mold (namely white, male, straight, and Christian) will become the norm.  I know.  I've been living it in the state he trashed.

[Zola]

Sounds to me like maybe Pence would prefer people with HIV/AIDS and/or on opioids to outright DIE, rather than get education and treatment.

Research exists for a reason, Pence. Try reading something other than a bible (or legislature that takes health insurance away from the most vulnerable members of society.)

I have long wondered just how someone who claims to be so very Christian can justify being arm-in-arm with a joyfully flagrant sinner like Trump. As he obviously isn't trying to get Trump to change in any way, the only thing I can come up with is hypocrisy. Blatant, outright hypocrisy.

If Hell is real, I hope there is a special place for people who use Jesus for their own evil ambitions like this.

I am much more afraid of Pence as president than Trump.

[GrumpyGran]

1 hour ago, Zola said:

Sounds to me like maybe Pence would prefer people with HIV/AIDS and/or on opioids to outright DIE, rather than get education and treatment.

Research exists for a reason, Pence. Try reading something other than a bible (or legislature that takes health insurance away from the most vulnerable members of society.)

I have long wondered just how someone who claims to be so very Christian can justify being arm-in-arm with a joyfully flagrant sinner like Trump. As he obviously isn't trying to get Trump to change in any way, the only thing I can come up with is hypocrisy. Blatant, outright hypocrisy.

If Hell is real, I hope there is a special place for people who use Jesus for their own evil ambitions like this.

I am much more afraid of Pence as president than Trump.

He doesn't read the Bible. And I think it's more blind ambition than hypocrisy.

What a game plan. Pence believes we need to return to a white "Christian" America. But he knew there was no way the people would actually elect him President, his ultimate goal. So when he saw what was happening last year, he cozied up to Trump, a guy who needed to grab the crazy Christian vote. And a guy who was very unlikely to be successful as President.

He was probably just as surprised as anyone else when they actually won. But, praise the Lord, the plan worked! Now just get the idiot out of the way. Pence knows that all he has to do, after the Trump implosion, is snap his fingers, pray for America in a public appearance and Trump's supporters will scurry right over to him. They have to or they aren't "Americans" and "Christians."

Unfortunate for him that he has to build up a bit more support with those who aren't kool-aid drinkers because it has exposed his plan a bit. No one needs to start their own cheerleading squad unless they're really playing for a different team. Lucky for him, Trump just needs two or three blow jobs a week to keep the scheme going.

[GreyhoundFan]

Didn't mother tell him it isn't nice to lie? "Pence may deny it. But he’s preparing for a post-Trump landscape."

Spoiler

Vice President Pence has been expressing a great deal of outrage about the suggestion that he may be gearing up for a run for president in 2020, or at least creating conditions to preserve a political future untethered from President Trump. “My entire team will continue to focus all our efforts to advance the President’s agenda and see him re-elected in 2020,” Pence recently said. “Any suggestion otherwise is both laughable and absurd.”

But as much as Pence may deny it, the evidence is mounting that he is indeed laying the groundwork for rescuing his own political career from the ashes of Trump’s. As Politico’s Eliana Johnson reports today, Pence’s recent hire of top campaign hand Nick Ayers as his chief of staff is “less about a secret campaign to challenge Trump in 2020” and more about ensuring that Pence can “preserve his future political options, whatever they may be.”

Perhaps the best way to see Pence’s latest maneuverings is this: He is trying to have it both ways, by being loyal to Trump while ensuring he retains a separate political operation. Whether Pence is gearing up for a 2020 presidential run or positioning himself for an unspecified political future, the takeaway from a spate of recent reporting is unmistakable: He is simultaneously trying to portray himself as Trump’s most steadfast deputy, while ensuring that his own future prospects aren’t tarnished by having served him with such unquestioning devotion.

Washington’s speculation about Pence’s maneuvers — and Pence’s adamant denial of any motive rooted in self-preservation — has been percolating for several months now. It started in May, when he formed his own political action committee, an unprecedented move for a vice president in the first year of his first term. Then, a July story in the New York Times about Pence’s cultivation of big donors generated pushback from Pence allies, rejecting any suggestion that the vice president had met a fork in the road at which he would choose a path independent of the president.

Much of the additional reporting into Pence’s behind-the-scenes moves has come as the Russia investigation has intensified. A story in the Times last weekend shed light on the “shadow campaigns” of multiple Republicans gearing up for 2020, should Trump’s presidency end, or should his reelection bid become untenable, owing to the ongoing Russia probe and the White House’s serial failures to move beyond its bumbling and divisive first six months.

The Times piece reported that “multiple advisers” to Pence “have already intimated to party donors that he would plan to run if Mr. Trump did not,” adding that Pence has been “creating an independent power base, cementing his status as Mr. Trump’s heir apparent and promoting himself as the main conduit between the Republican donor class and the administration.” This portrayal of Pence’s stature, of course, is certain to irk Trump, who, we learned this week, insists on receiving a folder with clippings of positive press coverage of himself twice a day.

Ever the loyal lieutenant, Pence appeared to be enraged by the Times report. But his furious response had more than a whiff of protesting too much — and a generous dose of bending the knee to Trump, who Pence insisted is “making America great again.” In his statement questioning the Times’s reporting, Pence called the “allegations” in the article “categorically false” and claimed they “represent just the latest attempt by the media to divide this administration.” Nothing like a gratuitous dig at the media to ingratiate oneself to the president.

Meanwhile, all signs point to the Russia investigation becoming increasingly problematic for Trump, his campaign associates and his family. The Post is now reporting that in late July, FBI agents executed a search warrant at the home of his former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort. This means special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s team established, to a judge, that it had probable cause to search Manafort’s home for documents related to the probe. Separately, the Trump campaign, Manafort and Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., have turned over documents relating to any possible campaign collusion with Russia to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

All of this points to an intensifying investigation both by Mueller and by congressional investigators. But crucially, this also creates a quandary for Pence.

Recall that after Donald Trump Jr. released the email chain showing how the meeting with the Russian lawyer and others was set up, Pence was quick to distance himself from it, pointing out that it took place before he joined the campaign. This highlights a tension that is likely to get worse. Pence will have to balance his efforts to distance himself from certain things that took place during the campaign with the claim that he is in for the long haul as a supporter of Trump.

Worse for team Trump — and, perhaps, for Pence’s long-term ambitions, as well — his approval rating is at historic lows, and his popularity has been taking a hit with his own base. That includes Republicans, non-college-educated white voters and people making between $30,000 and $50,000 a year. Which could raise additional problems for Pence: If he stays loyal to Trump, who, exactly, is he pleasing if his goal is to preserve his own political future?

If evidence of serious wrongdoing by Trump begins to emerge, that will only increase questions about what Pence knew, and when — and why, given what he knew, he remained loyal to Trump. No amount of maneuvering to salvage his political career by belatedly distancing himself from Trump’s scandals may be enough to shield his political future from that stain. Right now, his pledges of loyalty to Trump, combined with his obvious efforts to chart an unscathed path forward for himself, make him look as though he’s trying to have it both ways — a stance that will likely become increasingly untenable as the Russia probes gain momentum.

 

[apple1]

On ‎8‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 4:37 PM, AmazonGrace said:

On the bright side, he might not impulsively start a nuclear war because he gets mad. 

THAT.

I can't stand Pence, but -- he would have had the sense not to make incendiary remarks about North Korea.

[Cartmann99]

I understand why some people have decided that Pence is preferable to Trump because of the nuclear war issue, but if these are our only options, I'd honestly rather take my chances with nuclear war than give Pence the opportunity to try and turn the United States into a theocracy. We've already got dominionists in our government making decisions I hate, but Trump's incompetence is slowing down their plans. Pence, on the other hand, has enough experience in how government works to speed up the process. 

[AnywhereButHere]

I was talking with my husband yesterday, and he was saying the same thing - that Pence wouldn't get us into a war. My response was that one of them was going to blow everything up from the outside while the other would slowly unravel it from the inside.

Don't get me wrong. I have no desire to be blown up in a raging nuclear fireball. I just have a little more hope that rational (comparatively) minds will be able to tie Caligula's hands on warmongering yet keep the confusion going domestically speaking,  while I'm more certain that Pence, with senate and house behind him, will be able to actually pass laws that basically hurt everyone who isn't an old, rich, white, man.

If I am wrong - then no - I am not choosing the raging nuclear fireball. But god I hate Pence.

Quote

We're the boat...

[GrumpyGran]

I'm laughing about the cartoon in the Political Cartoons thread where Mikey looks like an undertaker.

Seriously, if I walked into a funeral home and he was the undertaker, I'd turn around and walk out. He is scary-movie scary to me.