Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

If so, it's something Democrats have been on board with longer than Republicans, but I'm not counting any chickens here.  At this point, if Trump said to breathe, I think the Democrats would all hold their breath until they passed out.  As usual, he's his own worst enemy, and instead of just saying something like this has had increasing bipartisan support for a while, he basically dared the Democrats to vote against it.  Dumb move.  Never dare the current Democrats to do something just because it's not in their interest.

I highly doubt it, but maybe he is actually learning to do politics.  The Republicans have a razor-thin 220-213 majority in the HoR (2 seats are vacant*)




The vacant seats are the Arizona 7th District and the Texas 18th District:
Arizona 7th District:
This is a HEAVILY Democratic district (D+13 per Cook) that was represtented by Democrat Raul Grijalva who died in office on March 13, 2025.  

Texas 18th District:
This is a HEAVILY Democratic district (D21 per Cook) that was represented by Democrat Sylvester Turner who died in office on March 5, 2025.  

Putting those two back in the D column which they inevitably will be, the R's have a 220-215 majority which means they only have two seats to give.  Ie, they could lose only two seats and maintain a majority at 218-217.  

As I covered earlier in this thread, the party in control of the White House nearly always loses seats in the HoR in the mid-term election so it is almost a given that the Democrats will take over the HoR in 2027 based on the 2026 election.  

Trump has never been particularly good at practicing politics in office (not the same thing as getting himself elected TO office) but *MAYBE* he is learning.  If he can bait the D's into being the party of Fraud, Waste, Abuse, and Criminal Illegals then it is *POSSIBLE* that the R's could actually gain seats in the 2026 election.  

I think there's probably a lot of Republicans who might oppose this as well.  Buncha their coffers are filled with Pharma-bucks.  That said, if it were part of reconciliation, he'd just need a simple majority, and any level-headed Democrats and non-corrupt Republicans would help.

.....nevermind, I realized what I just said.  It's toast. 

It was the Republican Party that led the opposition to allowing the government the right to negotiate drug prices with pharma during the Obama years. The fact that this is getting any traction at all with the Republicans is a good example of the remaking of the party under Trump. I think the government should be able to do this (if I understand the proposal correctly)--even if Trump proposed it (this time), but I'm confused as to whether this is socialist collectivization that will lead to a Stalist or Maoist-style regime, or making America great again. It's not clear to me. :-) 

Trump has never been particularly good at practicing politics in office (not the same thing as getting himself elected TO office) but *MAYBE* he is learning.  If he can bait the D's into being the party of Fraud, Waste, Abuse, and Criminal Illegals then it is *POSSIBLE* that the R's could actually gain seats in the 2026 election. 

I don't want him to learn to play politics.  I want Medicare to be able to bargain with the pharmaceutical companies just like every other country.  I could care less about baiting Democrats into anything, I'm not out to "beat the other team."  I want things to get done which I support getting done. 

It was the Republican Party that led the opposition to allowing the government the right to negotiate drug prices with pharma during the Obama years. The fact that this is getting any traction at all with the Republicans is a good example of the remaking of the party under Trump. I think the government should be able to do this (if I understand the proposal correctly)--even if Trump proposed it (this time), but I'm confused as to whether this is socialist collectivization that will lead to a Stalist or Maoist-style regime, or making America great again. It's not clear to me. :-)

I think it's probably more fair to say the rank and file voter has been somewhat remade under Trump.  I trust Congressional Republicans half the distance I can throw Chris Christie.  

I said this to you recently, but I'll reiterate it here, some of this is people (like me) becoming more aware of and educated about individual issues, as opposed to vaguely following Their Side.  When Republicans opposed Obama's administration in this very thing, I wasn't aware of it, and I wouldn't have known what I know now, having since worked in the healthcare industry. 

Another part of it is it simply isn't the same people anymore, and there may be less ideological movement in the people than one would think.  I have family and friends who were like me, lifelong Republicans, mostly nominally, who learned a little bit (I'd argue just not enough) and became never-Trumpers who then went on to embrace a bunch of other stuff the Dems push, which they would've never done previously.  They vote democrat now, and maybe be registered as Dems as well.  I also have friends who used to be pretty left-leaning, and maybe by some definitions still are, who think their Party went insane and left them homeless, and they've joined "Not That" moreso than they "became Republicans."  When you say "remake the Party," I think that's correct as much by people switching sides as much as people moving on their opinions.  MAGA is full of people who are pretty far apart on a range of things.  Which is also why I've theorized that long-term it's an unstable and possibly unsustainable and unrepeatable phenomenon.   

The building that I'm working in now has asbestos in it.  It's on the siding.  It is probably from the 1950's.  There are no worries about asbestos unless it's disturbed.  In this industrial facility we come into contact frequently with old vessels and pipes that are insulated in asbestos.  They have signs hanging, do not disturb, do not remove insulation, asbestos present. 

I think, and I've heard from other people, that the people who get it the worst were smokers.  We have lots and lots of industry here where asbestos was extremely prevalent.  I think too people can have some sort of sickness from being exposed to asbestos but it's not cancer, it just basically causes breathing issues and other things.  Because I've known several people who've had issues because of asbestos but weren't dying. 

Abestosis is what you're referring to, I think. And smoking is definitely a co-morbidity with asbestos exposure. Alas, there are plenty of mesothelioma victims who were not smokers. And there are plenty of people who have asbestosis who never develop mesothelioma. And plenty more people who were exposed to asbestos in an industrial setting (working with the stuff) who never get either. Speaking as a non-scientist, I understand that human biology is like that: we're all a little different, and our bodies react to all of these things a little differently.