Pulling out of Paris is the biggest thing Trump could do to unravel Obama's climate legacy.
Obama's "climate legacy" being: "I'll do what my big donors and lobbyists want me to do, and I don't care about the economic consequences because I'll be long out of office and have a cool few hundred million in the bank." That "climate legacy"?
It sends a combative signal to the rest of the world that America doesn't prioritize climate change
I think that was rather a big factor in the last election.
and threatens to unravel the ambition of the entire deal.
Dude - there's nothing whatsoever inherently totalitarian about limiting the legal rights of state-sanctioned pretend "legal persons".
And what's the motivation for "limiting the legal rights" of such entities? It's evidently that you don't like the idea that businesses are more powerful than the state; that businesses, rather than the state, determine how people live, what people eat, what jobs they hold, etc. That is what makes you a totalitarian; more specifically, it's the core of the fascist political program.
Packed full to bursting thru the liberal use of coerced confessions ("plea bargains"), just like in the Soviet Union
And your answer to this? Make the state more powerful!
One more thing. Where can I go to see one of these "free markets" I keep hearing so much about? Traveled around a bit, but I've never actually seen one. Looked in all the history books and I just can't find one in the past either.
US government spending relative to the economy was a few percentage points prior to WWII and businesses faced few regulations from the federal government. That's pretty close to a free market. Granted, the government still had its dirty fingers in a few businesses like banking and railroads, with horrendous consequences, but those used to be the exceptions. It wasn't an ideal free market, but it was a lot closer than it is today. There are plenty of other examples of free markets around the world.
The state is the sum of all those manmade institutions that press upon the individual and make him act against his will, not just the democratically accountable part we call "government". It's clear that the more powerful and oppressive corporations become, the more powerful and oppressive this broad state becomes.
Oh, the state indeed creates powerful and oppressive corporations, namely by creating monopolies and giving corporations power through regulation, mandates, etc. Pharma companies can charge what they do because they are protected by patents and FDA approval requirements, and because insurance companies are forced to pay whatever they charge. People can choose from ever fewer insurance companies, banks, landlords, public transportation companies, etc. because government regulation has created massive barriers to entry.
Regulation is like drug addiction: you start off small, the positive effect wears off quickly, and then you need to up the dose.
However, they make political contributions of corporate money to causes I disagree with, and as a stockholder it feels like they're using my money against me.
Incidentally, in case it hadn't occurred to you, you can deal with that very easily: sell your shares. Problem solved. No need to trample on the free speech of others.
I own stock in several companies, which have overall purposes of making and selling stuff.
Well, that's one kind of corporation. There are also corporations whose purpose is criticizing political candidates, feeding the poor, creating children's TV programs, providing news coverage, conducting medical research, and tons of other things.
You know, like "Citizens United", which was a "corporation" created for the sole purpose of making a movie critical of Hillary Clinton. Of course, thin skinned, angry Hillary just couldn't stand that, so she went on a crusade (and lost).
I question the morality of using corporate funds.
What's "immoral" about a corporation created to bash Hillary Clinton using its money to, you know, bash Hillary Clinton?
So, I'd favor very tight restrictions on the ability of for-profit corporations to operate politically.
The fact that a corporation is not a "non-profit" doesn't mean that it is "for profit". In fact, if you claim "non-profit" status, you are limited in your speech because you are getting a tax break. So, apparently, you simply don't want free speech for any group of people, because you don't want it either for non-profits or regular corporations.
And what about newspapers and TV stations? They won't shut up about politics and they are for profit (at least in theory). Should they be subjected to "very tight restrictions"? How do you feel about the Trump administration determining whether, say, a NYT article was proper or improper political speech?
You don't understand the substantive point that there is a distinction worth preserving
Quite the opposite: I believe the difference between governmental "rights/powers" and human "rights/powers" is so obvious that we don't need to make pedantic distinctions evey time we speak, in particular, when making an analogy between corporate rights and governmental powers, as I was doing.
and the freedoms a human is due by virtue of their innate worth, i.e. rights
I don't believe that there is a limited set of "freedoms a human is due by virtue of their innate worth"; that is, I don't believe in limited human rights. Rights are inherently something that is limited, enumerated, and granted. I believe that humans can do whatever they want, except as limited by a small set of enumerated, governmental powers.
The irony behind your pedantic insistence on the powers/rights distinction is that you don't even understand the point behind it.
You seem to be advocating a system in which government controls corporations and markets to promote equality and individual rights, government representing the people and in charge of the economy, education, research, retirement, healthcare, etc. It's doubtlessly a popular system that "many people" have desired throughout history, and that has been tried numerous times, in particular in the 20th century.
What do you think greedy, selfish, and amoral CEOs would do in such a system? Do you think they'll simply let themselves be regulated by government? Of course not. What happens is that they go into government and become government leaders. And now, instead of merely running private corporations, where people at least have the option of not doing business with them, they now control police, courts, and the military, with disastrous results.
What you advocate is, in fact, totalitarianism, and it doesn't work. Life under a free market system is clearly unfair, and people get hurt, and people can't exercise their rights, but a free market system is still vastly preferable to any of the known alternatives.
But yes, these restrictions do exist, it's part of the contract
Yes, and the parties to those contracts can enforce them against each other. How does that give the government any additional powers to restrict the speech or freedom of association or freedom of movement of those parties?
I suggest you revise your argumentation
I suggest you think for half a minute before making such illogical arguments.
Sorry, ooloorie, but your defense of them is still misplaced.
The post you are responding to isn't mine.
But your analogy is bullshit anyway. The actions that TigerSwan was described as having engaged in above are legal, for anybody. I'm not defending "them", I am defending those rights, rights that everybody has and everybody ought to have.
I guess not. I haven't felt like civil liberties got eroded anymore so under Obama, than what they were previously.
I suggest you fix your selective blindness and read up on what Obama actually did.
I do know that most people are frustrated with the expansion of civil liberties and how businesses, with government sanctioned business licenses, might be required to serve customers with whom the business owners disagree with. Shocking simply shocking.
Yes, it is shocking to anybody who believes in a free society. Of course, to people with totalitarian belief systems, this is completely natural. To you, unless something gets sanctioned by the government, people are not permitted to do it. That is your Orwellian version of "liberty".
I highly suspect that if backward rednecks didn't pay to go to his rallies,
I suspect that without a large number of sexist, racist, and totalitarian-leaning voters, the Democrats would be a fringe party and in the single digits.
and held Trump to the same moral standards that they hold every other politician, that he wouldn't have made it in the primaries, let alone the general election.
"Backwards rednecks" didn't decide this election, pissed-off former Democrats did; people like me who'd rather stay at home than vote for either of these parties.
Oh c'mon, you know that's a bullshit misdirection. No one is proposing to strip any human person of his rights as an individual.
Presumably, you still believe that I have a right to free speech individually, right? So, I may, say, post something nasty about Trump, right?
Now let's say I want to run a series of ads against Trump in the local newspaper, but that's more than I can afford. So I ask some friends for money. Do I still have free speech rights in that case, or can the jackboot of government stomp down on me and my friends?
Now, since Trump is pretty litigious and vain, I worry that if I say something negative about him in an anti-Trump ad, he may sue me and my friends and I may lose my house and my retirement. So, you think the jackboot of government can stomp on me and my friends wanting to exercise our right to free speech because we formed a corporation?
And if that's what you believe, what about the press? Newspapers are big corporations. Should the Trump administration have the power to throw reporters for the New York Times, CNN, or MSNBC in jail for looking at social media postings by administration officials, looking into their private lives, into their financial connections?
That's what you're really saying when you're trying to draw a distinction between "rights as an individual" and rights that groups of individuals exercise. You have been duped into supporting totalitarian government, because if rights can only be exercised "as individuals", they are worthless when faced with the massive and collective power of government.
I would think that something this ridiculous couldn't be possible in a democracy, but then I remember the backward rednecks who voted in Trump,
You think this is a consequence of voting for Trump? Haven't you paying attention the past eight years under Obama? All talk about civil liberties and constitutionality, while systematically dismantling them?
It's gullible idiots like you that keep allowing statist, totalitarian crooks like Hillary to rise to the top of the Democratic ticket. And it's not "backwards rednecks" that got Trump elected, it's people like me, people who stay home in disgust rather than vote for people like Hillary.
The way government run airline security is going, this is what the future holds:
Pre-takeoff announcement, around 2030: "Please remain in your seats and place your hands and feet into the shackles. We will take off after the cabin crew has secured all passengers. Please use the blowtube in front of your face if you need to use the facilities. Please note that there is a $150 fee for each bathroom trip and you will be accompanied at all times. Cabin crew of an incompatible gender and sexual orientation is available upon request."
Pre-takeoff announcement, around 2050: "Please remain in your seat, attach the electrode cap to your head, stay calm, and breathe deeply; this ensures a quicker transition into unconsciousness and allows us to meet our tight takeoff window. When EEG monitors show that all passengers have lost consciousness, we will be taking off. If you have a medical condition that is incompatible with common anesthetics, please let the cabin crew know now. You will be held responsible for any delays due to problems related to anesthetization, and civil and criminal penalties may apply. Please note that if you soil your seat while unconscious, you will be charged a cleaning fee of $1500."
Meanwhile, of course, politicians and CEOs will be whisked around the globe in semi-private jets, free from all the government regulations, union rules, and crony capitalism that they impose on the rest of us.
Trump is not going to be grateful for your cheerleading and will turn on you the second he can get some advantage out of it.
Which part of Actually, I have never been "cheering" for Trump and I didn't vote for him. However, the more I observe progressives and Democrats post-election, the more relieved I am that Hillary lost. did you not understand?
I'm utterly baffled by you "alt-right" people.
But I'm not baffled by you at all: you're the typical Alinsky/Goebbels/Soviet-style totalitarian propagandist, with your misrepresentations, lies, and statist ideology.
We often refer to government powers as "government rights". That's why we talk about, for example, "states' rights". We tend to use the term "power" with government when emphasizing the limits on government power, and we tend to use the term "right" when emphasizing a power that a governmental entity has relative to some other entity. I hope that clears up your confusion.
Companies have rights too! Who will think of the companies?
No, the owners of companies have rights. Do you think that people should be stripped of their rights just because they get together and do something socially useful?
Ah - then unconstitutional search and seizure is fully justified in protecting the motherland komrade - carry on.
TFA is about a private company. Private companies cannot engage in "unconstitutional search and seizure" because they can't engage in "search and seizure" at all; that's a right reserved to the government.
Private companies do have a constitutional right to "harvest information about the protesters from social media", engage in "aerial surveillance and radio eavesdropping", and "infiltrate camps and activist circles" (as long as they don't violate private property rights or break into computer systems illegally).
Those are rights that we have because we live in a free society. People like you have not yet succeeded turning the US into a totalitarian state, much as you may want to, "komrade".
The problem is that giving all Americans a $10,000 annual income would cost upwards of $3 trillion a year -- more than three-fourths of the federal budget, said Bob Greenstein, president of Washington, D.C.-based Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. Some proponents advocate funding the move by cutting programs like food stamps and Medicaid. But that approach would take money set aside for low-income families and redistribute it upward, exacerbating poverty and inequality, Greenstein said
So much for the people claiming that a UBI would replace our current inefficient and demeaning welfare system.
The idea, [Sam Altman, president of Y Combinator] said at the Commonwealth Club, tackles the question not enough people are asking: "What do we as the tech industry do to solve the problem that we're helping to create?"
I'm not sure why Sam Altman is using the term "we" there. As far as I can tell, Sam Altman has not actually "created" much of anything: if you can even call Loopt a "technical contribution", it was so pointless that it didn't put anybody out of work.
That's not an answer to the question of what illegal things Trump is supposed to have done. Having "connections" with foreign governments is not illegal, and neither is having the support of foreign governments. If it were, both Obama and Hillary would be in prison. So far, I have not heard anybody articulate anything actually illegal that Trump is supposed to have done.
I really don't get why you are still cheering for [Trump]
Actually, I have never been "cheering" for Trump and I didn't vote for him. However, the more I observe progressives and Democrats post-election, the more relieved I am that Hillary lost.
when he's really got it in for immigrants and is going to get "tough" on gays at some point to get the hard right of the Republicans to do some things for him.
Well, your concern trolling is noted for what it's worth.
It's not exactly secret what Trump is which is why the situation is so ridiculous and potentially tragic. Just one of many connections
"Connections" are not illegal. Furthermore, since it "is not exactly a secret", voters took it into account when voting for Trump.
A lot has come out, just not details. Even Watergate took a few years, as did Iran-contra. The CIA Church commission stuff took years as well.
Yeah, Russia may have hired trolls to attack Hillary on social media, and maybe had a hand in leaking Hillary's E-mails. Anything else? How does that translate into a Watergate-like affair?
The reason why you think that this is "misleading" is because you don't understand how Democrats corrupt markets and think in a simplistic "good for greedy corporations" and "bad for greedy corporations" dichotomy. If Democrats were generically anti-business, they would get no contributions from business.
But what Democrats are actually doing is interfere in markets in order to favor businesses that donate to them and hurt businesses that don't. That's why you see this split in donations between the Republican and the Democratic party: Democrats receive donations from businesses they sell power to, and everybody else goes to the Republicans.
The Republicans look set to go to town with wrecking not just the ACA but Medicare, Medcaid and a number of other benefits the Republican voting citizenry enjoys either directly or indirectly because, for example, their ageing parents are on ACA, Medicare or Medicaid and will be suffering, destitute or both when these programs are repealed and replaced with health 'insurance' that's just for healthy people and where you get kicked into a defunded high risk pool if you have a pre-exiting condition or the instant you get sick
You're fabricating political positions that don't exist. Republicans aren't going to touch Medicare because it would be political suicide. We're stuck with Medicare for the time being; if anything is going to happen to it, it's going to be phased out over a period of many decades.
The "you get kicked into a defunded high risk pool when you get sick" system is the shitty system that progressives created in the US with employment-linked healthcare. The ACA did little to fix that problem. Under an actual private insurance system, insurers are bound by long-term contracts that cover you even if you lose your job.
Furthermore, the large single-payer healthcare system that the US has (Medicare/Medicaid) is far too expensive; if you want to keep it alive and have, say, a British-style healthcare system, you need British-style cost controls and nationalization of healthcare providers. It's the medical and pharma lobbies (big Democratic donors) that are preventing that from happening and are saddling us with a public healthcare system that is crony capitalism on a grand scale, and that is simply not sustainable. Democrats have even opposed means testing for Medicare benefits.
The healthcare system in the US was unsustainable and corrupt before the ACA, and it is still unsustainable and corrupt after the ACA, arguably even more so. There are ways of fixing it. For example, any of the European systems would be better. But they simply aren't on the table, in large part because Democrats refuse to even consider them.
So, fourth, not only it won't work, it's drowning out more urgent and serious issues: dismantling healthcare
Obama already did a great job dismantling healthcare in the US and setting it on a path to self-destruction. Trump and the GOP don't look like they are going to fix it, but they can't make it much worse.
crippling budget cuts everywhere but in the military, hurting government agencies
Hard as that may for you to believe, that's what Trump and Republicans are elected for. Unfortunately, they are not doing their job: their budget cuts are cosmetic at this point, and they will get trimmed back further as Republicans don't want to give up their own pork spending. And many would like to see several departments and agencies eliminated entirely.
Slashdot Mirror
Obama's "climate legacy" being: "I'll do what my big donors and lobbyists want me to do, and I don't care about the economic consequences because I'll be long out of office and have a cool few hundred million in the bank." That "climate legacy"?
I think that was rather a big factor in the last election.
Good!
And what's the motivation for "limiting the legal rights" of such entities? It's evidently that you don't like the idea that businesses are more powerful than the state; that businesses, rather than the state, determine how people live, what people eat, what jobs they hold, etc. That is what makes you a totalitarian; more specifically, it's the core of the fascist political program.
And your answer to this? Make the state more powerful!
US government spending relative to the economy was a few percentage points prior to WWII and businesses faced few regulations from the federal government. That's pretty close to a free market. Granted, the government still had its dirty fingers in a few businesses like banking and railroads, with horrendous consequences, but those used to be the exceptions. It wasn't an ideal free market, but it was a lot closer than it is today. There are plenty of other examples of free markets around the world.
Oh, the state indeed creates powerful and oppressive corporations, namely by creating monopolies and giving corporations power through regulation, mandates, etc. Pharma companies can charge what they do because they are protected by patents and FDA approval requirements, and because insurance companies are forced to pay whatever they charge. People can choose from ever fewer insurance companies, banks, landlords, public transportation companies, etc. because government regulation has created massive barriers to entry.
Regulation is like drug addiction: you start off small, the positive effect wears off quickly, and then you need to up the dose.
And eventually, you overdose.
Incidentally, in case it hadn't occurred to you, you can deal with that very easily: sell your shares. Problem solved. No need to trample on the free speech of others.
Well, that's one kind of corporation. There are also corporations whose purpose is criticizing political candidates, feeding the poor, creating children's TV programs, providing news coverage, conducting medical research, and tons of other things.
You know, like "Citizens United", which was a "corporation" created for the sole purpose of making a movie critical of Hillary Clinton. Of course, thin skinned, angry Hillary just couldn't stand that, so she went on a crusade (and lost).
What's "immoral" about a corporation created to bash Hillary Clinton using its money to, you know, bash Hillary Clinton?
The fact that a corporation is not a "non-profit" doesn't mean that it is "for profit". In fact, if you claim "non-profit" status, you are limited in your speech because you are getting a tax break. So, apparently, you simply don't want free speech for any group of people, because you don't want it either for non-profits or regular corporations.
And what about newspapers and TV stations? They won't shut up about politics and they are for profit (at least in theory). Should they be subjected to "very tight restrictions"? How do you feel about the Trump administration determining whether, say, a NYT article was proper or improper political speech?
Quite the opposite: I believe the difference between governmental "rights/powers" and human "rights/powers" is so obvious that we don't need to make pedantic distinctions evey time we speak, in particular, when making an analogy between corporate rights and governmental powers, as I was doing.
I don't believe that there is a limited set of "freedoms a human is due by virtue of their innate worth"; that is, I don't believe in limited human rights. Rights are inherently something that is limited, enumerated, and granted. I believe that humans can do whatever they want, except as limited by a small set of enumerated, governmental powers.
The irony behind your pedantic insistence on the powers/rights distinction is that you don't even understand the point behind it.
You seem to be advocating a system in which government controls corporations and markets to promote equality and individual rights, government representing the people and in charge of the economy, education, research, retirement, healthcare, etc. It's doubtlessly a popular system that "many people" have desired throughout history, and that has been tried numerous times, in particular in the 20th century.
What do you think greedy, selfish, and amoral CEOs would do in such a system? Do you think they'll simply let themselves be regulated by government? Of course not. What happens is that they go into government and become government leaders. And now, instead of merely running private corporations, where people at least have the option of not doing business with them, they now control police, courts, and the military, with disastrous results.
What you advocate is, in fact, totalitarianism, and it doesn't work. Life under a free market system is clearly unfair, and people get hurt, and people can't exercise their rights, but a free market system is still vastly preferable to any of the known alternatives.
Yes, and the parties to those contracts can enforce them against each other. How does that give the government any additional powers to restrict the speech or freedom of association or freedom of movement of those parties?
I suggest you think for half a minute before making such illogical arguments.
The post you are responding to isn't mine.
But your analogy is bullshit anyway. The actions that TigerSwan was described as having engaged in above are legal, for anybody. I'm not defending "them", I am defending those rights, rights that everybody has and everybody ought to have.
I'm telling you, you just persist in misrepresenting me.
Of course, your conduct comes out of the propagandistic playbook of totalitarians and statists: you're despicable.
And you know why the US government "put money into the pockets of the rich"? Yes, that right: because of idiots like you.
Totally: I see that you have nothing substantive to say and no rational counterargument, so instead you engage in empty semantic disputes.
I suggest you fix your selective blindness and read up on what Obama actually did.
Yes, it is shocking to anybody who believes in a free society. Of course, to people with totalitarian belief systems, this is completely natural. To you, unless something gets sanctioned by the government, people are not permitted to do it. That is your Orwellian version of "liberty".
I suspect that without a large number of sexist, racist, and totalitarian-leaning voters, the Democrats would be a fringe party and in the single digits.
"Backwards rednecks" didn't decide this election, pissed-off former Democrats did; people like me who'd rather stay at home than vote for either of these parties.
Presumably, you still believe that I have a right to free speech individually, right? So, I may, say, post something nasty about Trump, right?
Now let's say I want to run a series of ads against Trump in the local newspaper, but that's more than I can afford. So I ask some friends for money. Do I still have free speech rights in that case, or can the jackboot of government stomp down on me and my friends?
Now, since Trump is pretty litigious and vain, I worry that if I say something negative about him in an anti-Trump ad, he may sue me and my friends and I may lose my house and my retirement. So, you think the jackboot of government can stomp on me and my friends wanting to exercise our right to free speech because we formed a corporation?
And if that's what you believe, what about the press? Newspapers are big corporations. Should the Trump administration have the power to throw reporters for the New York Times, CNN, or MSNBC in jail for looking at social media postings by administration officials, looking into their private lives, into their financial connections?
That's what you're really saying when you're trying to draw a distinction between "rights as an individual" and rights that groups of individuals exercise. You have been duped into supporting totalitarian government, because if rights can only be exercised "as individuals", they are worthless when faced with the massive and collective power of government.
You think this is a consequence of voting for Trump? Haven't you paying attention the past eight years under Obama? All talk about civil liberties and constitutionality, while systematically dismantling them?
It's gullible idiots like you that keep allowing statist, totalitarian crooks like Hillary to rise to the top of the Democratic ticket. And it's not "backwards rednecks" that got Trump elected, it's people like me, people who stay home in disgust rather than vote for people like Hillary.
The way government run airline security is going, this is what the future holds:
Pre-takeoff announcement, around 2030: "Please remain in your seats and place your hands and feet into the shackles. We will take off after the cabin crew has secured all passengers. Please use the blowtube in front of your face if you need to use the facilities. Please note that there is a $150 fee for each bathroom trip and you will be accompanied at all times. Cabin crew of an incompatible gender and sexual orientation is available upon request."
Pre-takeoff announcement, around 2050: "Please remain in your seat, attach the electrode cap to your head, stay calm, and breathe deeply; this ensures a quicker transition into unconsciousness and allows us to meet our tight takeoff window. When EEG monitors show that all passengers have lost consciousness, we will be taking off. If you have a medical condition that is incompatible with common anesthetics, please let the cabin crew know now. You will be held responsible for any delays due to problems related to anesthetization, and civil and criminal penalties may apply. Please note that if you soil your seat while unconscious, you will be charged a cleaning fee of $1500."
Meanwhile, of course, politicians and CEOs will be whisked around the globe in semi-private jets, free from all the government regulations, union rules, and crony capitalism that they impose on the rest of us.
Which part of Actually, I have never been "cheering" for Trump and I didn't vote for him. However, the more I observe progressives and Democrats post-election, the more relieved I am that Hillary lost. did you not understand?
But I'm not baffled by you at all: you're the typical Alinsky/Goebbels/Soviet-style totalitarian propagandist, with your misrepresentations, lies, and statist ideology.
We often refer to government powers as "government rights". That's why we talk about, for example, "states' rights". We tend to use the term "power" with government when emphasizing the limits on government power, and we tend to use the term "right" when emphasizing a power that a governmental entity has relative to some other entity. I hope that clears up your confusion.
No, the owners of companies have rights. Do you think that people should be stripped of their rights just because they get together and do something socially useful?
TFA is about a private company. Private companies cannot engage in "unconstitutional search and seizure" because they can't engage in "search and seizure" at all; that's a right reserved to the government.
Private companies do have a constitutional right to "harvest information about the protesters from social media", engage in "aerial surveillance and radio eavesdropping", and "infiltrate camps and activist circles" (as long as they don't violate private property rights or break into computer systems illegally).
Those are rights that we have because we live in a free society. People like you have not yet succeeded turning the US into a totalitarian state, much as you may want to, "komrade".
So much for the people claiming that a UBI would replace our current inefficient and demeaning welfare system.
I'm not sure why Sam Altman is using the term "we" there. As far as I can tell, Sam Altman has not actually "created" much of anything: if you can even call Loopt a "technical contribution", it was so pointless that it didn't put anybody out of work.
That's not an answer to the question of what illegal things Trump is supposed to have done. Having "connections" with foreign governments is not illegal, and neither is having the support of foreign governments. If it were, both Obama and Hillary would be in prison. So far, I have not heard anybody articulate anything actually illegal that Trump is supposed to have done.
Actually, I have never been "cheering" for Trump and I didn't vote for him. However, the more I observe progressives and Democrats post-election, the more relieved I am that Hillary lost.
Well, your concern trolling is noted for what it's worth.
"Connections" are not illegal. Furthermore, since it "is not exactly a secret", voters took it into account when voting for Trump.
Yeah, Russia may have hired trolls to attack Hillary on social media, and maybe had a hand in leaking Hillary's E-mails. Anything else? How does that translate into a Watergate-like affair?
The reason why you think that this is "misleading" is because you don't understand how Democrats corrupt markets and think in a simplistic "good for greedy corporations" and "bad for greedy corporations" dichotomy. If Democrats were generically anti-business, they would get no contributions from business.
But what Democrats are actually doing is interfere in markets in order to favor businesses that donate to them and hurt businesses that don't. That's why you see this split in donations between the Republican and the Democratic party: Democrats receive donations from businesses they sell power to, and everybody else goes to the Republicans.
You're fabricating political positions that don't exist. Republicans aren't going to touch Medicare because it would be political suicide. We're stuck with Medicare for the time being; if anything is going to happen to it, it's going to be phased out over a period of many decades.
The "you get kicked into a defunded high risk pool when you get sick" system is the shitty system that progressives created in the US with employment-linked healthcare. The ACA did little to fix that problem. Under an actual private insurance system, insurers are bound by long-term contracts that cover you even if you lose your job.
Furthermore, the large single-payer healthcare system that the US has (Medicare/Medicaid) is far too expensive; if you want to keep it alive and have, say, a British-style healthcare system, you need British-style cost controls and nationalization of healthcare providers. It's the medical and pharma lobbies (big Democratic donors) that are preventing that from happening and are saddling us with a public healthcare system that is crony capitalism on a grand scale, and that is simply not sustainable. Democrats have even opposed means testing for Medicare benefits.
The healthcare system in the US was unsustainable and corrupt before the ACA, and it is still unsustainable and corrupt after the ACA, arguably even more so. There are ways of fixing it. For example, any of the European systems would be better. But they simply aren't on the table, in large part because Democrats refuse to even consider them.
Obama already did a great job dismantling healthcare in the US and setting it on a path to self-destruction. Trump and the GOP don't look like they are going to fix it, but they can't make it much worse.
Hard as that may for you to believe, that's what Trump and Republicans are elected for. Unfortunately, they are not doing their job: their budget cuts are cosmetic at this point, and they will get trimmed back further as Republicans don't want to give up their own pork spending. And many would like to see several departments and agencies eliminated entirely.