Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Gordon Shumway wrote: He actually did answer it. He said it doesn't. Then he spent a long time trying to justify how not helping was justifiable because politics.
No. That's not it.
You said the underlined portion was the answer to the question. The underlined portion was "it wouldn't make a difference". That is it. Or else you didn't really answer the question.
You asked:
How exactly does reducing funding to PP help combat zika exactly?
Well... the real answer. It doesn't reduce any funding.
It gives the fundings to other providers to combat it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/11 22:20:49
This latest bill, the committee crafted the health-care block-grant funding and provided guidance on who could receive the funding... PP was not listed as a potential recipient, and Democrats threw a hissy fit and filibustered.
I disagree with it, but being a 10th Amendment/State's Rights supporter, I support their right to do so.
If I were to, say, take your property taxes and push the revenue towards abortion, would you be alright with that? Would you also be alright with States running heard over municipalities?
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Not surprising at all but unfortunately all this decision does is set up a cycle of the legislature redistributing then being taken to court then redistricting again.
Because the 2016 election is mere months away, however the court granted North Carolina a reprieve. The panel ordered the Legislature to redraw the districts “to correct the constitutional deficiencies” only after the next election, during next year’s legislative session. And even then, the Legislature that redraws the maps will almost certainly be overwhelmingly Republican. Indeed, some drafters of the new maps may be the very same legislators who drew the old, unconstitutional maps. The new map will surely remain gerrymandered, if not quite as blatantly so.
While race based redistricting is wrong because it's racist I didn't see how the court can say it violates voting rights. I'm in a Democrat district it's pretty much impossible for any other party to win my district, there's plenty of negatives to that party monopoly but it doesn't deprive me of my right to cast a ballot and vote my conscience.
Because the 2016 election is mere months away, however the court granted North Carolina a reprieve. The panel ordered the Legislature to redraw the districts “to correct the constitutional deficiencies” only after the next election, during next year’s legislative session. And even then, the Legislature that redraws the maps will almost certainly be overwhelmingly Republican. Indeed, some drafters of the new maps may be the very same legislators who drew the old, unconstitutional maps. The new map will surely remain gerrymandered, if not quite as blatantly so.
So they'll actually get away with it this year and then just try again at the next election.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Because the 2016 election is mere months away, however the court granted North Carolina a reprieve. The panel ordered the Legislature to redraw the districts “to correct the constitutional deficiencies” only after the next election, during next year’s legislative session. And even then, the Legislature that redraws the maps will almost certainly be overwhelmingly Republican. Indeed, some drafters of the new maps may be the very same legislators who drew the old, unconstitutional maps. The new map will surely remain gerrymandered, if not quite as blatantly so.
So they'll actually get away with it this year and then just try again at the next election.
As to the comments that the Republicans being obstructionists....they are. As are and have been the Democrats. Both parties have been doing this kind of thing for a long time. Both parties do it on everything regardless of how important or unimportant it is, and the only persons/entities who ever really and truly profit are the lobbyists. To say or think otherwise is just silly. Not saying it is right, but accusing one party of it while ignoring the fact that the other party does it too on equally serious matters is disingenuous. Again, I do not think what the republicans did is right, but lets be honest, the democrats are just as guilty for helping create this environment as well.
Sure, both parties have been obstructionist. The problem, however, is that the Republicans have cranked it up by a factor of 20 over the last 8 years.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
jmurph wrote: Interestingly, all spectrums seem to oppose Social Security cuts.
Which is the part of Trump's successful primary bid that is now almost forgotten. He did so well in large part because he ditched a lot of the Republican orthodoxy that had little or no support among the party's base. The establishment candidates then attacked Trump as he wasn't a 'true conservative', and those attacks hit like wet newspaper.
There was a 2014 study by Harvard that polled Republican candidates and Republican voters, and found an incredible level of difference in the two on policy issues. This is because the Republican candidates are aligned to the donor class. This means they care about international trade, about cutting the top tax rates, ending inheritance tax, and cutting the social safety net.
Whereas Republican voters are very different. They aren't big fans of international trade, and are fine with many elements of the social safety network, especially the 'earned' elements like social security.
Trump came in to fill that discrepancy, he offered a platform that much more closer fit a large number of Republican voters. And it's why his recent economic speech in Detroit was so interesting, because he abandoned much of his older populist platform, and was now arguing for many of the same old bits of Republican orthodoxy. Trump's old plan of 'cut everyone's taxes' was replaced with 'cut rich people's taxes' and he'd even fallen in to line on getting rid of inheritance taxes.
That story didn't even get a day to get told though, before Trump made his comment about a 2nd amendment people stopping Clinton, and then a day after that it was Obama conspiring to create ISIS. That's where the thing about the media ignoring the attacks against Clinton is only getting half the story. Most of the attacks against Trump are also drowned out, because there's only 24 hours in a day and Trump is creating new scandals almost constantly.
Frazzled wrote: It doesn't. How does not voting for a Zika spending bill with reductions in PP spending help Zika? Both sides are playing games and suck balls. A Zika on both their houses.
Here are the political positions of the two sides on this;
Democrats - will support a bill that funds Zika prevention measures (which you have said you support).
Republicans - will support a bill that funds Zika prevention measures, if they can get some other stuff as well.
The Democrats could concede to the Republicans, give them some of the things they want in order to get a Zika bill passed. But doing so would be accepting a political world in which Republicans can extort things in order to get basic legislation passed. It is another version of the debt ceiling hostage crisis. And as the debt ceiling showed, if you give them anything this time, they'll only be back again in a couple of months asking for something new. Democrats have to refuse to play that game, they are really left with no other choice.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/12 03:36:01
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
No, that's crap. Here are the political positions of the two sides on this;
Democrats - will support a bill that funds Zika prevention measures.
Republicans - will support a bill that funds Zika prevention measures, if they can get some other stuff as well.
The Democrats could concede to the Republicans, give them some of the things they want in order to get a Zika bill passed. But doing so would be accepting a political world in which Republicans can extort things in order to get basic legislation passed. It is another version of the debt ceiling hostage crisis. And the only solution in the long term is to refuse to negotiate with hostage takers.
That's absolute crap seb...
The bill allocates $40 million for community health centers that are way more plentiful and offer a wider range of care, plus $6 million for the National Health Service Corps and $95 million to the Social Services Grant Program that can distribute funds for preventive care to the most at-risk areas.
This is nothing more than Democrats’ absolute dedication to funding PP instead of actual women’s health care.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ustrello wrote: Jesus I was gone for one day and we had a full on whembly meltdown
This latest bill, the committee crafted the health-care block-grant funding that provided guidance on who could receive the funding... PP was not listed as a potential recipient, and Democrats threw a hissy fit and filibustered.
I disagree with it, but being a 10th Amendment/State's Rights supporter, I support their right to do so.
If I were to, say, take your property taxes and push the revenue towards abortion, would you be alright with that? Would you also be alright with States running heard over municipalities?
No. I'd advocate for politicians who wouldn't do that.
whembly wrote: This is nothing more than Democrats’ absolute dedication to funding PP instead of actual women’s health care.
The only thing that's made this about PP and only PP is that you declared it so a few pages back. Some people said it wasn't just about PP, and then you carried on claiming that it was only about PP. But here are the other riders;
$100m reduction in Ebola funding $500m reduction in ACA funding Waives some clean water laws Removes law banning Confederate flags in military cemeteries
So you're asking us to believe that Democrats don't care about the signature bill of the Obama administration. You're asking us to believe that they don't care about Ebola funding, an argument that would basically amount to "Democrats care about funding Zika, a health crisis, but don't care about defunding Ebola, another health crisis". You're trying to claim that Democrats don't care about clean water and environmental protection.
It's ridiculous mate.
But note what you don't see among all those riders - there is nothing for Democrats. This is, as I've explained to you using your own statement on how government works, the Republicans doing all the taking, and expecting the Democrats to do all the giving. What Democrats should care about, what any rational set of humans should care about*, is how you deal with people who are willing to take hostages in order to extort political concessions. Everyone wants Zika funded, then everyone should support a clean bill and move on. Or if you want some riders for your special issues, then you need to allow for some Democratic rider as well.
But this Republican strategy of 'we both get something we want, only if I get something special for me' is poisonous politics of the worst kind, and Democrats have to stand up to it.
*And Democrats almost meet that criteria.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/12 04:06:23
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
This is Whembly waving his hand and letting his team do what they want because in the end, he is a die hard Republican. He only understands the Us vs Them side of it.
He will of course use the best type of deflection he knows. "Citation please." Until they are provided and then he will find another excuse for his team.
He doesn't realize how incredibly toxic this is for the country and dangerous it is for the people living in it. When you are passing a law about public health, you do not take away funding in the same fething bill that would hurt public health. You certainly do not use it to try and get something pushed about a stupid fething flag. At this point, I am just disgusted by our countries obsession with flags.
whembly wrote: This is nothing more than Democrats’ absolute dedication to funding PP instead of actual women’s health care.
The only thing that's made this about PP and only PP is that you declared it so a few pages back. Some people said it wasn't just about PP, and then you carried on claiming that it was only about PP.
It's mostly about PP... the rest of the riders is small potatoes.
But here are the other riders;
$100m reduction in Ebola funding
Unused. It's called offsets.
$500m reduction in ACA funding
This was money allocated originally to assist states in creating their own exchange, since about half didn't there's quite a bit left over... so, this is simply unused money. Again... offsets.
Waives some clean water laws
All it waived was requiring EPA permits to use pesticides, with the caveat that you must use EPA-approved pesticides.
Removes law banning Confederate flags in military cemeteries
This is simply silly.
So you're asking us to believe that Democrats don't care about the signature bill of the Obama administration.
Does absolutely nothing to PPACA.
You're asking us to believe that they don't care about Ebola funding, an argument that would basically amount to "Democrats care about funding Zika, a health crisis, but don't care about defunding Ebola, another health crisis".
This was money sitting unused.
You're trying to claim that Democrats don't care about clean water and environmental protection.
No... I'm saying they're throwing this hissy fit over the fact that PP wasn't designated as a recipient in this bill.
It's ridiculous mate.
But note what you don't see among all those riders - there is nothing for Democrats. This is, as I've explained to you using your own statement on how government works, the Republicans doing all the taking, and expecting the Democrats to do all the giving. What Democrats should care about, what any rational set of humans should care about*, is how you deal with people who are willing to take hostages in order to extort political concessions. Everyone wants Zika funded, then everyone should support a clean bill and move on. Or if you want some riders for your special issues, then you need to allow for some Democratic rider as well.
But this Republican strategy of 'we both get something we want, only if I get something special for me' is poisonous politics of the worst kind, and Democrats have to stand up to it.
*And Democrats almost meet that criteria.
Again... this is over the fact that PP simply weren’t on the specific list of public health clinics and community health centers that will receive additional and immediate social-services block-grant funding.
This is NOT defunding PP.
This is the Democrats demanding that PP be on this specific list to receive this funding.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/12 04:54:54
Dreadwinter wrote: This is Whembly waving his hand and letting his team do what they want because in the end, he is a die hard Republican. He only understands the Us vs Them side of it.
:waves hand: Hello... I'm here.
He will of course use the best type of deflection he knows. "Citation please." Until they are provided and then he will find another excuse for his team.
Riiiight... asking for sources is not out of bounds in a policy discussion. o.O
He doesn't realize how incredibly toxic this is for the country and dangerous it is for the people living in it. When you are passing a law about public health, you do not take away funding in the same fething bill that would hurt public health.
You certainly do not use it to try and get something pushed about a stupid fething flag. At this point, I am just disgusted by our countries obsession with flags.
I'm ambivalent about this flag issue. It's on a goddamn cemetery. But, I'll concede that it's silly to use this bill for that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Why are the Republicans also blocking the clean funding bill? Several people including myself have asked that ITT.
Because the GOP didn't want it all to be new money. They wanted to use the unspent money that were originally allocated for: 1) PPACA had allocated funds for states/territories to create ACA exchange... which half the state chose not to do... so, this is simply reallocating that money to this bill. 2) about $300+ million for Ebola response were unspent, so that would be reallocated as well.
Somehow finding/using unspent funds to help offset the costs of bills (basic fiscal responsibility) is deemed a very bad thing.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/12 04:46:11
Ouze wrote: Why are the Republicans also blocking the clean funding bill? Several people including myself have asked that ITT.
Because the GOP didn't want it all to be new money..
Well, that and
“The first TV picture of an American woman bearing a child with a birth defect caused by this virus will be on [Democrats],” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas). “I wouldn’t want to be in their position.”
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/12 04:49:06
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Ouze wrote: Why are the Republicans also blocking the clean funding bill? Several people including myself have asked that ITT.
Because the GOP didn't want it all to be new money..
Well, that and
“The first TV picture of an American woman bearing a child with a birth defect caused by this virus will be on [Democrats],” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas). “I wouldn’t want to be in their position.”
whembly wrote: It's mostly about PP... the rest of the riders is small potatoes.
If it's all small potatoes then the Republicans would have no problem dropping it and passing the clean bill put up by Democrats. And yet...
Unused. It's called offsets.
That's an old con. I use it myself actually , and it generally works when someone wants to believe what you're telling them.
The trick with 'unused' is it sounds like 'isn't going to be used'. But if that were the case then that that unspent money would simply remain unspent, you'd roll your budget up at the end of the year and you'd have your surplus cash for the new project without having to do anything.
What 'unspent' actually means is 'money we haven't spent yet'. So what you're doing is taking money that hasn't been spent on a project yet, and taking it to another project where it will be spent.
It's just re-allocating, but you make it sound like you're finding free money. It's a pretty obvious con, but it works well when someone really wants to buy in to the new project and believe it won't have costs.
All it waived was requiring EPA permits to use pesticides, with the caveat that you must use EPA-approved pesticides.
Those permits would be denied in places where spraying was deemed dangerous by the EPA. Now there is nothing stopping you spraying in those places.
This is simply silly.
Then you should be very angry at the Republicans on holding Zika funding ransom over such a silly thing.
Again... this is over the fact that PP simply wan’t on the specific list of public health clinics...
No, as I keep telling you, it is about, as you said yourself 'give and take'. Both sides want Zika prevention funded. The bill authorising funding was passed as part of a construction and veterans bill months ago. But the amount for Zika funding was different between the house and senate, so it could put to a Republican led committee. It came out of that committee with a bunch of riders on Republican issues.
It is a bit of a no-brainer that when Republcicans said they had a bill that was what everyone agreed to before, but with new stuff for Republicans, that Democrats said no.
This is NOT defunding PP.
This is the Democrats demanding that PP be on this specific list to receive this funding.
If that were true then Republicans could put up a new version of the bill, without the cuts to ACA and Ebola, and without the confederate flags, with just a straight funding bill that said the money couldn't got to PP. But they haven't, and you know why.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Somehow finding/using unspent funds to help offset the costs of bills (basic fiscal responsibility) is deemed a very bad thing.
You can't have it both ways. You can't claim this is unspent money (and therefore not a defunding of Democratic programs) and also a fiscally responsible thing. Because if it is money that is unspent and never going to be spent, then taking it out of the budget is an accounting nonsense that never actually affects the bottom line. The only way it saves money is if it was money that was one day going to be spent in those programs.
So pick one. Either it's money that was never going to be spent, in which case it's entirely symbolic and not a true offset. Or it was money that would be spend, is an offset, but is defunding Democratic programs.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/12 05:16:07
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
So evidently Trump is attempting to bolster his bona fides with evangelicals in Florida by pointing out how Mormons don't like him much in Utah. I don't even...
And he tried to make himself look good by pointing out how he and Hugo Chavez are similar: “He had some feelings, some very strong feelings, and he did represent a lot of people, and he represented a lot of people that had been left behind,” Trump said. “We have people that, honestly, they’ve been left behind.”
1) PPACA had allocated funds for states/territories to create ACA exchange... which half the state chose not to do... so, this is simply reallocating that money to this bill.
So, defunding PPACA? I know that's a thing Republicans need to try to do, and this is probably one of the best ways to do it because they can say it's about Planned Parenthood now, and then say it was about PPACA a few months later; blending the two messages (Obamacare is bad, and facilitates abortion) all the while.
But as a political observer you can at least be honest about the matter.
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
I'm not American, and therefore not a Democrat or Republican, and these issues will not affect me in anyway, yet what I see the Republican party doing is utterly repugnant to any democratically minded individual.
How on earth is this rider rubbish allowed to happen? We occasionally get such garbage and sometimes some filibustering in the UK, but it is usually small potatoes. If our parties were stalemating Govt to a standstill to this extent, there would be outrage.
Also, without wishing to pile on Wembly, but every post you make, makes Republicans look more obstructive, self absorbed, irrational and actually a little deranged. You're not doing your party or political outlook any favours at all.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/12 07:25:15
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Let's leave it there. No more talking about the Zika bill for a while, let's let everyone cool down and come back to this sort of discussion the next time on of these bills with riders that are deal breakers crops up
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
More than 70 Republicans have signed a letter to the party's National Committee head urging him to stop helping Donald Trump's campaign.
They said Mr Trump's "divisiveness" and "incompetence" risked drowning the party in November's election.
The letter said that the party should instead focus on protecting vulnerable candidates in elections to the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Former members of Congress are among the signatories of the letter.
The enigma that is Donald Trump
Fear and anger in Trump-land
"We believe that Donald Trump's divisiveness, recklessness, incompetence, and record-breaking unpopularity risk turning this election into a Democratic landslide," said a draft of the letter obtained by Politico.
Options for anti-Trump Republicans
Hope he quits: Mr Trump leaving on his own accord would be the cleanest way to replace him on the ballot, but he is unlikely to do this.
Find another candidate to rally round: Without Mr Trump leaving the race, a replacement is impossible under party rules. Some are considering endorsing Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, but this would split the Republican vote.
Force him out, using an obscure rule: Some are thinking of declaring Mr Trump "not of sound mind", under a Republican National Committee manoeuvre that has not been used before. But this means calling a man chosen by more than 10 million party members insane - a bold move.
Sit and wait: Some disaffected Republicans think their best option is to just denounce Mr Trump and hope for better luck next time.
Put your head down and hope he wins: Others hope that he moderates his rhetoric, so that once he is elected mainstream Republicans can right the ship. However Mr Trump may have done lasting damage to the brand to stop the party's slide.
Can Republicans really dump Trump?
"Only the immediate shift of all available RNC (Republican National Committee) resources to vulnerable Senate and House races will prevent the GOP (Republican Party) from drowning with a Trump-emblazoned anchor around its neck."
The letter added: "This should not be a difficult decision, as Donald Trump's chances of being elected president are evaporating by the day."
Reacting to the move, Mr Trump said he was not concerned that the party could cut him off.
"All I have to do is stop funding the Republican Party," the billionaire said.
Time Magazine on Thursday reported that RNC Chairman Reince Priebus had threatened to withdraw funding from the Trump campaign, and instead direct it to Congressional campaigns.
Mr Trump denies that this conversation ever took place.
The Republican presidential nominee has endured 10 days of negative headlines after a string of controversial comments.
In recent weeks, several leading Republicans have deserted Mr Trump over his outspoken attacks.
Polls suggest support for the embattled candidate has been falling in key battleground states in recent weeks.
you sure can pick'em America.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
At this point, they're stuck with Trump. They'll have to wait and see, I guess. They can always kick him out of the White House, right? I realise Clinton is a bit like Tricky Dick Nixon currently, but I think the USA would be better off with someone who knows how the game is played rather than the 4-time bankrupt billionaire muppet.
From where I'm sitting, this feels a lot like that scene from Game of Thrones Season 2. Where Dany opens Xaro Xhoan Daxos' Valyrian steel vault in Qarth, to find it empty. Trump is obviously Xaro lol.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/12 10:50:14
3000
4000 
, and it generally works when someone wants to believe what you're telling them.
Legion: Dark Angels