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.

It's amazing that the conservative plan is not conservative enough for conservatives.

 d-usa wrote:
Is the democrats fault that the republicans won't work with each other to compromise?

Regarding the ACA/AHCA??

Doesn't a full repeal put the GOP in a much better bargaining position for any later health care moves? Which ups the pressure on Democrats to get on board with a replacement to be passed later?

I don't see any Dems coming to the table.

However, in this case. Yup, I blame the GOP squarely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
It's amazing that the conservative plan is not conservative enough for conservatives.

Because... the principle of it isn't conservative.

Yes, getting rid of the mandate helps, but that still leaves the regulatory framework (the primary driver of increased costs) on the books.

Best plan really, is to start over.

Well, don't pretend that Republicans = conservatives, despite their claims.

Republicans are made up of several blocs, of which conservatives break down into several other groups. Fiscal conservatives, for example don't necessarily have the same priorities as cultural conservatives.

Unfortunately, the Republicans have positioned themselves as reactionaries catering to regressive elements and the donor class. This puts them directly at odds with most actual constituents. Worse, many of these constituents have bought into the contradictory rhetoric and were screaming for action that would ultimately negatively impact them, so if the Repubs do what they promised, it will blow up in their face. But if they don't, the strident base becomes angry.

So they seem to be settling for doing nothing and trying to blame the other guys.

The thing is, they control both houses of congress and the white house, how are they going to blame anyone other than themselves? The ball is completely in their court

 jmurph wrote:
Well, don't pretend that Republicans = conservatives, despite their claims.

Republicans are made up of several blocs, of which conservatives break down into several other groups. Fiscal conservatives, for example don't necessarily have the same priorities as cultural conservatives.

I've been banging on that drum for ages...

Unfortunately, the Republicans have positioned themselves as reactionaries catering to regressive elements and the donor class. This puts them directly at odds with most actual constituents. Worse, many of these constituents have bought into the contradictory rhetoric and were screaming for action that would ultimately negatively impact them, so if the Repubs do what they promised, it will blow up in their face. But if they don't, the strident base becomes angry.

So they seem to be settling for doing nothing and trying to blame the other guys.

jmurph nailed it.

...now waiting to see if they'll try for simple full repeal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
The thing is, they control both houses of congress and the white house, how are they going to blame anyone other than themselves? The ball is completely in their court

Psst... they don't have filibuster-proof Senate. So, there are challenges abounds for passing anything still...

https://twitter.com/SteveKopack/status/844995773838315520

As health care vote gets scrapped for tonight, here's Trump in a big rig on the White House driveway honking the horn & pretending to drive

The most powerful man in the world there.




TBF Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court said it was lawful to fire a trucker for saving his own life so there might be hope for us yet.

incidentally :

can anyone identify this mystery no-name Trump campaign staffer (volunteer?) next to Sean Spicer at this RNC Q&A?



Sure he's nothing to do with the current POTUS at all right ?

 jreilly89 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Is the democrats fault that the republicans won't work with each other to compromise?

Everything's the Dems fault, obviously.

At night Democrats sneak into my house and steal half of every matching sock pair. True story.

On hot days, Democrats order all the good flavors at the ice cream parlor so it's out of stock by the time you get there. Seen it with my own eyes.

Democrats cause Autism. I heard it on the radio.

..I'm generally not a betting man but have a suspicion I know what the answer to this will be....

In more corporations over people news.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/senate-allows-isps-sell-data,33968.html?utm_source=notification

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
The thing is, they control both houses of congress and the white house, how are they going to blame anyone other than themselves? The ball is completely in their court

Clearly the Democrats are to blame for nuking the filibuster that would have allowed them to save the Republican majority from its folly.

Something like that?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
The thing is, they control both houses of congress and the white house, how are they going to blame anyone other than themselves? The ball is completely in their court

Clearly the Democrats are to blame for nuking the filibuster that would have allowed them to save the Republican majority from its folly.

Something like that?

Damn that Harry Ried again

 reds8n wrote:

..meanwhile..

The group proposing to cut breast cancer screening, maternity care, and contraceptive coverage :

Spoiler:

Wonder how many of those pictured are prescribed Viagra, which is covered under their insurance. . .

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
The thing is, they control both houses of congress and the white house, how are they going to blame anyone other than themselves? The ball is completely in their court

Clearly the Democrats are to blame for nuking the filibuster that would have allowed them to save the Republican majority from its folly.

Something like that?

Damn that Harry Ried again

*sigh*

No... it's a complete leadership feth up.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
The thing is, they control both houses of congress and the white house, how are they going to blame anyone other than themselves? The ball is completely in their court

Clearly the Democrats are to blame for nuking the filibuster that would have allowed them to save the Republican majority from its folly.

Something like that?

Don't laugh too hard.

The GOP did this exact thing recently: after Obama warned them not to pass the bill that allowed suing Saudi Arabia because it would open the door to the US being sued, as soon as the US was sued - the exact thing Obama warned about, the GOP blamed Obama for not warning them adequately..


You can't make this gak up.

AHCA only failed beacuse the "Freedom Caucus" wasn't convinced it stripped enough people of Healthcare. They want to (as Whembly put it) dismantle the regulatory system that underpins ACA and replace it with..... the wild west?

We were saved from this horrible bill by people who didn't think it was horrible enough!

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Not really. A single deer has a much smaller carbon footprint than a cow that was raised for dairy or beef.

How is that in any way, shape or form relevant? Did I say anything about carbon footprint? Or ecology in general?

 jreilly89 wrote:
Just wanted to remind you of glass houses and stones

So you assumed I lived in a glass house. Very nice assumption. Totally fair one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Wonder how many of those pictured are prescribed Viagra, which is covered under their insurance. . .

This is absolutely crazy. And then people tell me that patriarchy doesn't exist…

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Not really. A single deer has a much smaller carbon footprint than a cow that was raised for dairy or beef.

How is that in any way, shape or form relevant? Did I say anything about carbon footprint? Or ecology in general?

Hunting has a lot to do with those things. Buying food from the market has a lot to do with those things. It appears that you do not know what you are talking about.....

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ivanka-trump-family-aspen-skiing-holiday-family-taxpayer-secret-service-agent-a7643246.html

So we don't have enough money to feed the elderly, but we do have enough to let some rich feths go skiing.

...so, they can't go vacay?

Not if they don't want to be colossal hypocrites.

How so? The Obama family went on many trips costing a pretty coin. Did you complain then? (ftr, I wanted Obama to vacay as much as he could to keep him away from the pen & phone )

Yeah, but Trumpy's weekenders to FL have already run up more than almost twice Obama's annual avg. trip expenses. Avg. $11M +/- annually during Obama's tenure. Mar-a-Lago and other Trump property visits so far this year...approx. $18M and he's been POTUS for what, two months? There's no comparison here. Epic fail.

The other foul part to Trumpy's trips...he's padding his own pockets in an absolutely unabashed way. This fether puts Berlusconi's stealing to shame!

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ivanka-trump-family-aspen-skiing-holiday-family-taxpayer-secret-service-agent-a7643246.html

So we don't have enough money to feed the elderly, but we do have enough to let some rich feths go skiing.

...so, they can't go vacay?

Not if they don't want to be colossal hypocrites.

How so? The Obama family went on many trips costing a pretty coin. Did you complain then? (ftr, I wanted Obama to vacay as much as he could to keep him away from the pen & phone )

Yeah, but Trumpy's weekenders to FL have already run up more than almost twice Obama's annual avg. trip expenses. Avg. $10M +/- annually during Obama's tenure. Mar-a-Lago so far this year..approx. 18M and he's been POTUS for two months. There's no comparison here. Epic fail.

The other foul part to Trumpy's trips...he's padding his own pockets in an absolutely unabashed way.

Things is the republicans could set fire to a pile of kittens on live TV, or gut some orphans then strangle them with their own entrails but the takeaway points would still be

"Obama once talked sternly to his dog"
or
"I hear a democrat spanked his kid once".

No matter the scope and scale of the offence by the Rs, any offence of any measure by the Ds is a valid counterpoint. Apparently.

The party that thought the internet was a series of tubes voted today to suspend rules that kept ISPs from selling your browsing history and such.

The US Senate today voted to eliminate broadband privacy rules that would have required ISPs to get consumers' explicit consent before selling or sharing Web browsing data and other private information with advertisers and other companies.

The rules were approved in October 2016 by the Federal Communications Commission's then-Democratic leadership, but are opposed by the FCC's new Republican majority and Republicans in Congress. The Senate today used its power under the Congressional Review Act to ensure that the FCC rulemaking "shall have no force or effect" and to prevent the FCC from issuing similar regulations in the future.

The House, also controlled by Republicans, would need to vote on the measure before the privacy rules are officially eliminated. President Trump could also preserve the privacy rules by issuing a veto. If the House and Trump agree with the Senate's action, ISPs won't have to seek customer approval before sharing their browsing histories and other private information with advertisers.

Also: Humanity Surprised It Still Hasn’t Figured Out Better Alternative To Letting Power-Hungry donkey-caves Decide Everything

This is SO about fething time... Read this article, you'll get sick at the absolute waste.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/secret-service-wont-get-dollar60-million-more-to-protect-the-trumps/ar-BByCBCh

"He vowed during the campaign to save the public money by working tirelessly in Washington and skipping extraneous or overly expensive trips." -Liar of biblical proportions! Trumpy wants to be POTUS, fine. Live in the White House, move the family to Washington, quit running away to your own properties every fething weekend so you can bilk the taxpayers and pad your own pocket.

 whembly wrote:
How so? The Obama family went on many trips costing a pretty coin.

You've missed the actual complaint. It isn't that presidents aren't allowed holidays. It's a four year job at least, and every single one of them leaves job greatly aged compared to when they started. I'm not going to begrudge any of them some down time.

The issue is hypocrisy. Trump campaigned extensively on Obama playing golf. As soon as he took office, Trump started playing more golf than Obama ever dreamed of. This means he is a hypocrit and a liar. Pointing out that Obama also played golf and took holidays makes no sense as a rebuttal, unless you want to show Obama campaigning in 2008 complaining about previous presidents playing golf and taking lots of holidays, and Obama promising that he wouldn't play any golf or take any holidays.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
How so? The Obama family went on many trips costing a pretty coin.

You've missed the actual complaint. It isn't that presidents aren't allowed holidays. It's a four year job at least, and every single one of them leaves job greatly aged compared to when they started. I'm not going to begrudge any of them some down time.

The issue is hypocrisy. Trump campaigned extensively on Obama playing golf. As soon as he took office, Trump started playing more golf than Obama ever dreamed of. This means he is a hypocrit and a liar. Pointing out that Obama also played golf and took holidays makes no sense as a rebuttal, unless you want to show Obama campaigning in 2008 complaining about previous presidents playing golf and taking lots of holidays, and Obama promising that he wouldn't play any golf or take any holidays.

And then spending far more than his predecessor, don't forget that.

EDIT: I should be more careful, as I'm pretty sure my statement above is sufficient evidence for Trump to conclude Obama spent far more on golfing than Bush, undeniably. Of course I suppose it's enough for Whembly as well, so apologies for the fallout.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
How so? The Obama family went on many trips costing a pretty coin.

You've missed the actual complaint. It isn't that presidents aren't allowed holidays. It's a four year job at least, and every single one of them leaves job greatly aged compared to when they started. I'm not going to begrudge any of them some down time.

The issue is hypocrisy. Trump campaigned extensively on Obama playing golf. As soon as he took office, Trump started playing more golf than Obama ever dreamed of. This means he is a hypocrit and a liar. Pointing out that Obama also played golf and took holidays makes no sense as a rebuttal, unless you want to show Obama campaigning in 2008 complaining about previous presidents playing golf and taking lots of holidays, and Obama promising that he wouldn't play any golf or take any holidays.

For going to maralago yes.

But in this case, these are his kids/grandkids... not the president himself.

 Chongara wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Hunting is about killing stuff for pleasure. No surprise there.

Erm... could I not feed my family from hunting?

You could I suppose, in the same way you could settle down a plot of land and start a small subsistence farm using pre-industrial methodology. However the vast majority of edible plants being planted & harvested by hand only by the member with simple tools by only the members of a single household probably falls under the umbrella of hobby gardening here in america. Similarly while blasting deer certainly can and has been a means of survival for people, here in america the vast majority of it is going to fall under a hobby. Something done for personal enjoyment, that may net you a freezer full of game meat as a nice treat. However in an age where cheap, mass produced factory farm meat can be purchased at dirt cheap prices and for minimal time & energy investment in most places folks hunting as a matter of survival is limited to a small number of edge cases.

"Hunting is about killing for pleasure" phrased in an oddly blunt way but probably applies pretty widely if not universally. Most folks going out of their way to hunt are probably doing it because they like the activity and it is about putting bullets (or arrows, whatever) into furry woodland creatures. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I'm going to have to disagree strongly with your opinion on this, as someone who's life was shaped by my father's hunting. Hunting for food isn't really a necessity for a majority of people, but it does make fiscal sense a lot of the time. I live in Iowa, where food prices, especially pork and beef, are VERY affordable, especially since I live in a town that processes it. That doesn't mean it's cheaper than hunting.

My parents are a one high school graduate, and one GED, married quite young and both from dirt-poor families. What they did have was good head for business and a good mindset on not wasting money or spending it where it wasn't needed. Part of that was hunting for much of their meat to save on money, which saves A LOT more than you think. Thousands of dollars per year for a family of 6, which allowed my father to go from working the line in a small bottling plant to owning that plant by the time he was 32. Fast forward 30 years and my parents still aren't "rich" but will never have to worry about money again. Much of that comes because a majority of the meat I ate as a child was hunted by my father. It gave him the edge to jump up to upper-middle class status.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
So why are we paying for security for his kids? THey're not public officials, nor are they children; they're grown adults. Why should the tax payers pay for their security

I think it's just a matter of practicality to make sure the direct relatives of the president aren't easy kidnapping victims.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
I look forward to your many comical posts about leftwing politicians then. yea that will happen.

This response makes absolutely no sense. I don't even know whether you're replying to my comment on Nunes informing Trump about details in to the investigation of his own administration before talking to the rest of the intel committee, or about me pointing out that the statements of a former governor, presidential candidate and current cabinet member does belong in the politics thread... because in both cases your response makes no sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
For going to maralago yes.

But in this case, these are his kids/grandkids... not the president himself.

Ah yes, fair enough. For the kids I agree there isn't an issue. Protecting them as they go about their normal lives is just the price of government.

 Easy E wrote:
AHCA only failed beacuse the "Freedom Caucus" wasn't convinced it stripped enough people of Healthcare. They want to (as Whembly put it) dismantle the regulatory system that underpins ACA and replace it with..... the wild west?

We were saved from this horrible bill by people who didn't think it was horrible enough!

The majority of Republicans may just realize the folly of the "they should have armed with us" argument by reaiing that there is a group that simply does not compromise on anything within their ranks.

Its possible Trump might actually be the master negotiator he's always claimed he is. I mean, consider this healthcare bill. There's no CBO score for the revised version. The CBO score for the previous version was horrific, with 24 million losing insurance. The thing is DOA if it could reach the senate. And it polls at 17% support. And Trump can't sell it as his own popularity is south of 40% and falling.

Trump must be an extraordinary negotiator, because despite that amazing stinker of a deal, Trump still managed to get about 6 people to sign on.

 Frazzled wrote:
Except shooting yourself is generally not a good strategy. The Repubs will employ the 51 rule and that is that.

If the only way you get to keep the filibuster is by never using it, then it's already meaningless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
The problem is that they need to energize their base... especially since they're on the defensive in the '18 Senate race. So, Co'tor might be right in that the better political calculus for Democrats is to vote 'No' and dare the Turtle to nuke the filibuster option. Then, use the '18 elections to try to win back the Senate (oh no, if RBG retires we don't want the GOP to fill that seat!)

This is basically the politics of it. Democrats can either roll over, or put up a fight and force Republicans to move to a straight 51 vote majority. The latter at least shows Democrats are trying.

The thing you're missing though, is that Democrats don't need to energise the base. Trump is in office, and he's proving to be at least as awful a president and person as he was on the campaign trail. Ryan is trying to push through a healthcare bill that will strip coverage away from 24 million people in order to fund a tax cut for rich people. The coming tax cut, which will get pass through the House and Senate, will be even worse. Democrats plainly have no problem with energising the base. The Democrats problem is that they need to prove to their base that they are as angry and active as the base wants them to be.

And remember, there is also a strong feeling among the Democratic base that this SC appointment was stolen by Republicans, who refused to allow an appointment during Obama's last year in office, in the hope that a Republican could make an appointment this term. To accept Gorsuch, to vote for him, well that'd be exactly the kind of pathetic surrender that causes much of the liberal base to distrust the Democrats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
And so the cycle begins a new, with Whembly pretending that this was not explained to him just mere days earlier.

Seriously, it is like arguing with Guy Pierce from Memento.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
AHCA.... terrible healthcare legislation or the worst possible healthcare legistlation?

Or... not healthcare at all? The only way the legislation makes any sense is to see it is as a cut to taxes on capital gains and high incomes, which is funded by massively defunding public expenditure on medicaid, insurance subsides and public health programs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
At this point, it is 100% on you and Sebster for continuing to provide a platform for him. You know exactly what's going to happen, and keep letting him hold that football, while he screams at you, "I'm not gonna yank it away this time, Charlie Brown, honest!"

No, this isn't the time you're going to have an honest debate with him. It won't be next time or the time after that or ever, ever ever.

This is 100% true. The Charlie Brown analogy is completely apt as well, because in the end, even when he knew what was going to happen, Charlie Brown always ended up trying to kick the football.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I doubt it. Trump voters are living in a separate reality than the rest of us. They're fed news from places like Fox or Breitbart, where anything and everything is the fault of the Democrats and the Republicans are the plucky underdogs of the story.

With what we've seen of the Trump presidency so far, with two of Trump's cabinet being shown to have lied about contacts with Russia, with an FBI confirmation that members of his cabinet are under investigation for colluding with Russia, with Trump pushing a healthcare plan that cuts coverage for 24 million people, slashes subsidies for millions more, and doesn't expand coverage or choice making his campaign promises a clear lie... a whole 3% of Republicans say they regret their vote.

3%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Regarding the ACA/AHCA??

Doesn't a full repeal put the GOP in a much better bargaining position for any later health care moves? Which ups the pressure on Democrats to get on board with a replacement to be passed later?

That's like putting half a tank of gas in the plane because then halfway across the captain will be in a much better bargaining position to get the passengers to pay for a refuel. As a political move there is a cynical logic to it, as a way of governing a country it is completely, totally fething bonkers. Absolutely deranged.

And yes, it was something Republicans were really talking about. The biggest issue, apart from it being perhaps a little too crazy, was that a full repeal would be filibustered in the senate. The way to make it a straight up vote was making it a budget reconciliation item, which is actually why they moved to this strategy, which effectively defunds ACA, replaces it with utter bs. This is why Republicans talk about this being the first of three prongs on healthcare reform. The other two are meant to bring in all sorts of other changes to make everyone better coverage for less. Basically it's a half-assed version of repeal and replace with something or other, like you were calling for.

Except Republicans aren't really talking about what is in those other two prongs. For the same reason they didn't commit to any healthcare plan before they won office - because their promises don't line up with their real intentions, or with reality.

Because... the principle of it isn't conservative.

"Conservative" has basically lost all meaning in US politics. There's reactionaries, like the Freedom Caucus, and there's people who want tax cuts, like most of the rest of the Republican party.

I mean, you claim to be conservative, but you've just said what you want is to pass legislation that will put a timeline on the complete dismantling of the healthcare system, in order to force people to replace it with something that you just assume will be good. That's probably the least conservative thing I can imagine.

Yes, getting rid of the mandate helps

Republicans are trying to replace the old penalty for not having insurance that encouraged healthy people to get coverage, with a new scheme that only penalises healthy people when they try to get insurance. Republicans spent six years predicting death spirals around every corner, and then their first act in healthcare on regaining power was to put in place a system to ensure that death spiral.

but that still leaves the regulatory framework (the primary driver of increased costs) on the books.

And this is fiction. Total healthcare cost increases are slower under ACA than previously. Whether ACA has caused the decline in rates increase, or whether that was happening anyway is debatable, but it remains a total fething nonsense to claim health is more expensive due to ACA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:
..I'm generally not a betting man but have a suspicion I know what the answer to this will be....

I'm betting there won't actually be much blame passing by Trump, because he doesn't actually care much about this at all. He said some glib nonsense about getting everyone healthcare and doing it for less money, because Trump is happy to tell lies about stuff he barely understands. I think if no-one had ever asked him about healthcare he probably would have been happy to just let the whole thing go away. His stupid comment that no-one knew how complicated healthcare was sums up how little he'd bothered to learn about the issue, because he simply doesn't care.

The only reason this became legislative priority #1 is because Paul Ryan talked Trump in to it. If this bill fails, likely because this bill won't pass the house, and then follow ups will be slowly killed in committee, then by that time Trump will have already moved on to things he actually cares about. Immigrants and protecting himself from accusations about ties with Russia, probably. It will hurt his relationship with Ryan, but they've been at loggerheads before, they always patch it up, due to their mutual love of tax cuts for rich people.

Why Trump Must Champion National Healthcare

Even Richard Spencer is for a more reasonable healthcare solution then the republicans(and to be fair many democrats)

Interesting to note, by this time in his presidency Obama had passed his minimum wage increase, and the massive expansion of children's health insurance (CHIP). The framework for legislation on Dodd-Frank and ACA were already in place and put in to committees, and they would be passed in the next year. After that, for basically the last 6.5 year of his presidency, Obama had no major legislative wins at all.

Meanwhile Trump has two versions of a travel ban executive order shot down by courts, and a half assed healthcare ban that looks like it won't even get through the house, and would be DOA in the senate anyway. There's talk that the framework for his tax plan hasn't even been started, and while his infrastructure bill is slated for 2018 in the hope that it will disrupt the Democrats, to this point no-one has any idea what it will even look like.

The point being that the momentum of an electoral win only lasts so long. You pass major legislation early, or you don't pass it at all. Your popularity will decline, reducing any bully pulpit you might have. You will get distracted by overseas disasters, by scandals and investigations. The opposition will learn how best to block and disrupt your efforts, and so will factions of your own party.

Trump has so far shown himself to be almost unable to move anything forward, and this is the easiest he will ever have it in Washington. If he can't get a bill close to passage now, it's possible he won't ever get one through.