What's funny to me is The Donald's blaming the Democrats for the failure of his plan to pass on Democrats and he didn't need 1 Democrat vote for it to pass. His party rejected him.
No they didn't.
They didn't want to attach their name to a bad bill.
Many of those members of Congress swept into power because of the promise of an Obamacare repeal. Now they would look like hypocrites if they voted for an Obamacare lite bill that is a worse bill but isn't a full repeal. So they cared about their own political future and promise to their constituents. They also know very well that Obamacare can still fail on its own if you cut off its funding sources and starve the beast.
Translation; They abandoned him another form of rejected. For whatever reasons they didn't go along with Donald.
There will be consequences. Who will be hurt most, Donald or those who voted no, is unknown
Trump has a death grip hold on his base but there is a faction within GOP that has a foot hold in that same base... the tea party or whatever they're called now. They're the only GOP that, if speaking politically, doesn't have to care about what Trump say about them.
I don't know what happened to the GOP health bill but could it be because tea party wouldn't go along with it?
I heard something on AM Joy This morning that makes some sense. She was talking about the book A Colony In A Nation , paraphrasing,
The colony now watching the nation get it's way, Barack Obama being president was the worst thing that ever happened, when we get this back, when we take our country back it's going to be great.
Well they took their country back, the element that use to think that way and it's a disaster. This health care thing working class White people panicked. They were like oh, no don't do this to us.
I think Donald thought, even though people around him didn't, the bill would pass. The reality of TrumpCare is sinking in on the base he has the death grip on. Sooner or later they'll realize his policies are geared to benefit the wealthy.
They ain't seen nothing yet. Wait until they see his tax reforms. _________________ Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 33474 Location: Long Beach, California
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:26 am Post subject:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Quote:
White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said on Sunday that President Donald Trump's tax plan would include both a border tax and middle class tax cuts that the administration will aim to sell to moderate Democrats as well as Republicans.
Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Priebus scolded hardline conservative Republicans for refusing to get behind the healthcare bill pushed by Trump and House of Representatives leaders, and suggested that the administration may decide to bypass them in future legislative fights.
Interesting. Set aside the question of whether it is feasible to lure votes from moderate Democrats. I can imagine how moderate Democrats would support specific features of a Trump plan, but it's hard to imagine how his overall plan could be sold to more than a handful of the most conservative Democrats. Anyway, the fascinating subtext is that either (1) Trump considers the Freedom Caucus to be a lost cause, or (2) Trump is still trying to bully them.
In regards to the Republicans, I think the party is so fractured I'm not sure they can agree on anything. The fact is that, despite voting for Republicans into Congress, most people in this country still lean left, they just don't get that they do. So policy by policy they want middle-left or left policies. So when Trump or anyone tries to go too far to the right, they slowly lose votes, but when they try to become too moderate in their own party going to the left... they slowly lose votes. There isn't a nice center to be had on the big ticket issues (like healthcare, taxes, campaign finance reform, infrastructure, trade), or at least it seems. If Trump wants a win, go after Dodd-Frank... I think they could get rid of that in a second. It's the items that don't affect day-to-day American lives that the constituency won't care about.
I also think that people are tired of seeing the big guys get all the breaks. For whatever reason, they saw Trump as a populist candidate who would stand up to the big guys. So, as to a tax plan, if it looks like more of trickle down economics giving the rich and corporations all the breaks, they are going to have the same problem as they did with Healthcare. This makes no mention of the fact that to overcome the tax breaks they lost by not passing their healthcare bill, they are going to have to make their tax plan even more pro-1%, I doubt it passes with GOP support.
Now, getting to the Democrats, they aren't going to give him an easy way out. A moderate bill isn't going to get Dem support. He will have to go full left (like single payer with healthcare left) if he wants to the dems on board. Unlike the Republicans, if Trump puts out a democratic bill, they'll probably vote for it, but, make no mistake, it will be a democratic bill.
There is danger in that too... supporting anything Trump does. His political capital is shot. Helping him with one bill, even if you gain something in the short run, may hurt you more in the long run by giving him political capital to use on things you don't agree with. Of course, this was McConnell's entire philosophy the last 8 years, which I why almost nothing got done in Washington at all. _________________ LakersGround's Terms of Service
So on March 7, just hours after Ryan unveiled a plan that confirmed its worst fears, the House Freedom Caucus rushed to devise a counterstrategy. The few dozen true believers knew that pressure from House leaders and President Donald Trump to fall in line would be immense and they were intent on not getting boxed in.
In a conference room in the Rayburn House Office Building, the group met that evening and made a secret pact. No member would commit his vote before consulting with the entire group — not even if Trump himself called to ask for an on-the-spot commitment. The idea, hatched by Freedom Caucus Vice Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), was to bind them together in negotiations and ensure the White House or House leaders could not peel them off one by one.
Twenty-eight of the group's roughly three dozen members took the plunge.
Three weeks later, Republican leaders, as many as 25 votes short of passage, were forced to pull their bill from the House floor.
Quote:
Freedom Caucus members told the White House they distrusted Ryan because he doesn’t listen to their concerns. They refused to work with him, going around his back to negotiate with the White House. Little Trump did to woo them worked because the group always wanted more, White House officials and GOP leadership insiders said. They were buoyed by outside groups rooting them on, and didn't fear the White House's fury because the law was unpopular — and, increasingly, so was the president.
"There was this huge, deep distrust," one senior administration official said. "No matter what you offered them, or what you said, someone was unhappy with you. The level of distrust in the House ranks is far more than has been reported."
Quote:
Some caucus members struggled with the strategy, wanting to repeal Obamacare but furious that Ryan’s proposal didn’t go far enough. A few felt obligated to vote “yes” to back Trump, but never switched because they didn’t get the go-ahead from the band of ideological purists.
During a last-minute Friday afternoon plea from Vice President Mike Pence, members including Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.) and even Meadows were visibly upset, sources said. But if some were starting to crack, they never got the chance. Ryan pulled the bill, and many are now pinning the debacle on the Freedom Caucus.
Quote:
The members were also buttressed by outside forces. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) repeatedly showed up to Freedom Caucus meetings to remind members that they could take down the bill if they stuck together. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) met privately with caucus members to explain his issues with the bill — though he stopped short of telling them how to vote, sources said. And Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) called at least a dozen conservative House members before the planned vote to urge them to hold firm.
Outside groups also cheered them on. The powerful Heritage Foundation, which has links to the White House, as well as Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers network, which has deep ties among members, frequently encouraged Freedom Caucus members to stand their ground. The deep-pocketed groups offered to start a seven-figure war chest to defend members who voted against the plan.
At times, the Freedom Caucus pact showed cracks. At a bill-signing ceremony at the White House, Trump pulled aside Freedom Caucus member Jim Bridenstine and implored him to vote for the bill. The Oklahoma congressman flipped his position that day. Trump also was able to win over Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas), multiple sources said. And Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) offered his vote after a phone call with the president.
That wasn’t enough. GOP leaders, who lost just over a dozen centrist and moderate Republicans, needed at least half the group if not more to pass the bill. They weren’t anywhere near that.
Quote:
On Friday afternoon, just hours before the scheduled vote, Freedom Caucus members gathered at the Capitol Hill Club to get their bearings and rally when Vice President Mike Pence walked in unannounced. He pleaded with the group, saying Trump’s entire agenda depended on this vote. Pence told them he knew where they were coming from and begged them to trust him, a stalwart conservative, that this was the best repeal bill they could get.
Half of the group was moved by his personal appeal; the other half, recalcitrant, sources at the meeting said. Meadows, they said, was plainly distressed that he had to choose between the president he admires and the group he leads.
Despite the agonizing, the Freedom Caucus had already slammed the door. Just before that meeting started, Ryan had pulled Meadows off the House floor to check in one last time: Would the caucus back the bill or not? Meadows said “no.”
Ryan then headed to the White House to deliver Trump the bad news.
I was thinking about this. This is going to be a tug of war between the new 'tea party' or freedom caucus vs Trump who have the same base... 2018 will tell loud
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 10:09 am Post subject:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
I get that, but no one is fueling the people who showed up with the gun in the first place. Calling someone who came to kill you a jerk isn't putting you on some path to justifying them wanting to kill you. At some point, we just have to stop pretending that there's some common ground with people who either don't believe in the right to exist of some others, or with people who can look you in the face and tell you they aren't like that, but they sure do love the fiscal policy, so sorry, they're with the bigots.
If there isn't any common ground, all of us, including you, are screwed. This isn't a political zombie apocalypse. These people were in America before 2009. So were you.
Sure, and people on both sides of the Mason Dixon line were Americans prior to 1861 too. The simple fact is that the left has played a placate strategy for years with a growing, virulent xenophobic movement that is intractable in their beliefs and are on record that getting ninety percent of their way is treason, and that when they were in the minority. At some point, the facts are the facts, and you need to address them. The middle and the left have nothing to offer this movement that they want other than our complete failure. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 10:27 am Post subject:
the association wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
the association wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
If there isn't any common ground, all of us, including you, are screwed. This isn't a political zombie apocalypse. These people were in America before 2009. So were you.
Fortunately, a zombie apocalypse isn't necessary in this case. We've all seen enough to recognize the inevitable demographic shift that will light the way, rather than a mass movement of intolerant low information voters coming to their senses.
I can make my own arguments just fine. I don't need your help illustrating them.
Maybe in a local workers comp. dispute, but evidently not when it comes to the matter at hand ...
That's not ok. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Hard to say this.. I don't think Trump is as evil as the Tea Party is..
there ya go. you're starting to see the big picture. actually he is as evil as they are. but they are just as evil as well.
It's both, not either or.
People still only think about the president, since that's the most notable seat. But we dont have that type of setup in america where the president runs everything. It's both pres. and congress.
If there isn't any common ground, all of us, including you, are screwed. This isn't a political zombie apocalypse. These people were in America before 2009. So were you.
Fortunately, a zombie apocalypse isn't necessary in this case. We've all seen enough to recognize the inevitable demographic shift that will light the way, rather than a mass movement of intolerant low information voters coming to their senses.
I can make my own arguments just fine. I don't need your help illustrating them.
Maybe in a local workers comp. dispute, but evidently not when it comes to the matter at hand ...
That's not ok.
I apologize for the chippiness, 24 ... warning accepted ...
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 11:18 am Post subject:
the association wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
the association wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
the association wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
If there isn't any common ground, all of us, including you, are screwed. This isn't a political zombie apocalypse. These people were in America before 2009. So were you.
Fortunately, a zombie apocalypse isn't necessary in this case. We've all seen enough to recognize the inevitable demographic shift that will light the way, rather than a mass movement of intolerant low information voters coming to their senses.
I can make my own arguments just fine. I don't need your help illustrating them.
Maybe in a local workers comp. dispute, but evidently not when it comes to the matter at hand ...
That's not ok.
I apologize for the chippiness, 24 ... warning accepted ...
Thanks. I disagree with AH, but on the merits. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Good summation of the Russia investigation. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Hard to say this.. I don't think Trump is as evil as the Tea Party is..
You're actually right. As obnoxious and deplorable Trump is, the Koch brothers and the Tea Party are pure evil. _________________ “Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.”
― Isaac Asimov
In regards to the Republicans, I think the party is so fractured I'm not sure they can agree on anything. The fact is that, despite voting for Republicans into Congress, most people in this country still lean left, they just don't get that they do.
1. I don't think that the GOP is anywhere near as fractured as you suggest. However, the GOP leadership is less than competent. That's the lesson from the Republicare debacle. I wouldn't be surprised if Obamacare gets gutted next week, and I would be surprised if it gets to September without being gutted.
2. It is an article of faith among the GOP that America is a "center-right" country. I would quibble with that terminology (center-right compared to what?), but the fact remains that the GOP is even more dominant at the state and local level than at the federal level. I think that the painful reality is that people who vote are more conservative than the population as a whole.
Sure, and people on both sides of the Mason Dixon line were Americans prior to 1861 too. The simple fact is that the left has played a placate strategy for years with a growing, virulent xenophobic movement that is intractable in their beliefs and are on record that getting ninety percent of their way is treason, and that when they were in the minority. At some point, the facts are the facts, and you need to address them. The middle and the left have nothing to offer this movement that they want other than our complete failure.
We're beating a dead horse, but I'll give it one more whack.
I think that you and some of the other posters are more concerned with justifying your reaction to the right than with the specific points that I'm making. But I don't fault you for the way that you are reacting to the right. The right had the tea party protests and eight years of obstructionism, and now the left has the resistance and the prospect of eight years of obstructionism (hopefully less than that). I'm on board with that. I said a long time ago that I hoped the Dems would filibuster Gorsuch and force McConnell to invoke the nuclear option.
But where does this leave us as a country?
I've made these same points to a variety of my friends -- who cover the full spectrum of political views -- in recent weeks. Curiously, it seems to be the conservatives who are quicker to acknowledge the problem. The liberals have a lot more anger right now, after eight years of obstructionism in the opposite direction. In the end, though, even my liberal friends have acknowledged that the country cannot operate with a political system driven by revenge.
WASHINGTON ―While the nation was fixated on the meltdown of Trumpcare, the Donald Trump administration quietly appointed a former conservative think-tank staffer to head the Civil Rights Office at the Department of Health and Human Services, a move LGBTQ advocates fear will undermine the same civil rights protections the office is supposed to enforce.
The civil rights advocates are condemning the appointment of Roger Severino, a former Heritage Foundation staffer, who has argued that same-sex marriage threatens religious liberty and that civil rights protections should not extend to transgender patients.
“This appointment is horrifying,” said Jennifer Pizer, law and policy director for Lambda Legal, which advocates for LGBTQ equality. “It is going to have a serious, probably devastating impact on LGBT people.”
Sure, and people on both sides of the Mason Dixon line were Americans prior to 1861 too. The simple fact is that the left has played a placate strategy for years with a growing, virulent xenophobic movement that is intractable in their beliefs and are on record that getting ninety percent of their way is treason, and that when they were in the minority. At some point, the facts are the facts, and you need to address them. The middle and the left have nothing to offer this movement that they want other than our complete failure.
We're beating a dead horse, but I'll give it one more whack.
I think that you and some of the other posters are more concerned with justifying your reaction to the right than with the specific points that I'm making. But I don't fault you for the way that you are reacting to the right. The right had the tea party protests and eight years of obstructionism, and now the left has the resistance and the prospect of eight years of obstructionism (hopefully less than that). I'm on board with that. I said a long time ago that I hoped the Dems would filibuster Gorsuch and force McConnell to invoke the nuclear option.
But where does this leave us as a country?
I've made these same points to a variety of my friends -- who cover the full spectrum of political views -- in recent weeks. Curiously, it seems to be the conservatives who are quicker to acknowledge the problem. The liberals have a lot more anger right now, after eight years of obstructionism in the opposite direction. In the end, though, even my liberal friends have acknowledged that the country cannot operate with a political system driven by revenge.
Wanting everyone to have adequate healthcare is not motivated by revenge.
Wanting marriage equality is not motivated by revenge.
Wanting people to have equal access to the voting booth is not motivated by revenge.
Wanting women to have reproductive choices over their own bodies and lives is not motivated by revenge.
Wanting to save the climate and the earth? Not motivated by revenge.
Wanting all children to have access to quality education, and affordable higher education? Not motivated by revenge.
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52654 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:53 pm Post subject:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
I've made these same points to a variety of my friends -- who cover the full spectrum of political views -- in recent weeks. Curiously, it seems to be the conservatives who are quicker to acknowledge the problem. The liberals have a lot more anger right now, after eight years of obstructionism in the opposite direction. In the end, though, even my liberal friends have acknowledged that the country cannot operate with a political system driven by revenge.
1. So your conservative friends agree with you that the liberals are the problem in regards to moving forward . . . shocking.
2. Liberals aren't advocating obstructionism. Obstructionism is the act of completely blocking everything the opposition puts out simply for the sake of division. That is what the Republicans did over the Obama administration. Dems are simply resisting policies that are damaging, unreasonable and based on inherent bias. If Trump and the GOP put forth anything productive that would benefit the general population, as a Democrat I would support such action if it was a reasonable proposition and I believe the elected Democrats would as well. That's a very different approach than the GOPs insistence on stopping Obama and the Dems every step of the way.
You keep pretending that what the Left is doing at the moment is exactly the same as what the Right did over the previous 8 years, and that just couldn't be further from the truth. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29281 Location: La La Land
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 2:22 pm Post subject:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
I've made these same points to a variety of my friends -- who cover the full spectrum of political views -- in recent weeks. Curiously, it seems to be the conservatives who are quicker to acknowledge the problem. The liberals have a lot more anger right now, after eight years of obstructionism in the opposite direction. In the end, though, even my liberal friends have acknowledged that the country cannot operate with a political system driven by revenge.
Politics has always operated in the fashion that you describe "revenge".
It's cyclical. Very rarely does 1 party carry the Presidency for more than 8 years (when you look historically). And when a new party comes in, they work to undermine the other party and advance their own platform.
In the United States' past the biggest deciding issues have been related to morality (i.e.. civil rights movement, womens right movement).
But now, I think the biggest issue isn't related to emotion (revenge). Or abstract ideals (morality).
Now the deciding factor for party affiliation is, truth vs alternative truth. And the biggest issue in the country is income/wealth inequality. And the truth is supply side, trickle-down economics doesn't work for the majority (who Democracies are supposed to represent). Supply side, trickle-down economics monetizes greed. But it also encourages the Tragedy of the Commons.
Voters in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan got scammed by a con artist. That's the new variable to the cyclical equation I explained above.
Middle and lower class white voters in swing states chose alternative truth (powered by Russian bots). And now they will deal with the effects of that for 4 years.
Equality for all during the civil/women's rights movements was the correct answer. The best answer for our country now is truth (not alternative truth).
Bill Maher explained it well.
Ignorance to facts is the biggest threat to our democracy moving forward. Not the cyclical 2-party dynamics we've seen since...I don't know FDR's 4 term Presidency. _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Sun Mar 26, 2017 2:44 pm Post subject:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Sure, and people on both sides of the Mason Dixon line were Americans prior to 1861 too. The simple fact is that the left has played a placate strategy for years with a growing, virulent xenophobic movement that is intractable in their beliefs and are on record that getting ninety percent of their way is treason, and that when they were in the minority. At some point, the facts are the facts, and you need to address them. The middle and the left have nothing to offer this movement that they want other than our complete failure.
We're beating a dead horse, but I'll give it one more whack.
I think that you and some of the other posters are more concerned with justifying your reaction to the right than with the specific points that I'm making. But I don't fault you for the way that you are reacting to the right. The right had the tea party protests and eight years of obstructionism, and now the left has the resistance and the prospect of eight years of obstructionism (hopefully less than that). I'm on board with that. I said a long time ago that I hoped the Dems would filibuster Gorsuch and force McConnell to invoke the nuclear option.
But where does this leave us as a country?
I've made these same points to a variety of my friends -- who cover the full spectrum of political views -- in recent weeks. Curiously, it seems to be the conservatives who are quicker to acknowledge the problem. The liberals have a lot more anger right now, after eight years of obstructionism in the opposite direction. In the end, though, even my liberal friends have acknowledged that the country cannot operate with a political system driven by revenge.
I get your point, and in the absence of a distinct, definable difference in the ideology of the two groups, I would totally agree. I do notice however that a lot of conservatives are perfectly willing NOW to, for example, admit the stonewalling of Obama's supreme Court nomination was both wrong and also leads to breaking the system, but of course their solution is for the Democrats to "do the right thing" and go along with Gorsuch.
It is the very core of the right wing strategic thinking. Obstruct when in the minority, and exploit the Democrats willingness to play within the rules and even try to find any compromise, but then when in power scream bloody murder about obstructionist Democrats. And again, the coincidental willingness to navel gaze when it is the Democrats in the obstruction mode is telling.
FWIW, that wasn't about you AH. My disagreements with you is not about justification of obstructionism from a partisan perspective. It is about the real pragmatic belief that there is no one on the right to work with, and ultimately, they are going to have to simply beat them electorally. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
[Tolerance] is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
Sums it up perfectly. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Sure, and people on both sides of the Mason Dixon line were Americans prior to 1861 too. The simple fact is that the left has played a placate strategy for years with a growing, virulent xenophobic movement that is intractable in their beliefs and are on record that getting ninety percent of their way is treason, and that when they were in the minority. At some point, the facts are the facts, and you need to address them. The middle and the left have nothing to offer this movement that they want other than our complete failure.
We're beating a dead horse, but I'll give it one more whack.
I think that you and some of the other posters are more concerned with justifying your reaction to the right than with the specific points that I'm making. But I don't fault you for the way that you are reacting to the right. The right had the tea party protests and eight years of obstructionism, and now the left has the resistance and the prospect of eight years of obstructionism (hopefully less than that). I'm on board with that. I said a long time ago that I hoped the Dems would filibuster Gorsuch and force McConnell to invoke the nuclear option.
But where does this leave us as a country?
I've made these same points to a variety of my friends -- who cover the full spectrum of political views -- in recent weeks. Curiously, it seems to be the conservatives who are quicker to acknowledge the problem. The liberals have a lot more anger right now, after eight years of obstructionism in the opposite direction. In the end, though, even my liberal friends have acknowledged that the country cannot operate with a political system driven by revenge.
anyone with a brain knows you can't have a working system if you have both sides in revenge mode. the issue here is, are the dems in revenge mode? or are the dems in "dont agree with the nonsense: mode? There's a huge difference.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
