Stinkles said:

she's one of the only decent repubs imo. relatively speaking that is.

but yeah a sudden flight would be an interesting phenomenon. i'd need to see a couple more to think it's a pattern.

Click to expand...

Ether_Snake said:

The whole "OK = White Power" thing is funny, I had been seeing it done by Drake and basketball players, and people were saying it meant 666 / illuminaty stuff, lol.

Click to expand...

BoogieWoogie said:

Sure are a lot of Republicans getting out of dodge. I'm sure its just a coincidence.......

Click to expand...

PBY said:

Damn, just caught up to this weeks Slate political gabfest. They fucking ROASTED obama for this speech, and made the point well.

Its not just the Bernie wing that is upset with this.

Click to expand...

Crab said:

Basically. By the time you get a Duterte, who, again, is overwhelmingly popular amongst his countrymen, the problem happened a long time ago. Get rid if Duterte and you just get a new Duterte in his place, except now the new one has even less reason to listen to the United States, which probably means an even higher death toll. That didn't help anything; you just got to feel briefly morally superior at the cost of a lot more lives.

Click to expand...

Holmes said:

Ros-Lehtinen is retiring.

Click to expand...

BlastProcessing said:

This whole transcript is worth the read. Dickerson does a good job of staying on target and pinning Trump down.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-interview-full-transcript-face-the-nation/

JOHN DICKERSON: Let me ask you about health care -- Tucker Carlson interviewed you about six weeks ago when you were in the middle of health care negotiations. And you agreed with him that the health care bill wasn't going to help your supporters. That those who lived in rural areas, the older, were going to get hurt by that bill. And you told him--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Excuse me, the health care bill is going to help my supporters.

JOHN DICKERSON: Well, hold on. Let me just finish the question, if I may, sir--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Otherwise, I'm not going to sign it. I'm not going to do it.

JOHN DICKERSON: Well, this is why I wanted to ask you. You said to Tucker, "We will take care of our people, or I am not signing it." You said you were going to negotiate.

President Trump guarantees pre-existing condition coverage in new health care bill
Play VIDEO
President Trump guarantees pre-existing condition coverage in new health care bill
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, that's what I just said.

JOHN DICKERSON: So tell me what in the bill you've been negotiating to get--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: But let me--

JOHN DICKERSON: --in that helps your supporters. I'm just trying to get the details of how your people--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Let me just tell you.

JOHN DICKERSON: --will be helped.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Pre-existing conditions are in the bill. And I just watched another network than yours, and they were saying, "Pre-existing is not covered." Pre-existing conditions are in the bill. And I mandate it. I said, "Has to be."

JOHN DICKERSON: So--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We have, we're going to have lower premiums. And before you start there, let me just tell you something. Obamacare is dead. Obamacare right now, all the insurance companies are fleeing. Places like Tennessee have already lost half of their state with the insurance companies. They're all going. Obamacare, John, is dead. Okay, because we're being -- we're being compared to Obamacare. Just, so. Obamacare doesn't work--

JOHN DICKERSON: I just want to compare you to your own.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: One thing. No, no, it's important. I've got to compare it.

JOHN DICKERSON: No, no, but I want--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: But you were saying about Obamacare.

JOHN DICKERSON: No, but I'm not. I'm asking what--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: With Obamacare--

JOHN DICKERSON: --you're going to do.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: --the premiums are too high. The deductibles are through the roof, so you never get to use it. But more importantly, it's dead.

JOHN DICKERSON: So but in the bill, as it was analyzed, there were two problems. One, and you talked about this with Congressman Robert Aderholt, who brought you the example of the 64-year-old who under Obamacare the premiums--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: But that was a long time ago, John.

JOHN DICKERSON: But has that been fixed?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Totally fixed.

JOHN DICKERSON: How?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: How? We've made many changes to the bill. You know, this bill is--

JOHN DICKERSON: What kind though?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: --very much different than it was three weeks ago.

JOHN DICKERSON: Help us explain because there are people--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: The bill--

JOHN DICKERSON: --out there wondering what kind of changes.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Let me explain. Let me explain it to you.

JOHN DICKERSON: Okay.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: This bill is much different than it was a little while ago, okay? This bill has evolved. And we didn't have a failure on the bill. You know, it was reported like a failure. Now, the one thing I wouldn't have done again is put a timeline. That's why on the second iteration, I didn't put a timeline.

But we have now pre-existing conditions in the bill. We have -- we've set up a pool for the pre-existing conditions so that the premiums can be allowed to fall. We're taking across all of the borders or the lines so that insurance companies can compete--

JOHN DICKERSON: But that's not in--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: --nationwide.

JOHN DICKERSON: --this bill. The borders are not in--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Of course, it's in.

JOHN DICKERSON: --this bill. It's in that third bill, right, because--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: It's in the second phase.

JOHN DICKERSON: Okay.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: It's called phase one, phase two. And that's, in effect, second phase, which will get approved, which will quickly get approved.

JOHN DICKERSON: Let me--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: But let me just explain something. There will be such competition. Right now, there's no competition. There will be such competition by insurance companies so that they can get health care and the people taking care of health care.

JOHN DICKERSON: So--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: The other thing we're going to have is groups. Groups of people can negotiate. What's going to happen is the competition is going to drive down the premiums. In my opinion, much, much more than people understand.

JOHN DICKERSON: So what you've just described is the bill that you previously had said you worried wouldn't help your people. And here's why I ask. You said, "Pre-existing conditions."

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: No, there were things in the other bill, the first version, which were not as good.

JOHN DICKERSON: Okay.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: But when I watch some of the news reports, which are so unfair, and they say we don't cover pre-existing conditions, we cover it beautifully.

JOHN DICKERSON: Although--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I'll tell you who doesn't cover pre-existing conditions. Obamacare. You know why? It's dead.

JOHN DICKERSON: In one of the fixes that was--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: It's not going to be here.

JOHN DICKERSON: In one of the fixes it was discussed pre-existing was optional for the states--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Sure, in one of the fixes. And they're changing it--

JOHN DICKERSON: --oh, okay. So it'll--

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: --and changing.

JOHN DICKERSON: --be permanent?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Of course.​

Click to expand...

BlastProcessing said:

The danger here is that she could vote to kill the ACA with no repercussions. Somebody could probably offer her a sweet job in trade...

Click to expand...

ShadowSwordmaster said:

What was her stance on the AHCA?

Click to expand...

BlastProcessing said:

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I'll tell you who doesn't cover pre-existing conditions. Obamacare. You know why? It's dead.

Click to expand...

Holmes said:

Ros-Lehtinen is retiring.

Click to expand...

tbm24 said:

So does that transcript kill the States can opt out of covering pre-existing conditions part of the new bill? Honestly it's hard to understand wtf he's trying to say, but that's what I got out of the end.

Click to expand...

tbm24 said:

So does that transcript kill the States can opt out of covering pre-existing conditions part of the new bill? Honestly it's hard to understand wtf he's trying to say, but that's what I got out of the end.

Click to expand...

tbm24 said:

So does that transcript kill the States can opt out of covering pre-existing conditions part of the new bill? Honestly it's hard to understand wtf he's trying to say, but that's what I got out of the end.

Click to expand...

BlastProcessing said:

She is a Tuesday Group moderate. She was against it.

Click to expand...

Ben Wikler‏Verified account
@benwikler

Folks don't realize how close the GOP is to repealing the affordable care act right now. 1/

Unlike last time, they have the Freedom Caucus—and not only that, the Koch brothers and conservative movement apparatus is on board 2/

Simply because there's so damn much else going on, and because Trump isn't talking about it, this isn't the by-far-#1 story yet—but 3/

if the GOP does pull the votes together, they'll move very quickly. And the Senate could move faster than one would imagine. Moreover, 4/

The GOP has something to pull in moderates: $150 billion. To fund "high risk pools," which don't work, but that's a lot of dough. 5/

House GOP leadership is spending this weekend intensively negotiating to get moderate Rs on board. They're close. 6/

The only thing that will stop the House moderates from shredding health care is massive pressure from their constituents. Pronto. 7/

House Republicans need to feel that they'll lose their jobs if they vote for this bill. Full stop. And by rights, they SHOULD over this.

The new AHCA bill is even worse than the old one. Shreds protections for people with preexisting conditions. Vicious, dangerous, needless.

Click to expand...

I think this whole situation is McConnell's worst nightmare. But he can replace the bill with whatever he wants if it reaches the Senate.

Before the previous almost-vote, the word was that he'd basically finished negotiating a Senate bill & was ready to jam it through

Click to expand...

Agree, but I'd much rather not find out

Click to expand...

Plinko said:

So after that whole thing, Trump promised they won't allow higher charges for pre-existing conditions?

Click to expand...

balladofwindfishes said:

A GOP confident they'll get the votes to pass it wouldn't have folded like a wet napkin an hour after Pelosi threatened the shut down.

Because if they were organized enough to pass the repeal, they'd be organized enough to pass the budget without the Democrats, and so her threat would have been meaningless.

Click to expand...

Kevinroc said:

From a few days ago. I do think this twitter thread can apply to this thread.

https://twitter.com/benwikler/status/858117904679800833



(Someone asked about the Senate)



(And then a discussion about if it could get the votes in the Senate. With someone saying they don't think it could get 50.)

Click to expand...

balladofwindfishes said:

A GOP confident they'll get the votes to pass it wouldn't have folded like a wet napkin an hour after Pelosi threatened the shut down.

Because if they were organized enough to pass the repeal, they'd be organized enough to pass the budget without the Democrats, and so her threat would have been meaningless.

Click to expand...

Poodlestrike said:

Yeah, this is them trying to get moderates on board by claiming that they'll be a handful of no votes against the overwhelming GOP consensus. Trying to convince people to back the "winning team."

Really doubt it'll work.

Still, if we need a little harmless fearmongering to keep people engaged on the issue I'm okay with that.

Click to expand...

ShadowSwordmaster said:

Trump continues to be ignorant.

Click to expand...

Bam Bam Baklava said:

The only people saying "they are close" are liberal activists, not Hill reporters.

Click to expand...

Poodlestrike said:

Yeah, this is them trying to get moderates on board by claiming that they'll be a handful of no votes against the overwhelming GOP consensus. Trying to convince people to back the "winning team."

Really doubt it'll work.

Still, if we need a little harmless fearmongering to keep people engaged on the issue I'm okay with that.

Click to expand...

Emerson said:

Even then, there's absolutely no fucking way the Senate passes this bill.

Click to expand...

Emerson said:

They aren't close. They're just literally taking the administration at their word saying they've got all the players on board despite all the evidence that they don't.

Absolutely nothing wrong with encouraging people to call their congressmen, but the hysteria isn't helpful.

If they do somehow manage to pass it, they will be savaged in the midterms. Even then, there's absolutely no fucking way the Senate passes this bill.

Click to expand...

Crab said:

This is some pretty casual imperialist nonsense.

Click to expand...

AntraxSuicide said:

You could just say you'll pray for them, it's the same sentiment.

Click to expand...

Wilsongt said:

Trump inviting Duterte to the White House

Click to expand...

Crab said:

No. I'm pointing out, quite accurately, arresting Duterte would be a stupid idea that would actively make the situation worse. That doesn't mean we do nothing, and there are many things that could feasibly be done - increasing asylum acceptances, funding Filipino NGOs, targeted sanctions on members of the regime, offering to reduce US subsidies for markets the Philippines is an exporter for in return for reforms, and so on. Instead, you're proposing some feelgood policy that demonstrates no understanding of the situation and leaves more people dead by the end of it. Mind you, that's in line with most of your policy ideas, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.

Click to expand...

AntraxSuicide said:

You could just say you'll pray for them, it's the same sentiment.

Click to expand...

Crab said:

No. I'm pointing out, quite accurately, arresting Duterte would be a stupid idea that would actively make the situation worse. That doesn't mean we do nothing, and there are many things that could feasibly be done - increasing asylum acceptances, funding Filipino NGOs, targeted sanctions on members of the regime, offering to reduce US subsidies for markets the Philippines is an exporter for in return for reforms, and so on. Instead, you're proposing some feelgood policy that demonstrates no understanding of the situation and leaves more people dead by the end of it. Mind you, that's in line with most of your policy ideas, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.

Click to expand...

ArkhamFantasy said:

You think we're so innocent?

Click to expand...