• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Futurevoid

Member
PBY said:
It isn't out there because the Dems are actually doing a shit job right now, but moreso, its really expensive and hard to draft legislation and congressional offices are resource starved in a way that makes it difficult.
Click to expand...

Right and there's the problem. Sitting on the Senate floor talking about how bad/evil this bill is is just optics and bullshit. Elizabeth Warren can pound the lectern until her hands fall off but if this party doesn't have any actual legislation and a path forward to provide to the American public - then they deserve to languish in their irrelevance.

Also, I don't buy that second comment for a second. What resources are Democratic offices expending, exactly? They are not involved in any major legislative work right now as the Republicans have cut them out of this process and tax reform won't be any better.

It's been said multiple times here and it's true "We're not Trump" isn't a message that's going to win elections. Cutting out social issues isn't going to win elections. Having a functional legislative agenda that can be sold to the American people with honest to goodness economic results is what will win elections in an era where people are happily eating bullshit by the truckload. That is simply not sustainable when the results don't come in.
 
K

kirblar

Member
Futurevoid said:
Right and there's the problem. Sitting on the Senate floor talking about how bad/evil this bill is is just optics and bullshit. Elizabeth Warren can pound the lectern until her hands fall off but if this party doesn't have any actual legislation and a path forward to provide to the American public - then they deserve to languish in their irrelevance.

Also, I don't buy that second comment for a second. What resources are Democratic offices expending, exactly? They are not involved in any major legislative work right now as the Republicans have cut them out of this process and tax reform won't be any better.

It's been said multiple times here and it's true "We're not Trump" isn't a message that's going to win elections. Cutting out social issues isn't going to win elections. Having a functional legislative agenda that can be sold to the American people is what will win elections.
Click to expand...
I take it you're not familiar with how the US political system works.

You don't propose actual legislation while running because it gives the other side ammo.

The idea that we're running on "We're not Trump" in 2018 is ludicrous. No one is actually doing this.
 
P

PBY

Banned
Futurevoid said:
Right and there's the problem. Sitting on the Senate floor talking about how bad/evil this bill is is just optics and bullshit. Elizabeth Warren can pound the lectern until her hands fall off but if this party doesn't have any actual legislation and a path forward to provide to the American public - then they deserve to languish in their irrelevance.

Also, I don't buy that second comment for a second. What resources are Democratic offices expending, exactly? They are not involved in any major legislative work right now as the Republicans have cut them out of this process and tax reform won't be any better.

It's been said multiple times here and it's true "We're not Trump" isn't a message that's going to win elections. Cutting out social issues isn't going to win elections. Having a functional legislative agenda that can be sold to the American people with honest to goodness economic results is what will win elections in an era where people are happily eating bullshit by the truckload. That is simply not sustainable when the results don't come in.
Click to expand...

Hey , you're not going to get any criticism of the above from me. I've consistently said the Dems need to push a positive counter-message and do waaaaaaaaaaaay more than they're doing right now. Agree with all of the above.
 
F

Futurevoid

Member
kirblar said:
I take it you're not familiar with how the US political system works.

You don't propose actual legislation while running because it gives the other side ammo.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the condescension first of all.

Secondly, that's a laughable assertion in a time when Republicans seem to create ammo out of thin air that wins them elections and a Presidential candidate sits at a podium proposing immigration legislation that already exists. Yet you're worried about legislative "ammo".
 
smokeymicpot

smokeymicpot

Beat EviLore at pool.
Sorry for posting a local news site but Eric Garner's mom might be on Trump's side soon.

http://www.silive.com/news/2017/06/..._mo.html#incart_2box_silive-homepage-featured

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. -- Erica Garner was shocked to hear that most of the work in the federal investigation into her father's death has been done during President Donald Trump's administration.

During her meeting with Department of Justice officials Wednesday, Garner Thursday tweeted that she was told that Trump has done more in the probe than former President Barack Obama.

She also revealed that the DOJ said there would be a decision in the case in a few months, and that it won't be dragged out.

Garner, who was a big Bernie Sanders supporter, also tweeted that if she gets justice for her father, she will stand with Trump.

"Imma go on record here. If the #trump team brings this case in for justice. I'm not resisting s---, f--- what u heard. I'll be with him," she tweeted.

During Wednesday's meeting, Eric Garner's family was hoping to get news of an indictment against Officer Daniel Pantaleo, but were just given a status update on the case.
 
K

kirblar

Member
Futurevoid said:
Thanks for the condescension first of all.

Secondly, that's a laughable assertion in a time when Republicans seem to create ammo out of thin air that wins them elections and a Presidential candidate sits at a podium proposing immigration legislation that already exists. Yet you're worried about legislative "ammo".
Click to expand...
There's a reason the GOP isn't presenting a bill until they're just about to pass it! They want it getting as little sunshine as possible because it makes it easier to run again/oppose/scare off votes!
 
K

kirblar

Member
smokeymicpot said:
Sorry for posting a local news site but Eric Garner's mom might be on Trump's side soon.

http://www.silive.com/news/2017/06/..._mo.html#incart_2box_silive-homepage-featured

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. -- Erica Garner was shocked to hear that most of the work in the federal investigation into her father's death has been done during President Donald Trump's administration.

During her meeting with Department of Justice officials Wednesday, Garner Thursday tweeted that she was told that Trump has done more in the probe than former President Barack Obama.

She also revealed that the DOJ said there would be a decision in the case in a few months, and that it won't be dragged out.

Garner, who was a big Bernie Sanders supporter, also tweeted that if she gets justice for her father, she will stand with Trump.

"Imma go on record here. If the #trump team brings this case in for justice. I'm not resisting s---, f--- what u heard. I'll be with him," she tweeted.

During Wednesday's meeting, Eric Garner's family was hoping to get news of an indictment against Officer Daniel Pantaleo, but were just given a status update on the case.
Click to expand...
So she's Olaf and Jeff Sessions is Summer.
 
V

Vixdean

Member
I mean, i understand people wanting the Democrats to come forward with their own detailed health care reform bill, but they already did that. It was called the Affordable Care Act, and it is literally the only method of expanding care within' the existing private insurance system. Oh, and by the way, it worked! It covered 20+ million people, improved health insurance for everyone else, bent the cost curve, ensured Medicare's solvency for decades to come, and reduced the budget deficit to boot!

Of course, it was also excoriated by dumbasses from both sides of the ideological spectrum with zero political or health industry knowledge. So what do you want them to do now? Push out a single payer bill that will never see the floor so the right can say "see, they really are socialists!" to appease a handful of "progressives" who are still pisssed about the 2016 primaries? Fuck off with that, if you wanted the Democrats to fix healthcare, you should have voted in 2010/2014/2016.
 
F

Futurevoid

Member
kirblar said:
There's a reason the GOP isn't presenting a bill until they're just about to pass it! They want it getting as little sunshine as possible because it makes it easier to run again/oppose/scare off votes!
Click to expand...
Using one example in this instance does not inform an entire parties platform or legislative agenda. The GOP House Bill was not written with the same level of secrecy and yet was still able to pass that body despite incredible levels of unpopularity!

You need to explain to me how the Democratic party unifying behind, presenting and selling a proper ACA repair bill to the public is detrimental or provides "ammo". A bill that would stabilize the currently failing marketplaces, retain healthcare for the 20 million Americans that currently benefit from the ACA and offer improvements to further expand coverage is a perfect contrast to the 147 page dumbster fire the GOP just dumped on the country. Even if it has no chance in hell of passing.

I mean, i understand people wanting the Democrats to come forward with their own detailed health care reform bill, but they already did that. It was called the Affordable Care Act
Click to expand...
...and by their own admission it needs to be fixed and repaired. I've heard that often enough from the leaders of the party. You can't your cake and eat it to. You can't have a party readily admit that and then not provide any actual path forward for how and what that repair would entail. Medicare for all or Medicaid for all is a nice sentiment but we are years away from that in this country if it ever passes. The ACA is here, it's law. It has brought real world benefit to people. Even the morons who voted for Trump thinking he wouldn't touch their health care. Run on fixing it!

Of course, it was also excoriated by dumbasses from both sides of the ideological spectrum with zero political or health industry knowledge. So what do you want them to do now? Push out a single payer bill that will never see the floor so the right can say "see, they really are socialists!"
Click to expand...
I don't believe I ever offered that as an alternative in any of my posts.
 
K

kirblar

Member
Futurevoid said:
Using one example in this instance does not inform an entire parties platform or legislative agenda. The GOP House Bill was not written with the same level of secrecy and yet was still able to pass that body despite incredible levels of unpopularity!

You need to explain to me how the Democratic party unifying behind, presenting and selling a proper ACA repair bill to the public is detrimental or provides "ammo". A bill that would stabilize the currently failing marketplaces, retain healthcare for the 20 million Americans that currently benefit from the ACA and offer improvements to further expand coverage is a perfect contrast to the 147 page dumbster fire the GOP just dumped on the country. Even if it has no chance in hell of passing.
Click to expand...
Because giving details and specifics (DEATH PANELS!!!!!) lets your opponents twist, distort, and run against those specifics.

Do you not remember 2009?
 
L

LostMyNarbles

Member
If Democrats announce something like single payer or Medicare for All and it involves any sort of tax raise or payroll tax increase it will pretty much kill them once the GOP starts screaming that Democrats want to raise taxes. Better to keep that stuff under wraps for as long as possible.
 
C

Crocodile

Member
A) It's really, really obvious what the Generic Democratic position is on pretty much every issue is. Since the party is not a monolith you are going to get slightly different answers depending on where in the country you are and who you ask but I still don't understand what is difficult to understand or how the message is just "fuck Trump!"

B) Drafting big meaningful bills or detailed proposals when someone isn't running for something has not and has never been something I've seen frequently. Hell people very often run on ideas rather than actual legislation (see "repeal and replace but we won't tell you how"). Democrats want more people to have healthcare at lower costs. Republicans want you to have less healthcare so they can do tax cuts. What is hard to understand here?

C) To those who want $15 minimum wage, what is you answer to when someone says "That's great in a lot of places but not rural Mississippi!"? Do you just think they are lying/wrong?

D) I'm not sure there is a recognition of how much the battlefield of politics is not about policy but just "culture". I think that is something the Democratic leadership could/should have a better grasp on.

Anyway, people should be calling their Senators - even if it might be futile in the end its better than nothing.
 
F

Futurevoid

Member
kirblar said:
Because giving details and specifics (DEATH PANELS!!!!!) lets your opponents twist, distort, and run against those specifics.

Do you not remember 2009?
Click to expand...
So you're argument is Democrats are still shit at messaging or combating false narratives. At a time when the ACA is at its most popular since its passing and when there isn't a single state where the GOP health plan is above water polling wise.
 
K

kirblar

Member
Crocodile said:
A) It's really, really obvious what the Generic Democratic position is on pretty much every issue is. Since the party is not a monolith you are going to get slightly different answers depending on where in the country you are and who you ask but I still don't understand what is difficult to understand or how the message is just "fuck Trump!"

B) Drafting big meaningful bills or detailed proposals when someone isn't running for something has not and has never been something I've seen frequently. Hell people very often run on ideas rather than actual legislation (see "repeal and replace but we won't tell you how"). Democrats want more people to have healthcare at lower costs. Republicans want you to have less healthcare so they can do tax cuts. What is hard to understand here?

C) To those who want $15 minimum wage, what is you answer to when someone says "That's great in a lot of places but not rural Mississippi!"? Do you just think they are lying/wrong?

D) I'm not sure there is a recognition of how much the battlefield of politics is not about policy but just "culture". I think that is something the Democratic leadership could/should have a better grasp on.

Anyway, people should be calling their Senators - even if it might be futile in the end its better than nothing.
Click to expand...
The reason for the "BUT FUCK TRUMP" stuff is that people blaming the Clinton campaign for 100% for the loss are also under the delusion that Dems haven't seen the focus-group postmortems that the "run against Trump" campaign didn't work. (or they're not even aware they resist.)

The head of the DCCC was telling people months ago we were running on Healthcare!
Futurevoid said:
So you're argument is Democrats are still shit at messaging or combating false narratives. At a time when the ACA is at its most popular since its passing and when there isn't a single state where the GOP health plan is above water polling wise.
Click to expand...
It's very hard to combat false narratives when people are generally selfish, stupid, and short-sighted, yes. See: Brexit. People, as a collective whole, are not good at these things. It is why Direct Democracy results in horrible, contradictory policy!
 
T

Teggy

Member
Hearing they want to let Heller vote no (why wouldn't he want to vote for this great bill?!), so that leaves only 1 other allowable no.
 
B

barber

Member
A 100 hour plan means that they do have a bill that has been agreed by most of the caucus as otherwise it would be impossible (as an example of not having a previous plan in case of winning: AHCA which seems as bunch of individual measures put together in the worst and fastest way possible). Not saying the nitty gritty of the laws during campaining tends to be better as you can say: "Medicare for all" and the GOP reply with: "that will cost us X Billions per year! They are going to raise your taxes A LOT!!"
Plus most of the electorate doesnt give a single fuck about detailed plans as we could see the past election.
EDIT: Cruz's path to YES: point 4-> YIKES, that guy really wants to make his reelection campaign hard
point 3-> don't think that capping malapraxis lawsuits is going to be fun for most of the electorate
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
Republicans will run on you being a tax-and-spend liberal if you make a literal pledge to not raise taxes, Democrats should stop giving a fuck.

kirblar said:
(Is this the single-payer or public option version? Bernie & co conflating the two has resulted in a lot of confusion!)
Click to expand...
H.R.676 - Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act is the Conyers single payer bill, it's also been around since 2005 so not really Bernie's fault for conflating it :p
 
F

Futurevoid

Member
kirblar said:
It's very hard to combat false narratives when people are generally selfish, stupid, and short-sighted, yes. See: Brexit. People, as a collective whole, are not good at these things. It is why Direct Democracy results in horrible, contradictory policy!
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you in a general sense. I disagree on the substance of healthcare and the current environment in which healthcare is being presented. I'm frustrated because this is the perfect opportunity for the party to push their own narrative, their own ideas and I think that should be focused on the current law and repairing and expanding it with a public option as was originally envisioned. Especially at a time when the law is finally gaining public traction popularity wise AND we're faced with an extremely unpopular Republican alternative. That's "people as a whole" speaking pretty loudly if you ask me.

If that is the 2018 message, it's not too damned early to start. Presenting even an outline of a bill with ideas on what repair and expand would look like would be a good start.
 
K

kirblar

Member
barber said:
A 100 hour plan means that they do have a bill that has been agreed by most of the caucus as otherwise it would be impossible (as an example of not having a previous plan in case of winning: AHCA which seems as bunch of individual measures put together in the worst and fastest way possible). Not saying the nitty gritty of the laws during campaining tends to be better as you can say: "Medicare for all" and the GOP reply with: "that will cost us X Billions per year! They are going to raise your taxes A LOT!!"
Plus most of the electorate doesnt give a single fuck about detailed plans as we could see the past election.
Click to expand...
You also have 2 months to actually draft this stuff post-election.
 
T

tedrotheredro

Member
kirblar said:
So she's Olaf and Jeff Sessions is Summer.
Click to expand...

Trump is constantly trying to save a foreign prisoner, or a few hundred people's jobs, etc. It's easy to market a small event or person. Much harder to craft a policy and market that. Y'know, the thing presidents are elected to do.
 
S

Snowman Prophet of Doom

Member
Crocodile said:
A) It's really, really obvious what the Generic Democratic position is on pretty much every issue is. Since the party is not a monolith you are going to get slightly different answers depending on where in the country you are and who you ask but I still don't understand what is difficult to understand or how the message is just "fuck Trump!"

B) Drafting big meaningful bills or detailed proposals when someone isn't running for something has not and has never been something I've seen frequently. Hell people very often run on ideas rather than actual legislation (see "repeal and replace but we won't tell you how"). Democrats want more people to have healthcare at lower costs. Republicans want you to have less healthcare so they can do tax cuts. What is hard to understand here?

C) To those who want $15 minimum wage, what is you answer to when someone says "That's great in a lot of places but not rural Mississippi!"? Do you just think they are lying/wrong?

D) I'm not sure there is a recognition of how much the battlefield of politics is not about policy but just "culture". I think that is something the Democratic leadership could/should have a better grasp on.

Anyway, people should be calling their Senators - even if it might be futile in the end its better than nothing.
Click to expand...

Dems often run from their own ideals, though. See: huge losses in 2010 when many ran away from Obama and Obamacare.
 
B

BobTheFork

Member
metalslimer said:
This is going to pass.
Click to expand...

It was always going to pass.

We can go ahead and put all this into the 'no chance he becomes president' pile

Weeks and weeks of people giving no reason why 'this will never pass, stop freaking out!'


It's time we stopped looking for reasons to not worry about things.
 
A

AntraxSuicide

Banned
Futurevoid said:
I don't disagree with you in a general sense. I disagree on the substance of healthcare and the current environment in which healthcare is being presented. I'm frustrated because this is the perfect opportunity for the party to push their own narrative, their own ideas and I think that should be focused on the current law and repairing and expanding it with a public option as was originally envisioned. Especially at a time when the law is finally gaining public traction popularity wise AND we're faced with an extremely unpopular Republican alternative. That's "people as a whole" speaking pretty loudly if you ask me.

If that is the 2018 message, it's not too damned early to start. Presenting even an outline of a bill with ideas on what repair and expand would look like would be a good start.
Click to expand...

No party ever writes bills before they win. Ever. It's a bad play. You write "Medicare for All" on some copy paper and then stick it on top of a stack of blank pages, then run for office while waving the prop around. You could even set it down and angrily tap on it. It's super versatile.

If anyone asks you how you make it happen, you tell them Step 1 is getting elected.
 
B

Blader

Member
Roland_Gunner said:
Assuming Collins is the other no that means they would need a bill that both Paul and Murkowski support. That seems tough.
Click to expand...

Murkowski voted for the repeal bill in 2015 that included PP language. Granted, everyone knew that bill wasn't becoming law, but I think it's telling that Collins still voted against that.
 
B

Bam Bam Baklava

Member
tedrotheredro said:
Trump is constantly trying to save a foreign prisoner, or a few hundred people's jobs, etc. It's easy to market a small event or person. Much harder to craft a policy and market that. Y'know, the thing presidents are elected to do.
Click to expand...

I'm personally thrilled to see what Jeff Sessions' idea of "justice" is in this case. I'm sure Garner will be thrilled.
 
W

whyamihere

Banned
If only Metaphoreous were still here, he'd get a kick out of this, I think.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/fetal-homicide-bill-has-pregnant-woman-loophole-10658835

State lawmakers are scrambling to fix a fetal homicide bill that critics say has serious unintended consequences, including letting pregnant women kill people with impunity.

“The bill as drafted allows for physician-assisted suicide and allows a pregnant woman to commit homicide without consequences,” said Republican Rep. JR Hoell, who is urging Gov. Chris Sununu to veto the bill. “Although that was never the intent, that is the clear reading of the language.”

State House leaders are now planning to clarify the bill, put it back up for a vote and send a revision to Sununu.

“We’re going to fix it,” said Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, a Wolfeboro Republican. “Everybody agrees the intent was never to allow this kind of circumstance.”

Under Senate Bill 66, fetuses at certain stages of development can be considered victims of murder or manslaughter. Supporters say the change will ensure justice for women who lose a pregnancy due to an assault or a car accident, but critics warn that the measure treats fetuses like people and could erode the rights of pregnant women.

At issue is an exemption that protects doctors and women seeking abortions from fetal homicide charges. As written, the bill suggests that “any act committed by the pregnant woman” or a “physician” wouldn’t apply in cases of second-degree murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, or causing or aiding suicide.

Attorneys say the wording would be unlikely to let all pregnant women charged with homicide off the hook, due to several legal factors including a basic principle that statutes be construed to avoid an “absurd result.” But they agree the language is overly broad and not entirely clear.
Click to expand...
 
B

Blader

Member
https://twitter.com/SenDeanHeller/status/877925403381256192

Dean Heller‏Verified account
@SenDeanHeller
Follow
More
Reading the health care bill. I encourage all Nevadans to do the same - you can find the bill's text here: http://bit.ly/2rGO6xy

DC8D00YXcAEV7a1.jpg
Click to expand...

Man, that was really the best picture they could get?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4
195
27K
cireza replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
55K
DGrayson replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
How games prevent us from Crossing Map Boundaries? (2010 - 2020)
Analysis Trailer
2
1K
IbizaPocholo replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
Top Bottom