• 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 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher

Status
Not open for further replies.

watershed

Banned
New talking point from the Trumpsters in my orbit: Trump is going to pardon everyone anyways, so the investigation should just end. It’s a waste of taxpayer money!

Only the first half of that is true: he is definitely gonna try to pardon everyone. He doesn't care about legal drama, he thrives off it. He will pardon everyone if he's still president when the convictions go down.
 

Blader

Member
Only the first half of that is true: he is definitely gonna try to pardon everyone. He doesn't care about legal drama, he thrives off it. He will pardon everyone if he's still president when the convictions go down.

I actually don't think he will pardon everyone. Flynn, Kushner, and Don Jr. for sure. But I think if Manafort is charged with something, he won't step in to save him. Trump obstructed justice and has inadvertently risked his presidency to intervene on Flynn's behalf, whereas he has spent the year pretending like he barely knows who Manafort even is.
 

Hubbl3

Unconfirmed Member
New talking point from the Trumpsters in my orbit: Trump is going to pardon everyone anyways, so the investigation should just end. It's a waste of taxpayer money!

Did you ask them "Pardon everyone from what?"

I imagine the mental gymnastics that would result from that would be something else.
 

Zolo

Member
New talking point from the Trumpsters in my orbit: Trump is going to pardon everyone anyways, so the investigation should just end. It’s a waste of taxpayer money!

1. State Charges
2. Not yet challenged if a president can pardon themselves. (I'd wager the current Supreme Court would rule against it)
 
Has anyone who has gotten a presidential pardon been convicted by state governments? I know it's possible but it doesn't seem like there have been attempts.
 

dramatis

Member
Has anyone who has gotten a presidential pardon been convicted by state governments? I know it's possible but it doesn't seem like there have been attempts.
Constitutional scholars and law professors are probably having a really exciting time because now they get to see how all these previously untested things might be tested in the courts.

Not to say that they're ecstatic, but it's very interesting times for the US law world.
 

Diablos

Member
So the last we heard re: repeal was no action this week, it would have to pass next week. McConnell was “less than commital” on bringing up the bill despite much enthusiasm from other Republicans in the Senate. McCain can’t seem to make up his damn mind even though this process is flying in the face of the reason that made him abandon skinny repeal. Paul Ryan will pass the bill if the Senate does. Some Republicans are paranoid that block grants will be used for single payer in blue states, even though that’s really not going to be possible but they’re introducing amendments in the House to curb it anyway because they’re incredibly dumb. Rand Paul is still a wildcard but history suggests he will vote with his party anyway. Oh and the bipartisan fix has been shut down.

Did I miss anything?

I just wonder if Mitch was less than commital in terms of it just being too early or if he doesn’t want to bring it up, period. If you’re trying to twist Joe Manchin’s arm you either don’t have the votes or you might and you’re just being cocky and overzealous.
 

Hopfrog

Member
1. State Charges
2. Not yet challenged if a president can pardon themselves. (I'd wager the current Supreme Court would rule against it)

A system in which the President can pardon himself would be an absurdity. Even the originalists would have to concede that there is no way the founders intended the President to have the ability to be functionally above the law.
 

Blader

Member
A system in which the President can pardon himself would be an absurdity. Even the originalists would have to concede that there is no way the founders intended the President to have the ability to be functionally above the law.

Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito will bend in any direction they need to to protect Trump.
 

Random Human

They were trying to grab your prize. They work for the mercenary. The masked man.
I only hope some of Manafort's extensive crimes took place in New York. Unless I've misunderstood how Schneiderman would get involved, in which case I hope they took place everywhere.
 
I don't think fear of racists should affect our policy choices, except maybe for policies that involve restricting racism.

The second point is literally the economic anxiety argument. You get that, right? It's logically extensible to banning all immigration.

That's why I was discussing actual negative externalities instead of perceived ones.

Yes I understand, that train of thought can be extended out to stupid conclusions. I'm not interested in doing that though. I'm interested in making sure that if/when borders are opened the labor isn't exploited and that these resources benefit everyone and not just the wealthy. Similar to how globalization is beneficial but currently benefits the weathier more. I'm not interested in stopping globalization, but refining it.

I'm for an open border policy, I'm just wondering if their are better or worse ways to implement it
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
LOL at these independent groups putting out reports on the healthcare bill. There is zero way anybody who votes for it can pretend they didn't know details.
 

Diablos

Member
How fucked is medicaid/Medicare if this bill is passed?
Medicaid is going to be worse off than it was pre-ACA if this garbage passes.

I don’t believe the bill touches Medicare but lots of people are on Medicaid because it suits them better than Medicare, so if this bill becomes law and interferes with that I don’t know how that will impact Medicare
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Cassidy is going straightforward with the lies that "more people will have coverage." Just insanity at this point.

Also, Rand Paul just destroyed the bill for a few minutes on TV.
 

Blader

Member
Cassidy is going straightforward with the lies that "more people will have coverage." Just insanity at this point.

Also, Rand Paul just destroyed the bill for a few minutes on TV.

More people will have coverage, but please pay no attention to whatever the CBO says about coverage.
 

RaidenZR

Member
Cassidy is going straightforward with the lies that "more people will have coverage." Just insanity at this point.

Also, Rand Paul just destroyed the bill for a few minutes on TV.

Can you summarize what his reasons for opposition are? I'm just still expecting him to flip so I'm curious what his statements were about at this stage.
 

Zukkoyaki

Member
Cassidy is 100% focused on himself here. He wants to be the guy who revived the repeal effort and got rid of the ACA sooooo badly. Complete tunnel vision and a complete lack of shame.
 

kirblar

Member
Cassidy is going straightforward with the lies that "more people will have coverage." Just insanity at this point.

Also, Rand Paul just destroyed the bill for a few minutes on TV.
Rand Paul translation: "You haven't flipped McCain and I don't think you're going to"
 

Zolo

Member
Cassidy is going straightforward with the lies that "more people will have coverage." Just insanity at this point.

This is why I think there should be punishments for government officials lying. If I remember right, there was even that one congress man that asked Comey if it was a crime to lie to the press during one of his hearings who went on and lied to the press right after.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Can you summarize what his reasons for opposition are? I'm just still expecting him to flip so I'm curious what his statements were about at this stage.

He was on Fox and Friends and said he would "vote for repeal, but cannot vote for something that is not really repeal."
 

Teggy

Member
Yeah, I mean Paul's schtick is really, "this bill is not bad enough for me to vote for. " He's not a no because he thinks people are going to get hurt, he just wants to be his purely libertarian self.
 

RaidenZR

Member
Cassidy is 100% focused on himself here. He wants to be the guy who revived the repeal effort and got rid of the ACA sooooo badly. Complete tunnel vision and a complete lack of shame.

He was on Fox and Friends and said he would "vote for repeal, but cannot vote for something that is not really repeal."

Thanks. I figured it was the "This doesn't go far enough..." angle.

Basically. Didn't Paul vote for the Skinny Repeal shit the first time?

Yeah he did.
 
It's worth noting that while Paul absolutely does vote with his party most of the time, his political currency of choice is the appearance of distance from "mainstream republicans," and this is a really good opportunity for him to rack up a lot of it. It's a deeply unpopular bill that would destroy his state, and it might not even pass anyway? That's a lot of what he likes to see.

Besides, his name alone makes him mostly primary-proof.

Didn't research show straight-up repeal would actually be better than the bills Republicans have been trying to pass?

Yeah. Straight repeal doesn't fuck over pre-ACA Medicaid funding like all of these other ones.
 

tuxfool

Banned
These interviews about the new healthcare bill are loony tunes.

a small sample:

DKK8h9pUEAAzZxx.jpg


another one:

DKK8h-xVAAAHXly.jpg

nice circular logic.
 
Call him Rand because there's only one Paul. Rand doesn't even have "it's happening", "Bunker", or "Sad loser chair", meme's to show for his last name.
 
mfw you compare your bill to two people driving off a cliff.

I think he's comparing Obamacare to the Thelma and Louise car, and Graham Cassidy to a hypothetical other car that's driving alongside them that they have to jump into even though it's on fire and apparently keeping pace with the cliff-divers which doesn't say GREAT things about it?
 

studyguy

Member
Not surprising. Even most Republicans think it's a dick move to screw over dreamers.

Sure that's safe to safe till you recall Trump voters were literally that 30% tea party type fringe who were adamantly opposed to it initially. It's like the voter base for Trump is completely vapid on the issues so long as their commander in chief gives it the orange thumbs up or something. Shocking
not shocking
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom