If they don't have the votes to pass as if it was normal procedure they don't have the votes to change the rules. As such they are not going to pursue it unless she is ultimately the only roadblock.
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
If they don't have the votes to pass as if it was normal procedure they don't have the votes to change the rules. As such they are not going to pursue it unless she is ultimately the only roadblock.
Beer Monkey
Member
Spicer freaking out about journalists texting/emailing him makes me think he's lawyered up and his attorney told him no talking to anybody, period.
Fenderputty
Banned
They could just change the rules but they seem unwilling to do so at the moment.
.
Might as well just blow up the filibuster, and if you don't have 50 votes it's not worth it either way.
Spicer freaking out about journalists texting/emailing him makes me think he's lawyered up and his attorney told him no talking to anybody, period.
It would be incredibly stupid of him to not have a lawyer.
balladofwindfishes
Member
It would be incredibly stupid of him to not have a lawyer.
Especially if he has a notebook with detailed information about the campaign. I'm sure someone wants to read that notebook.
I don't think his wealth or (insofar as this can ever been untangled from anything sociological in the US) his race has anything to do with it, more that 40-45% of the country would approve of generic R in the abstract, so when an R president does nothing, that's whereabouts their approval will gravitate. Do good things and you get above 45, do bad things and you go below 40, but do nothing and you'll end up there.
Trump's base is made out of evangelicals who already have a martyr complex a mile long, rich fucks who actually want to see wealth correlated with intelligence, and to a lesser extent, movement conservatives who get a boner whenever Trump says is belligerent about socialism or something
None of those things are very popular on their own.
BoboBrazil
Member
We know Spicer was on the plane during the Trump/Don Jr letter right? He's probably already been questioned.
Fancyarcher
Member
I sometimes wonder why his base still supports him. I guess it has to do with them thinking there's some grand plan and hoping he does something for them.
Evangelicals support pretty much anyone that would help advance their agenda. I guess it is the same for Trump's base.
Trump's base is bad. They don't care about what he does. Many of them just want to stick it to liberals.
Fenderputty
Banned
The moment you overrule the Parliamentarian the fillibuster is nuked and McConnell is very much correct to worry about what that would mean in the context of the next 2 election cycles.
You only do that if you're absolutely sure you have the 50 too. You don't effectively blow up the filibuster via the parliamentarian if you're even remotely unsure if you got 48,49 or 50. That's assuming the bill your passing is worth what would come in the next two election cycles as well. They're all trembling about single payer right now. Fuck even the insurance lobbyists are telling them ... do this and you're paving the way to single payer.
Frank the Great
Banned
I'm surprised by the Republican's shortsightedness with respect to normal customs and procedure.
Like, only one party generally creates massive federal programs that are impossible to dismantle and "undo.". So, by destroying institutional norms, they are making it easier for such programs to be created in the long-term. Meanwhile, what do they get out of it? Only short term electoral benefits. They don't really benefit policy-wise because none of their policies are popular.
I mean, let's say they nuke the filibuster and set a precedent for this shitty healthcare bill. Can you imagine the socialist paradise healthcare system we can create with just 50 votes next time we control all three branches?
It's just so shortsighted. It really appears to me that they generally aren't as ideological as they seem. Rather, they are just bumbling idiots desperate to be reelected.
Like, only one party generally creates massive federal programs that are impossible to dismantle and "undo.". So, by destroying institutional norms, they are making it easier for such programs to be created in the long-term. Meanwhile, what do they get out of it? Only short term electoral benefits. They don't really benefit policy-wise because none of their policies are popular.
I mean, let's say they nuke the filibuster and set a precedent for this shitty healthcare bill. Can you imagine the socialist paradise healthcare system we can create with just 50 votes next time we control all three branches?
It's just so shortsighted. It really appears to me that they generally aren't as ideological as they seem. Rather, they are just bumbling idiots desperate to be reelected.
whyamihere
Banned
Exactly.Might as well just blow up the filibuster, and if you don't have 50 votes it's not worth it either way.
CNN's Kfile dug out an old quote from Roy Moore saying homosexuality should be illegal, and now Moore is refusing to comment on it. What a twist!
I think he just meant until they rebooted Will and Grace.
I'm surprised by the Republican's shortsightedness with respect to normal customs and procedure.
Like, only one party generally creates massive federal programs that are impossible to dismantle and "undo.". So, by destroying institutional norms, they are making it easier for such programs to be created in the long-term. Meanwhile, what do they get out of it? Only short term electoral benefits. They don't really benefit policy-wise because none of their policies are popular.
I mean, let's say they nuke the filibuster and set a precedent for this shitty healthcare bill. Can you imagine the socialist paradise healthcare system we can create with just 50 votes next time we control all three branches?
It's just so shortsighted. It really appears to me that they generally aren't as ideological as they seem. Rather, they are just bumbling idiots desperate to be reelected.
You've stumbled into it with your bolded point - they don't give a fuck about policy and don't really have any coherent ideology or policy vision any more.
I'm surprised by the Republican's shortsightedness with respect to normal customs and procedure.
Like, only one party generally creates massive federal programs that are impossible to dismantle and "undo.". So, by destroying institutional norms, they are making it easier for such programs to be created in the long-term. Meanwhile, what do they get out of it? Only short term electoral benefits. They don't really benefit policy-wise because none of their policies are popular.
I mean, let's say they nuke the filibuster and set a precedent for this shitty healthcare bill. Can you imagine the socialist paradise healthcare system we can create with just 50 votes next time we control all three branches?
It's just so shortsighted. It really appears to me that they generally aren't as ideological as they seem. Rather, they are just bumbling idiots desperate to be reelected.
They are ideological as far as the next primary right.
All this shit theater is to appease the donors and voters that would support their primary opponents if they don't so what they are told.
Nothing else matters to the Congressional GOP
I'm surprised by the Republican's shortsightedness with respect to normal customs and procedure.
Like, only one party generally creates massive federal programs that are impossible to dismantle and "undo.". So, by destroying institutional norms, they are making it easier for such programs to be created in the long-term. Meanwhile, what do they get out of it? Only short term electoral benefits. They don't really benefit policy-wise because none of their policies are popular.
I mean, let's say they nuke the filibuster and set a precedent for this shitty healthcare bill. Can you imagine the socialist paradise healthcare system we can create with just 50 votes next time we control all three branches?
It's just so shortsighted. It really appears to me that they generally aren't as ideological as they seem. Rather, they are just bumbling idiots desperate to be reelected.
It's a party that's sold its soul repeatedly since the Gingrich Revolution and finding out that eventually you get to the point where you have to put up or shut up, but putting up would ruin you just as effectively as shutting up would.
I thought Bernie's speech today was pretty good.
He clearly isn't a foreign policy wonk, but he's right on the big picture re the Saudis.
The problem is he's going to need way more than what he's got if he's president. Especially with Trump looking like a goddamn moron on the international stage every single day. He needs to improve if he wants to be the front runner in 2020, he can't be getting dunked on in the debates on this subject again.
I thought Bernie's speech today was pretty good.
He clearly isn't a foreign policy wonk, but he's right on the big picture re the Saudis.
He's often right on the big picture, but people also want a certain amount of detail. Otherwise he opens himself up for major attack with no rebuttal, such as the "massive tax increase" talking point against single player. He shrugs off the detail when he should be preemptively addressing it.
I thought Bernie's speech today was pretty good.
He clearly isn't a foreign policy wonk, but he's right on the big picture re the Saudis.
Good but not enough imo
Bernie ought to be much tougher on Israel and less forgiving of American imperialism
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Trump gets a lot of chances because as a person, he's a walking indictment of the cultural beliefs of most Americans. People genuinely believe that successful people have what they have because of creativity, foresight, or hard work. Trump has none of those things. He was born wealthy, and he's spent his entire life letting most of his wealth just sit and grow on easy investments which insulate him from all of his failures. If he were forced to earn his money from scratch, he'd be holed up in a shithole apartment dodging bill collectors within a month.
For a lot of people, the internal thought process about Trump is, "he can't possibly be this incompetent and terrible, because that would mean such awful people can get so far ahead of others. That can't be true, can it?"
For a lot of people, the internal thought process about Trump is, "he can't possibly be this incompetent and terrible, because that would mean such awful people can get so far ahead of others. That can't be true, can it?"
Good but not enough imo
Bernie ought to be much tougher on Israel and less forgiving of American imperialism
I think it's hard to expect Sanders specifically to be harder on Israel, who spent time living there. When he grew up Israel was beloved by the left in particular, for stuff like the Kibbutzes.
Anti/pro Israel is mostly a generation gap within the Democrats. It's not about how far left or right you are, it's mostly about how old you are.
BoogieWoogie
Banned
He was born wealthy, and he's spent his entire life letting most of his wealth just sit and grow on easy investments which insulate him from all of his failures.
We don't actually know how much money Trump actually has, but it was reported that he has less than if he had just put his dollars into an interest bearing account for all these years.
The problem is he's going to need way more than what he's got if he's president. Especially with Trump looking like a goddamn moron on the international stage every single day. He needs to improve if he wants to be the front runner in 2020, he can't be getting dunked on in the debates on this subject again.
I mean, I'd prefer if he just didn't run...
No one wants detail. Hello. Trump. Find a dream and sell it. Run Bernie.
Trump gets leeway because of this perceived money and success. Bernie has none of that and his political background makes it nearly required that he give detail.
Trump gets a lot of chances because as a person, he's a walking indictment of the cultural beliefs of most Americans. People genuinely believe that successful people have what they have because of creativity, foresight, or hard work. Trump has none of those things. He was born wealthy, and he's spent his entire life letting most of his wealth just sit and grow on easy investments which insulate him from all of his failures. If he were forced to earn his money from scratch, he'd be holed up in a shithole apartment dodging bill collectors within a month.
For a lot of people, the internal thought process about Trump is, "he can't possibly be this incompetent and terrible, because that would mean such awful people can get so far ahead of others. That can't be true, can it?"
All of this.
I mean, I'd prefer if he just didn't run...
So would I. I'd rather anyone directly involved in this last cycle just stay home and endorse when someone has a mathematical win or at the convention or something. But it looks like we won't be so lucky. And if he winds up winning I'd rather have a more competent Bernie with a better command of the issues, not the populist we had last year.
Trump gets leeway because of this perceived money and success. Bernie has none of that and his political background makes it nearly required that he give detail.
Plus there's no guarantee that the populist wave that swept over the nation in 2016 is going to hold. People may well be looking for more thoughtful and competent leadership, not just righteous anger.
The majority of Dems (also includes D leaning Is) would agree w/ you w/ wanting Sanders/Clinton both out of the 2020 race- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ent-democrats_us_59c16e6ce4b087fdf508ba6a?refI mean, I'd prefer if he just didn't run...
We have to go younger.Looking forward, just 20 percent want to see Clinton run for president again, but 47 percent say they'd like to see her remain active in politics in other ways, while 23 percent want her to retire. Thirty percent want to see Sanders take another stab at the presidency, with 46 percent preferring him to engage in other facets of politics, and 12 percent wishing he would retire.
I think it's hard to expect Sanders specifically to be harder on Israel, who spent time living there. When he grew up Israel was beloved by the left in particular, for stuff like the Kibbutzes.
Anti/pro Israel is mostly a generation gap within the Democrats. It's not about how far left or right you are, it's mostly about how old you are.
Nah, he's historically been the most critical of Zionism of any US politician
He's just made some pretty shit comments over the past year that have downplayed Israeli abuses
Trump gets a lot of chances because as a person, he's a walking indictment of the cultural beliefs of most Americans. People genuinely believe that successful people have what they have because of creativity, foresight, or hard work. Trump has none of those things. He was born wealthy, and he's spent his entire life letting most of his wealth just sit and grow on easy investments which insulate him from all of his failures. If he were forced to earn his money from scratch, he'd be holed up in a shithole apartment dodging bill collectors within a month.
For a lot of people, the internal thought process about Trump is, "he can't possibly be this incompetent and terrible, because that would mean such awful people can get so far ahead of others. That can't be true, can it?"
The Just World Fallacy strikes again!
Cesare Borgia
Banned
Nah, he's historically been the most critical of Zionism of any US politician
He's just made some pretty shit comments over the past year that have downplayed Israeli abuses
So...he's running for president. What do you expect.
Sanders isn't interested in domestic policy details, so him not being well versed on foreign policy isn't surprising. I don't think he needs to become some master of issues. You can get away by simply being right more often, or more recently. For all of Hillary's alleged foreign policy acumen, she's been wrong on countless major foreign policy issues, whereas Sanders/Obama/etc have been right.
2020 democrat foreign policy will largely be a repeat of 2008 IMO: candidates jockeying to return America to past prestige/respect, and close down ongoing military conflicts. I don't think a lack of foreign policy experience will hurt anyone.
https://twitter.com/MEPFuller/status/910933764703956994
If you want to know how great the Graham-Cassidy bill is for states, the bribe for Alaska is that THEY GET TO KEEP OBAMACARE!!
So...he's running for president. What do you expect.
Sanders isn't interested in domestic policy details, so him not being well versed on foreign policy isn't surprising. I don't think he needs to become some master of issues. You can get away by simply being right more often, or more recently. For all of Hillary's alleged foreign policy acumen, she's been wrong on countless major foreign policy issues, whereas Sanders/Obama/etc have been right.
2020 democrat foreign policy will largely be a repeat of 2008 IMO: candidates jockeying to return America to past prestige/respect, and close down ongoing military conflicts. I don't think a lack of foreign policy experience will hurt anyone.
I just want some Corbyn-style verbalization of the link between imperialistic overreach and instability overseas
balladofwindfishes
Member
Reading the comments, this isn't really 100% true, large portions of Obamacare are still repealed for Alaska.
Also they must be very desperate if they're trying to bribe Murkowski.
Reading the comments, this isn't really 100% true, large portions of Obamacare are still repealed for Alaska.
Also they must be very desperate if they're trying to bribe Murkowski.
Politico has some more details.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/...-cuts-senate-obamacare-repeal-242978?lo=ap_a1
Alaska could get relief from Senate repeal bill's Medicaid cuts
(Which is not technically true as this bill would end Medicaid in 2026. That includes Alaska and the other states mentioned.)
Does Bernie do better in 2020 because he has the name recognition and has already locked down a core base of support? Or does he do worse because the anti-Hillary/anti-establishment vote on the left consolidated around him as the only not-Hillary choice provided in the last primary and the next primary will be nothing but not-Hillarys?
BoogieWoogie
Banned
They won't get Murkowski and if they're trying, that means McCain and/or Paul ain't budging which makes this DOA.
balladofwindfishes
Member
This is a good thing. Them going after Murkowski means they lack the votes and believe McCain and/or Rand are not going to budge.
Murkowski was assumed to be a no and they weren't going to care about her, and suddenly they need her so bad they're willing to write specific exceptions for Alaska to bait her.
Murkowski was assumed to be a no and they weren't going to care about her, and suddenly they need her so bad they're willing to write specific exceptions for Alaska to bait her.
VendettaRed07
Member
So if she votes yes she and McCain sort of get to keep the similar levels of coverage
If they vote no everyone gets the same exact levels of coverage
Seems like an easy decision. I'd hope.
If they vote no everyone gets the same exact levels of coverage
Seems like an easy decision. I'd hope.
BoogieWoogie
Banned
Murkowski has also been on record saying that if something were to pass that created safe harbor for Alaska, it wouldn't matter because fucking over the other states would eventually fuck them too regardless. She won't budge.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Murkowski has no reason to care, she gains nothing by voting for this. The GOP don't really like her, she won a write in campaign (which is basically unheard of), and she's very popular in Alaska as a moderate.
Alaska gains more from this bill from her voting no, and she knows that.
This also opens the door for every other Yes vote to suddenly be on the fence until their state gets goodies.
Alaska gains more from this bill from her voting no, and she knows that.
This also opens the door for every other Yes vote to suddenly be on the fence until their state gets goodies.
The latter.Does Bernie do better in 2020 because he has the name recognition and has already locked down a core base of support? Or does he do worse because the anti-Hillary/anti-establishment vote on the left consolidated around him as the only not-Hillary choice provided in the last primary and the next primary will be nothing but not-Hillarys?
Aaron Strife
Banned
Seriously, besides getting to say "hurfdurf we repealed Obamacare!" what reason would Murky have to vote yes on this one? She votes yes and things get shitty only slightly later while devastating the rest of the country.Murkowski has also been on record saying that if something were to pass that created safe harbor for Alaska, it wouldn't matter because fucking over the other states would eventually fuck them too regardless. She won't budge.
Does Bernie do better in 2020 because he has the name recognition and has already locked down a core base of support? Or does he do worse because the anti-Hillary/anti-establishment vote on the left consolidated around him as the only not-Hillary choice provided in the last primary and the next primary will be nothing but not-Hillarys?
Hillary losing to a cartoon character also sort of validates his criticisms of her policy
If you think that Hillary was losing marginal voters to Trump on policy... lolHillary losing to a cartoon character also sort of validates his criticisms of her policy
This election showed how little policy actually matters to a scarily large number of people.
Dont take the bait, LisaThis is a good thing. Them going after Murkowski means they lack the votes and believe McCain and/or Rand are not going to budge.
Murkowski was assumed to be a no and they weren't going to care about her, and suddenly they need her so bad they're willing to write specific exceptions for Alaska to bait her.
BoogieWoogie
Banned
So hey AARP and all the other companies, hows about you just put money into democratic candidates and campaigns so we don't go through all this shit again?
So hey AARP and all the other companies, hows about you just put money into democratic candidates and campaigns so we don't go through all this shit again?
☝️☝️☝️
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
Commonwealthfund.org predicts 32 million lost under new trumpcase
https://twitter.com/ASlavitt/status/910528446195011585
https://twitter.com/ASlavitt/status/910528446195011585
- Status
- Not open for further replies.