• 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 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Crocodile

Member
What the hell are the GOP going to run on when they don't have hate for Obama to spew every 2 years?

They are causing this themselves because rich people want more money, and they don't want to address the real problems of income inequality, economic and municipal racial discrimination, etc.

At this pace they'll still be campaigning on repeal and replace come 2020
 
C7oURpzXkAEKjEf.jpg

VXYnzEU.jpg
 

Owzers

Member
Everyone's going to be covered, now do what you want Paul Ryan.

And give the freedom caucus whatever they want, I'm bored now.
 

pigeon

Banned
Considering Steve King's comments, I think it will blow up sooner or later. The party base will only become crazier as demographics continue to change.

My joke failed.

I can agree that the GOP may just go more nativist, but I don't think that represents the creation of a new ascendant coalition. In fact I think in the medium term it will hopefully lead to its collapse.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Greg Sargent‏Verified account @ThePlumLineGS

Politico reports White House told Freedom Caucus -- again -- that their latest offer was final. FC rejected it

Bu-bu-but master negotiator!
 

TylerD

Member
I honestly think they never thought they would have to.

I agree and now this surprise winning orange turd has plopped into their lap and the results are kind of hilarious if not for the possible impact to tens of millions of Americans.

I'm enjoying the ineptitude of it all.
 
That's where I'm at too when I think about it. Which is pretty fucking reckless.

I don't remember who it was, or where I read this, but I specifically remember reading an article during the whole SCOTUS PPACA fiasco that detailed the comments of a GOP insider. To recap: he was basically as happy as a pig in shit that the SCOTUS didn't shitcan the PPACA and force the GOP to come up with a replacement they never had.

They obstructed for 8 years and and used the ACA as a wedge issue to grandstand over. It was always politicking.

If they honestly thought they would have to replace eventually they would have prepared better for this moment. They unanimously signed full repeals all the time but now they all of a sudden have to think of the moderates in the senate? lol
 
It's still puzzling that healthcare HAD to be the first thing tackled. They could've beaten some easier wins with taxes and actually worked on HC instead of fucking up like they are.
 

Kusagari

Member
It's still puzzling that healthcare HAD to be the first thing tackled. They could've beaten some easier wins with taxes and actually worked on HC instead of fucking up like they are.

I really don't think they wanted to tackle it this soon but Trump forced their hand by not shutting the fuck up about it being the first thing he does.
 
It's still puzzling that healthcare HAD to be the first thing tackled. They could've beaten some easier wins with taxes and actually worked on HC instead of fucking up like they are.

They know their base is racist to the core so they wanted to tear down the black Presidents biggest accomplishment first. That's why Obamacare was always such a target. Shit, half their base thinks it's legitimately called "Obamacare" and are completely fine with "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act".
 

pigeon

Banned
It's still puzzling that healthcare HAD to be the first thing tackled. They could've beaten some easier wins with taxes and actually worked on HC instead of fucking up like they are.

Because they don't have 60 in the Senate, both tax reform and healthcare need to be deficit neutral to pass through reconciliation.

This makes it very difficult to give rich people a large tax cut, since it would cost money!

The GOP's plan was to do the healthcare bill, cut spending on people's healthcare, and also put in healthcare-related tax cuts, making the whole thing approximately deficit neutral.

Then when they do the tax reform bill they'll replace the healthcare-related tax cuts with other tax cuts, more evenly distributed across rich people, that would also be deficit neutral.

There is actually a strategy here. It's just that the GOP is too fractured to ever pass any legislation.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Bu-bu-but master negotiator!

Trump has no idea how negotiating actually works. He's used to doing it by being ultrarich and everyone wants to wash your balls when you're rich so they don't lose any money. I'd rather have a broke teenager who can get a free burger from McDonald's by flirting with the cashier negotiate for me.
 
I think they're scared.

https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/649684?unlock=8ZR6CW0MVP9XH3LN

Re­cog­niz­ing the high stakes in an up­com­ing spe­cial House elec­tion in sub­urb­an At­lanta, the GOP-aligned su­per PAC Con­gres­sion­al Lead­er­ship Fund is spend­ing an ad­di­tion­al $1.1 mil­lion in tele­vi­sion ads against the Demo­crat­ic front-run­ner, Jon Os­soff. After its first spot showed foot­age of a col­lege-aged Os­soff dressed up as Han Solo to poke at his im­ma­tur­ity, the new ad cam­paign is tread­ing on more fa­mil­i­ar ground, con­nect­ing the 30-year-old Demo­crat to un­pop­u­lar House Minor­ity Lead­er Nancy Pelosi.

Here's what's be­hind the de­cision: Os­soff alone is out­spend­ing his Re­pub­lic­an op­pos­i­tion sig­ni­fic­antly in the runup to the April 18 primary to re­place Rep. Tom Price, who is now Health and Hu­man Ser­vices sec­ret­ary. For all the at­ten­tion that Re­pub­lic­ans re­ceived for their two ads high­light­ing Os­soff's col­lege hijinks, they only spent about $549,000 over four weeks for the spots—a pit­tance in a ma­jor mar­ket like At­lanta. The bulk of the $2.2 mil­lion that the Con­gres­sion­al Lead­er­ship Fund has re­served in the race will now be fo­cused on dif­fer­ent lines of at­tack. By con­trast, Os­soff has already spent over $1.8 mil­lion on ads in­tro­du­cing him­self to the dis­trict's voters; his ads have aired more than six times as of­ten as the GOP su­per PAC's spots on At­lanta-area tele­vi­sion.

The flurry of new GOP spend­ing comes as Os­soff is gain­ing ground in polls, and is all but guar­an­teed one of the two spots in the June 20 run­off. Ac­cord­ing to new polling com­mis­sioned by CLF, he's lead­ing with 37 per­cent of the vote on the crowded all-party bal­lot and his fa­vor­ab­il­ity rat­ing is at a re­spect­able 41/30 level. That's not a bad place to be for a Demo­crat in this con­ser­vat­ive dis­trict, and it sur­passes Pres­id­ent Trump's plus-6 net fa­vor­ab­il­ity rat­ing in the same sur­vey. On the flip side, be­ing seen as a Demo­crat­ic Party lackey in this tra­di­tion­ally con­ser­vat­ive dis­trict would be a huge prob­lem. Pelosi's net fa­vor­ab­il­ity, ac­cord­ing to this GOP sur­vey, is a dis­mal 25/66, so it's no co­in­cid­ence that she's the star of the group's latest ad­vert­ising blitz.

Con­gres­sion­al Lead­er­ship Fund ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or Corry Bliss said the goal of the latest ad is to raise ques­tions about Os­soff's cred­ib­il­ity, with the latest spot pivot­ing from his per­son­al back­ground to his ideo­logy. ”Jon Os­soff tried to fool you by in­flat­ing his re­sume. Now, he's us­ing dis­hon­est ads to hide his lib­er­al val­ues," the ad be­gins. ”The truth is Nancy Pelosi's friends are bank­rolling Os­soff's cam­paign be­cause Os­soff will rub­ber-stamp her lib­er­al agenda." The ad hits him for sup­port­ing high­er taxes and more reg­u­la­tions—Demo­crat­ic krypton­ite in this busi­ness-friendly dis­trict.

lol

CLF lead­ers are con­fid­ent that once Os­soff's par­tis­an ties catch up to him, his ap­prov­al rat­ings will de­cline. They be­lieve his im­age is ar­ti­fi­cially high, thanks to an ef­fect­ive ad cam­paign por­tray­ing him as a fresh-faced out­sider. He nev­er men­tions his party af­fil­i­ation in his ad­vert­ise­ments—for ob­vi­ous reas­ons in a dis­trict that hasn't elec­ted a Demo­crat in over four dec­ades. The latest ad­vert­ise­ment is a re­mind­er why con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans have coas­ted to reelec­tion for many years.

EDIT: Holy shit this new Ossoff ad is GOOD https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uFM0kBp2WE

EDIT 2: WHOA he went there https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omHFCkeSrsM
 
Holy shit that ad...

Coming from someone who has spent a lot of time talking to a deeply conservative room mate, Sex Slavery/Trafficking is something they are weirdly passionate about combating.
 
No Supreme Court Justice is confirmed without at least 60 votes anyway. Whether it's 60 yes votes or 51 yes votes and 9 we won't block its. I.e. the filibuster doesn't need to be used technically to still have effect.
 

Ogodei

Member
It's still puzzling that healthcare HAD to be the first thing tackled. They could've beaten some easier wins with taxes and actually worked on HC instead of fucking up like they are.

It's specifically about the budget and the filibuster. I don't understand quite all of it myself, but here are the parts i do understand:

1) McConnell and other key Senate Republicans don't want to nuke the filibuster for legislation, so this needs to pass via reconciliation.

2) Reconciliation (this is the part i don't understand, and i think a lot of Congresspeople don't quite understand it either) can only apply to laws that have a direct impact on the budget, which is either deficit-neutral or deficit-positive.

3) Something about a deadline of April 15th (not sure, i thought government FY17 extended until June).

4) But basically they need to pass the health-care reforms now. It's designed to save government money by cutting services, that's crucial for the next phase.

5) You offset the reduced spending by reducing taxes for FY18.

There's a lot i don't understand about reconciliation about why it all needs to happen now, but i get that it needs to happen in that order in order to be long-term deficit-neutral, and so avoid the filibuster (either getting filibustered, or having to nuke it).
 
Fall in line was never really about votes with in congress.

Fall in line is used mostly to talk about elections and specifically voters falling in line to get their guy elected.

I get that but a lot of people have used it lately as an argument why this will pass despite all signs it's in serious trouble.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom