Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:48 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:I can't help but think this is what Trump is thinking.
It should be obvious at this point - whenever something somewhat incriminating or revealing comes up, he kicks the 'ol media outrage machine and it's all we focus on for a little while until the new bit 'o outrage feeds the beast again.

He'll back off this, or drop it entirely, and we'll be left, breathlessly wondering what we were just talking about... Russia? How often he golfs? Firing of Sessions or Mueller or Spicer or whatever? That he wants to fuck his daughter?

Trump is a lot of things, but he is definitely a MASTER at gish gallop.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8416
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:54 pm UTC

I mean, his strategy is obvious, and I recognize it fully from what PM Netanyahu does in Israel all the time. But while Netanyahu is rather successful at it, I don't know that it works for Trump - healthcare opposition is still going strong and the investigations into him haven't stopped.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2013
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:17 pm UTC

pogrmman wrote:
ivnja wrote:Forget sex, forget gender, forget orientation - if you can keep up, you should be able to serve, full stop.


I'm in complete agreement here. Why should any of that matter to military service? I don't get why people make things like this an issue. If you are physically able to participate in the military, and you want to join, you should be able to serve. None of the other stuff should matter.
While I agree with your point, I have to disagree on a detail. There are lots of reasons beyond physical ability why someone should not be allowed a uniform or a firearm of any sort. William Laws Calley Jr and Steven Dale Green are two examples of people who had M16s when the forces were desperately short of young men and letting just about anybody in.
As I said, I agree with your point, because problems like those two are in no way correlated with sexual orientation or gender identity, as far as I know. If anything, the assholes like that are the ones most likely to be homophobic, transphobic, misogynist ... pieces of dogshit, so actually having an openly and even famously trans-friendly military ought to discourage them from joining and generally improve that military's ability to get operations like those in Kosovo and Sierra Leone right.
This is also a big argument, imo, against conscription. I don't mind the "compulsory paid national service" part of the idea so much. It's the idea of getting the racists and dickheads even the army wouldn't normally take in, training them as killers, telling them they're awesome now, handing them select-fire rifles and large amounts of ammunition and deploying them en masse to a foreign country that gives me the heebie-jeebies.
Judging by the quoted tweets, Trump isn't interested in peace-keeping, protection of aid agencies, protection of civilian populations, rehabilitation of former child soldiers, infrastructure projects to reduce the pressure on resources that was increasing inter-tribal tension in the first place, the Protocols of the Geneva Conventions or any of that "wishy-washy liberal" stuff that was completely missing from the plan for Iraq back in '02 and '03. He just wants to see "our enemies" crushed, see them driven before him and hear the lamentations of their women while he's grabbing them by the pussy. He's the "let's just turn their whole country into a radioactive glass parking lot" type, and that's the type he probably wants in "his" military now that he's the Commander-in-Chief.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 587
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: Trump presidency

Postby pogrmman » Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:44 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:
pogrmman wrote:
ivnja wrote:Forget sex, forget gender, forget orientation - if you can keep up, you should be able to serve, full stop.


I'm in complete agreement here. Why should any of that matter to military service? I don't get why people make things like this an issue. If you are physically able to participate in the military, and you want to join, you should be able to serve. None of the other stuff should matter.
While I agree with your point, I have to disagree on a detail. There are lots of reasons beyond physical ability why someone should not be allowed a uniform or a firearm of any sort. William Laws Calley Jr and Steven Dale Green are two examples of people who had M16s when the forces were desperately short of young men and letting just about anybody in.


I get what you mean by this. My statement is probably somewhat predicated on my (maybe misguided) belief that the vast majority of people aren't dickwads like the two you mentioned.

Sableagle wrote:He just wants to see "our enemies" crushed


This is one of the things that scares me about Trump. If the military goes in ignoring all but this, you're bound to see more civilian casualties and a whole host of war crimes. At least our military tries to avoid those things, but I'm worried that if there isn't any focus on avoiding them at the top, it'll become a lesser priority.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3959
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Jul 26, 2017 8:12 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:William Laws Calley Jr and Steven Dale Green are two examples of people who had M16s when the forces were desperately short of young men and letting just about anybody in.
Lee Harvey Oswald, John Warnock Hinckley, John Wilkes Booth, Mark David Chapman, Jared Lee Loughner, James Earl Ray,
Richard Bruce Cheney, Talmadge X Hayer, Nathuram Vinayak Godse...

Obviously, then, you should be barred from using a gun if you have three names!

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Jul 26, 2017 8:54 pm UTC

Senators are going for a "Skinny Repeal". It looks like the debate on the floor of the Senate is causing the moderate Republicans to have more say on the bill.

So now the question is if Ted Cruz / Rand Paul + one more conservative Senator kills the bill for failing to do enough to repeal The Affordable Care Act.

I think this strategy of finding the parts of the Republican effort which have widespread support (ie: repealing only the individual mandate... and very few other things) will be more successful. And that's why someone like McCain voted for debate, because ultimately, this is how bills get crafted in Congress. Killing the effort before formal debate is just a dick-move IMO, no matter how much Democrats want to do so.

Izawwlgood wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:I can't help but think this is what Trump is thinking.
It should be obvious at this point - whenever something somewhat incriminating or revealing comes up, he kicks the 'ol media outrage machine and it's all we focus on for a little while until the new bit 'o outrage feeds the beast again.

He'll back off this, or drop it entirely, and we'll be left, breathlessly wondering what we were just talking about... Russia? How often he golfs? Firing of Sessions or Mueller or Spicer or whatever? That he wants to fuck his daughter?

Trump is a lot of things, but he is definitely a MASTER at gish gallop.


http://www.newsweek.com/trump-transgend ... all-642456

Well, looks like we're all wrong. Trump is banning Transgenders to fund the Wall. Trump probably got tired of debate or something and decided to unilaterally do something about it, which ended up being a supremely stupid way of handling the issue.

I dunno, this explanation is kind of ridiculous, but it matches my expectations of Trump. Anyone's thoughts?
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

iamspen
Posts: 480
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby iamspen » Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:16 pm UTC

It's like funding the purchase of a Bugatti by finding a quarter in your couch cushion, only the couch isn't discriminated against in the process.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Wed Jul 26, 2017 10:00 pm UTC

There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Jul 27, 2017 6:36 pm UTC

All this Jeff Sessions stuff only happened within the past two or three days.

But I'm very curious about the Approval Rating of Trump during this time period. I trust Gallup's weekly polls. I'm curious to see if Trump's feud with Sessions actually affects Trump's approval rating. The whole Transgender ban also seems to have come out of left-field, although I have my doubts if that changes the opinion of Trump supporters.

If anything really changes Trump's rating this week, its probably Jeff Sessions. I bet that the LGBT community already dislike Trump (or perhaps more accurately, they dislike Sessions / Pence / everyone else at the White House), so the Transgender ban probably won't affect Trump's approval rating because Trump already had low approval rating from that community.

There are some pro-Trump LGBT holdouts, but I bet that they're very rare.

Anyway, the "weekly" Approval Rating is still quite noisy, but I think we can say that the honeymoon phase of Trump is over. http://www.gallup.com/poll/203207/trump ... eekly.aspx

Based on the power-system of the USA, the following numbers are probably more relevant (Approval Rating on a State-by-State basis): http://www.gallup.com/poll/214349/trump ... tates.aspx. If Trump-country begins to dislike Trump, that's when things will go down.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

elasto
Posts: 3658
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Thu Jul 27, 2017 6:53 pm UTC

This is old news from last year but was news to me. And since we're talking about Trump and the military and all...

In an unearthed interview from 1997, Donald Trump claimed he was a “brave soldier” for avoiding STDs during his single years in the late ’90s.

“It’s amazing, I can’t even believe it. I’ve been so lucky in terms of that whole world, it is a dangerous world out there. It’s like Vietnam, sort of. It is my personal Vietnam. I feel like a great and very brave solider,” Trump said in the interview when Howard Stern asked how he handled making sure he wasn’t contracting STDs from the women he was sleeping with.

The business-mogul-turned-politician elaborated on the fact in the interview, calling women’s vaginas “potential landmines” and saying “there’s some real danger there.”

Also appearing on Stern’s show in 1993, Trump bragged about his promiscuous lifestyle while single and stated that men who didn’t go to Vietnam didn’t need to feel guilty because dating during the AIDS epidemic in the ’80s was also dangerous.

“You know, if you’re young, and in this era, and if you have any guilt about not having gone to Vietnam, we have our own Vietnam — it’s called the dating game,” Trump said to Stern in a 1993 interview. “Dating is like being in Vietnam. You’re the equivalent of a soldier going over to Vietnam.”

Classy, classy guy.

He's just telling it like it is folks!

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Jul 27, 2017 6:58 pm UTC

elasto wrote:This is old news from last year but was news to me. And since we're talking about Trump and the military and all...

In an unearthed interview from 1997, Donald Trump claimed he was a “brave soldier” for avoiding STDs during his single years in the late ’90s.

“It’s amazing, I can’t even believe it. I’ve been so lucky in terms of that whole world, it is a dangerous world out there. It’s like Vietnam, sort of. It is my personal Vietnam. I feel like a great and very brave solider,” Trump said in the interview when Howard Stern asked how he handled making sure he wasn’t contracting STDs from the women he was sleeping with.

The business-mogul-turned-politician elaborated on the fact in the interview, calling women’s vaginas “potential landmines” and saying “there’s some real danger there.”

Also appearing on Stern’s show in 1993, Trump bragged about his promiscuous lifestyle while single and stated that men who didn’t go to Vietnam didn’t need to feel guilty because dating during the AIDS epidemic in the ’80s was also dangerous.

“You know, if you’re young, and in this era, and if you have any guilt about not having gone to Vietnam, we have our own Vietnam — it’s called the dating game,” Trump said to Stern in a 1993 interview. “Dating is like being in Vietnam. You’re the equivalent of a soldier going over to Vietnam.”

Classy, classy guy.

He's just telling it like it is folks!


Well, the man needed to experience a personal Vietnam because he dodged the draft in the 1970s. All those bone spurs in his foot ya know? Mr. Trump was apparently unfit to serve.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Aiwendil
Posts: 313
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:53 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Aiwendil » Thu Jul 27, 2017 8:16 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
Sableagle wrote:William Laws Calley Jr and Steven Dale Green are two examples of people who had M16s when the forces were desperately short of young men and letting just about anybody in.
Lee Harvey Oswald, John Warnock Hinckley, John Wilkes Booth, Mark David Chapman, Jared Lee Loughner, James Earl Ray,
Richard Bruce Cheney, Talmadge X Hayer, Nathuram Vinayak Godse...

Obviously, then, you should be barred from using a gun if you have three names!


A promising hypothesis, but how do you explain Sirhan Sirhan? He only had one name!

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Jul 27, 2017 9:58 pm UTC

http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizz ... eve-bannon

“Who leaked that to you?” he asked. I said I couldn’t give him that information. He responded by threatening to fire the entire White House communications staff. “What I’m going to do is, I will eliminate everyone in the comms team and we’ll start over,” he said. I laughed, not sure if he really believed that such a threat would convince a journalist to reveal a source. He continued to press me and complain about the staff he’s inherited in his new job. “I ask these guys not to leak anything and they can’t help themselves,” he said. “You’re an American citizen, this is a major catastrophe for the American country. So I’m asking you as an American patriot to give me a sense of who leaked it.”


Oh this is delicious. Believe it or not, it gets better.

Scaramucci also told me that, unlike other senior officials, he had no interest in media attention. “I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to suck my own cock,” he said, speaking of Trump’s chief strategist. “I’m not trying to build my own brand off the fucking strength of the President. I’m here to serve the country.” (Bannon declined to comment.)


Scaramucci said he had to get going. “Yeah, let me go, though, because I’ve gotta start tweeting some shit to make this guy crazy.”

Minutes later, he tweeted, “In light of the leak of my financial info which is a felony. I will be contacting @FBI and the @TheJusticeDept #swamp @Reince45.” With the addition of Priebus’s Twitter handle, he was making public what he had just told me: that he believed Priebus was leaking information about him. The tweet quickly went viral.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3959
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:56 pm UTC

Obviously being viewed through the interpretation and presentation of the reporter, so caveat lector, but I found the following inexplicably hilarious, if true...
“Reince is a fucking paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac,” Scaramucci said.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Thu Jul 27, 2017 10:59 pm UTC

Hahahaha

I read the rest of the article. What a trip.

On a semi-related note, articles in The New Yorker and editorials in the Times have been using "mendacious/mendacity" a lot lately.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6714
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:51 am UTC

http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/se ... alth-care/
The GOP is acting confident, I think the ACA repeal bill is shaping up. It's going to be a skinny repeal. (No mandate, gut punch to Planned Parenthood.)
I don’t think the objections from the right to “skinny repeal” are all kabuki. I think a lot of people, from Sean Hannity to people from the GOP’s more moderate wing, have a lot of sincere objections to it. That debate and the conference negotiations could be quite painful for Republicans. But of the major three outcomes that might emerge from the conference — 1) the conference succeeds and an AHCA-type bill passes, 2) the conference fails to reach compromise and nothing passes, 3) the conference fails to reach a compromise and the House approves “skinny repeal” as a default — I still think No. 3 is the most likely. I don’t see anyone else voting against this, beyond Collins and Murkowski. Like I said, I just don’t see this as a courageous single senator situation. I think five people could have banded together this afternoon to block this. It would be a huge move for one senator to jump out now and join Collins and Murkowski. They would become the person who saved The Affordable Care Act. I just don’t see that happening.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:24 am UTC

I thought the PP part didn't fall under reconciliation?

Oh man I was just about to go to bed and hope it would be okay
Steven Dennis wrote:After McCain came on floor, he spoke to Cornyn, who appeared upset, turned around and gave a thumbs down to Daines.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6714
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:40 am UTC

Liri wrote:I thought the PP part didn't fall under reconciliation?

Oh man I was just about to go to bed and hope it would be okay
Steven Dennis wrote:After McCain came on floor, he spoke to Cornyn, who appeared upset, turned around and gave a thumbs down to Daines.

They consulted with the parliamentarian, and adjusted it from (any provider that receives 350 million) to a more general (anyone who receives more than 1 million.) Pence is warming up his voting arm, it's gonna pass.
Why would the GOP pass a bill that everyone hates?

My view is that stronger, more secure party leaders than the ones the GOP has at the moment (Paul Ryan, President Trump, Mitch McConnell) would have walked away from this issue after the early stumbles. This will not help the party maintain power because the various versions of repeal legislation have been so unpopular. A party leader who wasn’t wary of the base or concerned about losing his job could have potentially dropped this. But I think Ryan really is opposed to The Affordable Care Act on ideological grounds, as well as being a weak speaker who doesn’t have a lot of respect from members. I think Trump wants to get rid of anything with Obama’s name on it, so he kept demanding reform. And I think Trump and Ryan to some extent pushed McConnell toward this.
Dan Hopkins 11:59 PM

Yes, Nate, absolutely, especially when some of the early reporting on McConnell’s thinking emphasized that he didn’t want health care policymaking to drag on and crowd out other items on the GOP’s agenda. I have no insights into the Senate majority leader specifically, but my reading of similar processes in the past is that they take on a dynamic of their own, and the key players get caught up in that. McConnell could have simply held a vote immediately on the AHCA once it passed the House, as reporting in the spring suggested he planned to do — but once he tried to fashion a health care bill that could win a majority, it took on a dynamic all its own.
They're backed into a corner, so they did it. In any other year, this would be suicide. For the Trump age, it was Tuesday.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Diadem » Fri Jul 28, 2017 7:00 am UTC

It failed!

BBC wrote:There were gasps when Mr McCain, after being furiously lobbied by Vice-President A Wet Rag Stuffed Into a Tailpipe, joined two other Republican senators in voting against the so-called "skinny" repeal plan, considered the bare minimum Senate Republicans could agree on.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3959
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Jul 28, 2017 9:43 am UTC

In the "other articles" links area, to the right of the BBC article is (currently) one for "Million Dollar Idea: The Slinky".

After glancing at that title, I now start to read "What was the 'slinky' repeal?" and similar in the main news item, as I skim it...

(Rletaed to taht fnnuy ecffet wrehe, bnieg pmired whit a wrod, it dsnoe't mttear mcuh waht sepnllig/roedrnieg of lrettes terhe is, msolty?)

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Liri » Fri Jul 28, 2017 11:34 am UTC

Woooooo!!!
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6714
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Fri Jul 28, 2017 1:58 pm UTC

Liri wrote:Woooooo!!!

While I'm glad it failed, I'm concerned why it did. What the hell is going on with McCain? He's always been a reliable Republican vote on things domestic. He's not even a player in healthcare (until today). It's shocking that he said no. For comparison, 80% of people thought Hillary would win. McCain odds were even higher.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:09 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Liri wrote:Woooooo!!!

While I'm glad it failed, I'm concerned why it did. What the hell is going on with McCain? He's always been a reliable Republican vote on things domestic. He's not even a player in healthcare (until today). It's shocking that he said no. For comparison, 80% of people thought Hillary would win. McCain odds were even higher.


If I were a betting man, it'd be because the "Skinny Bill" had no CBO Score, no one liked it: conservatives hated it since it didn't actually repeal things, it had no "replacement" measure to fix up ACA either so moderates didn't have any reason to like the bill.

We're basically looking at a bill whose politics was purely "Lets pass this because we promised to pass something", and the overall goal was the hope that the House would fix the bill. If anything, it should be a worrisome surprise that such a bill came down to 49-51 in the Senate.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8416
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:13 pm UTC

I am astounded at these people's lack of integrity. I'm not necessarily saying the democrats are better - I've only had experience living here and paying close attention for the past few years, but it's incredible they would be so reckless.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Jul 28, 2017 2:24 pm UTC

McCain wrote:“I’ve stated time and time again that one of the major failures of The Affordable Care Act was that it was rammed through Congress by Democrats on a strict party-line basis without a single Republican vote. We should not make the mistakes of the past.”


----------

In other news, Spicer seems much happier now.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/2 ... 7?lo=ap_e1

Does Spicer support how Scaramucci is doing the job of communicating for the president so far? Spicer laughed. "I don't think Anthony needs me critiquing him. He's got a clean slate to implement the president's agenda."
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5874
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Angua » Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:24 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:It failed!

BBC wrote:There were gasps when Mr McCain, after being furiously lobbied by Vice-President A Wet Rag Stuffed Into a Tailpipe, joined two other Republican senators in voting against the so-called "skinny" repeal plan, considered the bare minimum Senate Republicans could agree on.

Can someone explain to me why he voted for this yesterday (or the day before? time gets fuzzy when you're on nights) and has now voted against it. Is there any justification?
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6419
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:33 pm UTC

Because he doesn't actually care about healthcare, or anything else other than veterans and maybe one or two other pet issues, but he does care about the process of passing bills. The previous vote was just a vote to have a debate, while this was just a vote on a bill with no debate purely for the sake of passing something. He'd gladly take healthcare away from twenty million Americans, as long as there is more discussion on it.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:40 pm UTC

Angua wrote:
Diadem wrote:It failed!

BBC wrote:There were gasps when Mr McCain, after being furiously lobbied by Vice-President A Wet Rag Stuffed Into a Tailpipe, joined two other Republican senators in voting against the so-called "skinny" repeal plan, considered the bare minimum Senate Republicans could agree on.

Can someone explain to me why he voted for this yesterday (or the day before? time gets fuzzy when you're on nights) and has now voted against it. Is there any justification?


Yeah. Earlier, it was a vote to begin debate on the bill. After the debate occurred, the bill changed significantly. And McCain didn't like the result.

It really isn't confusing or anything. Its rather simple. McCain was willing to debate and work on the bill, but didn't like the direction it went. And the rest is history.

Remember, earlier this week it was a "Repeal and Replace" plan. Last night (erm... this morning???) it was a "Skinny Repeal without any Replacement, with the hopes that the House would fix up the bill". McCain was clear that he was on the side of repealing if only a Replacement plan was ready.

EDIT: The main issue is the media (as well as the Left) has no fucking idea how the Senate works. A "vote for starting debate on the bill" is completely different from a "vote for the bill". The Liberal media have been trying to conflate the two.

---------------

The real surprise is that the final bill comes out at roughly 10pm at night, the Senators have 2-hours to read the bill, and 49 of them were confident enough after a 3-hour reading to vote "yes" on it. That's the real insanity. Part of the problem was that the whole process was limited to IIRC 20-hours of work and debate, due to the obscure rules that the Senate is using to avoid the Filibuster. So it was going to be a rush regardless.

And many of those hours were "wasted" earlier this week as various amendments to the Bill failed.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:50 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4570
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:49 pm UTC

Yeah, a big part of the reason why the Healthcare repeal is such a clusterfuck is because they're trying to do it through reconciliation so that they don't need to deal with a filibuster, but this introduces a whole bunch of different rules from a normal bill. The right and proper way to do this would be for the Republicans just to suck it up and pass it as a normal bill, but then they'd need Democratic support.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6419
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:57 pm UTC

The repeal they voted on last night had multiple items that were previously rejected by the parliamentarian anyway - most likely, the plan was to fire them and hire someone who would say that it was within the rules, and then they can pass anything with 50 votes.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Jul 28, 2017 5:02 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:The repeal they voted on last night had multiple items that were previously rejected by the parliamentarian anyway - most likely, the plan was to fire them and hire someone who would say that it was within the rules, and then they can pass anything with 50 votes.


The plan was insane.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/34 ... conference

Ryan offered the assurance after Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and three other Republicans said they wanted a guarantee the House would not seek to just pass the scaled-back Senate bill instead of doing a conference, which could result in the emergence of a broader bill.


“Senators have made clear that this is an effort to keep the process alive, not to make law,” Ryan said in a statement. “If moving forward requires a conference committee, that is something the House is willing to do.”


Three Republicans only voted "yes" after they received guarantees from Paul Ryan that the bill would fail (or otherwise be drastically changed) in the House, triggering the longer "conference" process to make changes to the Bill. No one liked the Skinny Replacement. It was a placeholder bill, introduced with ~3 hours left in the process as a last-ditch effort to "score a victory" instead of actually make a difference.

Except the bill could have actually become law. It was reckless to even consider this process.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Fri Jul 28, 2017 5:05 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Fri Jul 28, 2017 5:05 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:Yeah, a big part of the reason why the Healthcare repeal is such a clusterfuck is because they're trying to do it through reconciliation so that they don't need to deal with a filibuster, but this introduces a whole bunch of different rules from a normal bill. The right and proper way to do this would be for the Republicans just to suck it up and pass it as a normal bill, but then they'd need Democratic support.


At the same time we need to make sure they don't go off the cliff and decide to get rid of the 60 vote threshold either. I'm pretty sure no one wants to do that, but if push comes to shove they may.
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Jul 28, 2017 5:06 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:Yeah, a big part of the reason why the Healthcare repeal is such a clusterfuck is because they're trying to do it through reconciliation so that they don't need to deal with a filibuster, but this introduces a whole bunch of different rules from a normal bill. The right and proper way to do this would be for the Republicans just to suck it up and pass it as a normal bill, but then they'd need Democratic support.


At the same time we need to make sure they don't go off the cliff and decide to get rid of the 60 vote threshold either. I'm pretty sure no one wants to do that, but if push comes to shove they may.


Playing shenanigans with "Reconciliation" to make a 50-vote threshold is basically getting rid of the 60-vote threshold.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6419
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Fri Jul 28, 2017 5:34 pm UTC

Angua wrote:Can someone explain to me why he voted for this yesterday (or the day before? time gets fuzzy when you're on nights) and has now voted against it. Is there any justification?


As a secondary bonus for McCain, if you look at the headlines he's the one getting all of the credit for blocking it. Not the two other Republican Senators, 46 Democrats, and two independents who were against it all along.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Fri Jul 28, 2017 6:01 pm UTC

To be fair, it's not like McCain decided to come back just so he could vote no. If he really intended on just voting no he could have simply stayed home and given everyone the finger and said he was resting.
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Fri Jul 28, 2017 6:03 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Playing shenanigans with "Reconciliation" to make a 50-vote threshold is basically getting rid of the 60-vote threshold.


Both sides are guilty of this. Maybe we should just get rid of the threshold and have the senate operate like the house then.

Too bad we can't go back to the days of senators being selected by state legislatures. But, Democrats wouldn't like that right now. They'd be at a very severe disadvantage if that were the case.
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6419
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Fri Jul 28, 2017 6:08 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:Too bad we can't go back to the days of senators being selected by state legislatures.

Why? So they would have no reason to be concerned about the public at all?
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6705
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Fri Jul 28, 2017 6:09 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:EDIT: The main issue is the media (as well as the Left) has no fucking idea how the Senate works. A "vote for starting debate on the bill" is completely different from a "vote for the bill". The Liberal media have been trying to conflate the two.
In fairness to politics, a vote against even starting debate is more effective as a no vote than a vote against a bill that's already in debate. That's why the Republicans refused to even discuss Obama's Supreme Court nominee. It's how politics works.

If the bill is so ch*rped up that it shouldn't be touched with a ten foot pole, then wasting time on debate is pointless; there's no intent to get a decent bill put together to begin with.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Jul 28, 2017 6:12 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
Playing shenanigans with "Reconciliation" to make a 50-vote threshold is basically getting rid of the 60-vote threshold.


Both sides are guilty of this. Maybe we should just get rid of the threshold and have the senate operate like the house then.

Too bad we can't go back to the days of senators being selected by state legislatures. But, Democrats wouldn't like that right now. They'd be at a very severe disadvantage if that were the case.


I'll have you know I'm a registered Republican. I'm just mostly venting about my disappointment with the current nature of our Party.

Anyway, a large chunk of the ACA was over the 60-vote threshold. A good portion of it was amended later through Reconciliation, but the original law was in fact a full 60-vote win for the Senate. If the original bill had such a large threshold, it seems only fair that the replacement bill should be held at the same standard.

But of course, Politics don't work like that.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Diadem » Fri Jul 28, 2017 6:29 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:To be fair, it's not like McCain decided to come back just so he could vote no. If he really intended on just voting no he could have simply stayed home and given everyone the finger and said he was resting.

Wouldn't surprise me if he did actually. Voting to move the debate forward even makes sense, it's much more spectacular to defeat a bill on the last second.

McCain probably hates Trump. And he has brain cancer. That means he's not running for reelection, and might not even live much longer anymore. Things that are normally very important in politics, such as not making enemies, tit-for-tats and not rocking the boat too much, won't concern him at all at the moment. He's completely free to vote his conscience.

Not that McCain has a lot of conscience, but he has a bit of it than most republicans. And when you can follow conscience *and* do something so dramatic that you make headlines all over the world... Seems an easy choice to me.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests