dmc515

Members
  • Content count

    971
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About dmc515

  • Rank
    Council Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,363 profile views
  1. US Politics: Kill (the) Bill

    Well sure - that's precisely why Ryan convinced Trump to pull the bill. I wonder if Trump had insisted on a vote for whatever reason - say so Bannon could create his enemies list like denstorebog linked to - if Ryan would have pulled it anyway. He'd be entirely justified in doing so, has to think of his own responsibilities as Speaker first. The electoral fallout is impossible to predict right now. It is entirely dependent on how the administration and the GOP House reacts to the failure, and ya know, the myriad other exogenous factors that are entirely unknown at this point. But the damage to the legislative agenda is crystal clear.
  2. US Politics: Kill (the) Bill

    The failure most certainly has fall out, both practically and politically. In the immediate sense, it complicates the next agenda item - tax reform - because the Medicaid cuts found in the AHCA were a large part of how the GOP was going to ensure the tax reform did not lead to long term budget deficits. This is required in order for tax reform to be passed without Democratic support. In addition, the process clearly emboldened the Freedom Caucus, and subsequently further alienated moderates of the Tuesday group. Many in the rank and file are indeed expressing decreased confidence in the administration and leadership's ability to build consensus on any major agenda item. In other words, the failure has introduced the large amount of young Republican legislators to the reality of governance. Politically, the failure hurts both Trump's professional reputation and public prestige, in a Neustadtian sense. Trump's entire brand of getting "tired of winning" and making deals is inarguably damaged - even his most ardent supporters admit that. As for his "professional reputation," which has to with Washington elites' perception of the president's ability and resolve to move legislation, I'll leave you with this:
  3. US Politics: Ask Fox News

    The point was Bannon does not want such a huge political defeat for the Trump presidency. Sure, trying to use such a failure to destroy Ryan has probably always been what Bannon has viewed as making lemonade - never let a crises go to waste - but politically damaging the Trump administration in such a significant way is self-sabotage no matter how you slice it.
  4. US Politics: Ask Fox News

    Blaming Ryan has certainly always been the contingency in case of failure - that's pretty intuitive even if almost the entire Trump administration didn't hate him. But to suggest that's been Bannon's plan all along is rather ridiculous. Everybody knows a defeat on their first major proposal - especially this early and on such a key aspect of his campaign - would be a body blow to the Trump presidency. Bannon may have his own nefarious agenda, but he does not want that.
  5. US Politics: Ask Fox News

    Nunes acting as a frontman for the White House is pure crazy-pill territory for three reasons. First, obviously, a chairman of an oversight committee behaving in such a manner is not only unprecedented, but an embarrassment to the country and our political system. Second, his "revelation" is logically (I know, I know, not that that matters) no different than how the public has been getting any of this information. At worst, the only improper thing he's accusing anyone of is the "unmasking" of incidental surveillance. That's exactly how we learned about Flynn in the first place - and the WHO clearly didn't care he lied to Pence until it went public. Three, the substance of what he's saying effectively confirms Trump DID lie in his ludicrous tweet, yet Trump claims he's vindicated by this. Sooo, the GOP House is going with trying to secure a moral victory they know has absolutely no chance of actually being enacted. Which they did during the Obama administration, like, over 60 times. K. And BTW, that's the only way you get GOP members in blue and purple districts to vote for this after stripping essential benefits - if they know it's never gonna amount to anything.
  6. Now THAT would be too couple-y. My exposure to facebook is very limited, but I do have two married friends that share their accounts in the same way Yukle does - I understand the best way to get in touch with them is to contact their wives' profiles. The idea of a "Mike N Suzy" profile is pretty nauseating on its face (heh, no pun intended).
  7. Were Mao and Stalin Actually Socialists? (No True Scotsman)

    I honestly don't recall on prices for specific tolls - that's pretty much the point. If you live in rural or even suburban Florida, the tolls aren't that bad overall (which is pretty much the point, btw). However, I lived in Orlando for seven years and the amount you'd have to spend just for driving around within the city itself was astronomical. I'll gladly take the income taxes of the state I now live in over that bullshit - both because the difference in aggregate payout is rather negligible and I like states with higher standards for things like education, children's health insurance, and, especially, fixing the damn roads!
  8. US Politics: Ask Fox News

    RE Gorsuch Confirmation: The Dems seem to have two options here - allow an up or down vote or force McConnell to abolish the filibuster. What should be emphasized about the latter, however, is this would in all likelihood not be the full on "nuclear option" as pundits prefer to call it. Rather, the GOP Senate would likely simply extend Harry Reid's abolishment of the filibuster for executive and (other) judicial nominees to SCOTUS - I highly doubt certain institutionalist Republican Senators would back a full abolishment of the cloture requirement. I'm of two minds on this - one, as others have rightly pointed out - is the Dems should probably save this fight for another day. Unless significant dirt is dug up on Gorsuch (which may well make this whole discussion moot anyway), it's not a battle anybody cares about but their base, there are much more important battles to be fought right now, and the sting is lessened by Gorsuch "replacing" Scalia's seat rather than someone from the liberal bloc. OTOH, the cynic in me would say the filibuster being abolished for SCOTUS nominees is an eventuality regardless of it happens this time or the next. Might as well throw the base a bone and make the GOP do it while they're fielding difficulties on a number of fronts. Lastly, the idea the Dems should not vote against cloture but uniformly vote against final confirmation is rather irrelevant. It's still going to piss off the base for not employing the filibuster against Gorsuch when the GOP wouldn't even meet with Garland. Moreover, most Dem Senators are probably going to have to vote against Gorsuch on the floor vote anyway.
  9. Well, Rick certainly wouldn't describe them as friends, but yes Negan has been consistently out to "prove his loyalty," such as it is, in the conflict with the Whisperers which is just about wrapped up. I prefer, and I think most enthusiasts would agree, to describe their recent increased interactions as a budding bromance....of perhaps star-crossed lovers.
  10. Yeah it's getting really interesting lately in the comics - especially with the Savior-remainders coming to break up Negan and Rick's bromance (and the Rick/Dwight/Negan triangle, for that matter).
  11. Were Mao and Stalin Actually Socialists? (No True Scotsman)

    I you think EZpass is bad move down to Florida and see how much more you'll be spending on Sun Pass -- but no state taxes!
  12. Were Mao and Stalin Actually Socialists? (No True Scotsman)

    Of course it is a variable term. But basic needs defined as a social safety net - which is precisely how I described it, has a very specific definition in post-WWII western democracies. Again, I'm not interested in a post-modern debate on what "basic needs" means beyond materialism.
  13. Were Mao and Stalin Actually Socialists? (No True Scotsman)

    Fair enough. My political activism is much more focused towards achieving and maintaining the general social democrat model in the U.S. How socialism can or should be extended beyond basic needs, encapsulated by the social safety net, is something I've given very little consideration. But by all means do so. I can't even begin to answer that question. Society is composed of individuals. How can individuals, and their interests, be removed from the idea of socialism?
  14. Were Mao and Stalin Actually Socialists? (No True Scotsman)

    Perhaps. In terms of actual political influence the rise of the radical right is far more elucidated and of far more concern. Albeit, in terms of academic circles you may be right, but frankly I am literally part of an academic circle and I'm presently not aware of any colleague I know of arguing for "the idea of collectives supercedeing and taking priority over individuals." Anyway, their effect is minimal and I'm not really concerned. Moreover, this is tangential to the original argument of the OP, which has to do with widespread misunderstanding in regards to the definition of socialism.