U.S. Politics-Getting a Handel On Why the DNC Is Pissing Ossof

[LongRider]

Just now, Dr. Pepper said:

Certainly we should outlaw those things.  Every unauthorized boner is a potential abortion.

Or the looming terror of a woman enjoying sex and having an orgasm.   >>>>shriek<<<<   How scary is that?   

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

26 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

And all of this is just further proof that it could go either way for Trump.  Who is going to kiss his ass in the proper way on the day he signs or vetoes?  Which of his handlers will be exerting the most control that day?  Which news piece will he see that morning?  What trending tweet will be at the top of his feed?  Mexal's assertion is that Trump has said X since day once so he'll definitely sign the bill and yet Trump constantly says one thing and does another because his ego was stroked a certain way.  It's absurd to rely on what he says in order to predeict what he'll do.  

As for his base, they'll believe whatever he tells them because they are blind, stupid or both.  He convinced his base that he'll bring coal and manufacturing back and they think that's true and voted for him.  If he vetoes and tells them that the bill was mean and the ACA was better, they will believe them (in this case, it would be true, but they can't seem to figure it out for themselves).   A third of his base doesn't even realize the ACA and Obamacare are the same things.  I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't either.  

Yeah, this guy is truly a loose cannon. There's no way to be sure how he's going to react. That said, I think if we're holding out hope that he'll somehow back off of this, then there's not much to hope for here. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Dr. Pepper said:

True.  I should complete the sentence with "Good".  They stand for nothing good.  

Here's one of their nothing goods

http://www.newsweek.com/womens-rights-birth-control-abortion-missouri-discrimination-628538

Missouri wants to make it legal for landlords and employers to discriminate against women based on their reproductive choices.  The governor already worked to overturn a local ordinance that protected women from this sort of discrimination.  

This bill is disgusting and it is outrageous. That's real good Republican Party. Good one!!

And if I may add, it is where libertarianism often goes off into left field. Because, it often fails to recognize the issues of private power. And this bill is an example of letting private actors intrude upon the most of private choices in a person’s life.
 

Just now, Dr. Pepper said:

 Maybe we Democrats should introduce the bill to discriminate against men who have used condoms or masturbated to ejaculation.

 

Just now, Nasty LongRider said:

Or use Viagra or other boner pills.

Seems fair to me.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Dr. Pepper said:

Certainly we should outlaw those things.  Every unauthorized boner is a potential abortion.

Maybe we should have a law like: "Felonious Unauthorized Boner without an intent to procreate" on the books?

[LongRider]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Maybe we should have a law like: "Felonious Unauthorized Boner without an intent to procreate" on the books?

Good grief!  Male puberty would straight up have to be outlawed!   

[Mexal]

59 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

And all of this is just further proof that it could go either way for Trump.  Who is going to kiss his ass in the proper way on the day he signs or vetoes?  Which of his handlers will be exerting the most control that day?  Which news piece will he see that morning?  What trending tweet will be at the top of his feed?  Mexal's assertion is that Trump has said X since day once so he'll definitely sign the bill and yet Trump constantly says one thing and does another because his ego was stroked a certain way.  It's absurd to rely on what he says in order to predeict what he'll do.  

As for his base, they'll believe whatever he tells them because they are blind, stupid or both.  He convinced his base that he'll bring coal and manufacturing back and they think that's true and voted for him.  If he vetoes and tells them that the bill was mean and the ACA was better, they will believe them (in this case, it would be true, but they can't seem to figure it out for themselves).   A third of his base doesn't even realize the ACA and Obamacare are the same things.  I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't either.  

No, my assertion is that Trump will do anything to claim victory and given he celebrated in the Rose Garden the passage of this bill in the House, given he has said every day that Obamacare is terrible and is going to be repealed, given he has said he is behind the Senate bill and it's very good, given he has signed everything that has passed his desk and given he gives zero shits about what's in the bill as long as he can say he claim victory... all of that leads me to believe there is a zero chance that he won't sign the bill.

Can you point to one situation where he has not done what the Republicans have done? Can you point to a single situation where a bill has passed the House and Senate and he has vetoed, especially one he has publicly supported and has celebrated already? 

I know Trump lies. I know he lies about everything. I know he's full of shit. But I also know that he has done every single thing the Republicans have said, even to a point where he has become a liar because of it ("I'm the only candidate who has said that there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid" then passed the House bill). Trump will lie and lie and lie but he will NEVER pass up a moment to claim ultimate victory, to destroy Obama's legacy or to pass a bill that Republicans pass through Congress. He hasn't yet and he won't when this passes his desk. I mean, what would be his reasoning? What possible chance is there that Donald Trump will side with Democrats against Republicans to NOT repeal Obamacare?

For the future, please do not misrepresent my point of view or my argument. I did not rely on what he has said he'd do in order to predict what he'd do. I relied on his past actions, his ego and what drives him as a person and that's his self interest, ability to self promote, the need to claim absolute victory and the desire to destroy everything that Obama did.

[Dr. Pepper]

32 minutes ago, Mexal said:

 

For the future, please do not misrepresent my point of view or my argument. I did not rely on what he has said he'd do in order to predict what he'd do. I relied on his past actions, his ego and what drives him as a person and that's his self interest, ability to self promote, the need to claim absolute victory and the desire to destroy everything that Obama did.

Ok, sure dear, I'll just go ahead and let your own words represent your argument.  You know, the one where you kept writing multiple times that Trump has spoke X so he's going to follow through because victory or something like that.  

3 hours ago, Mexal said:

I don't buy that. He doesn't know what's in the bill. He's the guy who sat in the Rose Garden and celebrated the House passing the bill like the biggest win ever. And he's the guy every day on social media saying Obamacare is dying and that the Democrats are evil for perpetuating lies that it's ok. So no, he won't veto it.

 

3 hours ago, Mexal said:

Yes, but none of that happens when he can claim credit for doing something he said he'd do. He's not just as likely to veto a bill from the Republicans as sign it. He's significantly less likely. Almost so much less likely that I'd give it less than 2% chance and that number is completely arbitrary because I see no world that Trump vetos a bill that passes House Republicans, Senate Republicans, repeals Obamacare and gives him a chance to proclaim victory. He gives no fucks what's in it, you know this, I know this. So no idea why you'd think it's just as likely he'd veto the bill when he's shown zero backbone the entire time he's been President.

 

3 hours ago, Mexal said:

No. I don't know this. I don't believe this at all. Because I don't think he would ever do something the Democrats want him to do, the Republicans don't want him to do and that would force him to say "this is bad" instead of "this is great". 

Anyway, last post on this. Think we're going in circles now.

Yes, Trump has talked a big game about healthcare.  He talked a big game about a lot of things.  He has a long history of backpedaling or reversing course.  Hello, Mexico Financed Border Wall.  Trump has proven he'll go against the GOP.  Did you hear about a little thing called the Muslim Travel Ban.  It wasn't broadly supported by the party at first but they all fell in line.  It's the party that constantly shows no backbone against trump, not the other way around. 

The only realistic point you've made (which I've already agreed with) is his anti-Obama agenda where he's intent on tearing down Obama's legacy for no other reason than spite.  This will be on of the first major pieces of legislation that Trump will pass Trump's desk, something that isn't an EO.  Yes, it could go either way.  He's both for and against the AHCA.  It depends on the day and how it's presented to him.  

[Mexal]

Ok. I only made one realistic point. Gotcha. Keep believing Trump would ever veto a bill that he celebrated, that passes both Republican houses and does exactly what he said he'd do. When that happens, I'll owe you an apology but it won't happen.

[ThinkerX]

36 minutes ago, Triskan said:

I can't tell what you guys are arguing about.

Staying on healthcare, there are several quotes from Republicans today (Johnson, Cassidy, Snow) suggesting that there shouldn't be a vote this week.  It's making me more optimistic that they won't pass this thing.  Should that be the case I wonder where we go from there on healthcare as long as Trump is in the White House.  I figure no legislation, but do they continue to mess with some of the payments for the exchanges just to be dicks even if repealing Obamacare is no longer on the table.

Even if that annoying scenario it seems the Medicaid expansion would still be safe which would be hugely good news for a lot of people.  It amazes me how much the Obamacare debate as been focused on the exchanges as if the Medicaid expansion doesn't exist.  That is not to say the exchanges aren't a big issue; just that there was a 2nd big part of providing more health coverage in the bill that doesn't get enough credit.

About a week ago, I made the suggestion, that given Trumps erratic nature, there was a slight but real possibility he would Veto the AHCA should it reach his desk.  To support that, I pointed out that he'd gone so far as to call the legislation 'mean.'  I also pointed out that what Trump really cares about is personal popularity, and the AHCA is highly unpopular.  Trump is starting to figure this out, so he *might* elect to veto the bill to prevent that unpopularity from transferring to him - veto a republican bill and then blame the democrats.

However, then and now, I put the odds of Trump actually vetoing the AHCA as 'very low.'

 

Also, since it is not possible to 'out crazy' Trump, even normally insane options must be given at least some consideration.

 

Anyhow, that is what Dr Pepper and Mexal, along with one or two others, have been debating.

[Dr. Pepper]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

Ok. I only made one realistic point. Gotcha. Keep believing Trump would ever veto a bill that he celebrated, that passes both Republican houses and does exactly what he said he'd do. When that happens, I'll owe you an apology but it won't happen.

I don't need an apology.  It just continues to be hilarious that your argument is that Trump will do what he says he does because....I dunno, he does what he says he'll do?  I mean, come on.  Let's leave the absurdity to Trump voters. 

29 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

About a week ago, I made the suggestion, that given Trumps erratic nature, there was a slight but real possibility he would Veto the AHCA should it reach his desk.  To support that, I pointed out that he'd gone so far as to call the legislation 'mean.'  I also pointed out that what Trump really cares about is personal popularity, and the AHCA is highly unpopular.  Trump is starting to figure this out, so he *might* elect to veto the bill to prevent that unpopularity from transferring to him - veto a republican bill and then blame the democrats.

However, then and now, I put the odds of Trump actually vetoing the AHCA as 'very low.'

 

Also, since it is not possible to 'out crazy' Trump, even normally insane options must be given at least some consideration.

 

Anyhow, that is what Dr Pepper and Mexal, along with one or two others, have been debating.

Well, Mexal isn't arguing this, but yes I generally agree.  His erratic nature coupled with things he's said makes this have a 50/50 shot of veto or sign.  It could go either way and I won't be surprised with either one.  Any news story, trending tweet, or meeting with someone could make him randomly change his mind.  He could sell it as whatever to his supporters and they'd still bow down to him.  

[TheKitttenGuard]

Quote

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump accused former President Barack Obama of stealing his terminology when Obama said last week that there was a 'fundamental meanness' at the core of the Republican health care bill.

During an interview on "Fox and Friends" Sunday morning, Trump was asked about Obama's Facebook post condemning the Republican health care plan, and the President responded by saying Obama used the descriptor after he originally did.

"Well he actually used my term, 'mean.' That was my term," Trump said. "Because I want to see -- and I speak from the heart -- that's what I want to see, I want to see a bill with heart."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/25/politics/donald-trump-confirms-mean-health-care/index.html

Our President is complaining of the former President using a term for a bill he threw a Rose Garden party for.

 or  

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Triskan said:

Staying on healthcare, there are several quotes from Republicans today (Johnson, Cassidy, Snow) suggesting that there shouldn't be a vote this week.  It's making me more optimistic that they won't pass this thing.

I assume you mean Collins, not Snowe who's retired?  Poor moderate female Maine Senators always get mixed up.  But yeah, I don't see how they get to 50 votes in the next week, or by the July 4th recess.  That doesn't mean it won't eventually pass, but it seems clear they have more work to do.

[Ormond]

On ‎6‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 7:56 PM, commiedore said:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/ghost-candidates-are-not-acceptable

lmao jfc 

I know the discussion has moved way on from this link -- but I have to add my personal experience to one aspect of Democratic stupidity mentioned in this article:

Quote

The campaign emails were even worse than the ads. One, under the subject line, “Accept defeat. Jon Ossoff lost,” resorted to threats and hysteria: “After emailing you again and again, we thought support would POUR in. But that’s NOT what happened… When we told you we’re being outspent 2-1? NOTHING. NOTHING is working!!!”

As someone who contributed money to the Ossoff campaign (and now really regrets sending all my contributions to Georgia instead of sending some to Parnell in South Carolina) I really agree with the terribleness of these fundraising emails. The last two weeks from the election I got about 15 of these things a day, either directly from the Ossoff campaign or from "progressive" organizations that claimed to be backing him. Almost all of them had this outrageous doom and gloom tone that tried to make you feel guilty for not sending more money. I got several that were linked to my specific zip code "We need x more contributions from 68107 or Ossoff will lose!"  68107, my zip, happens to be largely Hispanic and blue collar (I'm unusual to live in it and be an Anglo male with a Ph.D.). Realistically, they were darn lucky anyone who lives in this Omaha, Nebraska zip code could afford to send them two cents. I have been so turned off by the tone of these fundraising emails that I have vowed to take a break from giving any money to any Democrat for the rest of the summer. They can try me again in September, maybe. I feel like little ole me in Omaha (and the rest of the small contributors to the Dems) is being blamed for the failures of the Democratic leadership over the last 20 years, and it makes me just want to throw up my hands, close my wallet, and say "to hell with it, they really don't have any self-confidence in their own ideas anyway."  

[DMC]

17 hours ago, commiedore said:

i'll admit i'm not the most informed when it comes to the inner machinations of politics (as i'm sure many would be happy to point out) but i would hope a supposedly progressive party leader in progessive state would maybe do a little more to work it out than just shelving it ... but what do i know

I'll likewise admit I'm hardly an expert on California politics or this specific bill, but I think this article explains the reasoning fairly well:

Quote

Democratic Sens. Ricardo Lara and Toni Atkins, who introduced the proposal, acknowledged the bill was dead for the year. Lara and Atkins had described the bill as a work in progress when it passed the Senate earlier this month without a funding plan. A legislative analysis pegged the cost at $400 billion.

When a bill is that costly - particularly in any state with a balanced budget amendment (not to mention one that has had serious recent budget problems like California) - AND even the co-sponsors that introduced it admit they don't know how to pay for it, it's not ready for a floor vote.  Should they have kicked it back to committee?  Sure.  And you're right to be pessimistic about "plans to park the bill ... in Assembly Rules Committee 'until further notice.'"  

Hopefully the nurses lobby can maintain pressure to bring it back to life if not next year then next session.  It should be noted this already appears to be a political football in next year's gubernatorial race between top Democratic challengers Newsom and Villaraigosa.  From the link above:

Quote

The health care debate also has flared up in the governor’s race. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa compared unfunded health care promises to “snake oil,” a not-so-veiled blow at rival Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has pledged to support a universal health system if elected governor.

 

[DMC]

24 minutes ago, Ormond said:

As someone who contributed money to the Ossoff campaign (and now really regrets sending all my contributions to Georgia instead of sending some to Parnell in South Carolina) I really agree with the terribleness of these fundraising emails. The last two weeks from the election I got about 15 of these things a day, either directly from the Ossoff campaign or from "progressive" organizations that claimed to be backing him. Almost all of them had this outrageous doom and gloom tone that tried to make you feel guilty for not sending more money.

As someone who has fairly consistently contributed for the past decade, here's my advice:  Create a separate email account solely for contributions.  Once you get on a donor list it doesn't stop.  This is the nature of politics these days - including the frequency and doom and gloom you refer to.

[DireWolfSpirit]

U.S. health care spending grew 5.8 percent in 2015, reaching $3.2 trillion or $9,990 per person. As a share of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, health spending accounted for 17.8 percent.Dec 6, 2016

Historical - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

CMS.gov › nationalhealthexpenddata › n...

 

[denstorebog]

50 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I know the discussion has moved way on from this link -- but I have to add my personal experience to one aspect of Democratic stupidity mentioned in this article:

As someone who contributed money to the Ossoff campaign (and now really regrets sending all my contributions to Georgia instead of sending some to Parnell in South Carolina) I really agree with the terribleness of these fundraising emails. The last two weeks from the election I got about 15 of these things a day, either directly from the Ossoff campaign or from "progressive" organizations that claimed to be backing him. Almost all of them had this outrageous doom and gloom tone that tried to make you feel guilty for not sending more money. I got several that were linked to my specific zip code "We need x more contributions from 68107 or Ossoff will lose!"  68107, my zip, happens to be largely Hispanic and blue collar (I'm unusual to live in it and be an Anglo male with a Ph.D.). Realistically, they were darn lucky anyone who lives in this Omaha, Nebraska zip code could afford to send them two cents. I have been so turned off by the tone of these fundraising emails that I have vowed to take a break from giving any money to any Democrat for the rest of the summer. They can try me again in September, maybe. I feel like little ole me in Omaha (and the rest of the small contributors to the Dems) is being blamed for the failures of the Democratic leadership over the last 20 years, and it makes me just want to throw up my hands, close my wallet, and say "to hell with it, they really don't have any self-confidence in their own ideas anyway."  

I, too, was on board the wild ride that was the Ossoff mailing list. My favorites were the ones that claimed in the subject line and first paragraph that "WE MISSED OUR DEADLINE. IT'S ALL OVER." Followed by: "... that is NOT the kind of email we want to have to send you tomorrow. So can you chip in?"

Two things of note, though. With mailing lists and contributions, you can get some pretty immediate data on what works and what doesn't. My guess is that they have it down to a science what to put in the subject lines and how to alternate between positive and negative messages.

Secondly, I saw a screenshot of a similar fundraising email for Handel, supposedly sent to her followers by Mitt Romney (as if he even would even know how to send an email). I was surprised to see that pretty much every thing in the mail - the phrasing, the layout - was the same as those from Team Ossoff. Either the same company is running a double operation and making a shit-ton of money off of it, or this is simply considered *the* way to do it right down to every little detail.

[DMC]

18 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

or this is simply considered *the* way to do it right down to every little detail.

It's that.

[Larry of the Lawn]

If I received an email like that I'd certainly send a lengthy, expletive-laden rebuke.  

[The Anti-Targ]

4 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I don't need an apology.  It just continues to be hilarious that your argument is that Trump will do what he says he does because....I dunno, he does what he says he'll do?  I mean, come on.  Let's leave the absurdity to Trump voters. 

Well, Mexal isn't arguing this, but yes I generally agree.  His erratic nature coupled with things he's said makes this have a 50/50 shot of veto or sign.  It could go either way and I won't be surprised with either one.  Any news story, trending tweet, or meeting with someone could make him randomly change his mind.  He could sell it as whatever to his supporters and they'd still bow down to him.  

50/50 is a big stretch. More than likely 95% of those who are in his ear will be telling him to sign, that vetoing a bill from his own party when his party has the majority in House and Senate is bad, bad, bad. So at best, it's a 5% chance he'll veto, and probably less than that. But, some people gave Trump a pretty low probability of becoming president, so who knows?