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

[lokisnow]

6 hours ago, dmc515 said:

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:

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:

 

It was a shite bill. a %15 state payroll tax to pay for health insurance is unacceptable, and I am pretty fucking progressive and support the theory but they'll have to do better than that.

i basically vote all state Californian races against Northern California when I have the option. The state democrat party is all controlled by Northern California operatives and the state democrat party leadership are basically the core cabal of incompetence we see reflected  in the national democrat leadership. So I'm heartily against all of that old guard of incompetent and backboneless blaggards.

on the other hand, villarigosa can't be trusted by his wife, so why should I trust him when he won't even abide by the terms of a simple and common contract like marriage?

in any event , the primary will be a free for all and hopefully the cabal loses and also I don't have to vote for an unethical contract breaker.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

18 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

on the other hand, villarigosa can't be trusted by his wife, so why should I trust him when he won't even abide by the terms of a simple and common contract like marriage?

 And Newsom slept with his best friend's wife. And this guy was his longtime campaign manager. Another guy I just can't see casting a vote for, and he's supposed to be one of the party's up and comers.

[DMC]

23 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

It was a shite bill. a %15 state payroll tax to pay for health insurance is unacceptable

Well, there's only so many ways to pay for it at the state level, but yeah if that's the case - and I'm assuming you're right, just uninformed here - it's a non-starter politically. 

27 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

on the other hand, villarigosa can't be trusted by his wife, so why should I trust him when he won't even abide by the terms of a simple and common contract like marriage?

 

7 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

And Newsom slept with his best friend's wife. And this guy was his longtime campaign manager. Another guy I just can't see casting a vote for, and he's supposed to be one of the party's up and comers.

Newsom was an up and comer 15 years ago.  He's not anymore, at least not nationally.  And if I was going to blame him for anything personal it'd simply be his ex wife.  Anyway, I don't get all this vitriol over personal shit.  Who gives a fuck?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Newsom was an up and comer 15 years ago.  He's not anymore, at least not nationally.  And if I was going to blame him for anything personal it'd simply be his ex wife.  Anyway, I don't get all this vitriol over personal shit.  Who gives a fuck?

 Not screwing over your best friend is probably about the closest thing to a sacred trust that I would cite as such. That and raising your children in a conscientious  manner. I know it shouldn't really factor into politics, but those are pretty much instant deal breakers for me.

[Kalbear]

15 hours ago, dmc515 said:

A vote on Trumpcare is immeasurably more salient.  And it is significantly more unpopular than Devos.

DeVos I suspect is at least as unpopular as Trumpcare, but I don't have the numbers - do you? It's a more important thing, but I'm ultimately not sure which is more problematic for a moderate Republican - fearing the general election, or fearing the primary? I used to think at least senators would fear the general, but between voter rights being taken away and the nothingburger that foreign agents interfering with elections directly appears to be as far as congress goes, I'm no longer sure that matters as much as the primary does for them. Or for Trump calling out the attack dogs, like he has with Heller.

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Not screwing over your best friend is probably about the closest thing to a sacred trust that I would cite as such. That and raising your children in a conscientious  manner. I know it shouldn't really factor into politics, but those are pretty much instant deal breakers for me.

Delving into a candidate's sexual history is a weapon for religious conservatives I never wish to use.  My best friend in college fucked my longterm girlfriend at the time.  After a few months of drinking a handle a day I got over it.  Dude was and is a great guy, and, frankly, it was a very complicated relationship between all of us I couldn't explain publicly.  And that's the point.  As long as everything's consensual and he's not, ya know, fucking every 18 year old that's willing like Berlusconi, I don't see the point in judging.

17 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

DeVos I suspect is at least as unpopular as Trumpcare, but I don't have the numbers - do you?

Not the best but I looked into a couple polls.  I suppose I should revise my statement to say Trumpcare is significantly less popular than Devos - unpopularity is still TBD.

22 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's a more important thing, but I'm ultimately not sure which is more problematic for a moderate Republican - fearing the general election, or fearing the primary?

That is a very real change over the past decade.  I've written papers and consequently conducted research on it - meaning fearing the primary over the general electorate.  But such methods don't matter in this case.  This is the most important vote every GOP Senator will take for their political future.  They know that.  That's my point when I say it's not comparable to DeVos' confirmation.

[Fez]

Ron Johnson put out an op-ed today in the New York Times stating why he opposes the senate bill (from the right, of course). https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/opinion/senate-health-care-bill.html

He certainly sounds like someone who has some pretty fundamental problems with the bill, and won't be appeased some minor conservative amendments that the rest of the caucus could probably easily stomach. And going so far as authoring an op-ed in a paper of record is a much stronger step than some comments in a senate building hallway. Not quite as strong as a press conference with a governor, like Heller, but close.

[OldGimletEye]

After years of pushing “death panels” Republicans and conservatives now decide it’s time to tone down the rhetoric over healthcare policy and have a more reasoned debate.
 

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/inconvenient-truth-the-health-care-debate-people-will-die

Quote

On Friday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) raised an important argument against the Republican health care plan: “Let us be clear and this is not trying to be overly dramatic: Thousands of people will die if the Republican health care bill becomes law.” Soon after, Hillary Clinton added, “Forget death panels. If Republicans pass this bill, they’re the death party.”

 

Quote

Such talk didn’t impress Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). “The brief time when we were not accusing those we disagree with of murder was nice while it lasted,” the Republican senator wrote.

I think this the part where we all raise our fist and flip Hatch and the Republican Party the bird.

[Dr. Pepper]

36 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

 

I think this the part where we all raise our fist and flip Hatch and the Republican Party the bird.

I'd like to but I cut my finger in a boating accident and I'm a woman so already reached my lifetime insurance cap by giving birth to half a baby so the hospital just let my finger rot off and gave me antibiotics for the infection.  

[Ormond]

8 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Not the best but I looked into a couple polls.  I suppose I should revise my statement to say Trumpcare is significantly less popular than Devos - unpopularity is still TBD.

 

The relevant issue for a Senator though would not be just the raw "disapproval" or "popularity" figures but the priority the issue would have in determining voting intentions.

I really can't see there being very many people who disapprove of DeVos -- even those who tell pollsters they disapprove of her "strongly" -- who actually will be motivated to get out and vote against a Republican senator on the basis of their vote to confirm her by itself. I would think there would be many more people who would feel personally threatened by changes in healthcare who would get out and vote on that basis.

 

[Fez]

Supreme Court has agreed to hear the travel ban case in October. In the mean time, they've lifted the injunction against the travel ban for "foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship to the United States;” the injunction remains in place for all other foreign nationals who would've been affected by the ban. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf

Thomas, Alito, and Gorsch announced that they would have lifted the injunction entirely, which makes me suspect that they'll ultimately rule in favor of the travel ban.

Also, it turns out that on June 14, when the ban would've expired, the government issued a new memorandum changing the effective date to whenever the injunction was lifted. So that means it goes into effect today for the next 90 days; though only for some people.

[DMC]

32 minutes ago, Ormond said:

The relevant issue for a Senator though would not be just the raw "disapproval" or "popularity" figures but the priority the issue would have in determining voting intentions.

I really can't see there being very many people who disapprove of DeVos -- even those who tell pollsters they disapprove of her "strongly" -- who actually will be motivated to get out and vote against a Republican senator on the basis of their vote to confirm her by itself. I would think there would be many more people who would feel personally threatened by changes in healthcare who would get out and vote on that basis.

 

Yes this is precisely my point about about salience, or in your words "priority."  In survey items it's operationalized as respondents identifying their most or second most important issue.  I feel confident in assuming "Betsy DeVos as Education Secretary" would receive zero responses on virtually any survey, which is why I said Trumpcare is "immeasurably" more salient.

[mormont]

Has the bit about the travel ban being 'temporary' just been dropped?

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, mormont said:

Has the bit about the travel ban being 'temporary' just been dropped?

From my understanding of reports on the decision, no:

Quote

Mr. Trump’s revised executive order, issued in March, limited travel from six mostly Muslim countries for 90 days and suspended the nation’s refugee program for 120 days. The time was needed, the order said, to address gaps in the government’s screening and vetting procedures.

...

The court suggested that the administration could complete its internal reviews over the summer, raising the prospect that the case could be moot by the time it was argued.

 

[Fez]

29 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

From my understanding of reports on the decision, no:

The Supreme Court also ordered both parties to include in their arguments whether the issue would be moot by the time the case is heard.

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Fez said:

The Supreme Court also ordered both parties to include in their arguments whether the issue would be moot by the time the case is heard.

It seems to me this could be the court signaling to the administration to revise the order to reflect their decision - i.e. allowing foreign nationals that have "a credible claim of a bona fide relationship" to not be subject to the ban - or those aspects will be struck down in October.  That's pure speculation on my part though, could just be the opinion writer being thorough.

[denstorebog]

Yeah, seems a bit up in the air what will happen at this point. Though that doesn't prevent Breitbart from unambiguously declaring that THE MUSLIM BAN IS REINSTATED.

That's what annoys me the most at this point. That Trump's followers will rally around him once more and giving him that uptick in popularity he craves so much, creating the illusion of him being a popular president simply because he's less unpopular than he used to be. Momentum of narrative and all that shit.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

While negotiating to settle federal and state charges of money laundering about a month before the election, Deutsche Bank pays Kuschner's real estate firm $285 million...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/kushner-firms-285-million-deutsche-bank-loan-came-just-before-election-day/2017/06/25/984f3acc-4f88-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html?ICID=ref_fark&utm_content=link&utm_medium=website&utm_source=fark&utm_term=.5906e8d1ad46

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

From my understanding of reports on the decision, no:

 

Couldn't he just reissue the order? Seems to me that the length of time is arbitrary. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On 6/24/2017 at 9:00 PM, denstorebog said:

The irony of how we'll all be applauding when a liberal 2024 president decides to say "fuck it" to a conservative Supreme Court and send in the National Guard to lay down the law.

You're kidding, right?