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

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

34 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Hah no

ETA: told ya

 

There's nothing new about that line of reasoning, but it won't matter when people start having to pay significantly more for their healthcare. 

[Zorral]

50 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That will certainly happen, but I suspect a large number of center right and independent individuals will lash back at the Republican Party if they lose their insurance or their premiums spike. 

Doesn't matter because their party controls the voting districts and how they are patterned and counted.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There's nothing new about that line of reasoning, but it won't matter when people start having to pay significantly more for their healthcare. 

They'll just blame it on the parts of the ACA that they couldn't repeal. Or say that the other options cost more.

Or they'll just not care that much, because hating muslims or stopping planned parenthood is more important to them than their health care is. 

[S John]

45 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

The alternate reality of the Republican Party:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-white-houses-international-credibility-collapses-trump-era

 

This is perhaps the one R criticism of Obama that annoyed me the most.  That he somehow weakened our standing in the world.  Not only did Obama improve international public opinion of the US but he actively worked to shore up our NATO alliances.  But the criticism was not really focused on how people in Japan and the UK felt about Obama, it was directed at Obama's relationship with our enemies, real and imagined.  Particularly those of the Islamic persuasion.  

His overtures to peace between Islam and the West (such as the speech in Cairo) were derided as his 'apology tour' - and a real American bad ass never apologizes for anything.  He was also accused of 'surrendering' in Iraq, and therefore the Obama admin is at fault for ISIS - leaving out that the war was vastly unpopular and he campaigned on getting us out of there.  Then there was the unenforced red line in Syria.  From there it is not hard to criticize the Iran nuclear deal (just the fact that there IS a deal) as a free pass for terrorists and America's enemies, he is Barack HUSSEIN Obama after all.  

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the way Obama handled all of these things, but the criticism of him as weakening our global standing ONLY focuses on areas where he tried to improve US standing through diplomatic means, instead of sabre-rattling or bombs, in troubled parts of the world where we were already unpopular.  It ignores the much more important fact that, from the point of view of our allies, he was a welcome change from the previous admin and did quite a lot to shore up our historical alliances and re-instill faith in the American president after our 2000-2008 bout with anti-intellectualism.  

Anyway, those criticisms related to Obama's perceived weakness is how Trump was able to accuse Hillary and Obama of literally being the founders of ISIS and having people actually be receptive to that utterly bullshit statement.  I have had to come to terms with the fact that a certain segment of our population wants the United States to be bullies.  They don't want us to be chief partner among civilized nations, navigating a path to maximize peace and prosperity - they want us to get our dicks out and slap some people around with it.  And for those kinda people, a complete asshole like Trump is exactly the kind of person capable of unsubtle demonstrations of power and bluster that make them feel like this country is strong.  Anything else is weakness.  And the fact that Europe actually liked Obama - even though this obviously is the best case scenario for the strength of our NATO alliances?  Just more proof Obama was a pussy - they wouldn't like a real man like Trump 'cause a real man would tell 'em like it is.  

The whole thing is maddening, and really just makes me want to cut my losses and move to a tropical island somewhere.  

[Fez]

Looks like early talks did not go well..

Haven't seen an official confirmation though, so the plan may change if that afternoon meeting somehow goes well enough.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Doesn't matter because their party controls the voting districts and how they are patterned and counted.

Not sure how this is applicable. And there are enough winnable districts to retake the House. The Senate on the other hand.......

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

They'll just blame it on the parts of the ACA that they couldn't repeal. Or say that the other options cost more.

Or they'll just not care that much, because hating muslims or stopping planned parenthood is more important to them than their health care is. 

You're being too pessimistic. People will punish Republicans not matter what they say if they lose their healthcare or their premiums spike. 

[Red Tiger]

Question to the board regarding the Supreme Court.

Conservatives often point out that Liberal judges ignore the constitution, while conservative judges obey the constitution.

How much of this is true?

[Kalbear]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

You're being too pessimistic. People will punish Republicans not matter what they say if they lose their healthcare or their premiums spike. 

Citation needed. 

The people 'punished' Republicans for the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression. That punishment lasted all of two whole years. 

Now, I'd agree with you that people would punish Republicans if they, say, lost their job or the economy plummeted or something like that - but for healthcare? Yeah, premiums went up - you think that means a person who voted for Trump is going to say 'no, I'd rather vote for a Democrat'?  Come on, man. I think they won't like the healthcare thing, but they'll just rationalize it away because it isn't their biggest concern. 

As @dmc515 pointed out, while this might be unpopular it's not clear if it's as important as other things, and I'm very skeptical (as are, well, the House and Senate Republicans) that healthcare is that important to most people - especially most people voting for Republicans. 

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, Fez said:

Looks like early talks did not go well..

Haven't seen an official confirmation though, so the plan may change if that afternoon meeting somehow goes well enough.

The Hill just reported the delay.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Cool little feelgood tweet about an impromptu Wealthcare Resist gathering that took place of the steps of the Capitol building last night...

 

/Click on tweet for the whole thread

[Zorral]

 

Quote

 

  1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Doesn't matter because their party controls the voting districts and how they are patterned and counted.

Not sure how this is applicable. And there are enough winnable districts to retake the House. The Senate on the other hand.......

 

It is applicable in very many ways:

http://factmyth.com/factoids/your-vote-doesnt-count/

[OldGimletEye]

31 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

Question to the board regarding the Supreme Court.

Conservatives often point out that Liberal judges ignore the constitution, while conservative judges obey the constitution.

How much of this is true?

It seems to me there was a case several years back called Gonzales v. Raich.
I maybe wrong, and a legal scholarly type can correct me if I'm wrong, but if I recall correctly Scalia filed a concurring opinion, upholding the Commerce Clause in that case, which was a marijuana case.
Scalia's analysis seemed to be:
Will hippies get punished?
Then in that case the Federal Government has a lot of power under the Commerce Clause.
If not, then the Commerce Clause is limited. 
I dunno, kind of seemed what happened, if I recall correctly.
 

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

It seems to me there was a case several years back called Gonzales v. Raich.
I maybe wrong, and a legal scholarly type can correct me if I'm wrong, but if I recall correctly Scalia filed a concurring opinion, upholding the Commerce Clause in a marijuana case.
Scalia's analysis seemed to be:
Will hippies get punished?
Then in that case the Federal Government has a lot of power under the Commerce Clause.
If not, then the Commerce Clause is limited. 
I dunno, kind of seemed what happened, if I recall correctly.
 

Im not asking it to mock liberals or anything like that, I just don't understand how American Justices view the constitution (and quite frankly, the documant itself seems kinda open and vague). Im not an American myself and I kept reading about conservatives saying that Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor are social engineers who make shit up.

[OldGimletEye]

5 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

Im not asking it to mock liberals or anything like that, I just don't understand how American Justices view the constitution (and quite frankly, the documant itself seems kinda open and vague). Im not an American myself and I kept reading about conservatives saying that Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor are social engineers who make shit up.

I know what you were getting at. And I understand you weren't mocking liberals either.

I was just suggesting that conservatives might just be a tad full of it on this issue.

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

I know what your were getting at. And I understand you weren't mocking liberals either.

I was just suggesting that conservatives might be just a tad mealy mouthed on this issue.

Yeah I did read that Scalia became Partisan as fuck later on in his career.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/01/william_pryor_has_no_place_on_the_supreme_court.html

The article says similar things about Alito. What is your view on what the liberal justices do, legally-speaking?

[Mexal]

9 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

Im not asking it to mock liberals or anything like that, I just don't understand how American Justices view the constitution (and quite frankly, the documant itself seems kinda open and vague). Im not an American myself and I kept reading about conservatives saying that Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor are social engineers who make shit up.

I just think they interpret the constitution in light of current circumstances, not based on the literal views of old white men in the 1770s when the world was a different place. I think both sets of judges interpret the constitution in a way that supports their views and given the vagueness of it, they are able to find justification either way no matter the situation. I think of it similar to the Bible.

[Red Tiger]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

I just think they interpret the constitution in light of current circumstances, not based on the literal views of old white men in the 1770s when the world was a different place. I think both sets of judges interpret the constitution in a way that supports their views and given the vagueness of it, they are able to find justification either way no matter the situation. I think of it similar to the Bible.

....This worries me greatly.

Thank you guys for the info.

[Mexal]

Trump's ability to self-market is impressive. First the plaque commemorating the Civil War battle that never happened and now fake Time covers in his clubs. 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

19 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

It seems to me there was a case several years back called Gonzales v. Raich.
I maybe wrong, and a legal scholarly type can correct me if I'm wrong, but if I recall correctly Scalia filed a concurring opinion, upholding the Commerce Clause in a marijuana case.
Scalia's analysis seemed to be:
Will hippies get punished?
Then in that case the Federal Government has a lot of power under the Commerce Clause.
If not, then the Commerce Clause is limited. 
I dunno, kind of seemed what happened, if I recall correctly.
 

Indeed.  Scalia was very... situational... in his support of State's retained powers.  

[Fez]

A real profile in courage from Jerry Moran...

It does make me wonder just how much pressure to make changes McConnell was facing from senators who weren't making public comments before now.