ThinkerX Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 3 hours ago, Kalbear said: The Republicans aren't fragmenting, so the answer is either that Democrats figure it out or Republicans always rule. I have to disagree with this. Even with a majority, the republicans have been unable to pass major legislation because of disputes between the different factions. I would also point out - yet again - that Republican Congressmen pushing for the AHCA caught a huge amount of flack from Republican voters in town halls back home. Once or twice to the point of violence. Add in tidbits like the Kansas Republicans effectively repudiating supply side economics, and it is just barely possible a overall leftward shift is possible. A slight shift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 I think kal is talking in terms of getting candidates elected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 7 minutes ago, ThinkerX said: I have to disagree with this. Even with a majority, the republicans have been unable to pass major legislation because of disputes between the different factions. They've had virtually no problem so far with the legislation that they've put forward. There was a small problem with their AHCA, and their solution was to make it even more conservative and dare the moderate republicans to pass it. 7 minutes ago, ThinkerX said: I would also point out - yet again - that Republican Congressmen pushing for the AHCA caught a huge amount of flack from Republican voters in town halls back home. Once or twice to the point of violence. Add in tidbits like the Kansas Republicans effectively repudiating supply side economics, and it is just barely possible a overall leftward shift is possible. A slight shift. Sure, that's possible, but until we actually see election changes, that's really unlikely. And more importantly there is zero sign of Republicans abandoning major leaders in the party or their President. That is decidedly not the case with Democrats, who are doing things like openly advocating primarying Manchin despite him having one of the best records against Trump of any of the Democratic candidates given how much WV went for Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 3 hours ago, Kalbear said: The Republicans aren't fragmenting, so the answer is either that Democrats figure it out or Republicans always rule. No, the Republicans are also fragmented. The Breitbart crowd can barely stand the more traditional neoliberal "conservatives" and vice versa. In theory, Republicans have complete control of government right now and could do whatever they wanted. Instead, they're not only hiding behind the filibuster, but also wasting their time on Comey and related silliness much like one would expect a Congress opposed to the President to do. Just as with the Democrats, the main thing keeping the Republicans together is that they hate the other party even more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 37 minutes ago, Altherion said: No, the Republicans are also fragmented. The Breitbart crowd can barely stand the more traditional neoliberal "conservatives" and vice versa. In theory, Republicans have complete control of government right now and could do whatever they wanted. Instead, they're not only hiding behind the filibuster, but also wasting their time on Comey and related silliness much like one would expect a Congress opposed to the President to do. Just as with the Democrats, the main thing keeping the Republicans together is that they hate the other party even more. They are disagreeing publicly as far as people, but not actual representatives. They aren't voting as if they're fragmented. While it's certainly the case that they are angry at each other, when push comes to shove there is zero indication that they are voting for anyone other than the (R) and zero indication that what their Republican representatives do is making them actually unable to be voted for. Having both congresses without a filibuster-proof majority means you can't do all that you want without compromise. They have two basic options: either do what they can without filibuster (basically repealing things and doing a couple of reconciliations, along with appointments) or be the leaders in policies but seek compromise. They've chosen the former, and it's been exactly what they've wanted. Now, what Trump et al have had the effect of doing is making it pretty clear that the Republicans have to be super secretive about their shitty laws that they're passing because they have a microscope on them, but...they're still voting on them, and succeeding. The AHCA is going through at the scheduled pace, and is still on track. The tax reforms coming afterwards are even more likely to speed through. The removal of regulations have gone through without a hitch so far. Removal of Dodd-Frank has gone through the House just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 But in that sense the Democrats aren't fragmented either. I'm not aware of many Democrats straying from the party when the time comes to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said: Sounds like the heat is coming on for Trump to release any tapes he might have of conversations with Comey. Even if the tapes largely vindicate Comey, for Trump's sake he better have them. It's worse to imply there are tapes when there aren't (a[nother] lie, pretty much) than to have tapes which support Comey's version of events more than Trump's. It's interesting that Trump says he's willing to testify, rather than saying he will release tapes which will speak for themselves, (and for him). I never thought that Trump had any tapes. It was just a typical bit of Trump bluster. It won't hurt him, though: lying is baked in to how voters see Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 11 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said: Sounds like the heat is coming on for Trump to release any tapes he might have of conversations with Comey. Even if the tapes largely vindicate Comey, for Trump's sake he better have them. It's worse to imply there are tapes when there aren't (a[nother] lie, pretty much) than to have tapes which support Comey's version of events more than Trump's. It's interesting that Trump says he's willing to testify, rather than saying he will release tapes which will speak for themselves, (and for him). He's claimed he has tapes of conversations multiple times with different reporters. He doesn't have any tapes and no one will give a fuck. It's like the 1000th thing he's lied about in the last few months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mance Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 Not only doesn't he have any tapes, but anyone who suggests that he ever said he did will be cast as a malicious, lying fake newsie because he never said that/was only joking/why so serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 When the Republican Party took a shellacking on their first ACA repeal, it sure felt good. But, the truth is that was just the beginning of the health care wars. With the Republican Party marching to the tune of Tax Cuts Uber Alles, we have a very long hard fight on our hands. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/senate-republicans-inch-closer-far-right-health-care-overhaul Quote Maybe. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), for example, has balked at the House version, and she said yesterday that any bill resulting “in 23 million people losing coverage is not a bill that I can support.” What’s less clear is what she might do with a bill in which 15 million – or 10 million, or 5 million – lose coverage. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), meanwhile, has criticized any legislation that relies on tax credits to subsidize coverage, and tax credits are at the core of both the House and Senate approaches. Other members who considered “in play” are senators who are up for re-election next year (Nevada’s Dean Heller and Arizona’s Jeff Flake), senators whose constituents would face brutal consequences if the ACA is gutted (Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski and West Virginia’s Shelley Moore Capito), and senators representing states where the uninsured rate has already dropped thanks to the ACA (Colorado’s Cory Gardner and Ohio’s Rob Portman). Allegedly, these are the “Republican Moderates” we're supposed to hang our hopes on. I wouldn’t count on it. Interesting read: http://www.epi.org/publication/is-2-percent-too-low/ Quote The end of 2017 will mark 10 years since the beginning of the Great Recession. The terrible damage it inflicted on American families should inspire deep thinking about how policymakers should try to avoid and manage future economic crises. All major tenets of macroeconomic stabilization policy (the set of policies to keep economic growth, price levels, and unemployment stable) should be subject to this rigorous evaluation, even those that have seemed near-sacrosanct in the recent past. This paper argues that the very low inflation rate currently targeted by the Federal Reserve as a long-term macroeconomic policy goal (2 percent annual inflation) should be reassessed in light of economic developments over the past two decades. Specifically, this paper shows that we need a higher inflation target because it will make conventional monetary policy more effective in fighting recessions and spurring recoveries during periods when nominal interest rates are near-zero. If we raise the inflation target above 2 percent, this greatly increases the probability that the next recession will be shorter and the recovery faster, not just because it will allow inflation-adjusted interest rates to be lowered further, but because it will be easier for households to climb out from under overhanging debt. Following are the key findings that support this case: Quote Yet the Fed’s unconventional policymaking attracted a ferocious political blowback, mostly from conservatives who claimed the Fed was sowing the seeds of hyperinflation.That this claim was clearly wrong—hyperinflation failed to emerge—did very little to blunt this blowback. Now there are two sorts of people here. There are people who didn’t read Krugman’s 1998 liquidity trap paper and think that MV = Py, where V is fixed, and describes how things work and those who did read Krugman’s paper and who understand that Irving Fisher’s relationship is more like MV(i,y) = Py. Group one believed in the “Brownback Boom”. Group 2 didn’t. But you know, go ahead and just say both sides are the same, in order to look all reasonable and centristy and stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 Well this is a first:https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-and-maryland-to-sue-president-trump-alleging-breach-of-constitutional-oath/2017/06/11/0059e1f0-4f19-11e7-91eb-9611861a988f_story.html?utm_term=.884aced109c1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 ^^^^^^^^^^^^from the link posted above Quote Attorneys general for the District of Columbia and the state of Maryland say they will sue President Trump on Monday, alleging that he has violated anti-corruption clauses in the Constitution by accepting millions in payments and benefits from foreign governments since moving into the White House. The lawsuit, the first of its kind brought by government entities, centers on the fact that Trump chose to retain ownership of his company when he became president. Trump said in January that he was shifting his business assets into a trust managed by his sons to eliminate potential conflicts of interests. But D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine (D) and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D) say Trump has broken many promises to keep separate his public duties and private business interests. For one, his son Eric Trump has said the president would continue to receive regular updates about his company’s financial health. The lawsuit, a signed copy of which Racine and Frosh provided to The Washington Post on Sunday night, alleges “unprecedented constitutional violations” by Trump. The suit says Trump’s continued ownership of a global business empire has rendered the president “deeply enmeshed with a legion of foreign and domestic government actors” and has undermined the integrity of the U.S. political system. I find this to be very interesting. Have any POTUS been sued like this before? Can a lawsuit like this make any difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 29 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said: ^^^^^^^^^^^^from the link posted above I find this to be very interesting. Have any POTUS been sued like this before? Can a lawsuit like this make any difference? From the article, this lawsuit might be the best current shot at getting Trump's tax returns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: From the article, this lawsuit might be the best current shot at getting Trump's tax returns. Yes, I saw that mentioned. Would be delicious irony if the suit went to the Supreme Court and Gorsuch voted against Trump. I'd like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 20 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said: Yes, I saw that mentioned. Would be delicious irony if the suit went to the Supreme Court and Gorsuch voted against Trump. I'd like that. I doubt he would. He's a big time small government guy. And frankly the liberal justices might side with Trump too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: I doubt he would. He's a big time small government guy. And frankly the liberal justices might side with Trump too. Why would you think that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 Quote Attorney General Jeff Sessions will appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee for an open hearing Tuesday, the committee announced Monday. Sessions requested that the hearing be public, a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement Monday. "The Attorney General has requested that this hearing be public. He believes it is important for the American people to hear the truth directly from him and looks forward to answering the committee's questions tomorrow," the statement read. http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/337406-sessions-to-testify-publicly-to-senate-intel-committee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 44 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said: Why would you think that? I'm just not sure if they will find a cause to compel Trump to release his taxes, but I'm no lawyer so we'll just have to wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: I'm just not sure if they will find a cause to compel Trump to release his taxes, but I'm no lawyer so we'll just have to wait and see. Currently the case is a long way from the SCOTUS and it may not go anywhere anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 More on "Republican Moderates". LOL. https://www.vox.com/health-care/2017/6/12/15771872/obamacare-is-in-real-danger Quote The Affordable Care Act is in deep trouble — in Washington and large swaths of the country. Senate Republicans began to coalesce around the framework of a plan to repeal and replace the law last week. Their plan would, like the bill the House passed in May, almost certainly cause millions of low-income Americans to lose coverage by ending the Medicaid expansion. It would help the young and healthy at the expense of the older and the sick. Quote The Republican plan is coming together because moderate senators are beginning to drop some of their initial repeal objections. Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), for example, now back a plan to end the Medicaid expansion........ But now Portman has endorsed a plan to phase out the Medicaid expansion entirely, just to do so on a longer timeline than the House bill. Portman and Moore Capito want a seven-year phase out, rather than the House bill’s three-year off-ramp. As far as I'm concerned, every Republican, whether alleged "moderate" or not, owns this monstrosity. I will never forgive nor forget this. Quote When Republican legislators talk about why they need to repeal Obamacare, they point to the areas that are struggling to attract health insurers. They point to Obamacare's bald spots and make the argument that a new law is needed to fix the problem. This country and the world will be better off the day the Republican Party simply vanishes from the face of the Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.