|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats tried and failed Wednesday to expedite emergency funds to combat the Zika virus, stymied by Republicans who objected and tried to extract cuts to Obamacare as a condition for their agreement.
Using procedural tactics, Democrats tried to force two votes by unanimous consent: one to approve the $1.9 billion sought by the Obama administration, and another requesting to speed up passage of a $1.1 billion measure that senators backed Tuesday.
The moves were meant to pressure Republicans, and to once again put them on the record against the president’s larger emergency request to deal with the virus, which causes birth defects such as microcephaly and other ailments. It came one day after the Senate voted 68-29 to provide that $1.1 billion in emergency Zika funds as part of a larger spending bill for transportation, housing and military construction projects.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) took to the floor Wednesday to argue that the larger bill could easily get tied up in Congress’ dysfunctional process, and be stalled until the fall — well after the money will be needed. The Zika spending should be broken out, they argued.
“As the weather warms, the mosquitoes will multiply and people will be bitten by these vicious little insects,” Reid said. “The appropriations process — to say it is slow is a gross understatement. We need to get this done now.”
Part of Democrats’ concerns stem from the legislation House Republicans are currently considering — $622 million redirected from previously authorized Ebola funds and other programs. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) argues that the House proposal should be seen as an addition to the roughly $600 million the White House has already transferred from its Ebola response.
In any case, the House and Senate proposals are different, and the Senate’s is currently tied to a spending bill, which could require a conference committee process to work out the differences.
Source
|
On May 19 2016 06:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats tried and failed Wednesday to expedite emergency funds to combat the Zika virus, stymied by Republicans who objected and tried to extract cuts to Obamacare as a condition for their agreement.
Using procedural tactics, Democrats tried to force two votes by unanimous consent: one to approve the $1.9 billion sought by the Obama administration, and another requesting to speed up passage of a $1.1 billion measure that senators backed Tuesday.
The moves were meant to pressure Republicans, and to once again put them on the record against the president’s larger emergency request to deal with the virus, which causes birth defects such as microcephaly and other ailments. It came one day after the Senate voted 68-29 to provide that $1.1 billion in emergency Zika funds as part of a larger spending bill for transportation, housing and military construction projects.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) took to the floor Wednesday to argue that the larger bill could easily get tied up in Congress’ dysfunctional process, and be stalled until the fall — well after the money will be needed. The Zika spending should be broken out, they argued.
“As the weather warms, the mosquitoes will multiply and people will be bitten by these vicious little insects,” Reid said. “The appropriations process — to say it is slow is a gross understatement. We need to get this done now.”
Part of Democrats’ concerns stem from the legislation House Republicans are currently considering — $622 million redirected from previously authorized Ebola funds and other programs. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) argues that the House proposal should be seen as an addition to the roughly $600 million the White House has already transferred from its Ebola response.
In any case, the House and Senate proposals are different, and the Senate’s is currently tied to a spending bill, which could require a conference committee process to work out the differences. Source
Anywhere else this would be slam dunks, easy legislation that both sides agree are needed to protect public health. But nope, better attach ACA defunding attempt 2573 to it instead...
|
|
|
On May 19 2016 06:58 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 06:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats tried and failed Wednesday to expedite emergency funds to combat the Zika virus, stymied by Republicans who objected and tried to extract cuts to Obamacare as a condition for their agreement.
Using procedural tactics, Democrats tried to force two votes by unanimous consent: one to approve the $1.9 billion sought by the Obama administration, and another requesting to speed up passage of a $1.1 billion measure that senators backed Tuesday.
The moves were meant to pressure Republicans, and to once again put them on the record against the president’s larger emergency request to deal with the virus, which causes birth defects such as microcephaly and other ailments. It came one day after the Senate voted 68-29 to provide that $1.1 billion in emergency Zika funds as part of a larger spending bill for transportation, housing and military construction projects.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) took to the floor Wednesday to argue that the larger bill could easily get tied up in Congress’ dysfunctional process, and be stalled until the fall — well after the money will be needed. The Zika spending should be broken out, they argued.
“As the weather warms, the mosquitoes will multiply and people will be bitten by these vicious little insects,” Reid said. “The appropriations process — to say it is slow is a gross understatement. We need to get this done now.”
Part of Democrats’ concerns stem from the legislation House Republicans are currently considering — $622 million redirected from previously authorized Ebola funds and other programs. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) argues that the House proposal should be seen as an addition to the roughly $600 million the White House has already transferred from its Ebola response.
In any case, the House and Senate proposals are different, and the Senate’s is currently tied to a spending bill, which could require a conference committee process to work out the differences. Source Anywhere else this would be slam dunks, easy legislation that both sides agree are needed to protect public health. But nope, better attach ACA defunding attempt 2573 to it instead...
I don't know if you have heard this, but both sides are the same. Democrats and Republicans are basically tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum. Voting is for chumps anyways because the whole thing is Rigged. Corporations have Corrupted everything and only look out for Special Interests.
|
It will get through as Zika will be primarily be in the South and the first case/death will be like the holy land under attack for certain Republicans.
|
+ Show Spoiler +lol @ #BernieLostMe AstroTurf harder guys...
This hyper-sensationalism route the establishment has taken against Trump and Bernie is only going to make things worse. You had something with how Trump treated women and overreached, and now Trump's already diffused it and it's got no juice as a headline and moved nothing anywhere. That had the entire corporate media and the truth behind it and failed miserably.
Hillary supporters seem to not appreciate how not in the bag this election is if they nominate Hillary. As for Bernie running in a 3 way race, it would certainly re-energize his base, extrapolating out from his current donations he could expect to raise at least $500 million if not more (which would be more than enough to catch fire), most of the country doesn't want either nominee and there's also a lot of spite. If people rally around a neutrally disliked candidate that's not the other 2 hated candidates and congress doesn't change that's a best case scenario for a majority of Americans when compared to the option of losing to the other side entirely.
Trump's also left open a vulnerability by abandoning his rhetoric on fundraising and if Bernie was making a three person race he certainly wouldn't be able to break his word even if he wanted to. The numbers are easily out there, for him to raise well over a billion dollars the same way he's raised the first couple hundred million.
I don't know exactly what killed folks political imagination but it's something we're sorely missing.
|
On May 19 2016 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +lol @ #BernieLostMe AstroTurf harder guys... This hyper-sensationalism route the establishment has taken against Trump and Bernie is only going to make things worse. You had something with how Trump treated women and overreached, and now Trump's already diffused it and it's got no juice as a headline and moved nothing anywhere. That had the entire corporate media and the truth behind it and failed miserably. Hillary supporters seem to not appreciate how not in the bag this election is if they nominate Hillary.
What information do you see yourself as having that the democratic party does not?
|
On May 19 2016 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +lol @ #BernieLostMe AstroTurf harder guys... This hyper-sensationalism route the establishment has taken against Trump and Bernie is only going to make things worse. You had something with how Trump treated women and overreached, and now Trump's already diffused it and it's got no juice as a headline and moved nothing anywhere. That had the entire corporate media and the truth behind it and failed miserably. Hillary supporters seem to not appreciate how not in the bag this election is if they nominate Hillary.
I highly doubt trump will be able to pull something out to beat her, although I might be underestimating the amount of crazy people in america
|
On May 19 2016 07:03 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 06:58 Gorsameth wrote:On May 19 2016 06:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats tried and failed Wednesday to expedite emergency funds to combat the Zika virus, stymied by Republicans who objected and tried to extract cuts to Obamacare as a condition for their agreement.
Using procedural tactics, Democrats tried to force two votes by unanimous consent: one to approve the $1.9 billion sought by the Obama administration, and another requesting to speed up passage of a $1.1 billion measure that senators backed Tuesday.
The moves were meant to pressure Republicans, and to once again put them on the record against the president’s larger emergency request to deal with the virus, which causes birth defects such as microcephaly and other ailments. It came one day after the Senate voted 68-29 to provide that $1.1 billion in emergency Zika funds as part of a larger spending bill for transportation, housing and military construction projects.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) took to the floor Wednesday to argue that the larger bill could easily get tied up in Congress’ dysfunctional process, and be stalled until the fall — well after the money will be needed. The Zika spending should be broken out, they argued.
“As the weather warms, the mosquitoes will multiply and people will be bitten by these vicious little insects,” Reid said. “The appropriations process — to say it is slow is a gross understatement. We need to get this done now.”
Part of Democrats’ concerns stem from the legislation House Republicans are currently considering — $622 million redirected from previously authorized Ebola funds and other programs. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) argues that the House proposal should be seen as an addition to the roughly $600 million the White House has already transferred from its Ebola response.
In any case, the House and Senate proposals are different, and the Senate’s is currently tied to a spending bill, which could require a conference committee process to work out the differences. Source Anywhere else this would be slam dunks, easy legislation that both sides agree are needed to protect public health. But nope, better attach ACA defunding attempt 2573 to it instead... I don't know if you have heard this, but both sides are the same. Democrats and Republicans are basically tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum. Voting is for chumps anyways because the whole thing is Rigged. Corporations have Corrupted everything and only look out for Special Interests.
I disagree. You can easily see this in the Republican civil war between Cruz and Boehner. It was a civil war because of tactics, not beliefs. Too many Americans have lost the appreciation for an actual functioning government. Boehner has said that he has a good professional relationship with Obama even though they disagree on a great many things. He's also the one who lost the Republican civil war and decided to quit.
This has been the most useless Congress in American history. And a certain caucus full of loons is to blame. Yeah, both sides have their loons. You can easily see some of the ones on the Democrats' side on this thread (no need to name names, we all know who they are). But it's obvious which party has far more loons who are in elected office right now.
|
On May 19 2016 07:38 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +lol @ #BernieLostMe AstroTurf harder guys... This hyper-sensationalism route the establishment has taken against Trump and Bernie is only going to make things worse. You had something with how Trump treated women and overreached, and now Trump's already diffused it and it's got no juice as a headline and moved nothing anywhere. That had the entire corporate media and the truth behind it and failed miserably. Hillary supporters seem to not appreciate how not in the bag this election is if they nominate Hillary. I highly doubt trump will be able to pull something out to beat her, although I might be underestimating the amount of crazy people in america
Dramatically underestimating the amount of crazy in America.
Free advice that I'm sure the DNC is too prideful to take (though they may eventually figure it out):
+ Show Spoiler +People seem to be in a delusion that the 45% +/- of Americans (He actually led Hillary at one point in the RCP avg) who say they would vote for Trump in the general (this is before the party fell in line) can be driven down with the types of ads they are running. It can't/won't. If they really wanted to make a dent they would just go all out and say, "you don't owe it to the Republican party to support Trump, standing up to him is the right thing to do" Then shame them with all the reasons they said they didn't think he should be president, then them reluctantly saying they will support him. Run it in their home states, make sure they can't turn on a TV without seeing it, that they can't go anywhere without being asked about it, etc... + Show Spoiler +Or just keep doing what the plans seems to be now and end up wondering when the video compilations and quote memes of the talking heads being wrong will stop being emailed and tweeted across the country from President Trump.
|
On May 19 2016 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 07:38 hunts wrote:On May 19 2016 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +lol @ #BernieLostMe AstroTurf harder guys... This hyper-sensationalism route the establishment has taken against Trump and Bernie is only going to make things worse. You had something with how Trump treated women and overreached, and now Trump's already diffused it and it's got no juice as a headline and moved nothing anywhere. That had the entire corporate media and the truth behind it and failed miserably. Hillary supporters seem to not appreciate how not in the bag this election is if they nominate Hillary. I highly doubt trump will be able to pull something out to beat her, although I might be underestimating the amount of crazy people in america Dramatically underestimating the amount of crazy in America. Free advice that I'm sure the DNC is too prideful to take (though they may eventually figure it out): + Show Spoiler +People seem to be in a delusion that the 45% +/- of Americans (He actually led Hillary at one point in the RCP avg) who say they would vote for Trump in the general (this is before the party fell in line) can be driven down with the types of ads they are running. It can't/won't. If they really wanted to make a dent they would just go all out and say, "you don't owe it to the Republican party to support Trump, standing up to him is the right thing to do" Then shame them with all the reasons they said they didn't think he should be president, then them reluctantly saying they will support him. Run it in their home states, make sure they can't turn on a TV without seeing it, that they can't go anywhere without being asked about it, etc... + Show Spoiler +Or just keep doing what the plans seems to be now and end up wondering when the video compilations and quote memes of the talking heads being wrong will stop being emailed and tweeted across the country from President Trump.
So why do you think the democratic party was willing to rally around Obama and ditch Clinton? I feel like the situations are pretty similar.
|
On May 19 2016 08:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2016 07:38 hunts wrote:On May 19 2016 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +lol @ #BernieLostMe AstroTurf harder guys... This hyper-sensationalism route the establishment has taken against Trump and Bernie is only going to make things worse. You had something with how Trump treated women and overreached, and now Trump's already diffused it and it's got no juice as a headline and moved nothing anywhere. That had the entire corporate media and the truth behind it and failed miserably. Hillary supporters seem to not appreciate how not in the bag this election is if they nominate Hillary. I highly doubt trump will be able to pull something out to beat her, although I might be underestimating the amount of crazy people in america Dramatically underestimating the amount of crazy in America. Free advice that I'm sure the DNC is too prideful to take (though they may eventually figure it out): + Show Spoiler +People seem to be in a delusion that the 45% +/- of Americans (He actually led Hillary at one point in the RCP avg) who say they would vote for Trump in the general (this is before the party fell in line) can be driven down with the types of ads they are running. It can't/won't. If they really wanted to make a dent they would just go all out and say, "you don't owe it to the Republican party to support Trump, standing up to him is the right thing to do" Then shame them with all the reasons they said they didn't think he should be president, then them reluctantly saying they will support him. Run it in their home states, make sure they can't turn on a TV without seeing it, that they can't go anywhere without being asked about it, etc... + Show Spoiler +Or just keep doing what the plans seems to be now and end up wondering when the video compilations and quote memes of the talking heads being wrong will stop being emailed and tweeted across the country from President Trump. So why do you think the democratic party was willing to rally around Obama and ditch Clinton? I feel like the situations are pretty similar.
Obama was a blank canvas on which people could paint their hopes, Clinton is a brick wall that attracts bad graffiti.
EDIT: Oops misread the question. Jormundr nailed the summary. It's plenty more detailed but it will all get dismissed anyway so that should be sufficient to ridicule.
|
On May 19 2016 08:10 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 07:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 19 2016 07:38 hunts wrote:On May 19 2016 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:+ Show Spoiler +lol @ #BernieLostMe AstroTurf harder guys... This hyper-sensationalism route the establishment has taken against Trump and Bernie is only going to make things worse. You had something with how Trump treated women and overreached, and now Trump's already diffused it and it's got no juice as a headline and moved nothing anywhere. That had the entire corporate media and the truth behind it and failed miserably. Hillary supporters seem to not appreciate how not in the bag this election is if they nominate Hillary. I highly doubt trump will be able to pull something out to beat her, although I might be underestimating the amount of crazy people in america Dramatically underestimating the amount of crazy in America. Free advice that I'm sure the DNC is too prideful to take (though they may eventually figure it out): + Show Spoiler +People seem to be in a delusion that the 45% +/- of Americans (He actually led Hillary at one point in the RCP avg) who say they would vote for Trump in the general (this is before the party fell in line) can be driven down with the types of ads they are running. It can't/won't. If they really wanted to make a dent they would just go all out and say, "you don't owe it to the Republican party to support Trump, standing up to him is the right thing to do" Then shame them with all the reasons they said they didn't think he should be president, then them reluctantly saying they will support him. Run it in their home states, make sure they can't turn on a TV without seeing it, that they can't go anywhere without being asked about it, etc... + Show Spoiler +Or just keep doing what the plans seems to be now and end up wondering when the video compilations and quote memes of the talking heads being wrong will stop being emailed and tweeted across the country from President Trump. So why do you think the democratic party was willing to rally around Obama and ditch Clinton? I feel like the situations are pretty similar.
Hillary went into that race completely unprepared. She hadn't worked out media deals with ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN to completely ignore Obama. She hadn't done that with the DNC either, because nobody thought it was possible that people could vote for anyone other than the party's preferred nominee.
This time she ironed that shit out.
|
This entire page paints the other side as crazy or lunatic. It's quite inconsiderate and I am triggered by this. This isn't one of my safe spaces so I should have expected as much but the fact that these posts were labelled without proper trigger warnings is problematic and disconcerting. I feel it is disingenuous to label the other side as "crazy" or as "loons" and is an attempt to delegitimize their issues. Just knowing that ... that the other side thinks of us as lunatic when we're good law abiding people has me so upset that I almost had a panic attack.
To the post above:
Yes, every article on facebook or in comments sections on tv shows or the NYT or bill maher etc were always "Why aren't you mentioning Bernie?!"
The answer was obvious. "Because we don't want Bernie to win". It is supposed to be Hillary's coronation.
|
So if Clinton's plan is to paint herself as an outsider she is going to be laughed out of this race. she has to pick a progressive VP otherwise she either barely wins or loses outright against Trump.
|
On May 19 2016 08:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So if Clinton's plan is to paint herself as an outsider she is going to be laughed out of this race. she has to pick a progressive VP otherwise she either barely wins or loses outright against Trump.
Most people in this thread were very confident she is going to win very handily against Trump. What makes you think she'll lose? Most people just show the 'unfavourability' polls and call it a day.
|
On May 19 2016 08:30 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 08:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So if Clinton's plan is to paint herself as an outsider she is going to be laughed out of this race. she has to pick a progressive VP otherwise she either barely wins or loses outright against Trump. Most people in this thread were very confident she is going to win very handily against Trump. What makes you think she'll lose? Most people just show the 'unfavourability' polls and call it a day.
Have you seen the Polls this is anti-establishment election cycle Trump has nearly caught up with Clinton and is now tied with her in New Hampshire. People can blame Sanders all they want but he has no effect on her unfavorably ratings at all.
|
On May 19 2016 08:23 SK.Testie wrote:
This entire page paints the other side as crazy or lunatic. It's quite inconsiderate and I am triggered by this. This isn't one of my safe spaces so I should have expected as much but the fact that these posts were labelled without proper trigger warnings is problematic and disconcerting. I feel it is disingenuous to label the other side as "crazy" or as "loons" and is an attempt to delegitimize their issues. Just knowing that ... that the other side thinks of us as lunatic when we're good law abiding people has me so upset that I almost had a panic attack.
To the post above:
Yes, every article on facebook or in comments sections on tv shows or the NYT or bill maher etc were always "Why aren't you mentioning Bernie?!"
The answer was obvious. "Because we don't want Bernie to win". It is supposed to be Hillary's coronation.
If it makes you feel better I'm being facetious.
I don't think Trump supporters are the crazy, I think they misunderstand what Trump actually represents, but someone doesn't have to be crazy for Trump's message to be the one that resonates most with them (particularly in Hillary Vs Trump).
But anyway....
Sen. Bernie Sanders has accepted a Fox News invitation for a Democratic debate in California, the Sanders campaign announced on Wednesday.
“Both campaigns have been invited by Fox News to a debate. We have told the network that we would accept the invitation with the understanding that we can reach mutual agreement on the debate moderators, the format and other details,” Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager said in a statement.
Fox News has expressed interest in holding a Democratic debate for months and has been publicly lobbying the Democratic National Committee. In March, both Sanders and Hillary Clinton participated in back-to-back town halls with Fox host Bret Baier. On Tuesday, Fox News sent a formal letter to both campaigns inviting them to a debate, the Washington Post reported. The letters and the Sanders campaign's statements didn't specify a time or place, though Fox News said the debate would be moderated by anchors Baier, Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace, who have been roundly praised for their handling of three Republican debates.
“Fox News has suggested several debate venues in California to the Democratic National Committee and both candidates. We are also offering a variety of dates, being careful to exclude Friday and Saturday nights, per the agreement between the DNC and candidates. Fox will release further debate details as appropriate, given that only one of the two candidates has accepted our debate invitation so far," Bill Sammon, VP and Washington Managing Editor said in a statement.
Source
What if Hillary refused and Trump decided to go instead?
|
Also just imagined a Trump political ad where Clinton at getting a light sentence for a child rapist. Then imagine the victim, who has done interviews, comes out again. Jesus Christ.
|
On May 19 2016 08:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2016 08:30 SK.Testie wrote:On May 19 2016 08:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So if Clinton's plan is to paint herself as an outsider she is going to be laughed out of this race. she has to pick a progressive VP otherwise she either barely wins or loses outright against Trump. Most people in this thread were very confident she is going to win very handily against Trump. What makes you think she'll lose? Most people just show the 'unfavourability' polls and call it a day. Have you seen the Polls this is anti-establishment election cycle Trump has nearly caught up with Clinton and is now tied with her in New Hampshire. People can blame Sanders all they want but he has no effect on her unfavorably ratings at all.
It most definitely is the anti-establishment. But Trump is going to have to rely on the establishment to get enough funds for the GE. The extremely wealthy donor class like Adelson etc (who is already on board). So it may damage his anti-establishment appeal.. that or they will just see him as an alpha who led the pack and made them change. Trump may not have started that badly on Hillary on attack ads yet, but I think now that Trump has set the tone for how raucous and politically incorrect you can go, they can just keep throwing attack ads of Trump looking like a fool infront of the camera while she looks presidential.
But.. you may be right because the polls are getting closer but there's other polls that show them still far apart by 10 points or so. Do you think more than the normal battleground states are in play?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
