|
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. |
On March 10 2017 03:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 03:13 LightSpectra wrote:On March 10 2017 03:02 LegalLord wrote: I think it's moot since it would take a miracle for this plan to pass. It of course only needs 51 votes in the Senate. That means it can pass if Ryan/Trump can sway all but one Republican Senators. Currently there's about four or five of them making noise about it, but I could see all of them (except maybe for Rand Paul) falling in line when the whip comes out. So while it's unlikely to pass, it's far from needing a miracle. Its needs 60 votes in the senate to overcome a filibuster, which will never happen.
I thought they could pass it through reconciliation and only need a majority.
|
On March 10 2017 03:17 JumboJohnson wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 03:14 Plansix wrote:On March 10 2017 03:13 LightSpectra wrote:On March 10 2017 03:02 LegalLord wrote: I think it's moot since it would take a miracle for this plan to pass. It of course only needs 51 votes in the Senate. That means it can pass if Ryan/Trump can sway all but one Republican Senators. Currently there's about four or five of them making noise about it, but I could see all of them (except maybe for Rand Paul) falling in line when the whip comes out. So while it's unlikely to pass, it's far from needing a miracle. Its needs 60 votes in the senate to overcome a filibuster, which will never happen. I thought they could pass it through reconciliation and only need a majority. I am not sure that will work. My understanding of reconciliation is that is would defund the ACA through budget changes, but not create new laws. That would avoid the filibuster, but wouldn't allow them to get rid of the mandate or create new systems.
|
Ah. Wasn't aware of that. Then yeah, it's dead in the water.
|
On March 10 2017 02:33 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 02:30 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2017 02:19 Danglars wrote: Sometimes, I think the new drug is outrage and you all are addicts. There's always so much projection when talking to far right people, it's kind of unbelievable... Love me some horseshoe theory. Just another example of it at work.
ive got a theory for you: the horseshoe is a complete historical anomaly and its shape is an illusion. it's actually a straight line that runs from the political at one end to an apolitical fukuyamaist consumerism at the other end. the horseshoe bend is a mirage produced by an aesthetic identity apolitics that appears to have extension within a real political dimension (hence the 2d horseshoe) but actually does not.
|
The use of reconciliation to destroy the ACA was one of the stupidest plans the Freedom Clown-show came up with. It would leave the mandate in place, but would defund all the aspects of the ACA that makes healthcare work. It would screw over ever state and voter, while solving no problems.
The political solution of cutting off their nose to spite their face. Or "We love recessions".
|
On March 10 2017 03:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 03:17 JumboJohnson wrote:On March 10 2017 03:14 Plansix wrote:On March 10 2017 03:13 LightSpectra wrote:On March 10 2017 03:02 LegalLord wrote: I think it's moot since it would take a miracle for this plan to pass. It of course only needs 51 votes in the Senate. That means it can pass if Ryan/Trump can sway all but one Republican Senators. Currently there's about four or five of them making noise about it, but I could see all of them (except maybe for Rand Paul) falling in line when the whip comes out. So while it's unlikely to pass, it's far from needing a miracle. Its needs 60 votes in the senate to overcome a filibuster, which will never happen. I thought they could pass it through reconciliation and only need a majority. I am not sure that will work. My understanding of reconciliation is that is would defund the ACA through budget changes, but not create new laws. That would avoid the filibuster, but wouldn't allow them to get rid of the mandate or create new systems.
I thought the mandate was removable via reconciliation because it is a tax and thus under the scope as a scorable budget item.
|
On March 10 2017 02:19 Danglars wrote:Anyone still shocked. He said in confirmation hearings that the degree of human impact is subject to continuing debate. Breaking news: the actual statement said Show nested quote +I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see Or almost exactly what was said before. Sometimes, I think the new drug is outrage and you all are addicts.
here's the full article on it from Reuters: www.reuters.com
EPA chief says Congress should weigh whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant
[...]
I can understand the outrage tbh. Going as far as to say you don't even consider it a pollutant in the first place is quite ridiculous and unsettling. Idk what it was for you guys in the US but as someone looking from the outside I don't know the guy too well, I knew that he's a climate change denier and I knew he (as anyone appointed by Trump) would try his best to undo anything and everything related to it but this is a lot more than I personally ever thought would happen.
So yeah, for me him going that far is still a massive shock because at the back of my head I at least always had that idea "well, he wouldn't be THAT crazy.... right?", turns out he is.
|
On March 10 2017 03:27 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 02:33 Gahlo wrote:On March 10 2017 02:30 Nebuchad wrote:On March 10 2017 02:19 Danglars wrote: Sometimes, I think the new drug is outrage and you all are addicts. There's always so much projection when talking to far right people, it's kind of unbelievable... Love me some horseshoe theory. Just another example of it at work. ive got a theory for you: the horseshoe is a complete historical anomaly and its shape is an illusion. it's actually a straight line that runs from the political at one end to an apolitical fukuyamaist consumerism at the other end. the horseshoe bend is a mirage produced by an aesthetic identity apolitics that appears to have extension within a real political dimension (hence the 2d horseshoe) but actually does not.
You changed the image a little but the underlying horseshoe logic still seems to apply. You're saying that both the left and the right are a return to the 'political' while the establishment/center/whatever manages in administrative fashion.
|
On March 10 2017 03:39 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 03:21 Plansix wrote:On March 10 2017 03:17 JumboJohnson wrote:On March 10 2017 03:14 Plansix wrote:On March 10 2017 03:13 LightSpectra wrote:On March 10 2017 03:02 LegalLord wrote: I think it's moot since it would take a miracle for this plan to pass. It of course only needs 51 votes in the Senate. That means it can pass if Ryan/Trump can sway all but one Republican Senators. Currently there's about four or five of them making noise about it, but I could see all of them (except maybe for Rand Paul) falling in line when the whip comes out. So while it's unlikely to pass, it's far from needing a miracle. Its needs 60 votes in the senate to overcome a filibuster, which will never happen. I thought they could pass it through reconciliation and only need a majority. I am not sure that will work. My understanding of reconciliation is that is would defund the ACA through budget changes, but not create new laws. That would avoid the filibuster, but wouldn't allow them to get rid of the mandate or create new systems. I thought the mandate was removable via reconciliation because it is a tax and thus under the scope as a scorable budget item. They might be able to adjust the amount of the tax if you don’t have insurance? I know they can’t remove the pre-existing conditions clause or much of the structure of the ACA.
It was a terrible plan, much like using the debt ceiling as political leverage. It is short sighted and the opposite of governing.
|
On March 10 2017 03:43 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 02:19 Danglars wrote:Anyone still shocked. He said in confirmation hearings that the degree of human impact is subject to continuing debate. Breaking news: the actual statement said I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see Or almost exactly what was said before. Sometimes, I think the new drug is outrage and you all are addicts. here's the full article on it from Reuters: www.reuters.comShow nested quote +EPA chief says Congress should weigh whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant
[...] I can understand the outrage tbh. Going as far as to say you don't even consider it a pollutant in the first place is quite ridiculous and unsettling. Idk what it was for you guys in the US but as someone looking from the outside I don't know the guy too well, I knew that he's a climate change denier and I knew he (as anyone appointed by Trump) would try his best to undo anything and everything related to it but this is a lot more than I personally ever thought would happen. So yeah, for me him going that far is still a massive shock because at the back of my head I at least always had that idea "well, he wouldn't be THAT crazy.... right?", turns out he is.
I would really like it if the EU and other first-world countries banded together to protest/sanction America's environmental damage to the world.
I mean if the USA had trucks that regularly drove into Canada, dumped a ton of waste, and drove back while ignoring any border controls, it would be an international incident. If we had boats that regularly sailed to Europe or Japan and regularly dumped waste on their shores, it would be an international incident. So why isn't it equally bad that we're polluting their airspace? The only difference is the crap isn't being dispersed at ground level.
Of course it will never happen, just a thought experiment.
|
On March 10 2017 03:17 JumboJohnson wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 03:14 Plansix wrote:On March 10 2017 03:13 LightSpectra wrote:On March 10 2017 03:02 LegalLord wrote: I think it's moot since it would take a miracle for this plan to pass. It of course only needs 51 votes in the Senate. That means it can pass if Ryan/Trump can sway all but one Republican Senators. Currently there's about four or five of them making noise about it, but I could see all of them (except maybe for Rand Paul) falling in line when the whip comes out. So while it's unlikely to pass, it's far from needing a miracle. Its needs 60 votes in the senate to overcome a filibuster, which will never happen. I thought they could pass it through reconciliation and only need a majority. Budget reconciliation baby. Not subject to filibuster. And guess why the GOP is attracted to this idea.
|
On March 10 2017 03:02 LegalLord wrote: I think it's moot since it would take a miracle for this plan to pass. It's uniting America! ... against the plan.
On March 10 2017 03:43 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 02:19 Danglars wrote:Anyone still shocked. He said in confirmation hearings that the degree of human impact is subject to continuing debate. Breaking news: the actual statement said I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see Or almost exactly what was said before. Sometimes, I think the new drug is outrage and you all are addicts. here's the full article on it from Reuters: www.reuters.comShow nested quote +EPA chief says Congress should weigh whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant
[...] I can understand the outrage tbh. Going as far as to say you don't even consider it a pollutant in the first place is quite ridiculous and unsettling. Idk what it was for you guys in the US but as someone looking from the outside I don't know the guy too well, I knew that he's a climate change denier and I knew he (as anyone appointed by Trump) would try his best to undo anything and everything related to it but this is a lot more than I personally ever thought would happen. So yeah, for me him going that far is still a massive shock because at the back of my head I at least always had that idea "well, he wouldn't be THAT crazy.... right?", turns out he is. Remember, traditional definitions of pollutants are lung irritants ... picture smog. Now, people are expanding the definition to mean things safe to breathe in. So the section specifically isn't ridiculous or unsettling on its face. The flip side is the court and others attempts to expand pollution to include things like greenhouse gases, is (famously) farts and Frisbees can be considered as pollutants.
So it's in line with everything we heard in the nomination and confirmation process. It's only breaking news if Kim Jong Il touring farms qualifies as "North Korea says/does surprising and alarming thing."
|
On March 10 2017 02:49 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 02:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Does anyone here not think the GOP doesn't have Trump's Tax Returns or his Russian allegations buried in case of emergency.... Be honest. I still don't follow why Ryan would want to destroy Trump for passing his healthcare bill. Are you suggesting the AHCA is some kind of Machiavellian plot to make Pence president? How does Ryan benefit from that?
To an Ayn Rand devotee faux policy wonk like Paul Ryan the bill probably seems like a brilliant idea.
My original belief that "the GOP couldn't possibly be dumb enough to repeal Obamacare and replace it with nothing/ garbage" is really being put to the test.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 10 2017 03:43 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 02:19 Danglars wrote:Anyone still shocked. He said in confirmation hearings that the degree of human impact is subject to continuing debate. Breaking news: the actual statement said I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see Or almost exactly what was said before. Sometimes, I think the new drug is outrage and you all are addicts. here's the full article on it from Reuters: www.reuters.comShow nested quote +EPA chief says Congress should weigh whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant
[...] I can understand the outrage tbh. Going as far as to say you don't even consider it a pollutant in the first place is quite ridiculous and unsettling. Idk what it was for you guys in the US but as someone looking from the outside I don't know the guy too well, I knew that he's a climate change denier and I knew he (as anyone appointed by Trump) would try his best to undo anything and everything related to it but this is a lot more than I personally ever thought would happen. So yeah, for me him going that far is still a massive shock because at the back of my head I at least always had that idea "well, he wouldn't be THAT crazy.... right?", turns out he is. We America people basically knew he would be that crazy. Lobbyists pay good money for utter bullshit of the useful variety.
|
How does Sean Spicer live with himself on a daily basis? How many times can he say "the people want this plan. We are giving power back to doctors and patients. This plan is the salvation we have been waiting for" with a straight face? Does he talk to no one but Trump and Ryan? A vast majority of the country (private citizens and business) seems to abhor the proposed changes, and a bunch of shit we are being told are precisely the things people have been ranting about at town halls. How does he (Sean) not realize that?
On a side note, there's something about his face I don't like. He just looks like an evil bastard. I thought that the moment I saw a pic of him. Anyone else?
|
As far as I'm concerned, Spicer is an entirely fitting mouthpiece for Trump.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I always just picture him as Jack Spicer from the cartoon "Xiaolin Showdown." It works.
|
|
On March 10 2017 04:11 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2017 03:43 Toadesstern wrote:On March 10 2017 02:19 Danglars wrote:Anyone still shocked. He said in confirmation hearings that the degree of human impact is subject to continuing debate. Breaking news: the actual statement said I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see Or almost exactly what was said before. Sometimes, I think the new drug is outrage and you all are addicts. here's the full article on it from Reuters: www.reuters.comEPA chief says Congress should weigh whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant
[...] I can understand the outrage tbh. Going as far as to say you don't even consider it a pollutant in the first place is quite ridiculous and unsettling. Idk what it was for you guys in the US but as someone looking from the outside I don't know the guy too well, I knew that he's a climate change denier and I knew he (as anyone appointed by Trump) would try his best to undo anything and everything related to it but this is a lot more than I personally ever thought would happen. So yeah, for me him going that far is still a massive shock because at the back of my head I at least always had that idea "well, he wouldn't be THAT crazy.... right?", turns out he is. We America people basically knew he would be that crazy. Lobbyists pay good money for utter bullshit of the useful variety. I think there were enough people (in this thread, even) promising that Trump actually had a plan, was not as stupid as he seemed during the election, and would be tempered by him picking the "best" people in his cabinet to advise him.
I'm sure there is a good deal of schadenfreude in discovering he and his advisors really are just idiots.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
That so-called judge shouldn't meddle in these matters of national security. We need to figure out what's going on and he shouldn't get in the way.
|
|
|
|