|
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 16 2017 08:45 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2017 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:She can't run though, she's done, I've been told many times she's done. But I'm sure she wants to leave "Mayor" as her retiring title, no way she would turn it into a 2020 run. Impossible. EDIT: I'm telling you though, the real problem with the Democratic party is that damn Sanders guy, can't win a majority with someone like that... This just in, politician who is not being reported on does not lose favorability Next up, a story about how water is wet. Also national polls for locally elected officials are pretty worthless. And everyone's approval rating goes down once they run for things.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Desperation?
Things aren't looking great for the Republican health care bill after the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would lead to 24 million more people without insurance and skyrocketing costs for older customers.
But the White House and GOP leaders say that's only part of the story.
The Republicans' "American Health Care Act" is only "Phase One" of their plan. In "Phase Two," the White House will lower premiums with tweaks to regulations. In "Phase Three," they'll pass new legislation to fill in gaps that can't be addressed through the budget process.
"The fact of the matter is with our whole plan every single American will have access to coverage," Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said on the "TODAY" show Tuesday.
But Republican critics of the bill are skeptical it can be salvaged with vague promises of future action.
"There is no three-phase process," Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) told radio host Hugh Hewitt this week. "There is no three-step plan. That is just political talk, it's just politicians engaging in spin."
As Cotton noted, the "Phase Three" bill is far-fetched since it would need significant Democratic backing to pass with the needed 60 votes in the Senate. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) also called the idea of passing a second bill with Trump's wish list a "fantasy" in a "TODAY" interview on Wednesday.
Democrats, meanwhile, are outright dismissive.
"This bill digs them so deep in a hole that no regulations are going to get them out of that," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told NBC News. "We think this bill is so bad there's no way to make it better."
So far, the administration has put out only a broad outline of what it plans to pursue in "Phase Two" and a White House aide told NBC News that "everything is on the table."
There there are some avenues, though, that supporters of the bill and some policy experts say the White House is likely to pursue to lower premium costs. But the process is uncertain and there are core provisions in the House bill that would likely put insurance out of reach for many of the most vulnerable Americans.
The biggest "Phase Two" item on the menu has to do with a provision of Obamacare called "Essential Health Benefits," a 10-point list of health care categories that every insurance plan on the individual market has to cover. Source
They're trying to prove their disastrous replacement will work, when it clearly never will.
|
Phase one: Pass the bad law Phase two: ????????????? Phase three: Re-election!
|
The White House's statements on it are pretty pointless after the internal memo that showed their own estimates for coverage loss were even worse than the CBO's.
|
No one ever doubted that. The real issue is deciding if US citizens SHOULD have coverage or if that should be left to the market and thus maximise profits. It´s the Republican goal but even they know not to actually say it.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
(CNN)Dina Powell, President Donald Trump's senior counselor for economic initiatives, is switching roles at the White House and will named deputy national security adviser for strategy, a senior administration official tells CNN.
Powell, a former executive at Goldman Sachs, served as director of personnel under President George W. Bush. She was born in Egypt and speaks Arabic.
Powell will work closely with K.T. McFarland, who has been the acting deputy for strategy. Though some national security experts speculated that McFarland would leave following Michael Flynn's ouster as national security adviser earlier this year, a senior administration official said that she will remain.
Politico first reported Powell's move. Powell, the official said, will focus on long-term planning for the National Security Council and with closely with national security adviser H.R. McMaster.
Powell has been a policy adviser for Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump.
Notably, Powell was part of the meeting this week between Trump and Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Source
Sounds like a Trump surrogate, which makes me wonder if McMaster will actually have the freedom of choosing his employees as promised.
|
On March 15 2017 22:18 Nebuchad wrote: I know you haven't said anything of the sort. It's a logical conclusion from what you have said: if you believe (or pretend to, anyway) that the democratic party has been very left wing the past few years, well clearly that hasn't worked out well, and you should attempt something else: be more right wing. That's a logical conclusion from the premises you have offered, unless
1) You believe the democratic party is not in control of the political line it presents and can't use it strategically, which is beyond ridiculous. 2) You believe the democratic party has done nothing wrong in the past few years and it's just a fact of life that it's hard to beat a party of orange monkeys in elections in America, which is beyond ridiculous too. Not only is this not even close to "a logical conclusion from what [I] have said", but you're distorting what I actually wrote. Where did I claim that "the democratic party has been very left wing the past few years"? Why are you misrepresenting my point? I wasn't making any such claim about the Democratic party, I was pointing out that the party (its elected representatives in Congress and at the state level) has overall been moving towards the left over the last few decades. It remains considerably less liberal than the GOP is conservative, and the mainstream left-wing parties in several Western countries are obviously to its left on many issues. Are you disputing this description of the overall evolution of the Democrats in Congress and at the state level? If so, what systematic method of measurement are you using, and can you explain why it is giving you different results than what can be found in the scientific literature on the topic?
Next, the reason why what you're trying to present as the "logical conclusion" of my argument is nothing of the sort is twofold. Firstly, Democrats have had clear electoral successes somewhat recently: in 2006 and 2008 in particular, and the aforementioned trend was already going on (although some methods of measurement show those elections to have slightly pulled the party back towards the center for a bit). Secondly, how progressive elected Democrats and candidates are is obviously not the sole independent variable affecting the party's electoral results -- many play a role, including rising income inequality, the polarization of the electorate, demographic shifts, redistricting, being the party holding the presidency, strategic decisions at the macro and micro levels, etc. etc. You have to control for other variables to get a better idea of the impact of how helpful or unhelpful it is to be more progressive, and like I said sometimes it can pay off to be more centrist, sometimes it can pay off to move towards the left -- it notably depends on the district/makeup of the electorate. To take the example of Manchin who's been mentioned pretty often recently, that's why replacing him with a more progressive, grass roots candidate would very likely hand his seat to the GOP.
Finally, to address another point you're making, the polarization of the electorate does make it harder than in the past to attract to one's side voters traditionally from the other camp (note that I'm not saying it's impossible, just harder than in the past).
|
kwizach, what's the difference between "the Democratic party moving towards the left over the decades" and "the democratic has been very left-wing the past few years"?
|
On March 16 2017 10:14 Blisse wrote: kwizach, what's the difference between "the Democratic party moving towards the left over the decades" and "the democratic has been very left-wing the past few years"? The party didn't openly support gay marriage until post 2008. I remember in the 1990s even openly supporting gay rights alone was a pretty rough sell nationally. I would argue that it is still a pretty rough sell nationally in a big part of the country.
|
On March 16 2017 10:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2017 10:14 Blisse wrote: kwizach, what's the difference between "the Democratic party moving towards the left over the decades" and "the democratic has been very left-wing the past few years"? The party didn't openly support gay marriage until post 2008. I remember in the 1990s even openly supporting gay rights alone was a pretty rough sell nationally. I would argue that it is still a pretty rough sell nationally in a big part of the country.
90s? More like 2004. The internet has hugely impacted societal progress. Widespread internet adoption has completely changed the political landscape on both the left and the right.
|
|
On March 16 2017 10:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:Looks like Trump's revised travel ban has been blocked again. And again, a large part is something he can't possibly change-his past rhetoric. Maybe if it happens a third time he will learn that words matter-though I think that and the wiretapping thing may have taught him that lesson. He'll probably just keep reissuing them, removing a country each time. Then when there are none left he'll say they gave the government enough time to deal with the situation and that it's a win for America. Everybody will know he's full of it and trumpets will call it another WIN.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Alright, the generals have had their 30 days. Is the plan for defeating ISIS ready to go?
|
On March 16 2017 08:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2017 08:45 Gorsameth wrote:On March 16 2017 08:28 GreenHorizons wrote:She can't run though, she's done, I've been told many times she's done. But I'm sure she wants to leave "Mayor" as her retiring title, no way she would turn it into a 2020 run. Impossible. EDIT: I'm telling you though, the real problem with the Democratic party is that damn Sanders guy, can't win a majority with someone like that... This just in, politician who is not being reported on does not lose favorability Next up, a story about how water is wet. Also national polls for locally elected officials are pretty worthless. And everyone's approval rating goes down once they run for things.
I think Hillary's being in the dumps despite being out of the headlines (think it's actually gone down over the last couple months) and Bernie doing better than everyone else says more than a lot of people want to admit.
|
On March 16 2017 11:03 LegalLord wrote: Alright, the generals have had their 30 days. Is the plan for defeating ISIS ready to go? I mean I have a plan for defeating ISIS too. I just need a large quantity of nuclear weapons and Trump to sign off on hundreds of millions lives worth of collateral damage, but ISIS will be dead so problem solved??
In all seriousness though, Trump probably didn't understand the scale or scope of the problem, or even the root causes.
|
On March 16 2017 11:48 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2017 11:03 LegalLord wrote: Alright, the generals have had their 30 days. Is the plan for defeating ISIS ready to go? I mean I have a plan for defeating ISIS too. I just need a large quantity of nuclear weapons and Trump to sign off on hundreds of millions lives worth of collateral damage, but ISIS will be dead so problem solved?? In all seriousness though, Trump probably didn't understand the scale or scope of the problem, or even the root causes.
Willing to bet Trump still doesn't know who's Sunni, who's Shia, or what the difference is. I don't think I've ever heard him use either term.
|
Also Trump just suggested the idea of getting rid of the 9th Circuit....
|
On March 16 2017 11:48 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2017 11:03 LegalLord wrote: Alright, the generals have had their 30 days. Is the plan for defeating ISIS ready to go? I mean I have a plan for defeating ISIS too. I just need a large quantity of nuclear weapons and Trump to sign off on hundreds of millions lives worth of collateral damage, but ISIS will be dead so problem solved?? In all seriousness though, Trump probably didn't understand the scale or scope of the problem, or even the root causes.
Trump doesn't understand a lot of things. Until he actually looks at a problem more closely, he seems to have the impression that everyone else is a complete idiot, and that there is a simple, easy way to solve everything that other people just don't see, but he is smart enough to recognize. He then shouts that out loudly to anyone who is willing to listen.
Then later on he notices stuff like "Healthcare is actually complicated" and gets confused.
Fact of the matter is that usually stuff is complicated and not that easy to figure out. You can either tread carefully and try to figure out how stuff works before talking about it with authority, or you can stumble about like a buffoon. Trump usually chooses the latter.
|
I really don't think he's the kind of guy who has ever bothered listening to what other people have to say or what he can learn from them. Just barges his way through life... something that probably can work pretty well when you are a celebrity or rich real estate mogul, but maybe not as president...
But don't worry I hear he's the best at the military. In fact, maybe even better at the military than military people. Like he knew all you had to do was sneak attack Mosul at night to take it. Duh! Bumbling generals...
|
I too am excited to watch Trump come to grips with the idea that he can't to shit to the 9th Circuit.
|
|
|
|