EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7198
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On March 25 2017 16:09 xDaunt wrote: Trump really had nothing to do with the AHCA going down in flames. The people responsible were those who drafted the AHCA -- ie Paul Ryan and the GOP Capitol Hill leadership. Trump was just dumb enough to listen to whomever told him to promote it -- likely Priebus. You don't seem too keen on the current batch of conservative politicians. What ones do you like? I am curious to see which of the group you do think are on the right track more or less with how they go about governing. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 25 2017 16:18 Slaughter wrote: You don't seem too keen on the current batch of conservative politicians. What ones do you like? I am curious to see which of the group you do think are on the right track more or less with how they go about governing. That's a good question. I don't really know which ones I like. The only one who immediately comes to mind is Rand Paul, and that's only because I respect how he is so principled -- not because I necessary agree with him politically. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 25 2017 14:58 DannyJ wrote: Obama won. I'm sure his grin is wider than ever as he's (i can only assume) skiing the Alps or base diving from Machu Picchu. In truth this is common fare. For all the fault of controversial legislation that serves an important purpose, there is quite a lot of precedent for that legislation sticking after the changing of the guard. Perhaps this should be some indication as to why the laws die so hard. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13956 Posts
On March 25 2017 16:09 xDaunt wrote: Trump really had nothing to do with the AHCA going down in flames. The people responsible were those who drafted the AHCA -- ie Paul Ryan and the GOP Capitol Hill leadership. Trump was just dumb enough to listen to whomever told him to promote it -- likely Priebus. He didn't have anything to do with it failing but he does take a hit for it failing after he supported it. You don't get unscathed from a political failure when you're the head and face of the political party. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7890 Posts
On March 25 2017 11:56 xDaunt wrote: Ryan's problem isn't that he's too liberal. His problem is that he's a political nincompoop. To put it bluntly, you have to be a fucking retard to think that it's a good idea to try passing a bill that antagonizes half of your party while drawing zero support from the opposing party. Because of his failure, everyone now sees Ryan as an ineffective leader. That he already had a tenuous relationship with the republican president only makes things worse for him. There are a number of potential replacements. Lots of people are saying that Meadows is effectively in command now, anyway. To be fair with Ryan, his mission was impossible. The GOP has been lying for years about the ACA, and Trump has promised rainbow unicorns the whole campaign. There is no free market alternative that would be better for the people and with which dozens of millions wouldn't drop from coverage. After having told the world they had a great plan when they clearly hadn't, they had to suddenly come up with something that doesn't exist and that's not feasible in a couple of months. I think what happens is bad but still a best scenario for the GOP. If the bill had passed, that 20+ million people had lost coverage and premium costs had increased, which really was what everyone serious agree would have happened, they would have alienated a shitload of people for a very, very long time. The ACA should have been a bipartisan consensus. The Republican put a great con job by pretending it was destroying America and fueling people's anger with it for years. I think they can be happy to have won elections with it without having to take responsibility for whatever train wreck of a bill they came up with when they got their back to the wall. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4773 Posts
On March 25 2017 17:01 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: in terms of conservatives I like the Massachusetts governor, seems pretty good. he's pretty liberal for a republican though. You mix terms often. In this case in terms of conservatives and he's pretty liberal for a republican do not go together. The GOP has many outlooks, conservative is only one broad grouping of them. You can be a Republican without being a conservative. This is something I hope to hammer home, as many people lump the two together. Edit: I should add that I am making a general point here. I don't know a lot about that man in particular. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4773 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4773 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21703 Posts
On March 25 2017 11:56 xDaunt wrote: Ryan's problem isn't that he's too liberal. His problem is that he's a political nincompoop. To put it bluntly, you have to be a fucking retard to think that it's a good idea to try passing a bill that antagonizes half of your party while drawing zero support from the opposing party. Because of his failure, everyone now sees Ryan as an ineffective leader. That he already had a tenuous relationship with the republican president only makes things worse for him. There are a number of potential replacements. Lots of people are saying that Meadows is effectively in command now, anyway. Where were all these potential replacements last time? Because Ryan took the job when no one else wanted to touch it with a 10 foot pole. Add in Trump being the President and this fiasco further showing the divide inside the GOP and I don't see how becoming Speaker has become less of a political suicide move. If I remember correct this thread was pretty unanimous in its opinion that no one could make the Speaker position work with the current Congress. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
 | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On Wednesday, Nunes made an extraordinary visit to the White House to brief the president on new information he said he’d received showing that intelligence agencies had, in the course of surveilling foreign targets, intercepted communications with some Trump associates. Stunningly, Nunes didn’t tell the other members of his committee about it, but instead rushed to inform the person who is himself, indirectly at least, the target of his committee’s investigation. Trump had claimed, absurdly, that President Barack Obama tapped his phones, and after speaking to Trump, Nunes held a press conference to share his information, later saying that “I felt I had a duty and obligation to tell him because as you know he’s been taking a lot of heat in the news media,” as though helping Trump deal with bad news coverage was his responsibility. Trump then seized on Nunes’s information as quasi-vindication for his false claim. Which brings us to today’s developments. First, Nunes announced that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort has agreed to testify before the committee. Given Manafort’s business relationships with pro-Russian strongmen and oligarchs, and the report that he was paid $10 million a year (apparently to advance the political interests of Vladimir Putin’s regime), that could be some interesting testimony indeed (though unfortunately, it will probably take place behind closed doors). But that’s not all. Nunes also announced he was canceling a hearing scheduled for Monday that was to include three former Obama administration officials: director of national intelligence James Clapper, CIA director John Brennan, and Sally Yates (whom Trump fired as acting attorney general). Nunes said their public hearing was canceled so that the committee could have a closed hearing with FBI director James Comey and NSA Director Mike Rogers, who have already testified in an open hearing. But Schiff wasn’t having it. “We don’t welcome cutting off public access to information,” Schiff said at his own press conference. “I think that there must have been a very strong pushback from the White House about the nature of Monday’s hearing.” Nunes also did apologize to the rest of the committee for going behind their backs to brief the president, but Schiff said: “I’m deeply discouraged by this week’s events.” It’s clear that this committee, which is ordinarily among the most nonpartisan of all congressional committees, is now at war with itself. We could see something resembling what happened with the House Oversight Committee during the Obama years: Darrell Issa and Elijah Cummings regularly shouting at each other in public; a lot of tense hearings and mutual distrust; and competing leaks to the media. source | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On March 25 2017 12:46 m4ini wrote: Makes me wonder what republicans actually do. I mean.. I really can't tell if they're just a bunch of whiny, spiteful old farts trying to repeal ACA just because. After so long, and so many tries to repeal/replace it, one would think that they could come up with something at least workable. Which, in return, makes you wonder if one can vote republicans with a clear conscience. I get that some want to vote conservative, and that's absolutely fine - but the republican party is not conservative. It's a spiteful and petty collection of people that should not be in politics full stop. And yes, i know, democrats etc blabla pp, but i'd cut them at least some slack after this astonishing display of inability. it's easy to agree that something is bad, it's alot harder to agree on exactly why it's bad and what to change about it. it's also easy to find things you can attack about any large piece of legislation/work. iirc germany has a rule that to kick out the old ?chancellor? (forget exact position, prime minister, or something like that) you have to have agreed on a new one. politics is often about attacking the other side(s). voters aren't astute enough to require an actual alternative plan from those who wish to destroy something. there's also some difference between the state level republican parties, and the federal level one. the federal one is trash, the state ones are often more functional from what i've heard (varies by state of course). on the issue of speakership: there's a way around the political suicide of the position; though it would be a massive break from precedent. the speaker is not constitutionally required to be one of the actual Representatives, so they could find someone else to take the position. (maybe someone largely retired with no future career to care about, who can just focus on the actual running of the place, and who wouldn't be so much of a leader of the republicans there) | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
TheNewEra
Germany3128 Posts
On March 25 2017 22:06 zlefin wrote: it's easy to agree that something is bad, it's alot harder to agree on exactly why it's bad and what to change about it. it's also easy to find things you can attack about any large piece of legislation/work. iirc germany has a rule that to kick out the old ?chancellor? (forget exact position, prime minister, or something like that) you have to have agreed on a new one. Thats correct. It's called a 'Konstruktives Misstraunsvotum'. On the same ballot as the Misstrauensvotum the opposition has to propose a new candidate and then the Bundestags votes who should be Kanzler between the two instead of making it a yes or no question, pro or contra the current Kanzler. The Bundespräsident has to accept the vote. Before 1933 in the Weimarer Republik the Kanzler was often time voted out of the office but the Opposition couldn't put forth a successor with a majority in the Reichstag, thus leading to a crisis of state. We're doing this therefore exactly out of the reasons named in this thread. It's easy to be against the current government but hard to actually do something after the current government is voted out. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21703 Posts
On March 25 2017 22:06 zlefin wrote: it's easy to agree that something is bad, it's alot harder to agree on exactly why it's bad and what to change about it. it's also easy to find things you can attack about any large piece of legislation/work. iirc germany has a rule that to kick out the old ?chancellor? (forget exact position, prime minister, or something like that) you have to have agreed on a new one. politics is often about attacking the other side(s). voters aren't astute enough to require an actual alternative plan from those who wish to destroy something. there's also some difference between the state level republican parties, and the federal level one. the federal one is trash, the state ones are often more functional from what i've heard (varies by state of course). on the issue of speakership: there's a way around the political suicide of the position; though it would be a massive break from precedent. the speaker is not constitutionally required to be one of the actual Representatives, so they could find someone else to take the position. (maybe someone largely retired with no future career to care about, who can just focus on the actual running of the place, and who wouldn't be so much of a leader of the republicans there) Why would someone retired want the job of running the most dysfunctional congress in history? There is no upside to the job at the moment. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On March 25 2017 23:57 Gorsameth wrote: Why would someone retired want the job of running the most dysfunctional congress in history? There is no upside to the job at the moment. well, you could take someone who's of lower status, like never even made it to the House; for whom it would therefore be the biggest position they'll ever get. there's also a slim chance you could find one of those people who will do it out of a sense of duty. If they only have to do the work of speaker, and don't bother with actually leading/organizing the Republicans in the house (leaving that to someone else), then it wouldn't be too bad; it'd basically amount to being presiding officer (plus some extra stuff). I'd be willing to take it  there's also the very slim chance of becoming president if Trump and Pence both get removed | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
| ||
