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.
Point is, our government is going to be at a standstill, and you can be sure other nations have taken notice of that (kind of obvious). If I were leader of China or Russia, I would be an utter idiot if I didn't take the opportunity to call a meeting with my advisors, and discuss how to twist the sphere of influence and global trade advantage into over-drive. As we see them doing, basically bribing Trump at this point, with Trump name branding in China, and oil execs in Exxon wanting to do shit in Russia.
Now then, if we wanted to discuss legality, negotiating deals with other nations in return for personal gain, what do we call that in the States, I wonder.
On May 03 2017 11:43 LegalLord wrote: Well overall we're right back to wondering if Trump is a Russian plant. In light of that, it's hard to say that we accomplished anything with the Syria bombing other than to give the hawks something to talk about.
Or, alternatively, there are problems with the Russian government directly intervening in US elections beyond whether or not the candidate they favoured is a plant. Obviously a plant would be bad but even if there is absolutely nothing beyond what we already know for sure, it's still pretty fucking bad.
Is it really? What part?
EDIT: Oh the idea that they colluded?
It's not up for debate whether Russia intervened, that's entirely established at this point. The question is whether they intervened because Trump is a traitor who was colluding with them or whether they intervened because he's a wholly unqualified idiot and they thought he'd fuck the job up so badly that the United States would be less of a geopolitical threat. The latter is our best case scenario and as said before, it's still pretty fucking bad.
LegalLord is focusing on the former, which has not yet been proved, in order to give him something easy to discredit while ignoring that the latter, which is the least bad possibility of the already proven part, is still a huge problem.
There's also the matter of how much did they interfere. Even assuming the hack was Russian state actors, and they (indirectly) gave the e-mails to Wikileaks, what did they really do that influenced the elections? The data that was stolen was, according to the people in this thread, not very incriminating and should not dissuade one from voting for Clinton over Trump. It was the (social) media that had the biggest influence in this matter.
The suggestion in the ODNI report that RT was somehow responsible for not causing people to vote for HRC is absurd. There were plenty of people on RT saying Hillary was the better option, or basically dismissed Trump as much as the rest of the media. The FBI/CIA/NSA line saying they were supportive of Trump is based on a small selection of programs that are aired there. Also, the notion that they would somehow be the cause of cynicism in the view of the American public on politics to stop them from voting for either party is also beyond ridiculous since their reach is very small. Even someone in this thread said that one of the things that made him so aloof of politics is the constant infighting between Democrats and Republicans - not RT, or e-mails.
Russian bots retweeting anti-Clinton conspiracies is widely overblown in terms of influence. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of these supposed "Russian bot tweets" would be coming all-American SuperPACs such as the one ran by hedge-fund manager Robert Mercer who funds companies such as Cambridge Analytica and is co-CEO of Renaissance Technologies (the latter of which, incidentally, donated more to the supposedly less-corrupt Democrats than they did to Republicans, but that's another matter). I would wager this man has much, much more influence in American politics than Russia ever did.
Robert Mercer very rarely speaks in public and never to journalists, so to gauge his beliefs you have to look at where he channels his money: a series of yachts, all called Sea Owl; a $2.9m model train set; climate change denial (he funds a climate change denial thinktank, the Heartland Institute); and what is maybe the ultimate rich man’s plaything – the disruption of the mainstream media. In this he is helped by his close associate Steve Bannon, Trump’s campaign manager and now chief strategist. The money he gives to the Media Research Center, with its mission of correcting “liberal bias” is just one of his media plays. There are other bigger, and even more deliberate strategies, and shining brightly, the star at the centre of the Mercer media galaxy, is Breitbart.
I'd say direct collusion between the Trump campaign and the alleged Russian state hackers is the stuff of conspiracy theories until some concrete evidence shows up. Sure, Manafort, Page and Stone are unscrupulous scumbags who are only involved in politics for their own benefit, but I doubt they would be stupid enough to pay the Russians for hacking. Perhaps they have some monetary or illegal connections to Russia or Wikileaks. Maybe they - or some SuperPACs - bought some Russian bots to work for their campaigns. I'm looking forward on the FBI report on the matter. Flynn pretty much exemplifies the over-used notion of "useful idiot" in my opinion, but I doubt he was involved in the DNC hacking matter or anything else.
US politics would be much better off if they solved the problem of shitting all over themselves through funding, making everyone turn up their nose at them in one way or another. From indirect/legalized corruption through campaign financing to negative ads on TV and the absurd levels of polarization/infighting. And to give you something to easily dispute and focus on, completely dismissing anything else I've said: Russia is absolutely a non-factor compared to these issues.
That is why I used the China example. Most of the time, Russia's interference was guiding the flow of the human current of emotion. In this case, pitting Americans against Americans, inciting hatred among ourselves, by posturing as fake Americans to set us against each other. We had plenty of rope to hang ourselves with, that is the ingenuity of Putin's stratagem. Inflame current problems that America always had lurking beneath the surface, and watch us tear ourselves apart. Its beautiful in a morbid sense, but if I were viewing it strategically, such brilliance.
Given that the Soviet Union fell to similar measures started by the United States, Putin must be relishing this dish of revenge that he is able to utilize. Remember, on the Internet, nobody knows who is who unless you do some serious digging, and even then that is often not enough. Of course, with social media popular these days, its easier than ever if you know where to look. Those who are aware of that of course, will change their methodology so they do not get caught. For instance, the clumsy attempts of some Russians to speak English has gradually improved, as they research the topics that Americans are concerned about everyday.
Was it Russia that made up shit about Benghazi though? Was it Russia that pretended Obama was a Kenyan Muslim for 8 years? Sure, the Russians may have provided the Republicans with some e-mails to discredit Clinton, which was then blown way out of proportion in social media with the help of twitter, facebook, datamining, bots and the like, but its not like they needed the Russians to do that. They're perfectly fine with making shit up for themselves and using American media companies (TV ads, SuperPAC bots, etc) to spread the lies.
I will not discredit that, but I am approaching it from a different angle. Like I said, many factors are at work here, I am approaching it from a particular angle. The Republicans and Democrats have always had their internal problems, but recently with the influx of social media, ideas can be spread from anywhere, making it so much worse, and easier to spread discourse. Don't forget that even though some Americans are not wired into the Net, there is a healthy portion that is. We all absorb data and knowledge, but lets call it a gentle twist in the knife if you will. As someone who fell for the discourse during the election, I am brave enough to admit I have made mistakes. This is particularly dangerous what is happening in my nation right now.
That why I call for unity, for Americans to work for the greater good of Americans. Now the question remains is how many members of congress are compromised, and actively fucking over the nation, because face it, corporations no longer have any national loyalty, they are separate kingdoms doing whatever the fuck they want. And with them pouring money in political campaigns, the amount of interference increases when you get shitty people cooperating from several countries for their own self interest. That is why it is so moronic that we elected Donald Trump, who is in charge of his own empire, who has many ties to other nations. It just conflicts way too much, intentionally or not.
If I were sitting on something as juicy as the DNC leaks when the situation looked like it was just about ready to explode, though, I'd say it would almost be a crime not to release them. That was just perfect timing to inflame a crisis already ready to come to a boil.
On May 03 2017 03:59 IgnE wrote: danglars thinks a majority disapprove of pp/abortions. if we got a majority that disapproved of war we could defund it
No, I in fact stated the opposite. I noted that the platform of the party in power specifically calls for no tax dollars spent on organizations that perform abortions after noting it's a widely held but not majority viewpoint.
On May 03 2017 00:57 KwarK wrote: Zero tax dollars fund abortion as you well know Danglars.
Tell me why Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider doing in excess of 320,000 abortions per year needs taxpayer money. You have enough of an economic understanding to know the fungibility argument. If it was spent on new community health centers and other organizations providing women's health services instead of Big Abortion, the situation would be improved. You don't indirectly support abortions, today you do. But if this was Exxon Mobil or mining enterprises (the more recognizably mixed-motive organizations) and the money could ONLY go for housing of displaced persons, people might better see the issue for people of conscience. But they're the only ones that can do it!! Yeah, right.
On May 03 2017 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:
On May 03 2017 01:04 Gahlo wrote: [quote] They'll provide the abortions regardless.
I guess that's a fair point. In the absence of federal funding, number of abortions would remain steady.
They might well raise the same amount of money from abortion groups, pro-choice groups, and their own drives. The difference being those people know the primary service PP provides and aren't compelled to help out. "Hey they're still going to kill the same amount of babies" isn't very compelling for someone helping keep them solvent. Even consider how much flak was recently in the news on legislation forcing doctors to inform expectant mothers of their right to see a sonogram ... a reasonable person would conclude PP is biased towards one of the two choices in pro-choice arguments based on abortion law and income stream. Better off in community health centers/women's health clinics.
The vast majority of taxpayer money paid to PP is for Medicaid reimbursements. If that funding is cut they would keep providing abortions, and just stop performing reimbursable procedures for Medicaid recipients.
Edit: and A LOT of those Medicaid payments go to family planning and contraceptives. I wonder what will happen to the abortion rate if those suddenly go away?
The argument isn't to do away with all money to the very accepted portions of family planning and women's health. If you were honest about the issue of availability, we work together to sunset funding for one divisive organization and coordinate the implementation for others. I suspect very little cooperation, because it's always been about abortions and not women's health. But prove me wrong, we may get the chance in September.
Why should we send the money elsewhere just because it's divisive? PP does a very good job of serving low income communities, and I care far more about that than about how divisive they are. Do you think it would really be worth it to go through all the trouble and expense of building brand new medical clinics to replace PP, which in many cases would not be as effective as PP in serving their communities, all while not decreasing abortion rates?
There's all kinds of divisive shit the federal government does, should all of that be de-funded too?
If you believe in freedom of conscience and the rights of people of the pro-life persuasion, it's worth it. Some rights actually end up being quite costly, particularly when a current of ignorance and regression has held sway for so many years. There would be very little cost if better thinking had prevailed decades ago, but returning to the right arrangement now necessitates more. I totally reject your assertion that PP is uniquely qualified to serve certain communities such that new clinics are doomed to fail because they're named differently. Do they have some kind of monopoly on good doctors, administrators, community outreach programs, and the like? Come on now, this all is sounding like I'm talking about comparisons of different banking establishments with the CEO of Goldman Sachs. I have limited time with this thread and some conversations just can't be resolved on the different bases of the conversant.
Nothing is stopping new clinics from opening in areas already served by Planned Parenthood. Maybe there's even a demand for "pro-life" medical providers, and they would have the added advantage of not constantly being punching bags for politicians trying to score easy points with evangelicals. It is entirely possible that such clinics would be competitive with PP, and they would be able to draw some of those Medicaid reimbursements away.It's not like the federal government has a line item in the budget for "Planned Parenthood Medicaid payments." It just reimburses clinics which provide certain Medicaid services, and in many cases those clinics happen to be PP.
Anyway, if what you mean by "freedom of conscience" is that a minority should be able to dictate where tax dollars are spent without regard to practical outcomes then no, I do not believe in freedom of conscience.
Aren't abortion rates at their lowest point in 40 some odd years anyway? Can't this at least in part be attributed to PP providing quality, affordable birth control and health services? The argument for defunding reeks of fluffy ideology more so than practicality. They could inadvertently end up increasing abortion rates if they follow through.
Danglars doesn't seem to care about abortion rates. He cares more about peoples' tax dollars going to an organization that they find morally objectionable (correct me if I'm wrong Danglars).
So arguing about abortion rates isn't going to change his mind.
Morally objectionable would be understating it, but you're close here. I tolerate a lot more morally objectionable things than I actually think are constitutionally objectionable or morally unconscionable. It's just that the life is snuffed out at its infancy, and we can't recover like transgender bathrooms or gay marriage or any number of social issues.
On May 03 2017 10:18 ChristianS wrote: Hey, so I think most people here are on board with the idea that Trump (or congressional Republicans, or both) botched the budget negotiation. I think even xDaunt and Danglars agree (correct me if I'm wrong). But can we talk about how Trump is already starting to screw up September?
If you can call it a negotiation. They're in the doghouse on this one, and as things stand, there's no reason to vote Republican in 2018. If you want Democratic budget priorities, you might as well vote Democrat.
On May 03 2017 13:17 Reaper9 wrote: I will not discredit that, but I am approaching it from a different angle. Like I said, many factors are at work here, I am approaching it from a particular angle. The Republicans and Democrats have always had their internal problems, but recently with the influx of social media, ideas can be spread from anywhere, making it so much worse, and easier to spread discourse. Don't forget that even though some Americans are not wired into the Net, there is a healthy portion that is. We all absorb data and knowledge, but lets call it a gentle twist in the knife if you will. As someone who fell for the discourse during the election, I am brave enough to admit I have made mistakes. This is particularly dangerous what is happening in my nation right now.
That why I call for unity, for Americans to work for the greater good of Americans. Now the question remains is how many members of congress are compromised, and actively fucking over the nation, because face it, corporations no longer have any national loyalty, they are separate kingdoms doing whatever the fuck they want. And with them pouring money in political campaigns, the amount of interference increases when you get shitty people cooperating from several countries for their own self interest. That is why it is so moronic that we elected Donald Trump, who is in charge of his own empire, who has many ties to other nations. It just conflicts way too much, intentionally or not.
People should be pushing for an investigation in how much campaign financing and corporate lobbying influences political decisions. When people like Elon Musk openly admit that they donate to both Republicans and Democrats "in order to be heard", that seems completely out of bounds insane to me.
Also push for an investigation in how much negative ads are causing Americans to decide to stay away from voting. If ads on TV from both parties are saying all the candidates are shit, why would anyone vote for any of them?
In this hopefully famous 10 minute video Obama speaks very on-point on the crux of the problem, I think:
He even credits Bernie Sanders. I believe it was Obama who helped institute a policy in the DNC where they wouldn't take corporate money, and then he won the election with that rule in place. The rule was then rescinded, and now they lost. Well, gee willikers, it must be Russians and misogyny that did it! + Show Spoiler +
(HINT: THIS IS YOUR TARGET LINE IN THE POST IF YOU WANT TO ARGUE WITH ME, IGNORE EVERYTHING ELSE)
I say, you need to keep voting for candidates that refuse corporate money whenever you can. Nobody else deserves your vote, unless they at least take some stance against this kind of thing, and are willing to speak out about it. And it needs to be at every level where you can vote.
The Russia thing is so inconsequential, but comparatively receives so much time in the public consciousness. It distracts from the real issues that have been plaguing US politics for much longer. It feels similar to Trump's absurd notion of "illegal votes must be investigated!", but at least that seems to have disappeared from the agenda/media.
I'm not going to argue with you on that either, ultimately the blame lies with Americans, by Americans. I have applied several theories as to how we ended up where we are, that is why I mentioned all that I did, a combination of all of these created the perfect storm.
This perfectly illustrates the point. Oh gee, Kushner had ties to Soros as well? Hilarious.
And a lot of Americans do want money out of politics. The million dollar question is, how to regain control from individuals with such wealth and power. Voting works, but not if the Elite uses money to crush opposition. And the propaganda does not help. And neither side will relinquish their usage of big money, in order to try to topple one another. It can be used for both good and ill. There are still good politicians out there, right now quietly working, and others trying to make themselves heard, absorbed into either Democrat or Republican, because they are absorbed into the only two symbols that currently matter for politics in America. It'll require a miracle to get big money out, because if one side gives it up, you can be sure the other side will just keep using big money. Thus, we are back to where we started.
On May 03 2017 03:59 IgnE wrote: danglars thinks a majority disapprove of pp/abortions. if we got a majority that disapproved of war we could defund it
Was thinking we need a religion whose only tenet is that we don't pay for war/war machines.
EDIT: Also Texas police murdered an unarmed black teenage boy who was fleeing a high school party in a car.
Many of us (I know there's a lot of nerds here though) have fled a party getting broke up by the cops, I bet none of you thought a cop was going to put a .223 rifle round through you for running away from a party, then not get fired let alone arrested. Oh he lied about what happened too (like the police ALWAYS DO in these situations).
As family and friends mourned the death of a 15-year-old boy shot in the head by a police officer in a Dallas suburb over the weekend, the police chief said Monday that new evidence showed the killing did not unfold the way the authorities had originally claimed.
The Police Department in Balch Springs, Tex., said Sunday that the officer, whose name has not been released, fired on a car carrying the teenager, Jordan Edwards, a freshman at Mesquite High School in nearby Mesquite, Tex., because the car was reversing down a street toward the officer in an “aggressive manner.”
But Jonathan Haber, the police chief, told reporters at a news conference on Monday afternoon that video showed the opposite. He said the officer fired when the car was “moving forward as the officers approached,” according to The Associated Press. The Dallas County medical examiner’s report ruled the death a homicide caused by a “rifle wound” to the head.
Lee Merritt, a lawyer for the Edwards family, praised the police chief for his willingness to admit the department’s mistake and called the new account “a big deal.”
“There were no weapons involved; there was no aggressive behavior; these were not suspects,” Mr. Merritt said in a telephone interview. “The lone motive they had for the murder was that the vehicle was being used as a weapon, and now that is no longer there.”
I didn't really say anything on that, but rest assured I looked at that article. With Jeff Sessions in charge right now, reform is just out of the question, which is a really shitty thing but sadly reality. He'll keep trying to fuck people over so they get sent to prison to perform legal slave labor. And you can be sure they'll just keep slapping the officers on the wrist and letting them go.
Depressing.
You can see how some degenerates are on the internet, they treat certain groups of people like animals to be hunted, and the casual racism they are not allowed to express in public is all too apparent. Somehow they keep trying to equate the BLM with monkeys, little shits that they are. I've noticed it is particularly prevalent in the gaming community, or any community with a large congregation of shitty males.
On May 03 2017 14:31 Reaper9 wrote: I didn't really say anything on that, but rest assured I looked at that article. With Jeff Sessions in charge right now, reform is just out of the question, which is a really shitty thing but sadly reality. He'll keep trying to fuck people over so they get sent to prison to perform legal slave labor. And you can be sure they'll just keep slapping the officers on the wrist and letting them go.
Depressing.
You can see how some degenerates are on the internet, they treat certain groups of people like animals to be hunted, and the casual racism they are not allowed to express in public is all too apparent. Somehow they keep trying to equate the BLM with monkeys, little shits that they are. I've noticed it is particularly prevalent in the gaming community, or any community with a large congregation of shitty males.
Such as? I'm a little inured to the heightening of terms. Calling protesters vermin? Clearly racism, treating black people like animals, denying their humanity (but that one's getting close). Et cetera.
Obligatory: Casual conspiracy theorist (trying to fuck people over for slave labor), casual sexism (large congregation of shitty males, because mixed congregations wouldn't suffer from it). You score two points.
All this makes me think that your previous stabs at being reasonable (Americans work together for the greater good of Americans, Capitalism is basically fine, or Clean this mess up) are either disingenuous from the start, or haven't been examined with the least bit of care. You will end up making more people glad they voted for the non-Hillary candidate and peel off nobody. The goal is to sound less crazy than the other team, and conscripting slaves, hunting animals, and shitty males in the gaming community means you're smack dab in the crazy camp. The left's version of a bible-thumping, flag-carrying, pot belly middle-aged white male with a MAGA hat.
President Donald Trump and his top advisers' frustrations with Democrats' victory lap over the budget negotiations spilled over into the White House briefing room Tuesday as two Cabinet-level officials took to the podium.
Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney made the White House's most forceful case yet that the bipartisan budget deal amounted to a major win for the White House and a loss for Democrats.
One senior administration official said Trump was "not happy" as he watched Democrats claim victory in the budget negotiations, and a second senior administration official said Trump was baffled that Democrats felt they could claim victory.
"Democrats misrepresented reality," claimed one senior administration official.
That prompted the White House to send Kelly and Mulvaney out to push back on Democrats' messaging.
The two leaned on the fact that the budget deal will deliver a multi-billion dollar boost to the Pentagon and border security, which they said would be used to rebuild existing fencing into a steel wall on parts of the border.
Democrats, though, had made that case that the deal amounted to a victory for their priorities.
The budget deal will not provide any money for Trump's promised border wall with Mexico or deliver the funding cuts to sanctuary cities that Trump had threatened. There are also no cuts to funding for Planned Parenthood or the $18 billion in cuts to nondefense spending that Trump had requested in his budget proposal.
Instead, funding for the National Institute of Health is increased by $2 billion, despite Trump's budget plan calling for cuts to the program, and the bill will also deliver money for clean energy and science funding.
As Democrats' claimed victory, Trump tweeted Tuesday morning to express his frustrations, claiming he might be willing to allow the government to shutdown during the next round of budget negotiations in September.
I haven't seen an actual example of Trump winning anywhere in that bill, whereas Democrats seem to have given up pretty much nothing at all from a rather weak bargaining position (basically: agree with us, or we might filibuster, if we can whip up the votes). I'm not quite sure where the money is coming from to fund all these increases, but given that Democrats are not really in favour of cutting government size, it seems to me that the real losers here are the freedom caucus and Trump, neither of who seem to be getting any of their priorities, while centrist republicans and democrats have a decent compromise over their respective priorities.
Trump claiming increased spending on border security as a win is laughable. His claim was "we need the wall", not "we need increased spending on border security". I'll give him increased spending on the military as a "win", but that's something Republicans in general get behind, and Democrats have plenty of hawks that feel the same way. So while I'm sure it's a win, it's a rather easy one.
Is the budget balanced in any way? Because all I have heard/read are what programs are not being cut, and what is getting increased. So where is being cut? Or is Washington giving up on even trying to balance the budget?
What if Trump doesn't actually want to build a wall because everyone knows it's a ridiculous idea that would generate an endless stream of negative attention (overbudgeting, unhappy residents, ineffectiveness, ugliness, comparisons to Berlin and Palestine) and the strategy is to somehow save face and blame Washington obstructionism?
EDIT: Actually, and bear with me on this, what if Trump doesn't actually give a rats' butt what the budget is because he does not see a connection between what things are and how things are perceived? All he cares about is the actual talk and publicity around the budget, not the actual thing.
I promise you, "everyone" doesn't actually know that the wall is a ridiculous idea, and more than a handful of those who voted for Trump consider it essential to his success as a President.
Edit: If you're of the mind that Trump has no actual appreciation for governmental objects like a budget, you are definitely on the right track.
On May 03 2017 20:13 farvacola wrote: I promise you, "everyone" doesn't actually know that the wall is a ridiculous idea, and more than a handful of those who voted for Trump consider it essential to his success as a President.
Edit: If you're of the mind that Trump has no actual appreciation for governmental objects like a budget, you are definitely on the right track.
Yeah, my 'everyone' in this case would be those in the administration with the possible exception of the Bannonist wing.
EDIT: I'm not actually saying there is obstructionism, but that hasn't stopped Trump from blaming it.
Well in that case, the answer to your question is mostly the stuff of coming politics. Trump will absolutely try his best to attribute his lackluster performance to the establishment, Democrats, and anyone else that makes sense to him. However, very rarely are the signals as to who is in charge more clear than now relative to party identification, and if Democratic performance in emergency elections like that of Jon Ossof is any indicator, it seems more and more likely that voters are going to blame Republicans, Trump included.
All that said, Democrats haven't come anywhere close to indicating that they've figured anything out, so we'll have to see.
House Republicans worked late into the night Tuesday on last-minute changes to their Obamacare repeal bill, as President Donald Trump began rallying support to muscle the stalled legislation across the finish line.
Senior Capitol Hill and White House officials said a new amendment being drafted Tuesday night would address concerns from key moderates about how the legislation treats individuals with pre-existing conditions. Earlier in the day, multiple sources said House leadership floated the idea of adding additional money to high-risk pools aimed at subsidizing more expensive premiums for people with such medical conditions.
The changes are expected to circulate Wednesday. It was not clear Tuesday night, however, if the amendment would include new funds, though one White House official indicated it would.
The last-ditch effort comes after GOP leaders faced a major setback in their whip effort Tuesday. Former Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, who has crafted numerous repeal bills, came out against the bill amid worries about pre-existing conditions protections. And key Trump ally Rep. Billy Long (R-Mo.) similarly announced he would oppose the bill, sending leaders scrambling to stop the bleeding.
The two high-profile defections sent shock waves through the House Tuesday. And insiders realized they could not pass the bill without vital support from influential health care wonks like Upton — or key Trump allies like Long.
GOP leaders can only afford to lose 22 votes and still pass the bill. Already about 20 lawmakers, mostly moderates concerned about the bill's impact on constituents, have said publicly they will vote "no." Even more have said they're undecided and have yet to make up their minds.
Trump is now getting personally involved in trying to pass the bill. The president made at least a dozen phone calls seeking support for the bill Tuesday. And Capitol Hill and administration officials said he will host lawmakers — including Upton and Long — at the White House on Wednesday.
The White House is hoping changes to the bill will win over wary moderates, and they're crossing their fingers that Trump can secure an endorsement from those opponents after his meeting.
Some White House officials want a vote on the bill on Thursday, but bringing the bill to the floor will be up to Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). Two senior White House officials said they feared members leaving for recess without voting could doom eventual passage, but many in Congress have grown frustrated with the White House's timetables.
Changes to the bill are possible in the next 24 hours, two senior officials said, but the changes "can't be that significant, or we will lose the support from the Freedom Caucus," one of these officials said. It is unclear how the group of three-dozen conservatives who rejected a previous draft of the legislation will ultimately react to the new proposal.
Whether the changes will win over enough moderates for lawmakers to lock in a majority is also unclear. Upton, for example, said on Tuesday that more money for risk pools wouldn't necessarily flip his vote. GOP insiders, however, say Upton has been involved in crafting the new amendments.
Talks of changes to the bill began percolating on Capitol Hill Tuesday afternoon. GOP leaders had previously said the text was finalized.
“We’re tweaking, floating verbiage and stuff. We’re not changing the bill in a major way. There is some discussion to get everybody together," said Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican and Freedom Caucus member. "Sometime this summer we'll put a bill on the president's desk."
Some GOP insiders are not optimistic that the new changes will finally enable the House to pass their health care alternative. Even if it does, any bill will still need Senate approval. And Senators in that chamber have made it clear that they intend to rewrite the bill completely.
EPT
