|
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 May 05 2017 05:45 Doodsmack wrote:
Something tells me that some version of the bill will become law. Now that the process is in motion, I can't see Republicans wanting to take the media onslaught from it failing.
Well, eventually anyway. The House just lobbed a grenade into the Senate, and the Senate will tinker with it then lob it back over to the House, then the House tinkers and then...... well you get the idea. It could go on for a very long time, much to the delight of mainstream media.
|
On May 05 2017 05:34 NewSunshine wrote:
It's passed the house, but it still needs to make it through the Senate. Republicans in the Senate have voiced their dislike of the bill, and so it seems highly unlikely that the bill will make it through ultimately, at least not without considerable changes.
It disturbs me that passing a shit set of laws is viewed more favourably than failing to pass shit.
|
On May 05 2017 05:45 Doodsmack wrote:
Something tells me that some version of the bill will become law. Now that the process is in motion, I can't see Republicans wanting to take the media onslaught from it failing.
The Republicans seem over the moon just to have passed anything at all, since their inability to create effective legislation is what made it take this long in the first place. There has to come a point where the people see these failed, hypocritical attempts at healthcare reform, and actually hold the politicians responsible for it. When you try to pass a law that dubiously sugarcoats crime rates by disincentivising women from reporting rape just so they can swing their insurance premiums, you're sending out a strongly misogynistic message, and playing with peoples' lives, and that's not something anybody I know appreciates. Whether you're Democrat, Republican, or other, I don't care, healthcare isn't something you get to play with like that. People will respond to it.
|
Blahahahahahahahahaha. After all that the senate drops the bill like a wet turd.
|
So did this have any significance at all then? Or was that all just political theater? I don't remember if there's some weird rule where the Senate can't work on a bill until the House passes one or something like that.
|
There is no such rule; the passage of this bill in the House was a sham.
|
On May 05 2017 04:26 ChristianS wrote:
I doubt they feel shame though. Not to put words in his mouth, but I bet Danglars feels like this is the start of Republicans making good on their promises and giving a reason again for people to vote R in 2018.
I haven't read it yet, but the amendment securing Freedom Caucus votes speaks well of it.
|
It seems to just be political theatre for now, but even if it is, it's still an incredibly stupid thing to do, considering it's Republicans in both the house and senate. It sends a message that they can't agree on what to do, further compounding the impression that they don't know how to actually get anything done. What's more, people are going to hold a lasting impression from word of this horrendous bill making it through the house to begin with, and that won't reflect well on Republicans going forward. I couldn't tell you why they went through all this, unless the bill somehow makes it through the senate after all, in which case people are definitely not going to be happy with them. There's no win-state for them in this scenario, so it makes no sense to me.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 05 2017 06:01 ChristianS wrote:
So did this have any significance at all then? Or was that all just political theater? I don't remember if there's some weird rule where the Senate can't work on a bill until the House passes one or something like that.
There's a lot of different rules like that. Haven't needed to learn those rules for a long time now but I believe budgets have to start with the House and probably some others. Don't think this is one of those cases though.
|
On May 05 2017 06:01 ChristianS wrote:
So did this have any significance at all then? Or was that all just political theater? I don't remember if there's some weird rule where the Senate can't work on a bill until the House passes one or something like that.
No they do not. This is why the people used to say the Senate was the enemy of the house before everyone got deep into party line votes.
|
On May 05 2017 06:04 NewSunshine wrote:
It seems to just be political theatre for now, but even if it is, it's still an incredibly stupid thing to do, considering it's Republicans in both the house and senate. It sends a message that they can't agree on what to do, further compounding the impression that they don't know how to actually get anything done. What's more, people are going to hold a lasting impression from word of this horrendous bill making it through the house to begin with, and that won't reflect well on Republicans going forward. I couldn't tell you why they went through all this, unless the bill somehow makes it through the senate after all, in which case people are definitely not going to be happy with them. There's no win-state for them in this scenario, so it makes no sense to me.
Assuming rational people your right, but we know people are not rational.
The hardline Republicans see their House congressmen passing the bill, they like the bill because it sounds nice to them to cut munchers from healthcare and they don't believe they would personally be effected.
It only becomes a loss if the Senate passes the bill and they lose their healthcare/see premiums skyrocket.
I would assume at this point that House Republicans don't give a shit about how it will look for Senate Republicans when they stop it.
|
Really not surprising they would try their own thing. Funniest part is how little direction they seem like they want to take from the house bill.
Anyone else see the pics of Trump and the house scrubs all smiling and laughing in the Rose garden? Surreal. We'll check back in November 2018 on those smiles. Hell, we'll check back in a couple weeks after they're back in their districts being yelled at.
|
On May 05 2017 06:01 ChristianS wrote:
So did this have any significance at all then? Or was that all just political theater? I don't remember if there's some weird rule where the Senate can't work on a bill until the House passes one or something like that.
The Senate can't pass a bill with taxes+spending in it, only modify one the House sent them. (but they can modify a Lot... obamacare was passed by the Senate taking a bill they got from the House on something totally unrelated, completely deleting the language and replacing it with the ACA, and passing that)
The significance is more that it politically pushed the Senate into working on their own bill since people stop paying attention to the House now and are watching the Senate.
|
So it looks like having Trump as president is going to be 4 years of hot air and some bombs dropped here and there, or am I wrong with this assessment?
|
Going by the 100 day metric, where that's all we've seen thus far, you'd be reasonable in that assessment.
|
On May 05 2017 06:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2017 06:04 NewSunshine wrote:
It seems to just be political theatre for now, but even if it is, it's still an incredibly stupid thing to do, considering it's Republicans in both the house and senate. It sends a message that they can't agree on what to do, further compounding the impression that they don't know how to actually get anything done. What's more, people are going to hold a lasting impression from word of this horrendous bill making it through the house to begin with, and that won't reflect well on Republicans going forward. I couldn't tell you why they went through all this, unless the bill somehow makes it through the senate after all, in which case people are definitely not going to be happy with them. There's no win-state for them in this scenario, so it makes no sense to me. Assuming rational people your right, but we know people are not rational. The hardline Republicans see their House congressmen passing the bill, they like the bill because it sounds nice to them to cut munchers from healthcare and they don't believe they would personally be effected. It only becomes a loss if the Senate passes the bill and they lose their healthcare/see premiums skyrocket. I would assume at this point that House Republicans don't give a shit about how it will look for Senate Republicans when they stop it.
It begs the question as to how divided the parties will let themselves get before they realize that winning a little party squabble is besides the point.
|
On May 05 2017 07:35 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2017 06:12 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2017 06:04 NewSunshine wrote:
It seems to just be political theatre for now, but even if it is, it's still an incredibly stupid thing to do, considering it's Republicans in both the house and senate. It sends a message that they can't agree on what to do, further compounding the impression that they don't know how to actually get anything done. What's more, people are going to hold a lasting impression from word of this horrendous bill making it through the house to begin with, and that won't reflect well on Republicans going forward. I couldn't tell you why they went through all this, unless the bill somehow makes it through the senate after all, in which case people are definitely not going to be happy with them. There's no win-state for them in this scenario, so it makes no sense to me. Assuming rational people your right, but we know people are not rational. The hardline Republicans see their House congressmen passing the bill, they like the bill because it sounds nice to them to cut munchers from healthcare and they don't believe they would personally be effected. It only becomes a loss if the Senate passes the bill and they lose their healthcare/see premiums skyrocket. I would assume at this point that House Republicans don't give a shit about how it will look for Senate Republicans when they stop it. It begs the question as to how divided the parties will let themselves get before they realize that winning a little party squabble is besides the point.
Well its not going to stop while they are #winning. Which is sadly what the current state is.
|
On May 05 2017 07:37 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2017 07:35 NewSunshine wrote:On May 05 2017 06:12 Gorsameth wrote:On May 05 2017 06:04 NewSunshine wrote:
It seems to just be political theatre for now, but even if it is, it's still an incredibly stupid thing to do, considering it's Republicans in both the house and senate. It sends a message that they can't agree on what to do, further compounding the impression that they don't know how to actually get anything done. What's more, people are going to hold a lasting impression from word of this horrendous bill making it through the house to begin with, and that won't reflect well on Republicans going forward. I couldn't tell you why they went through all this, unless the bill somehow makes it through the senate after all, in which case people are definitely not going to be happy with them. There's no win-state for them in this scenario, so it makes no sense to me. Assuming rational people your right, but we know people are not rational. The hardline Republicans see their House congressmen passing the bill, they like the bill because it sounds nice to them to cut munchers from healthcare and they don't believe they would personally be effected. It only becomes a loss if the Senate passes the bill and they lose their healthcare/see premiums skyrocket. I would assume at this point that House Republicans don't give a shit about how it will look for Senate Republicans when they stop it. It begs the question as to how divided the parties will let themselves get before they realize that winning a little party squabble is besides the point. Well its not going to stop while they are #winning. Which is sadly what the current state is.
It is seriously the most idiotic display I've ever seen. Hooray, we passed a shitty bill through the house, but not the senate, and it's one that would destroy many lives, mostly women, all the while we're infighting with our party because our fellow Republicans in the senate won't pass our shitty bill, let's celebrate...
...?
|
Norway28678 Posts
On May 04 2017 03:08 hunts wrote:
I find it funny to see so many people shitting on Hillary while simultaneously praising Bernie. He's literally just a populist, nothing else. He's just as bad as trump, but on the left side. And yet these people praise him like he's their saviour while bashing Hillary for things she didn't do. If for some insane reason the next candidates were Hillary or Sanders or the guy he likes so much that lost the DNC chair, I would still pick Hillary in a heart beat. The last thing we need is for the Democratic party to get taken over by populism.
I find the Hillary hatred ridiculous, and I've posted numerous times about how I was (very) disappointed by Bernie during debates and one major interview. But your assertion that Bernie is 'just a leftist Trump' is way, way off. He's a noble guy who has worked tirelessly his entire adult life to improve the lives of others. He just doesn't seemingly fully understand the finer details of your economic system or what is politically feasible / how to implement particular policies. Of course, in the context of a presidential election these are totally significant, but I mean, come on. Make four lists; Bernie's positive and negative qualities and do the same for Trump. I refuse to believe that you yourself actually believe that Bernie is even close to Trump in how bad he is, you're just engaged in 'retaliatory hyperbole' or whatever.
I get arguments like 'even though I consider myself a centrist, I'd vote for Trump rather than Bernie because I don't want Bernie's proposed tax increase'. But you're comparing the two in terms of character and political savviness. And that's just wrong.
|
On May 05 2017 08:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2017 03:08 hunts wrote:
I find it funny to see so many people shitting on Hillary while simultaneously praising Bernie. He's literally just a populist, nothing else. He's just as bad as trump, but on the left side. And yet these people praise him like he's their saviour while bashing Hillary for things she didn't do. If for some insane reason the next candidates were Hillary or Sanders or the guy he likes so much that lost the DNC chair, I would still pick Hillary in a heart beat. The last thing we need is for the Democratic party to get taken over by populism. I find the Hillary hatred ridiculous, and I've posted numerous times about how I was (very) disappointed by Bernie during debates and one major interview. But your assertion that Bernie is 'just a leftist Trump' is way, way off. He's a noble guy who has worked tirelessly his entire adult life to improve the lives of others. He just doesn't seemingly fully understand the finer details of your economic system or what is politically feasible / how to implement particular policies. Of course, in the context of a presidential election these are totally significant, but I mean, come on. Make four lists; Bernie's positive and negative qualities and do the same for Trump. I refuse to believe that you yourself actually believe that Bernie is even close to Trump in how bad he is, you're just engaged in 'retaliatory hyperbole' or whatever. I get arguments like 'even though I consider myself a centrist, I'd vote for Trump rather than Bernie because I don't want Bernie's proposed tax increase'. But you're comparing the two in terms of character and political savviness. And that's just wrong.
You are right, I was exaggerating because I was frustrated by how annoying the people who worship Bernie are. While I do think he is very much a populist and would make a horrible president, he is still an infinitely better person than trump. I think Bernie is doing a good job in rallying democrats and standing up to trump and helping push some of the party a bit to the left. I just don't think he was fit to be president, and I honestly hope him and his followers don't actually force the democratic party to become a hard left populist party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
