|
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 July 27 2017 05:36 Wulfey_LA wrote:
The trans ban was 100% gaslighting. There was no effort to turn it into policy. Mueller must be getting close to something good.
His statement doesn't sound anything like a future 'plan' and something that needs to be worked out. It's a very definite statement. wtf Did he just make it up? Is he just bullshitting about getting things done while having nothing done? All evidence points to nobody knowing what is going on. Another one for the incompetence list.
After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you
|
I think McCain will probably vote yes on skinny repeal. Philosophically I'm not sure he likes either the individual or employer mandate, and getting rid of them is basically all the skinny repeal bill does (along with the devices tax), consequences be damned.
The big question with skinny repeal is that we would then get ANOTHER Senate vote later, because it seems to be mostly a ploy to go through the Senate and then reconcile with the House.
|
On July 27 2017 06:05 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 06:00 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2017 05:32 Toadesstern wrote:
maybe they're hoping that after X failed vote attempts they can get just those 1 or 2 votes they need from the R's that refused after all?
Wear them out until they just don't care anymore and vote for whatever They can only lose three. Collins is a no on all three bills from all reports. Heller is a no on all three bills from all reports. McCain could be a no vote on all three bills. At this point, I'm not putting any eggs into the McCain basket.
I am Fox Mulder on this one. I want to believe. I want to have faith in like one Republican senator. But I am prepared to be disappointed again.
|
On July 27 2017 06:08 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:His statement doesn't sound anything like a future 'plan' and something that needs to be worked out. It's a very definite statement. wtf Did he just make it up? Show nested quote +After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you
Yeah I linked the Politico article that has the connection between the Congressional border wall funding and the gender reassignment funding fight going on. But even with that fight being real, the trans ban policy still isn't a real policy. That makes it gaslighting. I will revise my opinion if he actually gets some lawyers to write an executable DOD order and gets Mattis and the Joint Chiefs to execute that order.
|
On July 27 2017 05:07 Doodsmack wrote:
I can't say I understand the strategy behind this Vote-A-Rama. It's just a string of failures, all of which are making headlines lol.
I'm not certain this isn't just all a big show to give the more image-conscious Republican senators cover while giving the guise of a legislative process. Let them vote no on a few bills, add pork and some token concessions then they vote for the last one and can say they went through and gave it due diligence.
|
On July 27 2017 06:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 05:32 Toadesstern wrote:
maybe they're hoping that after X failed vote attempts they can get just those 1 or 2 votes they need from the R's that refused after all?
Wear them out until they just don't care anymore and vote for whatever They can only lose three. Collins is a no on all three bills from all reports. Heller is a no on all three bills from all reports. McCain could be a no vote on all three bills.
Rand Paul seems like he should be a strong "no" possibility for the last bill, though I haven't heard anything confirming that. Lisa Murkowski has voted "no" to both of the first two bills, and I believe voted "no" for all (?) of the Republican healthcare bills so far? Lindsay Graham has also criticized skinny repeal, calling it a "political punt."
If I was a betting man, I'd bet against the last bill passing.
By the way, McCain voted "yes" on repeal and replace according to the NYT.
|
Anyone know when they are set to vote on the last bill, and whay happens if it fails or passes?
|
On July 27 2017 06:32 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 06:00 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2017 05:32 Toadesstern wrote:
maybe they're hoping that after X failed vote attempts they can get just those 1 or 2 votes they need from the R's that refused after all?
Wear them out until they just don't care anymore and vote for whatever They can only lose three. Collins is a no on all three bills from all reports. Heller is a no on all three bills from all reports. McCain could be a no vote on all three bills. Rand Paul seems like he should be a strong "no" possibility for the last bill, though I haven't heard anything confirming that. Lisa Murkowski has voted "no" to both of the first two bills, and I believe voted "no" for all (?) of the Republican healthcare bills so far? If I was a betting man, I'd bet against the last bill passing.
Paul has gone on record saying he's a yes on skinny repeal as it is, since it doesn't add any additional requirements or regulations to the market and removes the medical device tax. He's a pragmatist, he doesn't need to get everything he wants, but some of the other bills enshrined new things he hated.
Of course, that doesn't mean he's a yes on it as it will be after the House sinks their claws back into it.
|
@TheTenthDoc
Thanks for the info.
It's hard for me to get a feel for how different Senators will likely vote on skinny repeal since the idea appears to have surfaced only two days ago and I'm not even sure what's included in it.
This process is a mess. Circling back to the discussion on how the Senate ended up in vote-a-rama, to me this chaotic and ostensibly direction-less plan has the markings of Trump written all over it.
|
|
|
They still have the skinny bill, I think. It is hard to tell. This entire process fucking sucks.
|
On July 27 2017 06:32 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 06:00 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2017 05:32 Toadesstern wrote:
maybe they're hoping that after X failed vote attempts they can get just those 1 or 2 votes they need from the R's that refused after all?
Wear them out until they just don't care anymore and vote for whatever They can only lose three. Collins is a no on all three bills from all reports. Heller is a no on all three bills from all reports. McCain could be a no vote on all three bills. Rand Paul seems like he should be a strong "no" possibility for the last bill, though I haven't heard anything confirming that. Lisa Murkowski has voted "no" to both of the first two bills, and I believe voted "no" for all (?) of the Republican healthcare bills so far? Lindsay Graham has also criticized skinny repeal, calling it a "political punt." If I was a betting man, I'd bet against the last bill passing. By the way, McCain voted "yes" on repeal and replace according to the NYT.
Ah, it was for an amendment, not to pass the bill. I'm not shocked then. He likely knew it would fail. None of these votes surprised anyone.
|
The WSJ says votes on amendments to skinny repeal begin later this week. So maybe a final pass-fail vote Friday-ish?
|
I think it still needs to be scored. They can't vote on something that isn't scored by the CBO.
|
I'm not sure the Senate parliamentarian has looked at it yet either, which might delay it a bit more.
If I learned anything from these past days, though, it's that the best bet is just refreshing 538's or another group's coverage and hoping you hit the key moments (or watching directly if you can take it). It's moving pretty fast and a lot of these votes are kind of just popping up. Hell, skinny repeal itself kind of just...materialized. They're currently estimating a Friday vote on the skinny repeal as well, for what it's worth.
I do hold some hope that the contortions necessary to make "skinny repeal" into something approaching an actual policy instead of "hey, why don't we just remove X, Y, and Z and leave the rest of the bill?" happen, and those generate friction (similar to how some voted no on repeal and delay and others voted no on repeal and replace). But I'm not holding my breath, this thing has even less time to gestate than the repeal and delay and is even more deceptively attractive.
|
On July 27 2017 06:49 Plansix wrote:
I think it still needs to be scored. They can't vote on something that isn't scored by the CBO.
But what if they are hypocrites who only made arguments about the importance of process during the ACA passage because they suited their interests at the time? This would make elected R's consistent with their spinners on the Internet.
|
|
|
Simple solution: ban people with ED from the military. You can even test for that, unlike being trans!
|
On July 27 2017 06:55 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 06:49 Plansix wrote:
I think it still needs to be scored. They can't vote on something that isn't scored by the CBO. But what if they are hypocrites who only made arguments about the importance of process during the ACA passage because they suited their interests at the time? This would make elected R's consistent with their spinners on the Internet.
The Democrats opened Pandora's box back in 2010. The Republicans couldn't resist the temptation to try just once. And they are getting burned just as hard.
Hopefully they will finally learn their lesson with the debt ceiling after this.
|
Said that earlier already.
Also, ten times isn't even close to the real number, according to the DHA.
edit: sidenote, it's kinda bonkers that the military pays for that. Didn't think that being able to shag properly is a prerequisite for being a soldier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
