|
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 11:39 Nevuk wrote:
Basically this senator doesn't support single payer but thinks it will hurt Democratic senators no matter which way they vote on the amendment. Sort of clever, but could also backfire on him hilariously.
Bernie Sanders refuses to support 'sham' Republican single-payer amendment
Sen. Bernie Sanders will not support a "sham" amendment to the Republican healthcare bill dismantling Obamacare that would implement a single-payer healthcare insurance program.
On Wednesday, Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., who does not support single-payer, proposed the amendment as a way of cornering vulnerable Democrats seeking re-election to go on record for the progressive platform.
Not all Democrats have voiced support for it, but progressives like Sanders, I-Vt., have long called for a single-payer, government-run system. However, Sanders' office said he will not play Daines' game.
"The Democratic caucus will not participate in the Republicans' sham process. No amendment will get a vote until we see the final legislation and know what bill we are amending," Josh Miller-Lewis, a spokesperson for Sanders, said in a text sent to Vox.
Miller-Lewis added, "Once Republicans show us their final bill, Sen. Sanders looks forward to getting a vote on his amendment that makes clear the Senate believes that the United States must join every major country and guarantee health care as a right, not a privilege."
Daines' single-payer amendment is a rip of legislation offered in the House by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., which has the support of more than 100 Democratic co-sponsors, calling for a "Medicare for All" program.
Source
|
That was a pretty low percentage play. Sanders has been in the senate for way to long to get played by that bush league shit.
|
On July 27 2017 11:26 Plansix wrote:
Some folks also don't seem to understand the deep divisions in the GOP due to them doubling down on conservatives. Both for money and voting power. They have empowered a political group that wants to destroy every aspect of the Federal government, including the modern healthcare system that relies on medicare and medicaid. That is how they took back the House in 2010 and beyond. But that group cannot govern and cannot co-exist with the democrats or moderate Republican. They are already threatening to primary any Republican who works with Democrats on the ACA.
I've said it so many times now, but how you win an election fucking matters because it sets the tone for how you govern.
What do you think the Democratic party is going through right now? Their leading presidential contender is an independent, and the far left progressive wing is gaining power in the party. It's only 6 months into Trump's term. Imagine if they GOP were actually passing regressive tax plans and repealing Obamacare, and the Democrats lost the 2020 election again. You think that there wouldn't be ambitious Democratic politicians willing to stoke people anger and give them idiotic policies ($20 min. wage or whatever) and fierce rhetoric against Wall Street, with an angry base ready to eat that up? You can't judge the "superior morality" of your politicians when they haven't been placed in a comparable situation. The best you can say is "I don't know." But that's not what Democrats do. They just assume their moral superiority and ignorantly laugh at GOP politicians.
I don't understand how you guys think that in a competitive environment like politics, there's only one side that's playing politics over governance. Especially when it flies in the face of all known evidence. It doesn't even make logical sense. If there was a politician that steadfastly stuck to his principles, he'd simply replaced by an ambitious newcomer willing to ignore his principles (or one that just happens to be unprincipled in the first place) and give the people whatever they're demanding. The people's demands get more irrational and more emotional when they go through a losing streak.
As xDaunt said in a previous post, by the time you've spent the requisite time begging donors for campaign funds, you've weeded out the people with principles. Or your soul has already been sold in the process. That applies to both Democrats and Republicans.
EDIT: For those looking for the effective thesis of my argument, it was this post:
@Plansix and NewSunshine
You guys are both missing my point. My point is that the Republicans are merely playing the system. The current electoral system doesn't reward the opposition party dedicating money to policy research. It rewards winning elections. The best political strategy for the Republicans is to oppose Obamacare (as its a two-party system).
If the current Republicans didn't execute the optimal political strategy, they would have simply lost their primaries to someone who would have (or simply lose Congress to the Democrats).
The Democrats are playing the same game, but the only difference is that their ideology makes it a more favorable game to play in the healthcare arena. They're not really much different in their MO.
If you want to maintain consistency as a Lefty, support Leftist policies and criticize the system when it produces idiotic outcomes like this. Criticize Fox News, Breitbart, FPTP, lobbyists, whatever it may be. But criticizing the Republicans in Congress themselves is basically senseless. It's like complaining that Apple doesn't lower it's huge iPhone margins out of generosity so more people can afford them. It's just not how the world works.
EDIT: Guys, I'm fully aware that the Democratic platform contains support for public healthcare options and expanding Medicare to those older than 55. And that Progressives want single-payer. Hopefully my point above clarifies things--specifically the part about their ideology making healthcare a favorable arena for Democrats. My point about "no policies since November" wasn't meant to be exclusively limited to healthcare. I will predict right now that the Democrats will spend the vast majority of the next four years being obstructionist, rather than trying to come up with policies--because that's historically what opposition parties do. Not just in the US, and not just in the post-2000s era.
EDIT 2: The original posting of this was an unreadable trainwreck. I apologize.
|
mozoku, you seem to be shifting points constnatly, shifting from making one point, to another related, but decidedly different claim. (and without retracting prior claims that had serious problems/falsities with them).
and your thesis post both did not retract the earlier false claims you made (and never retracted, and seemed to still be supporting); and it has considerable problems of its own. I see no reason not to criticize people for engaging in shitty conduct just because it has some strategic merit to it.
the actual facts of the situation do not favor the conclusion that both sides are equally bad at the moment, there is some palpable difference, despite them all being politicians and lousy-ish people. it's like a grey vs black morality case, (or black vs really black morality)
|
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/07/lawsuit-seeks-ajit-pais-net-neutrality-talks-with-internet-providers/#p3
The Federal Communications Commission was sued today by a group that says the commission failed to comply with a public records request for communications about net neutrality between FCC officials and Internet service providers.
On April 26, a nonprofit called American Oversight filed a Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) request asking the FCC for all records related to communications on net neutrality between Internet service providers and Chairman Ajit Pai or Pai's staff. The group asked for "correspondence, e-mails, telephone call logs, calendar entries, meeting agendas," and any other records of such communications.
The group also asked for similar records related to FCC communications with members of Congress, congressional staff, and members of the media. But American Oversight's lawsuit against the FCC says the commission hasn't complied with the requests.
“The FCC has made it clear that they’re ignoring feedback from the general public, so we’re going to court to find out who they’re actually listening to about net neutrality," American Oversight Executive Director Austin Evers said in the group's announcement of its lawsuit. "If the Trump administration is going to let industry lobbyists rewrite the rules of the Internet for millions of Americans, we’re going to make them do it in full view of the public." (Evers was previously a US State Department lawyer.)
|
@Mozoku
My recommendation for you and democrats: Get off the internet. It isn't real life and democratic party members are not what you describe, which is really hard to follow. Your focus on democrats seems to be about them being mean or claiming the moral high ground. I know plenty of Republicans in real life and we get along fine. My grandfather was a life long Republican, donated his entire life. He and I were good friends and he is the reason I studied history. The internet is not reality. It isn't even a reflection of it.
As for your weird theory that the Democrats just lost everything and the GOP got whatever they wanted, I'm not super worried about them keeping control. Because right after Democrats is the GOP's true enemy, reality. A second great depression at the hands of GOP laissez-faire governance is the bitter cure to their terrible policies.
|
On July 27 2017 11:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Why is Reince Preibus mentioned in this tweet...
The White House chief of staff has a key role in white house staff and communications, though I might not call Priebus fully Scaramucci's boss in the traditional sense.
|
On July 27 2017 12:16 Danglars wrote:The White House chief of staff has a key role in white house staff and communications, though I might not call Priebus fully Scaramucci's boss in the traditional sense.
It is a weird claim he is making, because the White House has released a lot of those forms to the press. Did he just not get the email they were going to do it?
Also, they are not classified. The public can just request them.
|
United States42784 Posts
Incidentally the Republicans just reversed a CFP restriction limiting the enforcability of forced arbitration clauses on financial accounts. So if we do have a second great recession and banks do robo foreclose your home then you can look forward to your day in arbitration.
|
On July 27 2017 11:27 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 11:10 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2017 11:06 mozoku wrote:On July 27 2017 11:00 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2017 10:43 mozoku wrote:
@Plansix and NewSunshine
You guys are both missing my point. My point is that the Republicans are merely playing the system. The current electoral system doesn't reward the opposition party dedicating money to policy research. It rewards winning elections. The best for the Republicans political strategy is to oppose Obamacare (as its a two-party system).
If the current Republicans didn't execute the optimal political strategy, they would have simply lost their primaries to someone who would have (or lose Congress)
The Democrats are playing the same game, but the only difference is that their ideology makes it a more favorable game to play in the healthcare arena. They're not really much different in their MO.
If you want to maintain consistency as a Lefty, support Leftist policies and criticize the system when it produces idiotic outcomes like this. Criticize Fox News, Breitbart, FTFP, lobbyists, whatever it may be. But criticizing the Republicans in Congress themselves is basically senseless. It's like complaining when that Apple should lower it's iPhone large margins out of generosity. It's just not how the world works.
EDIT: Guys, I'm fully aware that the Democratic platform contains support public options and expanding Medicare. And that Progressives want single-payer. Hopefully my point above clarifies things. My point about "no policies since November" wasn't meant to be exclusively limited to healthcare. I will predict right now that the Democrats will the vast majority of the time being obstructionist, rather than trying to come up with policies. When the GOP sets the state, writes the script, picks the topics of debate and language of the bills, that is the only role there is. You don't seem to fully understand how fucked congress is. Behold the Hastert Rule: Under the doctrine, the Speaker will not allow a floor vote on a bill unless a majority of the majority party supports the bill.This rule prevents the minority party from bring any bill forward unless they get a majority of Republicans to vote for it. Newt Gingrich's creation in his efforts to weaponize the house of representatives as a tool of the ruling party. When the Republicans took the house after 40 years of democrat control, the first thing they did was make sure they didn't have to vote on any bills the democrats wanted. The democrats kept it in place in 2008 because they are fucking stupid, but that doesn't excuse the GOP for creating it. All budget bills must start in the house. Any bill involving money. This mean that the minority party, aka: the Democrats, can do nothing. There are endless other rules and subtle changes. The way the health care bill was drafted, avoiding floor debate and skipping the committee process. But the key thing to understand is that, under the current rules, the minority party is a bitch. They can't do shit if the Majority doesn't want it to happen. They can't even bring a bill they know will fail to a vote. It won't even reach the floor. The majority party controls the ideas that are debated in the House. The minority party doesn't get ideas after the mid 1990s. This is how congress functions and why the opposition party simply opposes. I totally agree that Congress as an institution in its current state is fucked. We aren't far apart there at all. But if it's okay for Dems to be obstructionist now, then it's totally hypocritical to criticize the GOP from 2012-2016 for being obstructionist, as they can't pass literally anything that won't Obama won't sign. And Obama opposed their entire agenda (ideologically, which is fair). The Republicans were not the minority party. They were in charge of the House. They could have governed with Obama. They decided not to. Their argument was that government doesn't work. And then they proceeded to do nothing and government failed to work. It is sort of amazing a plan so fucking stupid worked so effectively that I have to type this today. "I'm not interested in passing something with mostly Democrat votes" - Boehner December 2012 Besides the obvious fact that the Democrats wouldn't vote for items on the Republican agenda (entitlement reform, tax reform, etc.), you're getting away from the point I was actually making and this is turning into petty partisan warfare. I should have just discontinued this line of argument instead of responding, in retrospect. Let's play hypothetical here. Suppose we have a reverse situation of 2014-2016. Democrats control both chambers of Congress, and, say, Ted Cruz is POTUS (i.e. a president that opposes all of a hypothetical Democratic Congress's legislative agenda like Obama did). Do you think that the Democrats will be playing for compromise? Or do you think they'd be trying to energize their base in hopes to win the 2020 general election? Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 11:16 KwarK wrote:
It's a silly objection either way. Obamacare is the Democrats idea. It's not that they don't have an idea, is that the idea they have is one they've already passed. Refusing to let the thing that they already built be destroyed is the furthest thing from not having a plan to build anything.
Democrats: We want to build X.
Republicans: We disagree with X.
Democrats: We just built X.
Republicans: We want to tear X down.
Democrats: We'd rather you didn't tear X down.
mozuku: "I don't hear much about what the Democrats want to build, all they do is oppose the Republicans"
If they'd failed to pass Obamacare and were trying to pass it you'd be applauding their vision and big ideas. But by wanting to defend the thing they already built they apparently become intellectually hollow in your eyes. This is not my argument at all. This is like the strawman of the century.
You're a welcome voice here about the partisanship of both parties. I don't agree with your policy preferences, but I definitely agree that both parties are very guilty of prioritizing the political game above governing with integrity.
|
On July 27 2017 12:18 KwarK wrote:Incidentally the Republicans just reversed a CFP restriction limiting the enforcability of forced arbitration clauses on financial accounts. So if we do have a second great recession and banks do robo foreclose your home then you can look forward to your day in arbitration.
Hey, the banks have set up numerous systems to prevent robo-signing. And if those systems fail and robo-signing happens, they can't be blamed because they tried.
Fucking robo-signing. The only thing worse is people asking for the mortgage servicing contract. They don't seem to fully understand that the thing they want is 2000 pages of pure contract bullshit. Or demanding the Note.
I take it back, I don't want another great recession. It will lead to the rise of more internet moon law.
|
The guys who thought robo foreclosure was an acceptable practice I'd put at the same level as child molesters and anti vaxxers.
|
My point is that the Republicans are merely playing the system. The current electoral system doesn't reward the opposition party dedicating money to policy research. It rewards winning elections. The best political strategy for the Republicans is to oppose Obamacare (as its a two-party system).
On July 27 2017 10:27 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 10:22 KwarK wrote:
It's possible that the Democrats aren't trying as hard to come up with ideas for how to repeal and replace Obamacare deliberately. Last time I checked, the general consensus on the Left is that Obamacare needs work. I don't recall hearing them putting any specific proposals forth though. Weird, huh? I wonder why an opposition party would not dedicate a significant share of its resources to policy research when they're sitting on the legislative sidelines and there's an election next year.
Nah, only Republicans focus on politics. Democrats are out there for the warm feelies obviously, so we can rest assured they're hard at work coming up with ways to save the world. /s
The point was that the bolded quote applies equally well to this year's Democrats and as it does to Republicans during Obama era.
I acknowledged the Democrat's ideas on healthcare below:
The Democrats are playing the same game, but the only difference is that their ideology makes it a more favorable game to play in the healthcare arena. They're not really much different in their MO.
EDIT: Guys, I'm fully aware that the Democratic platform contains support for public healthcare options and expanding Medicare to those older than 55. And that Progressives want single-payer. Hopefully my point above clarifies things--specifically the part about their ideology making healthcare a favorable arena for Democrats. My point about "no policies since November" wasn't meant to be exclusively limited to healthcare. I will predict right now that the Democrats will spend the vast majority of the next four years being obstructionist, rather than trying to come up with policies--because that's historically what opposition parties do. Not just in the US, and not just in the post-2000s era.
"The post above" refers to what I said was effectively my thesis in the last post.
Basically, a lot of what you guys attribute to Democratic moral and intellectual superiority comes down to an electoral/political system that encourages opposition-mongering rather than policy, some luck that healthcare is a much easier to issue to argue from the progressive side, that healthcare also happens to be the biggest issue of the last decade, and the fact that Democrats have had a more successful decade in promoting their agenda.
Because the system is what determines outcomes (think of politics like a market) by weeding out candidates who wouldn't be elected, the politicians' actions in both parties are more a reflection of factors outside their control than their own personal qualities.
Consequently, it's irrational to criticize the Republican politicians for what's going on. Just like it's irrational to criticize the insurance companies and hospitals themselves for taking advantage of the broken healthcare system to line their pockets. It's just what the system encourages. The rational complaint in politics is to criticize the system political/electoral system itself, just like the rational complaint in healthcare is to criticize the system that allows insurance companies and hospitals to steal your money.
|
Please stop citing yourself. We understand your point. We are not impressed by it.
On July 27 2017 12:23 Sermokala wrote:
The guys who thought robo foreclosure was an acceptable practice I'd put at the same level as child molesters and anti vaxxers.
No one thought it was acceptable. They were just given unreasonable deadlines and told to get it done. And then when it all got done, no one bothered to ask how it got done that quickly.
|
On July 27 2017 12:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 12:16 Danglars wrote:The White House chief of staff has a key role in white house staff and communications, though I might not call Priebus fully Scaramucci's boss in the traditional sense. It is a weird claim he is making, because the White House has released a lot of those forms to the press. Did he just not get the email they were going to do it?
Sure, the claim is. Truth is, though, Priebus is a pretty natural tag in this. As I think I understand you to know.
https://twitter.com/ChadSDay/status/890408313682354179
Also, they are not classified. The public can just request them.
Is your stance that you can leak financial documents that also have a public request channel? I don't really know if he's right on the felony charge, but this still seems like an easy call. We do have the FOIA process for a reason, for example.
|
On July 27 2017 12:26 Plansix wrote:
Please stop citing yourself. We understand your point. We are not impressed by it.
I think this forum can deal with more condensation and reorganization posts for clarity when the bulk of debate is misunderstanding the other's points. Remember, someone like Mozoku has an interest in knowing if he didn't explain himself well enough, still hasn't explained his point well enough after more attempts at elucidation, or people are being deliberately blockheaded (or cynically interested in strawmen).
|
United States42784 Posts
On July 27 2017 12:24 mozoku wrote:
I will predict right now that the Democrats will spend the vast majority of the next four years being obstructionist, rather than trying to come up with policies.
The policies that they already came up with are the status quo. You keep saying obstructionism as if it can be divorced from what it is that is being obstructed. Obstructionism does not reflect a lack of policy when it is the repeal of your established policy that you are obstructing.
I understand your point, I simply think it is absolute nonsense. The Republican policies being opposed do not exist in a vacuum. Democrats aren't saying "no" to Republican proposals, they are reaffirming their support for their own established system. A vote against A is a vote for B.
|
On July 27 2017 12:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 12:18 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2017 12:16 Danglars wrote:The White House chief of staff has a key role in white house staff and communications, though I might not call Priebus fully Scaramucci's boss in the traditional sense. It is a weird claim he is making, because the White House has released a lot of those forms to the press. Did he just not get the email they were going to do it? Sure, the claim is. Truth is, though, Priebus is a pretty natural tag in this. As I think I understand you to know. Show nested quote +https://twitter.com/ChadSDay/status/890408313682354179
Also, they are not classified. The public can just request them. Is your stance that you can leak financial documents that also have a public request channel? I don't really know if he's right on the felony charge, but this still seems like an easy call. We do have the FOIA process for a reason, for example.
I am of the opinion that govermetn officials should not claim things are a felony unless they are sure. No matter if their personal information was leaded or not. And non-classified information reaching the press isn't a leak. That is just public information reaching the press. Much like racism, people need to stop throwing around leak. The word is becoming meaningless.
On July 27 2017 12:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 12:26 Plansix wrote:
Please stop citing yourself. We understand your point. We are not impressed by it. I think this forum can deal with more condensation and reorganization posts for clarity when the bulk of debate is misunderstanding the other's points. Remember, someone like Mozoku has an interest in knowing if he didn't explain himself well enough, still hasn't explained his point well enough after more attempts at elucidation, or people are being deliberately blockheaded (or cynically interested in strawmen).
Although true at time, I am of the opinion that this is simply a case of him repeating himself rather than responding peoples criticism of his points.
|
On July 27 2017 12:26 Plansix wrote:Please stop citing yourself. We understand your point. We are not impressed by it. Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 12:23 Sermokala wrote:
The guys who thought robo foreclosure was an acceptable practice I'd put at the same level as child molesters and anti vaxxers. No one thought it was acceptable. They were just given unreasonable deadlines and told to get it done. And then when it all got done, no one bothered to ask how it got done that quickly.
Then someone should have said "we can't do it without more people or more time". They knew it would result in what it did and they did it anyway. Any other company with a product that kills people knowingly like that and they get charged for it.
|
Ryan Lizza outright states that Scaramucci is essentially accusing Reince for sending these documents to the press.
Now we don't know if that's true but this isn't unsurprising. I have no doubts that Reince doesn't like Scaramucci's current influence over Trump and essentially encouraging his scorched earth strategy to PR. And this Whitehouse is leaky because people in the Whitehouse clearly don't like each other. For all of Trump's raging against so called leaks, a good number of them are clearly coming from Kusher and Bannon and their respective allies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
