EPTNarrator: It is a news company.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8985
| 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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Narrator: It is a news company. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Great, poor people are fucked now. Now congress has to make up for Trump's hissy fit. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On October 13 2017 12:16 Plansix wrote: https://twitter.com/sangerkatz/status/918670072679469057 Great, poor people are fucked now. Now congress has to make up for Trump's hissy fit. Actually, poor people have medicaid. This fucks over lower-middle class people who aren't covered by their employers. So it's probably even dumber politically than repealing medicaid, as these people have some level of economic power. From further down the chain : Bad, but not absolutely catastrophic as far as I can tell (unless you care about the deficit in which case it's quite bad). | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On October 12 2017 03:42 Wulfey_LA wrote: The hot take on Trump threatening the first amendment is that since Trump is a useless blowhard who doesn't have any competent staffers/lawyers, his threats are empty and only triggered libs would be worried about the President of the United States threatening free speech. + Show Spoiler + This take is wrong. Norms matter. Now that the President has made it okay to call for pulling licenses of critical media, others will follow suit. Lesser politicians int he federal chain will start trying to shut down critical media outlets. Somewhere down the chain a mayor somewhere will actually follow through in law based on the space the Trump made by assaulting the norm. Also, we are less than 1 year into the Trump Presidency, give it another year and we will see just how much he uses the power of the Presidency to go for not just our norms of free speech, but our laws. // also fuck every last free-speech-absolutist who voted Trump but thinks college kids protesting are threat to free speech. No other entity in the USA has the power to threaten free speech with power remotely close to the President. Here we go. A first example of what I was talking about. Trump threatens freedom of the press/speech, lesser lawmakers follow suit. Even if Trump is too stupid/crazy/evil to actually follow through on his stupid/crazy/evil tweets, the guys way down on the federal totem pole see his actions and push further than he does. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On October 13 2017 11:52 LegalLord wrote: Watching Trump and the Republicans fumble around trying to get rid of Obamacare without really having a follow up is quite a laugh. It's funny until your healthcare gets gutted and you're fucked. That's gonna be quite a few people if it goes through. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On October 13 2017 13:02 NewSunshine wrote: It's funny until your healthcare gets gutted and you're fucked. That's gonna be quite a few people if it goes through. But have you heard that Kamela Harris supports Colin Kaepernick? That right there is reason enough vote Trump. EDIT: the 2020 election is another Flight 93 situation. Do you want to charge the cockpit with Trump and win? Or do you want to watch Black Lives Matter take over the government and invite in MS13 to replace us? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On October 13 2017 13:31 LegalLord wrote: If the Democrats are to defeat Trump, they had better put a genuine candidate in this time around, so that we don't get another accident. What would be the characteristics of such a candidate in your eyes? (An example of such a candidate would answer this question.) | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
| ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
It would be nice to see someone actually debunk the claim first before assuming everything the white house press secretary says is a lie, and that its secretly not about the law's legality. Seems kind of biased to assume otherwise. | ||
|
Yurie
11927 Posts
On October 13 2017 14:58 radscorpion9 wrote: Why isn't anyone commenting on the Trump administration's claim that these cost-sharing payments are technically illegal? Its just casually assumed that Trump wants to increase the deficit in order to destroy Obamacare, rather than their argument that it breaks the law. If the Trump administration is right, then it doesn't matter how much it reduces the deficit, its plain illegal. It would be nice to see someone actually debunk the claim first before assuming everything the white house press secretary says is a lie, and that its secretly not about the law's legality. Seems kind of biased to assume otherwise. With the current administration the correct angle is to assume is a lie or made up. Then once confirmation of its truth has been made start considering if it is true or not (depending on source confirming it). That is not to say that all government news should be examined as critically. Just the closer to the top if gets the more likely it is a PR stunt instead of something worth reading about. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On October 13 2017 14:58 radscorpion9 wrote: Why isn't anyone commenting on the Trump administration's claim that these cost-sharing payments are technically illegal? Its just casually assumed that Trump wants to increase the deficit in order to destroy Obamacare, rather than their argument that it breaks the law. If the Trump administration is right, then it doesn't matter how much it reduces the deficit, its plain illegal. It would be nice to see someone actually debunk the claim first before assuming everything the white house press secretary says is a lie, and that its secretly not about the law's legality. Seems kind of biased to assume otherwise. A Bush2 Political Judge made a wingnut ruling that reimagines how government spending works in order to reach a conclusion she desired. Sure, if you have every one of her political assumptions, her argument is internally consistent. The case is up for appeal. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/05/12/judge-blocks-reimbursement-of-insurers-for-aca-cost-sharing-reduction-payments/ Even assuming she is right, congressional republicans are the bad guys here. They have control of the government. If they wanted to exactly appropriate for each spending item individually in a way that the USA GOV hasn't had to do in the past, they could do so at any time. So the 'but it is illegal' argument is no escape from the question of whether it is the right thing to do. | ||
|
mortyFromRickAndMort
85 Posts
On October 13 2017 13:58 Aquanim wrote: What would be the characteristics of such a candidate in your eyes? (An example of such a candidate would answer this question.) Not a Clinton would be a start. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On October 13 2017 15:42 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote: Not a Clinton would be a start. There are upwards of 7 billion people on the earth who aren't Clintons. Can I get a more specific description? | ||
|
mortyFromRickAndMort
85 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On October 13 2017 16:20 Aquanim wrote: There are upwards of 7 billion people on the earth who aren't Clintons. Can I get a more specific description? Someone with a reasonable vision for the future, even one that I don't fully agree with, who doesn't lean towards "politics as usual." Bernie Sanders is a good obvious example, even if a bit head-in-the-clouds and a bit too old. But someone who functions in the spirit he campaigned in would be good. Strives towards lofty goals with more idealism than fatalist faux-pragmatism, seeks to address issues of inequality without playing the identity politics card at every turn, makes strides to distance himself from moneyed interests, principled, so on and so forth. I mean there's not many ways of doing worse than Hillary Clinton but to meet the threshold of what I was describing is more along the lines of what's posted right there. | ||
| ||
