|
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 January 20 2018 08:05 Toadesstern wrote:
Yeah, as shitty of a move it was from GOPs I don't really see DEMs winning the message war on this.
Or maybe it's a close tie at best for them, which is still horrible for people up for re-election in 2018 in not super-dem-leaning states.
I'd say Dems are going to cave soonish. It's a lose-lose for them right now
I think you'll revisit this opinion soon, there's a good reason why Dems suddenly grew a spine.
|
On January 20 2018 07:53 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 07:36 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 07:19 Toadesstern wrote:On January 20 2018 07:15 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 07:07 Toadesstern wrote:On January 20 2018 07:01 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:31 Logo wrote:On January 20 2018 06:26 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 20 2018 06:07 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
The Republican tax plan reduces revenue. The compromise would reduce spending by a very very very modest amount. OH SHIT WE GOTTA INCREASE SPENDING NO QUESTIONS ASKED. Pretty humorous, I agree. They sure asked those questions to multimillionaires, the only people who benefited from removing the estate tax. At least you realize they ask more questions about children's healthcare than they do about the megarich. It'd be different if any of these proposed changes actually improved CHIP, but they really don't. Mostly because it's a wildly successful on balance cheap program that I'm not sure there's any evidence of any problems with. I do love that you have fully embraced the "continuing any entitlement is increasing spending" philosophy. It'll make future coercion arguments even more bizarre. It would be different if the revenue and spending sides of the equation were both looked at for balancing budgets and tackling the debt and looking for GDP growth and wage growth and American competitiveness. This debate is a microcosm that, while the GOP made inroads in the corporate tax rate to bring us more in line with our first-world competitive partners, they can make zero inroads in spending. I see no progress if the only answer is to increase revenues by raising taxes, and no quarter is given on the spending side. These programs do grow as more are covered and costs increase. So... does that apply to border security and the border wall? Isn't it estimated that deporting the Dreamers would hurt GDP and reduce tax revenue? On January 20 2018 06:28 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:13 Logo wrote:I had more only mildly more success digging since Danglars has obvious motivation to leave it at "cuts elsewhere" But this is what I got: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/house-gop-wants-to-fund-lapsed-chip-with-cuts-to-medicare-and-public-health
The draft bill, posted around 9 p.m. Monday, makes the following cuts and restrictions in order to fund the program:
Charging seniors who earn more than $500,000 a year higher Medicare premiums.
Allowing states to kick out Medicaid beneficiaries if they win the lottery.
Shortening the grace period for people paying their Obamacare premium payments late
Cutting more than $5 billion from the Affordable Care Act’s prevention and public health fund.
Basically yes, they want to cut medicaid/ACA and see using CHIP funding as a way to do that. The first 2 could reasonably be compromise or reasonable cuts, but the last 2 are big issues. An extra 150$ on seniors that earn more than $40,000 a month for medicare. Officially worth more than DACA. I love it. EDIT: Remind me to pull up more The Federalist, National Review, and (shudder) Breitbart to match these TPM summaries. I keep forgetting. You were LITERALLY ASKED to post the bill. You had your chance to post it with whatever spin of sources you could. I posted the best source I could find, which isn't necessarily my top choice but I had little to go on. How the hell can you make a snarky comment about posting the info now AFTER You declined to post said info in the first place. Yes the snark is directed at a TPM source for the bill provided as the "best source I could find." So which of those is a cut too far for funding CHIP? it's not about it being a cut too far. It's about you calling it a "compromise" when there's literally not a single thing bad for Republicans in it. It's 4 Obamacare cuts. Arguably at LEAST 2 of them laughably unimportant but it's still a stretch to call one party having to sign on to 4 cuts that matter to them vs one party having to sign something that has 0 cuts to things that matter to them a compromise. Unless of course you want to argue that Republicans willing to fund CHIP in the first place is the part where they're giving in. But I thought the argument was on it being a thing both parties wanted so that can't be it, right? //edit, and again just to make this clear, for the third time: I spend time trying to find a source on this and couldn't find anything specific on it either. The source may be shit but it's literally everything I have to go on. You're free to give us your source (I don't care if it's Breitbart or whatever else in this instance as it's really hard to find ANYTHING on it, as long as it has the text in the bill itself and not an interpretation without mentioning what's in there) and I will retract that statement if it turns out to have other cuts in there that would matter to Republicans. But right now I just don't have any source on it other than the above despite trying to find one. This is where elections mean something. The Republicans won all three branches of government. Compromises will look a little more like spending cuts where they want them for programs with bipartisan support. If Democrats owned all three branches of government, I'd expect compromises to be found closer to the size of spending increases they demand. Democrats get CHIP with some compensatory cuts, Republicans authorize another spending program budget but gain some cuts elsewhere. but in that case you don't get to argue that Republicans want to fund CHIP. If it's treated as the thing Republicans are "offering up" in return for 4 cuts that hurt Dems it really isn't something they want. If you want to argue that both want to fund it, sure it can be lopsided due to the imbalance of power and that's what I'd expect. But a 100 to 0, Dems give 100 Republicans give 0 is not a compromise (again, assuming both parties want it funded). Make it 3 cuts to Obamacare and 1 cut to somethign Republicans care about and I'd be all fine with you calling it a compromise but as it stands it straight up isn't one. Republicans could totally defund CHIP. They could also choose to only reauthorize CHIP if all Obamacare funding is cut off immediately. They didn't do that and only granted cuts in spending increases from the past (btw I can't remember the last time a Democrat actually thought Seniors paying 150$ more a month that earn more than $40,000 a month was a horrible cut that nobody could compromise to include). But compromise means no cuts ever, goodbye, see ya. At least, if you ask Democrats and they responded honestly, they would tell you that. Go win some elections for a change. Like I already said, it has nothing to do with wether or not there are cuts. I already said a) the cuts are laughably insignificant (read: I agree, Democrats should not care a lot about those cuts) and b) it's not about who finances it So no need to lecture me on that point when I already said that's not the issue. I am aware that there would have to be SOME cuts to fund it and I already mentioned that. The issue is that it's not a compromise as you keep saying. I would have no issue with you calling it a compromise if it had been 3 minor Obamacarecuts (as the ones above) + 1 cut elsewhere that is also minor but more something Republicanss would rather like to keep. But as it stands it's telling Dems to take 4 cuts for something both parties say they want, which is laughable. Or rather, if we can both agree that Republcans don't actually care about CHIP it's fine, because in that case CHIP is what Republicans are offering in return for 4 cuts that would hurt Dems. But you don't seem to be willing to say that either. There's no issue with cuts to finance it, just don't pretend that both parties were giving something in that draft of a bill. Just call it what it was, Democrats being asked to surrender on 4 Obamacare cuts for getting CHIP funded because Republicans don't want to fund it and as a result didn't offer anything in return.
The default position is CHIP fully funded. The compromise position with Republicans in a huge majority in the House (spending measures must originate in the house/it passed 242-174) is to partially fund it with minor cuts elsewhere. If the program is valuable to Democrats as well as to Republicans, they should be able to accept a little bit of the House agenda. But weeks of negotiation in the Senate Finance Committee didn't turn up a compromise (though Hatch was seeking one). So they punted negotiations for a CR of 3 weeks. Three weeks later, the CHIP reauthorization is the one the Senate committee liked in September, but now Dems are boo-hooing about DACA, so it's currently stalled. I don't think the history shows Democrats are willing to compromise in the direction of the right as long as Trump is in the White House and their base is #Resist-controlled.
|
|
|
On January 20 2018 07:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 07:26 Plansix wrote:On January 20 2018 07:15 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 07:07 Toadesstern wrote:On January 20 2018 07:01 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:31 Logo wrote:On January 20 2018 06:26 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:On January 20 2018 06:07 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 05:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's also humorous in that CHIP costs 8 billion dollars over 5 years...but apparently needs to be paid for with cuts to other services. Let's be charitable and say it's 20 billion for 10 years. That's 1/50 the amount the Republican tax plan increases the deficit in 10 years.
Policy only needs to be revenue neutral for R's when that lets them gut other programs and doesn't line pockets. Estate tax cuts? Nah, no need to be revenue neutral. Children's healthcare? OH SHIT WE GOTTA BE GUYS! The Republican tax plan reduces revenue. The compromise would reduce spending by a very very very modest amount. OH SHIT WE GOTTA INCREASE SPENDING NO QUESTIONS ASKED. Pretty humorous, I agree. They sure asked those questions to multimillionaires, the only people who benefited from removing the estate tax. At least you realize they ask more questions about children's healthcare than they do about the megarich. It'd be different if any of these proposed changes actually improved CHIP, but they really don't. Mostly because it's a wildly successful on balance cheap program that I'm not sure there's any evidence of any problems with. I do love that you have fully embraced the "continuing any entitlement is increasing spending" philosophy. It'll make future coercion arguments even more bizarre. It would be different if the revenue and spending sides of the equation were both looked at for balancing budgets and tackling the debt and looking for GDP growth and wage growth and American competitiveness. This debate is a microcosm that, while the GOP made inroads in the corporate tax rate to bring us more in line with our first-world competitive partners, they can make zero inroads in spending. I see no progress if the only answer is to increase revenues by raising taxes, and no quarter is given on the spending side. These programs do grow as more are covered and costs increase. So... does that apply to border security and the border wall? Isn't it estimated that deporting the Dreamers would hurt GDP and reduce tax revenue? On January 20 2018 06:28 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:13 Logo wrote:I had more only mildly more success digging since Danglars has obvious motivation to leave it at "cuts elsewhere" But this is what I got: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/house-gop-wants-to-fund-lapsed-chip-with-cuts-to-medicare-and-public-health
The draft bill, posted around 9 p.m. Monday, makes the following cuts and restrictions in order to fund the program:
Charging seniors who earn more than $500,000 a year higher Medicare premiums.
Allowing states to kick out Medicaid beneficiaries if they win the lottery.
Shortening the grace period for people paying their Obamacare premium payments late
Cutting more than $5 billion from the Affordable Care Act’s prevention and public health fund.
Basically yes, they want to cut medicaid/ACA and see using CHIP funding as a way to do that. The first 2 could reasonably be compromise or reasonable cuts, but the last 2 are big issues. An extra 150$ on seniors that earn more than $40,000 a month for medicare. Officially worth more than DACA. I love it. EDIT: Remind me to pull up more The Federalist, National Review, and (shudder) Breitbart to match these TPM summaries. I keep forgetting. You were LITERALLY ASKED to post the bill. You had your chance to post it with whatever spin of sources you could. I posted the best source I could find, which isn't necessarily my top choice but I had little to go on. How the hell can you make a snarky comment about posting the info now AFTER You declined to post said info in the first place. Yes the snark is directed at a TPM source for the bill provided as the "best source I could find." So which of those is a cut too far for funding CHIP? it's not about it being a cut too far. It's about you calling it a "compromise" when there's literally not a single thing bad for Republicans in it. It's 4 Obamacare cuts. Arguably at LEAST 2 of them laughably unimportant but it's still a stretch to call one party having to sign on to 4 cuts that matter to them vs one party having to sign something that has 0 cuts to things that matter to them a compromise. Unless of course you want to argue that Republicans willing to fund CHIP in the first place is the part where they're giving in. But I thought the argument was on it being a thing both parties wanted so that can't be it, right? //edit, and again just to make this clear, for the third time: I spend time trying to find a source on this and couldn't find anything specific on it either. The source may be shit but it's literally everything I have to go on. You're free to give us your source (I don't care if it's Breitbart or whatever else in this instance as it's really hard to find ANYTHING on it, as long as it has the text in the bill itself and not an interpretation without mentioning what's in there) and I will retract that statement if it turns out to have other cuts in there that would matter to Republicans. But right now I just don't have any source on it other than the above despite trying to find one. This is where elections mean something. The Republicans won all three branches of government. Compromises will look a little more like spending cuts where they want them for programs with bipartisan support. If Democrats owned all three branches of government, I'd expect compromises to be found closer to the size of spending increases they demand. Democrats get CHIP with some compensatory cuts, Republicans authorize another spending program budget but gain some cuts elsewhere. They don’t control all three branches. They have the white house and a majority in the house and senate. They do not have a super majority. As designed, the minority party has the power to hold up bills in the senate to have their issues addressed. If the Republicans want to pass any legislation, they must vote on issues the Democrats want voted on. Tell that to some senators.
That statement is factually accurate. It has never happened. The Durbin bipartisan plan would pass likely pass if the put it to at vote right now.
But they are not doing that because the president might veto it.
|
Trump wants to outlaw 'Birth'.
|
On January 20 2018 08:08 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 08:05 Toadesstern wrote:
Yeah, as shitty of a move it was from GOPs I don't really see DEMs winning the message war on this.
Or maybe it's a close tie at best for them, which is still horrible for people up for re-election in 2018 in not super-dem-leaning states.
I'd say Dems are going to cave soonish. It's a lose-lose for them right now I think you'll revisit this opinion soon, there's a good reason why Dems suddenly grew a spine.
Forgive me for being hesitant to trust DNC messaging. If there's one our party completely fucking sucks at, it is messaging.
|
United States42008 Posts
On January 20 2018 08:18 Gorsameth wrote:Trump wants to outlaw 'Birth'.
And to think we traded in the editor of the Harvard Law Review for this man.
|
On January 20 2018 08:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 08:08 farvacola wrote:On January 20 2018 08:05 Toadesstern wrote:
Yeah, as shitty of a move it was from GOPs I don't really see DEMs winning the message war on this.
Or maybe it's a close tie at best for them, which is still horrible for people up for re-election in 2018 in not super-dem-leaning states.
I'd say Dems are going to cave soonish. It's a lose-lose for them right now I think you'll revisit this opinion soon, there's a good reason why Dems suddenly grew a spine. Forgive me for being hesitant to trust DNC messaging. If there's one our party completely fucking sucks at, it is messaging.
yeah but the biggest reason that ends up being the case deals in how chickenshit centrist Dems usually end up when first trying to push a new or progressive policy point. So far, they look to be avoiding that.
|
On January 20 2018 08:16 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 07:53 Toadesstern wrote:On January 20 2018 07:36 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 07:19 Toadesstern wrote:On January 20 2018 07:15 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 07:07 Toadesstern wrote:On January 20 2018 07:01 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:31 Logo wrote:On January 20 2018 06:26 Danglars wrote:On January 20 2018 06:10 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
They sure asked those questions to multimillionaires, the only people who benefited from removing the estate tax. At least you realize they ask more questions about children's healthcare than they do about the megarich.
It'd be different if any of these proposed changes actually improved CHIP, but they really don't. Mostly because it's a wildly successful on balance cheap program that I'm not sure there's any evidence of any problems with.
I do love that you have fully embraced the "continuing any entitlement is increasing spending" philosophy. It'll make future coercion arguments even more bizarre. It would be different if the revenue and spending sides of the equation were both looked at for balancing budgets and tackling the debt and looking for GDP growth and wage growth and American competitiveness. This debate is a microcosm that, while the GOP made inroads in the corporate tax rate to bring us more in line with our first-world competitive partners, they can make zero inroads in spending. I see no progress if the only answer is to increase revenues by raising taxes, and no quarter is given on the spending side. These programs do grow as more are covered and costs increase. So... does that apply to border security and the border wall? Isn't it estimated that deporting the Dreamers would hurt GDP and reduce tax revenue? On January 20 2018 06:28 Danglars wrote:An extra 150$ on seniors that earn more than $40,000 a month for medicare. Officially worth more than DACA. I love it. EDIT: Remind me to pull up more The Federalist, National Review, and (shudder) Breitbart to match these TPM summaries. I keep forgetting. You were LITERALLY ASKED to post the bill. You had your chance to post it with whatever spin of sources you could. I posted the best source I could find, which isn't necessarily my top choice but I had little to go on. How the hell can you make a snarky comment about posting the info now AFTER You declined to post said info in the first place. Yes the snark is directed at a TPM source for the bill provided as the "best source I could find." So which of those is a cut too far for funding CHIP? it's not about it being a cut too far. It's about you calling it a "compromise" when there's literally not a single thing bad for Republicans in it. It's 4 Obamacare cuts. Arguably at LEAST 2 of them laughably unimportant but it's still a stretch to call one party having to sign on to 4 cuts that matter to them vs one party having to sign something that has 0 cuts to things that matter to them a compromise. Unless of course you want to argue that Republicans willing to fund CHIP in the first place is the part where they're giving in. But I thought the argument was on it being a thing both parties wanted so that can't be it, right? //edit, and again just to make this clear, for the third time: I spend time trying to find a source on this and couldn't find anything specific on it either. The source may be shit but it's literally everything I have to go on. You're free to give us your source (I don't care if it's Breitbart or whatever else in this instance as it's really hard to find ANYTHING on it, as long as it has the text in the bill itself and not an interpretation without mentioning what's in there) and I will retract that statement if it turns out to have other cuts in there that would matter to Republicans. But right now I just don't have any source on it other than the above despite trying to find one. This is where elections mean something. The Republicans won all three branches of government. Compromises will look a little more like spending cuts where they want them for programs with bipartisan support. If Democrats owned all three branches of government, I'd expect compromises to be found closer to the size of spending increases they demand. Democrats get CHIP with some compensatory cuts, Republicans authorize another spending program budget but gain some cuts elsewhere. but in that case you don't get to argue that Republicans want to fund CHIP. If it's treated as the thing Republicans are "offering up" in return for 4 cuts that hurt Dems it really isn't something they want. If you want to argue that both want to fund it, sure it can be lopsided due to the imbalance of power and that's what I'd expect. But a 100 to 0, Dems give 100 Republicans give 0 is not a compromise (again, assuming both parties want it funded). Make it 3 cuts to Obamacare and 1 cut to somethign Republicans care about and I'd be all fine with you calling it a compromise but as it stands it straight up isn't one. Republicans could totally defund CHIP. They could also choose to only reauthorize CHIP if all Obamacare funding is cut off immediately. They didn't do that and only granted cuts in spending increases from the past (btw I can't remember the last time a Democrat actually thought Seniors paying 150$ more a month that earn more than $40,000 a month was a horrible cut that nobody could compromise to include). But compromise means no cuts ever, goodbye, see ya. At least, if you ask Democrats and they responded honestly, they would tell you that. Go win some elections for a change. Like I already said, it has nothing to do with wether or not there are cuts. I already said a) the cuts are laughably insignificant (read: I agree, Democrats should not care a lot about those cuts) and b) it's not about who finances it So no need to lecture me on that point when I already said that's not the issue. I am aware that there would have to be SOME cuts to fund it and I already mentioned that. The issue is that it's not a compromise as you keep saying. I would have no issue with you calling it a compromise if it had been 3 minor Obamacarecuts (as the ones above) + 1 cut elsewhere that is also minor but more something Republicanss would rather like to keep. But as it stands it's telling Dems to take 4 cuts for something both parties say they want, which is laughable. Or rather, if we can both agree that Republcans don't actually care about CHIP it's fine, because in that case CHIP is what Republicans are offering in return for 4 cuts that would hurt Dems. But you don't seem to be willing to say that either. There's no issue with cuts to finance it, just don't pretend that both parties were giving something in that draft of a bill. Just call it what it was, Democrats being asked to surrender on 4 Obamacare cuts for getting CHIP funded because Republicans don't want to fund it and as a result didn't offer anything in return. The default position is CHIP fully funded. The compromise position with Republicans in a huge majority in the House (spending measures must originate in the house/it passed 242-174) is to partially fund it with minor cuts elsewhere. If the program is valuable to Democrats as well as to Republicans, they should be able to accept a little bit of the House agenda. But weeks of negotiation in the Senate Finance Committee didn't turn up a compromise (though Hatch was seeking one). So they punted negotiations for a CR of 3 weeks. Three weeks later, the CHIP reauthorization is the one the Senate committee liked in September, but now Dems are boo-hooing about DACA, so it's currently stalled. I don't think the history shows Democrats are willing to compromise in the direction of the right as long as Trump is in the White House and their base is #Resist-controlled.
Let's just agree to disagree on that one.
I would not call that a compromise as it basicly means only Dems have to "pay" for it as all the cuts are targeting them and what they want specifically. And not only that, those are also cuts Republicans like to begin with. They'd argue for those cuts standalone if given the chance.
For me a compromise would include at least one token (but insignificant) cut to something Republicans would like to keep, like military or whatever.
|
On January 20 2018 08:08 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 08:05 Toadesstern wrote:
Yeah, as shitty of a move it was from GOPs I don't really see DEMs winning the message war on this.
Or maybe it's a close tie at best for them, which is still horrible for people up for re-election in 2018 in not super-dem-leaning states.
I'd say Dems are going to cave soonish. It's a lose-lose for them right now I think you'll revisit this opinion soon, there's a good reason why Dems suddenly grew a spine.
Because the healthcare of our children and safety of our immigrants is kind of, sort of, worth it.
|
On January 20 2018 08:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 08:08 farvacola wrote:On January 20 2018 08:05 Toadesstern wrote:
Yeah, as shitty of a move it was from GOPs I don't really see DEMs winning the message war on this.
Or maybe it's a close tie at best for them, which is still horrible for people up for re-election in 2018 in not super-dem-leaning states.
I'd say Dems are going to cave soonish. It's a lose-lose for them right now I think you'll revisit this opinion soon, there's a good reason why Dems suddenly grew a spine. Because the healthcare of our children and safety of our immigrants is kind of, sort of, worth it.
It also sets the tone for the entire year. Cave now, cave for the rest of the year. Draw the line in the sand and the leadership will know the Dems are not kidding. Right now Republicans are operating under the belief that Dems will cave at the last minute, like they have for more than 20 years.
|
On January 20 2018 08:18 Gorsameth wrote:Trump wants to outlaw 'Birth'.
He's not just pro-abortion; he wants to make abortion mandatory.
|
|
|
How to get a primary challenger: a centrist democrat story.
|
On January 20 2018 08:43 Plansix wrote:
How to get a primary challenger: a centrist democrat story.
I am assuming this is mostly just posturing. It's not like the same fight can't be had in a month. A democrat in a red state needs to come across as not tooooooo much of a democrat. By saying "hey, I kept the government running while we talked this through, but when push came to shove and there was no more negotiating to be done, I held strong", she comes across as a lot more reasonable.
Am I correct in that understanding? All the same fights can still be had in a month?
|
I think it's similar to how the 'moderate' Republicans voted against the ACA repeal. It doesn't really matter since the Reps have to get to 60 votes for the CR, so a few of the conservative Dems can vote for it without it actually mattering especially since there are already Republican defectors.
|
Did they even get the peanuts?
|
On January 20 2018 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 08:43 Plansix wrote:
How to get a primary challenger: a centrist democrat story. I am assuming this is mostly just posturing. It's not like the same fight can't be had in a month. A democrat in a red state needs to come across as not tooooooo much of a democrat. By saying "hey, I kept the government running while we talked this through, but when push came to shove and there was no more negotiating to be done, I held strong", she comes across as a lot more reasonable. Am I correct in that understanding? All the same fights can still be had in a month?
We could keep doing this dance until the heat death of the universe. At some point the trigger has to be pulled.
|
On January 20 2018 08:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:On January 20 2018 08:43 Plansix wrote:
How to get a primary challenger: a centrist democrat story. I am assuming this is mostly just posturing. It's not like the same fight can't be had in a month. A democrat in a red state needs to come across as not tooooooo much of a democrat. By saying "hey, I kept the government running while we talked this through, but when push came to shove and there was no more negotiating to be done, I held strong", she comes across as a lot more reasonable. Am I correct in that understanding? All the same fights can still be had in a month? We could keep doing this dance until the heat death of the universe. At some point the trigger has to be pulled.
Everyone keeps kicking the can until its not them that has to make the decision.
|
On January 20 2018 08:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 08:43 Plansix wrote:
How to get a primary challenger: a centrist democrat story. I am assuming this is mostly just posturing. It's not like the same fight can't be had in a month. A democrat in a red state needs to come across as not tooooooo much of a democrat. By saying "hey, I kept the government running while we talked this through, but when push came to shove and there was no more negotiating to be done, I held strong", she comes across as a lot more reasonable. Am I correct in that understanding? All the same fights can still be had in a month?
This is the 4th CR though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
