|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
A continuing theme throughout these debates is how almost no Democrat says they would remove Trump's tariffs. It's notable for a few reasons, I'm curious to see if it continues.
On September 13 2019 10:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2019 10:34 Introvert wrote:On September 13 2019 10:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 13 2019 10:19 Introvert wrote:On September 13 2019 10:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 13 2019 10:11 Introvert wrote:On September 13 2019 10:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 13 2019 09:56 Introvert wrote:On September 13 2019 09:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 13 2019 09:35 Introvert wrote:
This debate so far has been so much better, they are actually going at it. I'd pay so much for someone up there to bring up or use the phrase "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor," the big lie of Obamacare that lead to Democratic electoral route. Amazing that so soon after the ACA they pretend nothing has really changed.
Still great nonetheless. Bernie did, said it's on Joe Biden to explain it. The ACA was basically a Nixon plan rehashed by Romney at the state level, then accepted as a compromise between the center and right wings of the Democratic party. It's quite impressive Republicans managed to make defending a Republican plan/policy into a Democrat party staple. are you sure he used that phrase, much less in the way I'm describing? It's amusing today that somehow the plan Romney used in deep blue Massachusetts became a "Republican plan." And that was because Romney had to deal with a super-majority Dem state legislature. If you look at the Heritage plan, which is where I know this is going, we can see that the only real thing the two plans had in common is a mandate, which isn't even an American idea, as other countries have mandates. Nevermind Republicans never campaigned on either Romneycare or the actual Heritage plan. Conservatives lambasted the GOP for nominating the one person who couldn't run against Obamacare. This "Obamacare is a Republican plan" is fun meme, but it's fundamentally false. I disagree. The essence of the plan goes back to Nixon. In February 1974, Republican President Richard Nixon proposed, in essence, today’s Affordable Care Act. Under Nixon’s plan all but the smallest employers would provide insurance to their workers or pay a penalty, an expanded Medicaid-type program would insure the poor, and subsidies would be provided to low-income individuals and small employers. Sound familiar?
Private insurers were delighted with the Nixon plan but Democrats preferred a system based on Social Security and Medicare The Republican plan was built around private insurers and the Democratic vision built around SS and Medicare. There’s a deep irony to all this. Had Democrats stuck to the original Democratic vision and built comprehensive health insurance on Social Security and Medicare, it would have been cheaper, simpler, and more widely accepted by the public. And Republicans would be hollering anyway. www.csmonitor.com Notice how he skips 30 years? The mandate, when proposed on the right, was highly divisive, with most of the support thinking of it as the best way to deal with the free-rider problem. And there's a whole lot more to all these plans. Most Republican plans lead to a net decrease in government involvement in healthcare and health insurance. The Democrat plans do the opposite. It's really that simple. I just didn't include the commentary on the intervening years. In 1989, Stuart M. Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation came up with a plan that would “mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance.”
Insurance companies loved Butler’s plan so much it found its way into several bills introduced by Republican lawmakers in 1993. Among the supporters were senators Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa (who now oppose the mandate under the Affordable Care Act). Newt Gingrich, who became Speaker of the House in 1995, was also a big proponent. I can give you that it's support among Republicans wasn't/isn't ubiquitous though. I was already obliquely referring to that earlier. Here's a right-leaning healthcare polciy guy discussing mostly the mandate, https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/02/07/the-tortuous-conservative-history-of-the-individual-mandate/#1aa185a955fe I'm not sure what you're suggesting that article does to strengthen your argument or weaken mine? It's re-enforcing my point that "Obamacare is a Republican plan" is something people should stop saying. In fact it seems possible to say that there is no Republican healthcare plan. Meanwhile in this debate I am at least trying to watch, the difference is between "buy-in to Medicare" or "be forced into Medicare." I'd agree that Republicans went from an ACA like plan to no plan. I'm not going to stop pointing out that the ACA was a rehash of a Republican plan, because it is.
While "rehash" leaves some room, I'll just note my disagreement for now.
|
I think I like Yang the most for how he talks, he rarely sounds like hes trying to pull at heartstrings or speaking out of desperation / exhaustion. He also has had reasonable answers, (like saying he wouldn't pull out the Tariffs days one.)
This debate, (like the others,) the candidates don't really have a check from the interviewers. Interviewers simply tee the ball up and let them swing away 99% of the time.
|
Biden is still making gaffes and still seems incoherent at times, but he at least appears more alive.
Warren is the plan candidate who apparently doesn't feel the need to actually discuss her "plans." She sounds a lot like...
Bernie Sanders, who I think continues to hold his own people and get no one else. Wonder how long that works.
The rest were ok or meh, compared to expectations. No one really moved.
They did finally go after each other though, it's about time. Just need to see Sanders and Warren go at it.
|
On September 13 2019 11:51 Introvert wrote:
Biden is still making gaffes and still seems incoherent at times, but he at least appears more alive.
Warren is the plan candidate who apparently doesn't feel the need to actually discuss her "plans." She sounds a lot like...
Bernie Sanders, who I think continues to hold his own people and get no one else. Wonder how long that works.
The rest were ok or meh, compared to expectations. No one really moved.
They did finally go after each other though, it's about time. Just need to see Sanders and Warren go at it.
Biden's been fading Warren's been gaining and Sanders has held steady (leading in some NH polls). I expect that trend to hold after the debate. Harris might get another blip but that'll be short lived as was the last one.
|
On September 13 2019 12:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2019 11:51 Introvert wrote:
Biden is still making gaffes and still seems incoherent at times, but he at least appears more alive.
Warren is the plan candidate who apparently doesn't feel the need to actually discuss her "plans." She sounds a lot like...
Bernie Sanders, who I think continues to hold his own people and get no one else. Wonder how long that works.
The rest were ok or meh, compared to expectations. No one really moved.
They did finally go after each other though, it's about time. Just need to see Sanders and Warren go at it.
Biden's been fading Warren's been gaining and Sanders has held steady (leading in some NH polls). I expect that trend to hold after the debate. Harris might get another blip but that'll be short lived as was the last one.
Warren is clearly the media's candidate. Ever since the puff pieces about her "plans" came out a few months ago they've gotten more and more obvious about it. It didn't even matter if they would work or would good ideas, that wasn't the point. Saying you have a plan is one of these Democrat trigger phrases, and combine that with the fawning media and it's understandable why she's in third.
Maybe it's just cause of the way the winds are blowing but righty social media think she's actually the favorite. If Biden collapses (literally) she seems most likely to benefit.
edit: although she maybe not the Obama people's choice.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/12/warren-obama-2020-228068
edit2: and by the way, on that "GOP takes advantage of 9/11 memorial to hold vote they promised wouldn't happen" story...
well it turns out the Republican's made no such promise, and that only a few of the Democrats claimed they were at a 9/11 memorial.
***
House Minority Leader Darren Jackson (D) said he told his caucus members that they did not need to be in attendance and that state Rep. David Lewis (R), chairman of the Rules, Calendar and Operations Committee, gave Jackson his word that there would be no votes, according to the News & Observer.
Republican leaders denied giving any such assurance. The Associated Press reported that the office of Republican Speaker Tim Moore provided audio from Tuesday’s floor session of Lewis saying that recorded votes would happen Wednesday.
Republicans also disputed the claim by the governor and other Democrats that many of them were attending events remembering 9/11 victims and first responders. Local news reports said only one or two Democrats claimed to have been attending a 9/11 memorial at the time of the vote.
Republicans were unable to override the veto for about two months as long as Democrats were present in the chamber, Cooper said. The General Assembly needs a three-fifths majority to override a veto, which Republicans lack.
The House is allowed to conduct business as long as at least 61 of 120 members are present. There were 64 members present Wednesday morning.
***
Clarification: An earlier version of this article overly generalized the reason for Democrats’ absence from the General Assembly session. This version has been updated.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/11/north-carolina-republicans-overrode-budget-veto-while-democrats-were-ceremony/
|
could anybody understand what those protesters at the debate were saying? All I heard was something recipient
|
I'm kind of bored at this point tbh. We need to get rid of some of the 0-5% people and move to the next stage now, especially because the transfer of votes isn't very clear cut now and could have a lot of impact.
|
On September 13 2019 13:26 Nebuchad wrote:
I'm kind of bored at this point tbh. We need to get rid of some of the 0-5% people and move to the next stage now, especially because the transfer of votes isn't very clear cut now and could have a lot of impact.
O'Rourke felt particularly out of place. Same with Castro. I honestly continue to really like Booker, even though I still support others over him. Warren is my #1 at this point, a shift I never expected.
|
On September 13 2019 07:58 KwarK wrote:
It’s weird that there is discussion of a hypothetical totalitarian state banning a popular drug and how that would work without mention of Chinese opium which was wiped out by Mao.
True. That shows it can be done, though not to 100% but close enough. So from my extreme example switching hard labour to compulsory treatment camps and it mirrors it decently.
|
On September 13 2019 12:59 Introvert wrote:edit2: and by the way, on that "GOP takes advantage of 9/11 memorial to hold vote they promised wouldn't happen" story... well it turns out the Republican's made no such promise, and that only a few of the Democrats claimed they were at a 9/11 memorial. Show nested quote +***
House Minority Leader Darren Jackson (D) said he told his caucus members that they did not need to be in attendance and that state Rep. David Lewis (R), chairman of the Rules, Calendar and Operations Committee, gave Jackson his word that there would be no votes, according to the News & Observer.
Republican leaders denied giving any such assurance. The Associated Press reported that the office of Republican Speaker Tim Moore provided audio from Tuesday’s floor session of Lewis saying that recorded votes would happen Wednesday.
Republicans also disputed the claim by the governor and other Democrats that many of them were attending events remembering 9/11 victims and first responders. Local news reports said only one or two Democrats claimed to have been attending a 9/11 memorial at the time of the vote.
Republicans were unable to override the veto for about two months as long as Democrats were present in the chamber, Cooper said. The General Assembly needs a three-fifths majority to override a veto, which Republicans lack.
The House is allowed to conduct business as long as at least 61 of 120 members are present. There were 64 members present Wednesday morning.
***
Clarification: An earlier version of this article overly generalized the reason for Democrats’ absence from the General Assembly session. This version has been updated. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/11/north-carolina-republicans-overrode-budget-veto-while-democrats-were-ceremony/
I mean, the GOP speaker *claims* they made no such promise (which they would whether they did or not). You have the choice of believing Darren Jackson (the House Minority leader) or the NC GOP. Personally, I don't trust the NC GOP who have been proven to be liars about gerrymandering via internal emails, but you can feel free to do so if you wish.
Edit: To me it strains credulity that "random" playing hooky would make a 55-65 body 9-55, of course. That's some lottery-level luck for the NC GOP if not attending was random, there has to be SOME explanatory factor at play (and a pretty strong one).
All of which is to ignore that calling an override vote when 64 members of the 120 member chamber are present and you "just happily" happen to have the 3/5 majority you don't actually have is scummy and disgusting if you believe legislators should execute the will of the people.
|
Yang continues to reveal how much of a clown he is, which is a good thing. His flippant attitude towards the implications of the policies he supports tells the tale.
|
On September 13 2019 22:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2019 12:59 Introvert wrote:edit2: and by the way, on that "GOP takes advantage of 9/11 memorial to hold vote they promised wouldn't happen" story... well it turns out the Republican's made no such promise, and that only a few of the Democrats claimed they were at a 9/11 memorial. ***
House Minority Leader Darren Jackson (D) said he told his caucus members that they did not need to be in attendance and that state Rep. David Lewis (R), chairman of the Rules, Calendar and Operations Committee, gave Jackson his word that there would be no votes, according to the News & Observer.
Republican leaders denied giving any such assurance. The Associated Press reported that the office of Republican Speaker Tim Moore provided audio from Tuesday’s floor session of Lewis saying that recorded votes would happen Wednesday.
Republicans also disputed the claim by the governor and other Democrats that many of them were attending events remembering 9/11 victims and first responders. Local news reports said only one or two Democrats claimed to have been attending a 9/11 memorial at the time of the vote.
Republicans were unable to override the veto for about two months as long as Democrats were present in the chamber, Cooper said. The General Assembly needs a three-fifths majority to override a veto, which Republicans lack.
The House is allowed to conduct business as long as at least 61 of 120 members are present. There were 64 members present Wednesday morning.
***
Clarification: An earlier version of this article overly generalized the reason for Democrats’ absence from the General Assembly session. This version has been updated. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/11/north-carolina-republicans-overrode-budget-veto-while-democrats-were-ceremony/ I mean, the GOP speaker *claims* they made no such promise (which they would whether they did or not). You have the choice of believing Darren Jackson (the House Minority leader) or the NC GOP. Personally, I don't trust the NC GOP who have been proven to be liars about gerrymandering via internal emails, but you can feel free to do so if you wish. Edit: To me it strains credulity that "random" playing hooky would make a 55-65 body 9-55, of course. That's some lottery-level luck for the NC GOP if not attending was random, there has to be SOME explanatory factor at play (and a pretty strong one). All of which is to ignore that calling an override vote when 64 members of the 120 member chamber are present and you "just happily" happen to have the 3/5 majority you don't actually have is scummy and disgusting if you believe legislators should execute the will of the people.
AP says they have the audio, I even bolded that part.
|
On September 14 2019 01:58 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2019 22:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 13 2019 12:59 Introvert wrote:edit2: and by the way, on that "GOP takes advantage of 9/11 memorial to hold vote they promised wouldn't happen" story... well it turns out the Republican's made no such promise, and that only a few of the Democrats claimed they were at a 9/11 memorial. ***
House Minority Leader Darren Jackson (D) said he told his caucus members that they did not need to be in attendance and that state Rep. David Lewis (R), chairman of the Rules, Calendar and Operations Committee, gave Jackson his word that there would be no votes, according to the News & Observer.
Republican leaders denied giving any such assurance. The Associated Press reported that the office of Republican Speaker Tim Moore provided audio from Tuesday’s floor session of Lewis saying that recorded votes would happen Wednesday.
Republicans also disputed the claim by the governor and other Democrats that many of them were attending events remembering 9/11 victims and first responders. Local news reports said only one or two Democrats claimed to have been attending a 9/11 memorial at the time of the vote.
Republicans were unable to override the veto for about two months as long as Democrats were present in the chamber, Cooper said. The General Assembly needs a three-fifths majority to override a veto, which Republicans lack.
The House is allowed to conduct business as long as at least 61 of 120 members are present. There were 64 members present Wednesday morning.
***
Clarification: An earlier version of this article overly generalized the reason for Democrats’ absence from the General Assembly session. This version has been updated. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/11/north-carolina-republicans-overrode-budget-veto-while-democrats-were-ceremony/ I mean, the GOP speaker *claims* they made no such promise (which they would whether they did or not). You have the choice of believing Darren Jackson (the House Minority leader) or the NC GOP. Personally, I don't trust the NC GOP who have been proven to be liars about gerrymandering via internal emails, but you can feel free to do so if you wish. Edit: To me it strains credulity that "random" playing hooky would make a 55-65 body 9-55, of course. That's some lottery-level luck for the NC GOP if not attending was random, there has to be SOME explanatory factor at play (and a pretty strong one). All of which is to ignore that calling an override vote when 64 members of the 120 member chamber are present and you "just happily" happen to have the 3/5 majority you don't actually have is scummy and disgusting if you believe legislators should execute the will of the people. AP says they have the audio, I even bolded that part.
AP says there's audio saying two votes would take place on Wednesday, *not* that they would take place Wednesday morning (which is what was initially contested on the floor), nor that votes on this bill would take place. Here's the audio Moore provides (from his site)
www.ncleg.gov
From what I can tell one was about water, the other was something Cooper already signed into law (that was being reconciled? I think). Moore's site conspicuously *never* says that Democrats were informed the votes would take place in the morning, nor that voting on this bill tabled since July would occur. Moreover, there was an agenda sent out to Dems (by Dems, since that's how this works) saying that there would votes in the afternoon but none in the morning. Do you *really* believe a 9-55 difference from a 55-65 body was a happy little accident?
|
On September 14 2019 02:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2019 01:58 Introvert wrote:On September 13 2019 22:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:On September 13 2019 12:59 Introvert wrote:edit2: and by the way, on that "GOP takes advantage of 9/11 memorial to hold vote they promised wouldn't happen" story... well it turns out the Republican's made no such promise, and that only a few of the Democrats claimed they were at a 9/11 memorial. ***
House Minority Leader Darren Jackson (D) said he told his caucus members that they did not need to be in attendance and that state Rep. David Lewis (R), chairman of the Rules, Calendar and Operations Committee, gave Jackson his word that there would be no votes, according to the News & Observer.
Republican leaders denied giving any such assurance. The Associated Press reported that the office of Republican Speaker Tim Moore provided audio from Tuesday’s floor session of Lewis saying that recorded votes would happen Wednesday.
Republicans also disputed the claim by the governor and other Democrats that many of them were attending events remembering 9/11 victims and first responders. Local news reports said only one or two Democrats claimed to have been attending a 9/11 memorial at the time of the vote.
Republicans were unable to override the veto for about two months as long as Democrats were present in the chamber, Cooper said. The General Assembly needs a three-fifths majority to override a veto, which Republicans lack.
The House is allowed to conduct business as long as at least 61 of 120 members are present. There were 64 members present Wednesday morning.
***
Clarification: An earlier version of this article overly generalized the reason for Democrats’ absence from the General Assembly session. This version has been updated. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/11/north-carolina-republicans-overrode-budget-veto-while-democrats-were-ceremony/ I mean, the GOP speaker *claims* they made no such promise (which they would whether they did or not). You have the choice of believing Darren Jackson (the House Minority leader) or the NC GOP. Personally, I don't trust the NC GOP who have been proven to be liars about gerrymandering via internal emails, but you can feel free to do so if you wish. Edit: To me it strains credulity that "random" playing hooky would make a 55-65 body 9-55, of course. That's some lottery-level luck for the NC GOP if not attending was random, there has to be SOME explanatory factor at play (and a pretty strong one). All of which is to ignore that calling an override vote when 64 members of the 120 member chamber are present and you "just happily" happen to have the 3/5 majority you don't actually have is scummy and disgusting if you believe legislators should execute the will of the people. AP says they have the audio, I even bolded that part. AP says there's audio saying two votes would take place on Wednesday, *not* that they would take place Wednesday morning (which is what was initially contested on the floor), nor that votes on this bill would take place. Here's the audio Moore provides ( from his site) www.ncleg.govFrom what I can tell one was about water, the other was something Cooper already signed into law (that was being reconciled? I think). Moore's site conspicuously *never* says that Democrats were informed the votes would take place in the morning, nor that voting on this bill tabled since July would occur. Moreover, there was an agenda sent out to Dems (by Dems, since that's how this works) saying that there would votes in the afternoon but none in the morning. Do you *really* believe a 9-55 difference from a 55-65 body was a happy little accident?
No, I definitely believe the Democrats thought they were free to skip out. And we are of course missing the 9/11 angle here is as well, which is really got the "is nothing sacred?" anger flowing. The fact it was on 9/11 was incidental, as clearly legislative business was happening. Pretty low to get caught out and hide behind the date.
edit: and for the record I'm relying on your summary of the audio as I csnt listen myself atm
|
It's pretty crappy audio, so I freely admit I might be wrong and hearing what I want to hear. But the fact that Moore's site releases the audio alongside text summaries conveniently clipping out the names of the bills in question should raise flags for any notion that the NC GOP said there would be a vote on the veto override that day (let alone that morning, and the morning/afternoon split is something Moore is careful to tapdance around in all his statements; most of his statements I can find are compatible with him telling the Dems that at least some votes were planned for the afternoon and "failing to mention" some would be in the morning).
Indeed, he admits he told the Dems that they could caucus before the house would vote on the bills added to the calendar: I recall telling Rep. Jackson that they could caucus before the House would vote on those two budget bills that were added to the calendar.
|
|
|
|
|
On September 13 2019 13:55 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2019 13:26 Nebuchad wrote:
I'm kind of bored at this point tbh. We need to get rid of some of the 0-5% people and move to the next stage now, especially because the transfer of votes isn't very clear cut now and could have a lot of impact. O'Rourke felt particularly out of place. Same with Castro. I honestly continue to really like Booker, even though I still support others over him. Warren is my #1 at this point, a shift I never expected.
I thought Amy Klobuchar was particularly uninspiring as well when it came to pretty much all of her answers (except for her closing remark about her family's resilience, although that's not really related to the debate).
|
Of course I am ^^ Technology is dangerous ! I wonder why he prefers missiles over cannon balls. They are more reliable !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
