|
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 |
On November 26 2020 01:28 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 00:46 JimmiC wrote: It is beyond messed up that someone would think that government is well functioning if their only goal is to "own the other side" (block anything and everything). The point is to fight all election then work together while in government.
It is not like reps and dems voters are so wildly different they disagree on everything it more the framing of things. There are tons of things they agree on.
That policy has become were the opposite of those guys is moronic and self defeating. Don't you think it makes sense for a conservative to think nothing should change without an overwhelming majority? Kinda seems like it encapsulates the political physiology nicely no? Things not changing is still a lot of work, getting people in positions within the government to keep it working. Most conservatives still want some changes, and they are generally about lack of waste, especially in the government. Not to mention they want to change many things back.
I get your point but really it is a situation bad for everyone and a massive waste of money. They only people benefiting from this situation is the media. And not "the media" conservatives talk about but the entire media universe that includes all their various talking heads online and so on. The advertising dollars created by all this BS is emence. Just look at all the campaign dollars spent.
|
On November 26 2020 01:51 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 01:32 Danglars wrote: It’s when Democrats can’t get everything they want that they whine about obstructionism. Americans, and nobody else, returned a Democratic president together with an *almost* Republican Senate and the smallest majority in a Democrat House for a new president in around a half century.
That’s a repudiation of Trump and not one of the GOP agenda. Whining more about how dumb Americans are to vote for this, and lying about what Republicans ran on, is a quick ticket to giving us more seats in 2022.
See that combative Pelosi call with her caucus where Democrats blamed DNC messaging on a a diverse range of topics for losing their comfortable House margin. Its pretty crazy when the Dems that were conservative in their messaging were the ones that got defeated. People don't have an appetite for the left-leaning party to lean right. Really unhappy that peterson lost his seat in Minnesota. Dems couldn't hold onto a seat that chaired the agriculture committee in a massively agricultural district. If you needed any more evidence that the dems have stopped given a shit about the farm and labor vote they should be going after its that. Now the farm bill will be benefiting the coasties and the midwest will get even worse for dems. I just have no idea where this ends. They want an Obama coalition of major turnout of minorities together with middle and upper class suburbanites and “coasties” as you put it.
And I’d prefer a competitive Democratic message in places like MN-7. The “conservative Democrat” or “rural Democrat” voice is an important moderating influence on the party. A higher percentage of deep blue district Dems compared to swing district Dems isn’t good. They also won’t keep Republicans honest if the coasts dictate Democratic policy and Republicans start to take these seats for granted.
(Ironic that I’m a coastie in this scenario ... but whose district swung D to R in an incumbent defeat not seen since the 90s in my state)
|
On November 26 2020 01:35 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 01:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Given that Trump and Giuliani have been trying to sabotage the presidential election for 3 weeks now without any precedent or evidence, is what they're doing officially treasonous? I'm curious what the official legal term is for the crime they're undoubtedly committing, which seems to be attempting to preemptively undermine our country's next executive branch and replace president-elect Biden with their own party's leader (Trump) who legitimately lost the election. This seems to be pretty consistent with a conspiracy to commit treason, as treason includes attempts at overthrowing the government. I'm sure they won't be imprisoned because of their level of influence, but I think we're way past the point where these are just honest mistakes on their part and/or the idea that we shouldn't take Trump and Giuliani seriously because they're bumbling morons. This isn't just fearmongering or gaslighting anymore; when does it become a crime to say and do the things they're doing, which includes destroying our democracy? Or is it not yet a crime, but will become a crime once the electors vote? Or perhaps after Inauguration Day? this has been happening for MUCH longer than three weeks. Trump has been priming his followers (may as well say believers at this point for those remaining in his camp) for this since before July, with all the claims of how bad mail in voting is.
That's a good point. He's been dogwhistling, priming, and gaslighting them for years now, although he's never been held accountable for it before; I suppose he won't be held accountable even during his lame duck session.
On November 26 2020 01:46 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 01:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Given that Trump and Giuliani have been trying to sabotage the presidential election for 3 weeks now without any precedent or evidence, is what they're doing officially treasonous? I'm curious what the official legal term is for the crime they're undoubtedly committing, which seems to be attempting to preemptively undermine our country's next executive branch and replace president-elect Biden with their own party's leader (Trump) who legitimately lost the election. This seems to be pretty consistent with a conspiracy to commit treason, as treason includes attempts at overthrowing the government. I'm sure they won't be imprisoned because of their level of influence, but I think we're way past the point where these are just honest mistakes on their part and/or the idea that we shouldn't take Trump and Giuliani seriously because they're bumbling morons. This isn't just fearmongering or gaslighting anymore; when does it become a crime to say and do the things they're doing, which includes destroying our democracy? Or is it not yet a crime, but will become a crime once the electors vote? Or perhaps after Inauguration Day? No. Treason has an extremely specific legal definition in the US. It only applies to a country we have declared war with. Now, there is a good question as to whether it applies to those who have declared war on the US which is slightly applicable - apparently Putin said something to this effect in 2015 or 2016 in one of the redacted parts of the Mueller report. The answer is likely to be no, however. Treason has a crazy limited definition because it was wildly misused in contemporary England when the constitution was written. Sedition is closer to what you're looking for, with one exception - it probably requires intent to "delay execution" "by force". It is a little unclear. Here's the statute (emphasis mine). Show nested quote + If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
18-usc-sect-2384 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384It's a very high burden to prove that Trump is trying to incite violence to prevent Biden from becoming president. If there were smoking gun proof (ie, a leaked recording stating that he is doing that, with all of his lawyers contributing to the strategy in a way that makes it clear that it's not a joke), this is the statue he'd get charged with. Trump's legal strategies are all perfectly fine (though moronic) within the law. It's only his speech that could get him in trouble.
I appreciate that clarification; thank you! Sedition does seem like a possibly-relevant situation. Is election fraud relevant to this yet, too, or might that only stick if/when Trump tries paying off some electors to make them faithless against Biden?
|
I think people are too worried about the senate. Trump proved you can do an incredible amount with executive orders. Biden will first suggest bills he know will go nowhere and then likely make executive orders instead. He can still do quite a bit (such as student loan relief) without the senate.
|
On November 26 2020 02:46 Mohdoo wrote: I think people are too worried about the senate. Trump proved you can do an incredible amount with executive orders. Biden will first suggest bills he know will go nowhere and then likely make executive orders instead. He can still do quite a bit (such as student loan relief) without the senate. The problem is that anything the President does with a pen the next President can undo even faster.
If you want lasting change instead of clenching your butt cheeks every time the Republicans take office you need it made into law and that requires the legislative branch.
|
On November 26 2020 02:56 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 02:46 Mohdoo wrote: I think people are too worried about the senate. Trump proved you can do an incredible amount with executive orders. Biden will first suggest bills he know will go nowhere and then likely make executive orders instead. He can still do quite a bit (such as student loan relief) without the senate. The problem is that anything the President does with a pen the next President can undo even faster. If you want lasting change instead of clenching your butt cheeks every time the Republicans take office you need it made into law and that requires the legislative branch.
Lasting change comes from not losing the next election and letting your policies fully flourish. Look at Obamacare. Its basically invincible at this point. The focus on "but what about 50 years from now" is silly IMO. The world moves so fast in so many ways that trying to do this ultra long term stuff isn't actually sensible.
|
On November 26 2020 03:02 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 02:56 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2020 02:46 Mohdoo wrote: I think people are too worried about the senate. Trump proved you can do an incredible amount with executive orders. Biden will first suggest bills he know will go nowhere and then likely make executive orders instead. He can still do quite a bit (such as student loan relief) without the senate. The problem is that anything the President does with a pen the next President can undo even faster. If you want lasting change instead of clenching your butt cheeks every time the Republicans take office you need it made into law and that requires the legislative branch. Lasting change comes from not losing the next election and letting your policies fully flourish. Look at Obamacare. Its basically invincible at this point. The focus on "but what about 50 years from now" is silly IMO. The world moves so fast in so many ways that trying to do this ultra long term stuff isn't actually sensible.
Wasn't the ACA being tried in the Supreme Court a few weeks ago? Did they make a decision already? I've been avoiding the news past few weeks.
|
On November 26 2020 03:06 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 03:02 Mohdoo wrote:On November 26 2020 02:56 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2020 02:46 Mohdoo wrote: I think people are too worried about the senate. Trump proved you can do an incredible amount with executive orders. Biden will first suggest bills he know will go nowhere and then likely make executive orders instead. He can still do quite a bit (such as student loan relief) without the senate. The problem is that anything the President does with a pen the next President can undo even faster. If you want lasting change instead of clenching your butt cheeks every time the Republicans take office you need it made into law and that requires the legislative branch. Lasting change comes from not losing the next election and letting your policies fully flourish. Look at Obamacare. Its basically invincible at this point. The focus on "but what about 50 years from now" is silly IMO. The world moves so fast in so many ways that trying to do this ultra long term stuff isn't actually sensible. Wasn't the ACA being tried in the Supreme Court a few weeks ago? Did they make a decision already? I've been avoiding the news past few weeks. Decision hasn't come down yet, but oral argument observers noted that the questions asked indicated that there was very little SCOTUS interest in overturning the law.
|
On November 26 2020 03:06 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 03:02 Mohdoo wrote:On November 26 2020 02:56 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2020 02:46 Mohdoo wrote: I think people are too worried about the senate. Trump proved you can do an incredible amount with executive orders. Biden will first suggest bills he know will go nowhere and then likely make executive orders instead. He can still do quite a bit (such as student loan relief) without the senate. The problem is that anything the President does with a pen the next President can undo even faster. If you want lasting change instead of clenching your butt cheeks every time the Republicans take office you need it made into law and that requires the legislative branch. Lasting change comes from not losing the next election and letting your policies fully flourish. Look at Obamacare. Its basically invincible at this point. The focus on "but what about 50 years from now" is silly IMO. The world moves so fast in so many ways that trying to do this ultra long term stuff isn't actually sensible. Wasn't the ACA being tried in the Supreme Court a few weeks ago? Did they make a decision already? I've been avoiding the news past few weeks.
It is going before the supreme court because it was considered too risky to overturn through other means. Republicans would have greatly suffered in the senate if they let the effects of abolishing the ACA be felt by their constituents. The modern day republican party only exists because it is willing to fan the flames of anger by blaming systemic problems on immigrants and liberals.
|
On November 26 2020 03:34 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 03:06 Starlightsun wrote:On November 26 2020 03:02 Mohdoo wrote:On November 26 2020 02:56 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2020 02:46 Mohdoo wrote: I think people are too worried about the senate. Trump proved you can do an incredible amount with executive orders. Biden will first suggest bills he know will go nowhere and then likely make executive orders instead. He can still do quite a bit (such as student loan relief) without the senate. The problem is that anything the President does with a pen the next President can undo even faster. If you want lasting change instead of clenching your butt cheeks every time the Republicans take office you need it made into law and that requires the legislative branch. Lasting change comes from not losing the next election and letting your policies fully flourish. Look at Obamacare. Its basically invincible at this point. The focus on "but what about 50 years from now" is silly IMO. The world moves so fast in so many ways that trying to do this ultra long term stuff isn't actually sensible. Wasn't the ACA being tried in the Supreme Court a few weeks ago? Did they make a decision already? I've been avoiding the news past few weeks. It is going before the supreme court because it was considered too risky to overturn through other means. Republicans would have greatly suffered in the senate if they let the effects of abolishing the ACA be felt by their constituents. The modern day republican party only exists because it is willing to fan the flames of anger by blaming systemic problems on immigrants and liberals. That's right, it is no coincidence that the aspect of government prioritized most by Republicans also happens to be the least democratic.
|
On November 26 2020 03:02 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 02:56 Gorsameth wrote:On November 26 2020 02:46 Mohdoo wrote: I think people are too worried about the senate. Trump proved you can do an incredible amount with executive orders. Biden will first suggest bills he know will go nowhere and then likely make executive orders instead. He can still do quite a bit (such as student loan relief) without the senate. The problem is that anything the President does with a pen the next President can undo even faster. If you want lasting change instead of clenching your butt cheeks every time the Republicans take office you need it made into law and that requires the legislative branch. Lasting change comes from not losing the next election and letting your policies fully flourish. Look at Obamacare. Its basically invincible at this point. The focus on "but what about 50 years from now" is silly IMO. The world moves so fast in so many ways that trying to do this ultra long term stuff isn't actually sensible. The only reason the ACA still exists because the GOP is to afraid to remove it without anything better in its place, and can't make something better because of "socialism".
And I'm not talking 50 years either. I'm more talking about things like the DACA which had people covered under it basically living the last 4 years under the threat of it ending because of a pen stroke from Trump, only being allowed to remain in the US because Trump is incompetent and couldn't come up with a real reason for ending it infront of the courts.
|
The spin on the ACA is ridiculous. 2017 we were within one vote of the skinny repeal (budget reconciliation process), but three republicans flipped in a senate majority of 2. But fuck all 49 other Republicans who voted for the repeal, because they were still “afraid” since some internet hotshots deem it so.
I would suggest not swallowing all the home team propaganda out there, if only to know what’s happening politically in this country.
|
As flawed as the ACA is (in part because of Republicans and Obama's eagerness to work with them), the crux of it is that Republicans have run on the ACA being a boogeyman, constantly promising a replacement to the system. They had 4 years, and a so-called critical mandate. Whether intentionally or through incompetence, they failed, and were lucky to. They had no plans to replace it whatsoever, and they knew people would notice their healthcare getting even more fucked than it already is if they just repealed it.
But sure, let's focus on making sure we understand Republicans' intentions. That's all that matters, really.
|
On November 26 2020 04:10 Danglars wrote: The spin on the ACA is ridiculous. 2017 we were within one vote of the skinny repeal (budget reconciliation process), but three republicans flipped in a senate majority of 2. But fuck all 49 other Republicans who voted for the repeal, because they were still “afraid” since some internet hotshots deem it so.
I would suggest not swallowing all the home team propaganda out there, if only to know what’s happening politically in this country. And how many of those 49 voted knowing the 3 would kill it? How many repeal votes were there under Obama when there was 0 chance of it succeeding? How many repeal votes were there the first 2 years of Trump when they controlled all 3 branches?
Sure, some of them actually mean it and want to dismantle the healthcare system with nothing to replace it with and leaving tens of millions of Americans without healthcare but most just want to kick a rock and have their supporters see it, knowing the rock will not crumble.
But hey, maybe I am wrong. Maybe 49 Republican Senators really did want America to turn into a 3e world country without healthcare. I wonder which is worse...
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
I'll give Trump credit that eliminating the individual mandate was definitely the right choice. It doesn't fix the system, but at least it eliminates a tax on poverty within a broken system.
|
On November 26 2020 04:44 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 04:10 Danglars wrote: The spin on the ACA is ridiculous. 2017 we were within one vote of the skinny repeal (budget reconciliation process), but three republicans flipped in a senate majority of 2. But fuck all 49 other Republicans who voted for the repeal, because they were still “afraid” since some internet hotshots deem it so.
I would suggest not swallowing all the home team propaganda out there, if only to know what’s happening politically in this country. And how many of those 49 voted knowing the 3 would kill it? How many repeal votes were there under Obama when there was 0 chance of it succeeding? How many repeal votes were there the first 2 years of Trump when they controlled all 3 branches? Sure, some of them actually mean it and want to dismantle the healthcare system with nothing to replace it with and leaving tens of millions of Americans without healthcare but most just want to kick a rock and have their supporters see it, knowing the rock will not crumble. But hey, maybe I am wrong. Maybe 49 Republican Senators really did want America to turn into a 3e world country without healthcare. I wonder which is worse... They were on the floor late whipping votes because most people thought they finally had a package with majority support. It was literally covered in this thread at the time. McCain was a surprise. So let’s not rewrite history just because it would be nice to pretend nobody really tried to repeal instead of a narrow failure late in the game to repeal.
Feel free to hold your opinion on what repeal would’ve meant to the country, I’ve spent enough time on the subject and won’t recapitulate those arguments.
|
Just want to point out that only way you can believe the GOP genuinely wanted a pure ACA repeal with no replacement requires you to believe people with major positions in the party lied to their constituencies and the American public for multiple years about having a potential replacement good to go and wanting to put it in place.
Fortunately, this is easy given that this is 1) a documented lie and 2) pretty much no one should trust the GOP leadership when it comes to crafting policy-they're mind-bogglingly bad at it, their tax bill being a shining example of half-baked terrible ideas cobbled together at the 11th hour and only narrowly averted from being completely disastrous, complete with line edits in margins on the floor.
Remember when Paul Ryan was their policy wunderkind? The man inspired to go into politics by an author who considered politicians the scum of the earth? What a joke.
|
Yes, let's not discuss the ramifications of their actions and what they were on the verge of doing, the fact that Republicans were allegedly poised to rob healthcare from millions, because oops they didn't actually have a replacement for the ACA after 8 fucking years of bellyaching about it. The real problem is that they're being misrepresented after the fact, and actually really, really wanted to dismember an already broken healthcare system.
I feel terrible about that, I assure you.
|
On November 26 2020 04:51 TheTenthDoc wrote: Remember when Paul Ryan was their policy wunderkind? The man inspired to go into politics by an author who considered politicians the scum of the earth? What a joke. Paul Ryan's fading from political power has been one of the few bits of solace I've found these past couple years lol
|
I think with more proactive leadership there would have been a replacement or at least the kind of skinny repeal that ended up failing. McConnell is just not the type of leader that will get something actually done even if hes good at summoning the will to do something.
It just goes back to a bizarre game where the obvious backlash to a step forward on healthcare is also defeated by the anemic step it was in the first place.
Paul Ryan was so big beacuse like the tea party it made the establishment think they'd get the libertarians back. But they aren't done being irrelevant yet so they wanted to punt for another generation.
|
|
|
|