• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print

Status
Not open for further replies.

Diablos

Member
Christ on a stick, the GOP got a victory over the ACA in courts again.

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/9/9297565/obamacare-lawsuit-standing-victory

We have yet to see where it goes. And it will be repealed. And if the SCOTUS takes it...god...
You have got to be fucking kidding me.

There's no way this makes it to the SCOTUS. King v. Burwell was legitimately scary, but I can't see how this has a chance in hell.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obamacare-lawsuit-john-boehner_55f0927ee4b002d5c077d492
Review of Collyer's decision goes first to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which could easily disagree -- and may even reach the Supreme Court on the standing question alone.

In other words, it's early days yet in the case. Even if the House ultimately succeeds in its lawsuit, a health care expert who has followed the case closely notes that insurers are still legally entitled to reimbursements from the federal government. There might just have to be a lengthier, more onerous process.

"Even without an appropriation, health plans still have a statutory entitlement to cost-sharing payments," University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley wrote in a legal blog. "What that means in non-legalese is that Congress has promised to pay them money -- whether or not there's an appropriation."

"So the question isn't whether the government will pay the cost-sharing reductions," Bagley wrote. "It's when."
So if this guy really knows what he's saying, then it seems like even if this lawsuit somehow 'wins', it would do fuck all.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Wiki sez he has three boys. Shutting down that "take it back" line of thinking should be as easy as asking him "and would you be willing to see your boys die for it, or just the children of other families?"




Do keep in mind that most of his base would be absolutely thrilled at the idea of killing more brown folk.

I was more referring to if he won the nomination.
 

danm999

Member
Sheldon Adelson not feeling burnt from last go around when he dumped huge amounts of money into two failed candidates huh.
 
You have got to be fucking kidding me.

There's no way this makes it to the SCOTUS. King v. Burwell was legitimately scary, but I can't see how this has a chance in hell.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obamacare-lawsuit-john-boehner_55f0927ee4b002d5c077d492

So if this guy really knows what he's saying, then it seems like even if this lawsuit somehow 'wins', it would do fuck all.

Basically, the money is guaranteed by law. If the GOP House wins, what it means is every insurance company will have to sue the US Government for the money and they would easily win. But it would take a long and costly process to get there.

Also, the reimbursement stuff will be over before these cases finish, so it's only the subsidies at stake in reality.

It's more of a Executive vs Legislature battle that seems very stupid to allow Congress to win. The consequences would actually be realized moreso in other ways, I'd imagine.
 

Diablos

Member
Basically, the money is guaranteed by law. If the GOP House wins, what it means is every insurance company will have to sue the US Government for the money and they would easily win. But it would take a long and costly process to get there.

Also, the reimbursement stuff will be over before these cases finish, so it's only the subsidies at stake in reality.

It's more of a Executive vs Legislature battle that seems very stupid to allow Congress to win. The consequences would actually be realized moreso in other ways, I'd imagine.
So basically it's the GOP's latest affirmation that they do not give a fuck about the poor and those who are in bad shape and can't get health insurance anywhere else without going bankrupt.

If the GOP wins and the insurance companies have to sue the Government, one truly would have to wonder how long it would take for that to be settled, leaving plans without subsidies...

I wonder what Metamucil thinks?
 
The migrant threads and trump really make me released release how the coming refugee crisis are gonna really bring out the best.
 
So basically it's the GOP's latest affirmation that they do not give a fuck about the poor and those who are in bad shape and can't get health insurance anywhere else without going bankrupt.

If the GOP wins and the insurance companies have to sue the Government, one truly would have to wonder how long it would take for that to be settled, leaving plans without subsidies...

no, by law the plans have to be subsidized. The insurance companies get the money later from the government.

They can't actually sell the plans without the subsidy built in, assuming one qualifies.

The insurance company legally cannot sell an $800 plan to someone who qualifies to only pay $200 for anything more than $200. All this does is force the insurance companies into court to recoup the money from the US Gov't.

It's stupendously stupid.

edit: FTR, this is a result of the structure of the ACA text, not all laws would work this way.
 

Diablos

Member
no, by law the plans have to be subsidized. The insurance companies get the money later from the government.

They can't actually sell the plans without the subsidy built in, assuming one qualifies.

The insurance company legally cannot sell an $800 plan to someone who qualifies to only pay $200 for anything more than $200. All this does is force the insurance companies into court to recoup the money from the US Gov't.

It's stupendously stupid.

edit: FTR, this is a result of the structure of the ACA text, not all laws would work this way.
lmao. Fuck the GOP. What a stupid fucking lawsuit.

I always say 'fuck' when the GOP beats their chest over just about anything because they make me SO FUCKING MAD
 
Girl said yes, guess the regression results predicted a favorable outcome for our relationship.

The migrant threads and trump really make me released release how the coming refugee crisis are gonna really bring out the best.

At least there's only gonna be a few tens of millions of climate change refugees coming up soon.
 

GnawtyDog

Banned
Reading that Rolling Stone piece reminds me again how remarkable this run from Trump is, on all levels.

On one hand you have three billionaires (David Koch (and his brother), Sheldon Adelson, and Rupert Murdoch) who for years have bought the republican ticket, pushed candidates and more or less are what constitutes consolidated power behind the GOP establishment and on the other hand you have Donald Trump - the ultimate party pooper.

Very different approaches to the end game, very different pockets surely. The difference? The one that would be rather seen as weakest on paper, is the strongest on practice. One is a world class showman, willing to put himself on the line, master the game, change the game and dominate and lead the game while the others waste countless millions having proxies do the work - and those proxies are currently unable to do a damn thing about Trump but just watch get beat.

From the perspective of the "billionaire battle" being waged for the GOP nomination, Trump, the least able on paper, is outdoing his competition with ease. Just remarkable.
 

Diablos

Member
The Republican formula is played out and their core message speaks to a very specific group of people that continues to dwindle with time. Trump is smart enough to capitalize on that with his own brand of populist rhetoric as a means to hijack the party's platform as an outsider. It's brilliant, and he deserves credit for that. That being said the precedent this brings about is pretty scary, it's the face of the monster the GOP has built whether they like it or not, after years of kicking and screaming in the courts to perverse the way money can be raised and spent for elections.

Trump really is their Frankenstein. They created a monster. He's the rich asshole with enough of his own wealth to not care about anyone or anything that is of financial worth to the Republican party and their objectives, and THEY ENABLED HIM.
 
Bernstein put out a column today saying Perry has a better chance at the nomination than Trump.

These establishment academics just can't recognize a paradigm change.

I guess it makes sense, since if Trump wins, a lot of what we think we know about political "science" will be proved wrong.
 
Bernstein put out a column today saying Perry has a better chance at the nomination than Trump.

These establishment academics just can't recognize a paradigm change.

I guess it makes sense, since if Trump wins, a lot of what we think we know about political "science" will be proved wrong.

Is he wrong? Perry might have a 1% shot, Trump has a 0% shot.
 

AntoneM

Member
Bernstein put out a column today saying Perry has a better chance at the nomination than Trump.

These establishment academics just can't recognize a paradigm change.

I guess it makes sense, since if Trump wins, a lot of what we think we know about political "science" will be proved wrong.

The money has lost control of the Republican party. The money lost control of the base long ago.
 
Someone who has been a consistent polling leader for 3+ months in a 16 person primary contest has more than a 0% chance of winning the nomination.
No they don't. Trump isn't going to be the Republican nominee

We've seen this play out time and time again. Trumps just more outrageous and flamboyant than many. Republicans want to win.
 

Teggy

Member
Ted Cruz really thinks the country has the appetite for a govt shutdown over Planned Parenthood? Please proceed, Senator.
 
No they don't. Trump isn't going to be the Republican nominee

We've seen this play out time and time again. Trumps just more outrageous and flamboyant than many. Republicans want to win.
I don't know if he'll be the nominee, but Trump is no Cain/Bachmann/Perry/whoever else lead the GOP primary at some point in 2012. His staying power has already outlasted the anti-Romneys.
 
No they don't. Trump isn't going to be the Republican nominee

We've seen this play out time and time again. Trumps just more outrageous and flamboyant than many. Republicans want to win.
At this point its 50-50. It can go down, but I honestly think this is an unprecedented insurgency. It has lasted beyond the flavor of the month types of 2012. If someone has a historical polling of a Trump like insurgent campaign during the primaries in the past, I'm all ears.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
No they don't. Trump isn't going to be the Republican nominee

We've seen this play out time and time again. Trumps just more outrageous and flamboyant than many. Republicans want to win.

I don't think we've seen anything like Trump, even in 2012. I also don't think he has a good shot of wining the nominee.

However, his chances are obviously greater than absolute 0.
 
After reading about Bush's tax plan, I don't understand why democrats don't focus on this argument more with the economy being such an important issue for voters. It should be so easy to convince people how bad trickle down economics is in theory and historically, and I think I think you could get a lot of support from the anti-establishment conservatives and independents and the people already cynical about money in politics.

I know Bernie talks a lot about this, but in very limited terms like "it's not what America needs right now", why not just explain how it isn't meant to work and go through it step by step how donors fund campaigns to lower their taxes and get politicians to lie about creating jobs to get people to support it.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
So there might not even be an iran vote because of Republican antics the president didn't comply with the Corker-Cardin bill... Lol

Fixed. Or so goes the argument:

Rep. Mike Pompeo and David Rivkin said:
Unfortunately, the president has not complied with the act, jeopardizing his ability to implement the agreement.

The act defines “agreement,” with exceptional precision, to include not only the agreement between Iran and six Western powers but also “any additional materials related thereto, including . . . side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future.” But the president has not given Congress a key side agreement between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This document describes how key questions about the past military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program will be resolved, as well as the precise operational parameters of the verification regime to which Tehran will be subject.

This omission has important legal consequences. At the heart of the act is a provision, negotiated between Congress and the White House, freezing the president’s ability to “waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of statutory sanctions with respect to Iran” while Congress is reviewing the agreement.

That review period was supposed to take 60 days and is triggered the day the president submits the agreement to Congress. However, because the president failed to submit the agreement in full, as the law requires, the 60-day clock has not started, and the president remains unable lawfully to waive or lift statutory Iran-related sanctions.

Here are the relevant portions of the statute:

H.R. 1191 said:
(a) Transmission to Congress of Nuclear Agreements With Iran and Verification Assessment With Respect to Such Agreements.--
(1) <<NOTE: Deadline. President.>> Transmission of agreements.--Not later than 5 calendar days after reaching an agreement with Iran relating to the nuclear program of Iran, the President shall transmit to the appropriate congressional committees and leadership--
(A) the agreement, as defined in subsection (h)(1), including all related materials and annexes;​

. . .

(b) Period for Review by Congress of Nuclear Agreements With Iran.--
(1) <<NOTE: Hearings. Briefings.>> In general.--During the 30-calendar day period following transmittal by the President of an agreement pursuant to subsection (a), the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives shall, as appropriate, hold hearings and briefings and otherwise obtain information in order to fully review such agreement.

(2) Exception.--The period for congressional review under paragraph (1) shall be 60 calendar days if an agreement, including all materials required to be transmitted to Congress pursuant to subsection (a)(1), is transmitted pursuant to subsection (a) between July 10, 2015, and September 7, 2015.

(3) Limitation on actions during initial congressional review period.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, except as provided in paragraph (6), prior to and during the period for transmission of an agreement in subsection (a)(1) and during the period for congressional review provided in paragraph (1), including any additional period as applicable under the exception provided in paragraph (2), the President may not waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of statutory sanctions with respect to Iran under any provision of law or refrain from applying any such sanctions pursuant to an agreement described in subsection (a).​

. . .

(h) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Agreement.--The term `agreement' means an agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran that includes the United States, commits the United States to take action, or pursuant to which the United States commits or otherwise agrees to take action, regardless of the form it takes, whether a political commitment or otherwise, and regardless of whether it is legally binding or not, including any joint comprehensive plan of action entered into or made between Iran and any other parties, and any additional materials related thereto, including annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future.​

In short, because the IAEA side deal is a "side agreement" under subsection (h)(1), and because the president has not transmitted the IAEA side deal to Congress, he has not yet transmitted an agreement covered by the statute. This is significant because (1) the 30-day review period under (b)(1) is not triggered until an agreement is transmitted to Congress, meaning (2) we remain "during the period for transmission" described in (b)(3) indefinitely, meaning the president cannot "waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of statutory sanctions with respect to Iran." (You might argue--and you'd have a pretty good argument as far as I can tell--that the "period for transmission" is either the five-day period of (a)(1) or the period expiring September 7 described in (b)(2). But that doesn't much help, because it drops us out of the Corker-Cardin procedure altogether. Suddenly, we're not in the "period for transmission" or the "period for review," but the "period for review" has not occurred and expired, meaning the implicit authorization by Congress included in the statute is never triggered--see below.)

It looks like a fued broke out between GOPers in congress for a delay over Iran deal. They want Obama to give more documents over side agreements. If they dont vote on the deal by 17th, it automatically comes into effect.

All Obama has to do is say fuck off. Rest is comedy.

Not so. Here's that part of the statute:

H.R. 1191 said:
(c) Effect of Congressional Action With Respect to Nuclear Agreements With Iran.--
. . .

(2) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, action involving any measure of statutory sanctions relief by the United States pursuant to an agreement subject to subsection (a) or the Joint Plan of Action--
(A) may be taken, consistent with existing statutory requirements for such action, if, during the period for review provided in subsection (b), there is enacted a joint resolution stating in substance that the Congress does favor the agreement;

(B) may not be taken if, during the period for review provided in subsection (b), there is enacted a joint resolution stating in substance that the Congress does not favor the agreement; or

(C) may be taken, consistent with existing statutory requirements for such action, if, following the period for review provided in subsection (b), there is not enacted any such joint resolution.​

(3) Definition.--For the purposes of this subsection, the phrase `action involving any measure of statutory sanctions relief by the United States' shall include waiver, suspension, reduction, or other effort to provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of statutory sanctions with respect to, Iran under any provision of law or any other effort to refrain from applying any such sanctions.​

In other words, the president is only authorized by Congress to provide "statutory sanctions relief" if (1) Congress approves the Iran deal during the period for review, or (2) the period for review occurs and expires with neither approval nor disapproval. But, if the period for review never occurs, then any such relief by the president is only as valid as it would have been absent Corker-Cardin.

Christ on a stick, the GOP got a victory over the ACA in courts again.

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/9/9297565/obamacare-lawsuit-standing-victory

We have yet to see where it goes. And it will be repealed. And if the SCOTUS takes it...god...

It's just a decision on standing at this point, and it was a partial loss, since some of their lawsuit was dismissed for lack of standing. And technically the House of Representatives is suing, not the GOP, but in this case, I ain't even mad.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
CNN has Trump at 32%, Carson at 19%, Jeb at 9%.

Officially over half of republicans don't want a politician as president.

32% at this point is staggeringly high. Feeling good about my prediction.
 

Polari

Member
CNN has Trump at 32%, Carson at 19%, Jeb at 9%.

Officially over half of republicans don't want a politician as president.

32% at this point is staggeringly high. Feeling good about my prediction.

Still early days. Trump is looking good though. Not sure Jeb can come back from this - different for the other candidates as they didn't have the expectation of being early favorites.
 

Diablos

Member
Early days my ass. The GOP has no other viable candidate. It's going to be Trump and this election is going to be much closer than I thought.

I really hope Biden runs. We cannot have Bernie leading. I don't care how much you like him, he can't beat a rotting corpse in the general election, and the sooner you come to terms with that the better off you will be.
 

HylianTom

Banned
CNN has Trump at 32%, Carson at 19%, Jeb at 9%.

Officially over half of republicans don't want a politician as president.

32% at this point is staggeringly high. Feeling good about my prediction.
I'm starting to also.

I'm convinced that a portion of the party - maybe not a majority - will wake-up on this problem of Trump at some point and sob, "my god.. what have we done?" A big question is one of timing: will it happen before or after he gets the nomination?

I'm also trying to figure out what happens to all of these stalwart/establishment conservative columnists, institutions, and entities who are stridently denouncing him as Not Sufficiently Conservative; where do they line-up should he get the nom? Where does the National Review come down on nominee Trump? Or, after drawing parallels between his deportation proposals and Nazi-era policies, how would George Will handle nominee Trump? Etc.

This really is kinda unbelievable. {*popcorn.gif*}
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Carson questions Trump's faith:


CNN said:
In a fascinating twist to the 2016 Republican presidential race, neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson essentially threw down the gauntlet Wednesday and asked evangelical Republicans to choose sides by questioning the authenticity of Trump's faith. Speaking to reporters before a large rally here in Anaheim, Carson was asked by a reporter how he was different from Trump.

His answer was short and direct.

"Probably the biggest thing -- I've realized where my success has come from and I don't in anyway deny my faith in God," Carson said.

He explained what he meant by quoting what he said was one of his favorite bible verses.

"By humility and the fear of the Lord are riches and honor and life and that's a very big part of who I am. I don't get that impression with him," Carson said of Trump. "Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't get that."

And Trump responds:

CNN said:
Washington (CNN)Donald Trump slammed Ben Carson Thursday morning, one day after the neurosurgeon questioned the businessman's faith.

Trump told CNN's Chris Cuomo on "New Day" that Carson, who was the first surgeon to separate conjoined twins, was an "OK doctor" and said "you look at his faith and I think you're not going to find so much."

Trump also called Carson's views on abortion "horrendous." Carson is staunchly opposed to abortion now, but was an abortion-rights supporter when he was younger.

"If you look at his past, which I've done, he wasn't a big man of faith. All of a sudden he's becoming this man of faith and he was heavy into the world of abortion," Trump said.

Things are getting good.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Trump is going to get delegates. Can he win once candidates drop out and unite behind the establishment? I still think no as of now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom