Support NeoGAF

[Plinko]

RCP trash, but the trendlines are interesting.

Republicans--even the voters--seem to care more about opposing and obstructing democrats than actually proposing better ideas. No surprise at all that once republicans got full control of government many voters magically shifted to approving of the law.

 

[Extollere]

Your holier than thou attitude is something to behold. It does not galvanize people to your cause like you think it does. This type of purity that you're seeking does not exist.

It's pretty amazing every time we see somebody like this here. People driven by ideology often lack the ability to see themselves from the outside. They have no idea how they appear to others, and often act perplexed by the very predictable responses from the community. I used to be like this a long time ago It's very possible to change given enough time to practice critical thinking and self reflection - also engaging with some honest people online (yes they exist).

Drop the act and see how much you can learn from others. You only stand to benefit from it, and nobody will judge you for it either.

 

[BoogieWoogie]

Crossposting the fact that Manafort is guilty as fuck:

It turns out Manafort has not agreed to testify--and what he'll talk about behind closed doors is strictly limited.

https://twitter.com/Isikoff/status/845380384808468480

 

[Plinko]

Dave Weigel‏Verified account @daveweigel


The clearest Dem path to a majority actually runs through 23 GOP-held suburban districts HRC carried, v few in NY/CA

This is absolutely what the DNC needs to be focusing on ASAP. This is good news.

 

[Blader]

lol Democratic party keeps showing how truly shitty they are

Wasn't even their rally but they are so desperate to make people believe that they know anything about activism.

The Democrats are the real villains in all this. Wake up sheeple!!

 

[whyamihere]

No one outside leftist circles understands when you try to parse the difference between left and liberal in America. Just a PSA.

 

[Plumbob]

The illiberal left!!!!1

 

[Mutant]

Well... It is pretty pathetic that they photoshopped that, regardless.

 

[Wilsongt]

Oh no Democrats photoshopped something!

As if Republicans have never done that before.

 

[kirblar]

I'm sorry, how is this not massively stupid and, frankly, evil? The only way that you could say that the Dems' only point of superiority to Republicans is "not being Republicans" is if you're so massively callous that you simply don't care about every degree of difference in policy around sex, race, and religion. Hell, even in terms of economics (which I'm going to go out on a wild and crazy limb and assume is your primary issue), the Dems are, factually, far to the left of the Republicans.

It's easy to be callous to the plight of minority Americans when you're not American and your interests lie only in foreign policy and economics.

Euro far-right and far-lefties have been absolute poison for discourse in this country.

 

[Mutant]

Oh no Democrats photoshopped something!

As if Republicans have never done that before.

And what do we do when we catch them photoshopping stuff? Call them out and make fun of them. Because they're being pathetic little liars when they do that. And if I choose to not do this, due to party affiliation? I would feel hypocritical.

 

[RustyNails]

Gosh, what has happened to Clinton during her career is really sad. Like keep trying and people just keep shitting on you. lol. oh well. Go be rich and old and retired.

Also, Hillary was instrumental in making backroom deal with her old colleagues and friends in Congress in order to pass Obamacare. In fact, she was so good with Obamacare she was called an expert, and answered any question anyone had about it, on anything.

http://electionado.com/canvas/1460945128639

 

[RustyNails]

Ramirez actually had a funny one for once

lol, thats good. All the GOPers backstabbed and killed each other.

However, Ramirez is the same guy that kept lampooning Obamacare and Obama for years. Broken clock I guess!

 

[Holmes]

Clinton was our chance to get a real policy wonk in the White House. Paul Ryan could never. There won't be another chance like that in a long while.

 

[Dominican Power]

Putin knew how formidable Hillary was and wanted Trump to be elected at all costs.

 

[BlastProcessing]

@KellyO
NEW:Trump & Ryan spoke today. Ryan aides say:
"The president was clear his tweet had nothing to do with the speaker.

Oh...

You know, if Trump really wanted to support Ryan, he could publicly disagree with Pirro's attacks on the Speaker. He could come out with strong public support for Ryan, but no, this awkward private half-apology thing is probably good enough.

 

[Y2Kev]

Hillary Clinton's left nutsack is smarter than Paul Ryan on his best mofuckin day. Piece of shit. Oh look, a Joe Biden love thread. I'm sure that won't be full of latent sexism.

 

[whyamihere]

It was a dumb photoshop but if you really care that much you're not arguing in good faith

 

[Diablos]

Hillary Clinton's left nutsack is smarter than Paul Ryan on his best mofuckin day. Piece of shit. Oh look, a Joe Biden love thread. I'm sure that won't be full of latent sexism.

Wow

 

[pigeon]

I acknowledged my mistake, ironic to go on and say I don't care about the facts when I showed that I do.

"THE SKY IS GREEN"
"...no it isn't, it's blue"
"OH OK IT'S BLUE"
"...why would you say it's green"
"DON'T SAY I DON'T CARE ABOUT FACTS WHEN I JUST SHOWED THAT I DO"

 

[Holmes]

Does Hillary Clinton have a right and left nutsack

 

[Wilsongt]

Does Hillary Clinton have a right and left nutsack

She has more balls than most Democrats.

 

[Oblivion]

Ramirez actually had a funny one for once

Joke is good, but he still sucks at labels.

 

[dynamitejim]

Rep. Poe resigns from House Freedom Caucus over health care stance

I hope this isn't Trump/Bannon's threats actually working.

 

[Diablos]

Rep. Poe resigns from House Freedom Caucus over health care stance

I hope this isn't Trump/Bannon's threats actually working.

It begins.

The thought of a more bipartisan speaker is probably scaring the FC into slowly disbanding

 

[NullPointer]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/25/opinion/sunday/donald-this-i-will-tell-you.html

I know I'm late to this party but god fucking damn at that fire. It singes and consumes because its so clearly the truth.

 

[Suikoguy]

Rep. Poe resigns from House Freedom Caucus over health care stance

I hope this isn't Trump/Bannon's threats actually working.

Was he a yes or no vote on Trumpcare?

 

[dramatis]

Was he a yes or no vote on Trumpcare?

He was soft, I think. One of those middling guys who didn't have a yes or a no.

 

[Suikoguy]

He was soft, I think. One of those middling guys who didn't have a yes or a no.

Then that means nothing unless we see others.

 

[LAtoDC]

Right, but I wonder if because these efforts blow up in his face, if Trump would consider working with Dems to repair ACA over repeal/replace later into his term.

Unlikely, but crazier things have happened with this guy. At the end of the day he will just be seen as an inconsequential President.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/reince-priebus-democrats-on-board/

I called it.

Trump knows he has more in common (ideologically) with moderate dem/reps then he ever did with the far right. He wants tax reform and infrastructure and so do they.

My guess is when they come back to healthcare, it'll be less about replacing the ACA and more about fixing it.

Long story short: governing is hard.

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

The GOP and WH can fuck off with wanting Bipartisan support.

 

[Plinko]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/reince-priebus-democrats-on-board/

I called it.

Trump knows he has more in common (ideologically) with moderate dem/reps then he ever did with the far right. He wants tax reform and infrastructure and so do they.

My guess is when they come back to healthcare, it'll be less about replacing the ACA and more about fixing it.

Long story short: governing is hard.

I am skeptical they can craft anything good enough to get both democrats and the Freedom Caucus on board at this point.

 

[rjinaz]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/reince-priebus-democrats-on-board/

I called it.

Trump knows he has more in common (ideologically) with moderate dem/reps then he ever did with the far right. He wants tax reform and infrastructure and so do they.

My guess is when they come back to healthcare, it'll be less about replacing the ACA and more about fixing it.

Long story short: governing is hard.

I mean that whole article is Priebus blaming democrats for Obamacare, saying it's going to blow up and implying they want it to.

I mean he wants to get a few moderate Democrats on board that will support something other than fixing obamacare but isn't as horrible as the last one. Good luck. But their goal is not to appeal to Democrats as far as I can tell. It's to try and get a few of the more right leaning members to tag along so they can work around the FC.

 

[Wilsongt]

The GOP and WH can fuck off with wanting Bipartisan support.

Agreed. They spent 8 years wanting to be Republicans vs Democrats. They can stay that way.

 

[Sianos]

Does Hillary Clinton have a right and left nutsack

Spoiler

2x2, the joke works on multiple levels!

 

[Basileus777]

Trump and the Republican leadership don't have anything on their agenda that can have bipartisan support other than infrastructure which will get killed by the right or morphed into something horrible that even moderates won't want. They are never going to propose healthcare reform that is better than the status quo. And tax cuts for the rich made possible through entitlement cuts is not something that is going to get Democratic support.

 

[Dan]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/reince-priebus-democrats-on-board/

I called it.

Trump knows he has more in common (ideologically) with moderate dem/reps then he ever did with the far right. He wants tax reform and infrastructure and so do they.

My guess is when they come back to healthcare, it'll be less about replacing the ACA and more about fixing it.

Long story short: governing is hard.

That's not about ideology, it's an attempt at extortion. "Vote for whatever we next propose, or we'll blame you for any healthcare failings caused by our undermining of the ACA through non-legislative means."

Also, I don't think very many Democrats want any part of the kind of tax reforms and infrastructure plans that Trump has proposed.

 

[Poodlestrike]

I am skeptical they can craft anything good enough to get both democrats and the Freedom Caucus on board at this point.

Not to mention regular-ass house R's. I know we've been calling them "moderates" lately, but the only way that works is in comparison to the FC. On their own, they're still super right wing. The only way the Dems work on healthcare legislation with the White House right now is if they get to add so much red meat for their base that they can drown out the inherent "worked with Trump" penalty, or if there's a massive collapse of healthcare. The latter is unlikely, despite Trump's rhetoric, and the former puts any compromise measure way outside of bipartisan territory.

 

[Suikoguy]

That's not about ideology, it's an attempt at extortion. "Vote for whatever we next propose, or we'll blame you for any healthcare failings caused by our undermining of the ACA through non-legislative means."

Also, I don't think very many Democrats want any part of the kind of tax reforms and infrastructure plans that Trump has proposed.

Not if it's that bullshit private infrastructure funding. IE Toll Roads.

 

[Basileus777]

I don't see how any infrastructure bill gets out of the House anyway.

 

[LAtoDC]

Trust me, I am skeptical of their efforts to promote "bipartisan" legislation. ESPECIALLY after the past eight years with President Obama.

With that said, there are ways where a bipartisan infrastructure bill (for example) could benefit Democrats just as much as it would Donald Trump. Spending money on bridges, roads, and airports benefits everyone. I know there is a lot of talk about impeachment, and depending on where the Flynn thing goes you never know what will happen, BUT we are only in the first three months of the Administration. A lot can happen in 4 years, including a more moderate Donald Trump working with Dems to get some (not all) things done.

Democrats would love the opportunity to spend 1T on infrastructure, and I think they'd vote for it as long as it wasnt attached to tax reform, health care, etc.

 

[Finalizer]

I am skeptical they can craft anything good enough to get both democrats and the Freedom Caucus on board at this point.

I'd assume if there's something that's supposed to get moderate dems on board, then the whole point would be to ditch the freedom caucus anyway.

 

[Basileus777]

An infrastructure bill couldn't be done through reconciliation right? So it'd need 60 votes to get through a Ted Cruz filibuster.

 

[sphagnum]

No one outside leftist circles understands when you try to parse the difference between left and liberal in America. Just a PSA.

so

 

[NobleXenon]

its possible, but the lower pop states might not like subsidizing the higher population state (CA) or vice versa.

its usually why when the Federal gov is involved they have tax credits and stuff

As an Idea it's sound. But it would require several states to approve, and I imagine it would work like a trade deal where it would require each state to approve the admission/addition of a new state into it which would be difficult to co-ordinate. Also consider that some of these reliable Blue States end up with Republican Governors or Legislatures occasionally--I say that as a Vermonter, granted Phil Scott isn't too bad.

Alright, was just wondering. I keep forgetting that the West Coast subsidizes ungrateful states, so it probably wouldn't happen unless Trump really fucks over "his" states.

 

[Dan]

Democrats would love the opportunity to spend 1T on infrastructure, and I think they'd vote for it as long as it wasnt attached to tax reform, health care, etc.

But it's not, really. It's a much smaller amount of tax credits that they hope would spur some $1 trillion in infrastructure spending by private business. It's all about these public-private partnerships, and private business is only interested in the cases where they can profit off the projects in the long term (ie. toll roads and bridges). The Department of Transportation under Obama estimated that these kinds of partnerships could only address maybe 10-20% of the country's infrastructure needs. Vast, vast swathes of the infrastructure repair and construction we need are not in forms conducive for creating revenue based on use.

 

[pigeon]

Trust me, I am skeptical of their efforts to promote "bipartisan" legislation. ESPECIALLY after the past eight years with President Obama.

With that said, there are ways where a bipartisan infrastructure bill (for example) could benefit Democrats just as much as it would Donald Trump. Spending money on bridges, roads, and airports benefits everyone. I know there is a lot of talk about impeachment, and depending on where the Flynn thing goes you never know what will happen, BUT we are only in the first three months of the Administration. A lot can happen in 4 years, including a more moderate Donald Trump working with Dems to get some (not all) things done.

Democrats would love the opportunity to spend 1T on infrastructure, and I think they'd vote for it as long as it wasnt attached to tax reform, health care, etc.

Please don't compromise with a white supremacist to help him give a trillion dollars to his mob cronies and their construction companies though

 

[LAtoDC]

But it's not, really. It's a much smaller amount of tax credits that they hope would spur some $1 trillion in infrastructure spending by private business. It's all about these public-private partnerships, and private business is only interested in the cases where they can profit off the projects in the long term (ie. toll roads and bridges). The Department of Transportation under Obama estimated that these kinds of partnerships could only address maybe 10-20% of the country's infrastructure needs. Vast, vast swathes of the infrastructure repair and construction we need are not in forms conducive for creating revenue based on use.

I hear you. But again, 4 years a long time to work out something that is much more palpable than what is currently being proposed. Otherwise you will have the same health care scenario (freedom caucus/moderate republicans not playing nice) happen to every major piece of legislation moving forward.

I can see the Portman/Flake/Hiedtkamp/Donnelly faction coming together to do something meaningful here.

 

[Stinkles]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/reince-priebus-democrats-on-board/

I called it.

Trump knows he has more in common (ideologically) with moderate dem/reps then he ever did with the far right. He wants tax reform and infrastructure and so do they.

My guess is when they come back to healthcare, it'll be less about replacing the ACA and more about fixing it.

Long story short: governing is hard.

I'm actually wondering if Trump will let his horrific personal tax history affect his judgment. He abuses a bunch of tax code based on failure rather than success which could put him at odds with establishment billionaires who abuse their successes.

I also wouldn't even blink if Trump tried to insert a Trump specific band aid to salvage one or more of his own sloppy tax catastrophes.

 

[Electric Eye]

All the Dems have to do is help the republicans craft a really good infrastructure bill like the one they wanted as soon as Obama took office for it to instantly be shot down by the conservatives. The Dems take no damage as they looked like trying to build a bridge with the other side and get shot down. It's all L's for the GOP no matter what at this point.