sunshine and gasoline
Banned
What a horrible threat. Yes, some of his rabid base will blame dems but most will more than likely see through his bullshit statement.
-
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 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
What a horrible threat. Yes, some of his rabid base will blame dems but most will more than likely see through his bullshit statement.
Tranqueris
Banned
I love that Trump will still probably try to claim that he never really supported the bill in the first place when it turns out to be incredibly damaging.
metalslimer
Member
Guys if you don't pass trumpcare I swear to God voters won't blame you and things will work out anyway!!!
??????????
??????????
Wait, and this threat was supposed to convince Tea Party groups to vote for Ryan's bill how? Or is he actually trying to get them to not vote for it? This is so stupid.
So basically the Supreme Court fucked us on the Medicaid expansion? Give me some liberty, but also death, lots of death please!
He's already letting it fail. But how does this convince them to vote for it? They don't like it, now the alternative, do nothing and let Trump wreck the system, is even more appealing.
It's probably their best move politically, at least in the short term, since passing something like the AHCA will make things noticeably worse for most people, and I really don't think they have any ideas about how to improve on the US's healthcare system.
I don't think it's a long term winning strategy, but I don't think the GOP is really thinking long term about anything.
If they had the the ability to think long term they never would have wound up where we are in the first place.
Fuck you, I'm great at it, and I'll cite these anecdotes that appeal to my confirmation bias to prove it!
Plasticine
Member
Not surprising. He's said multiple times that this is the smartest political option. They'll pretty much sabotage Obamacare and blame the Democrats for it. Never mind that they're in power, and their incompetence is the only reason Obamacare will stay in place. But whatever. Republican voters have proven they'll eat whatever shit Republicans shovel because, "fuck you, liberals."
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Bull
They wouldn't have presented a plan and have Trump say it's awesome when the Dems can't even block it, only to then have it blocked by their own party.
This is clearly a case of Trump wanting not to touch this, he keeps repeating they could let it collapse hoping to convince his entourage but no one agrees, so he is going with their proposal and when it fails he'll get angry and tell them they should have let it collapse and how he knew better. Same shit always happens.
Can't blame the Dems when they are fully in charge and his party is split on this.
Ziltoidia 9
Member
What exactly happens in 2 years that causes it to collapse?
And what does collapse mean, in regard to the bill?
And what does collapse mean, in regard to the bill?
RastaMentality
Banned
People are chummying up with people like Dubya and Ellen is taking selfies with him. the GOP rightfully knows white america's long term memory sucks.
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
Nah. The media renaissance GWB is enjoying right now is directly related to Trump. Go back six months and he wasn't anywhere to be seen. He still had the reputation as the worst president in a very long time. Now he's just a bit of a nostalgic look back on simpler times.
Dominican Power
Member
Simpler? More like normal.
Okay, so...
I was going to say that the insurers would realise that the Trump admin/GOP don't want the ACA, and will just let it wither and die through lack of administrative care, slowly rising premiums, etc.
But would that actually occur now? The worry a couple of weeks ago was that the GOP had some masterful new plan for healthcare. But they obviously don't, and the insurers must realise that at this point. So, what is to stop the ACA from just continuing-on as-is? Are the slowly rising premiums going to push people out now, when so many have stood-up and said they want to keep the ACA?
( http://www.denverpost.com/2017/02/10/obamacare-signups-12-million/ )
Are 4% year-on-year drops for the next 2/3/4 years sustainable for the ACA?
Edit:
As has been noted, the smart thing to do would be to trust some experts less, and not generalise about all experts. Because, just like saying the next Dem candidate has to be young and without political baggage, all we're really doing by acquiescing to such small-minded ignorance is screwing over the future. For instance, as was noted at the time, one of the only economists who predicted the 2008 economic crash was (is?) sure that Brexit would be catastrophic for the economy. But when Gove said that about all economics experts, he gave average voters an easy way to be ignorant about the implications of Brexit, and vote on "feelings".
whyamihere
Banned
Just noticed that Our Revolution endorsed Jill Stein's 2012 VP candidate Cheri Honkala for PA 197.
https://ourrevolution.com/candidates/cheri-honkala/
https://ourrevolution.com/candidates/cheri-honkala/
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Maybe I was unclear, but I'm certainly not advocating for this point of view, just trying to explain where the sentiment comes from. I think institutions need to earn back the respect they've lost if we want to return back to a prosperous and stable democracy.
Seems fine since there's no Democrat running in the district?
I always endorse getting third party randos in if it won't make a difference because it makes presentations of the legislature much more interesting than just red and blue
whyamihere
Banned
Maybe I was unclear, but I'm certainly not advocating for this point of view, just trying to explain where the sentiment comes from. I think institutions need to earn back the respect they've lost if we want to return back to a prosperous and stable democracy.
Seems fine since there's no Democrat running in the district?
I always endorse getting third party randos in if it won't make a difference because it makes presentations of the legislature much more interesting than just red and blue
Oh, I don't necessarily either, the entire situation is sort of astounding.
Cheri wouldn't be the first elected Green, but she'd be the first in PA.
shinra-bansho
Member
A 50 state strategy is really just a buzzphrase.
We're going to compete everywhere. Yay.
How?
It falls apart when the same people want to compete in 50 states by pretending they're all the same as their liberal enclave.
Or when they think this is not going to be funded by higher net worth donors.
And then throw a fit when someone like Manchin wins using DSCC backing from big money.
How much are you willing to compromise to compete everywhere. Which of your values or voters for that matter are negotiable or expendable.
We're going to compete everywhere. Yay.
How?
It falls apart when the same people want to compete in 50 states by pretending they're all the same as their liberal enclave.
Or when they think this is not going to be funded by higher net worth donors.
And then throw a fit when someone like Manchin wins using DSCC backing from big money.
How much are you willing to compromise to compete everywhere. Which of your values or voters for that matter are negotiable or expendable.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Interesting how there's almost always some caveat to elected third party officials.
I registered with the Green Party when I was 18 before switching to the DFL when I updated my voter registration, wonder if they'd claim that as a win if I ever ran for office.
I registered with the Green Party when I was 18 before switching to the DFL when I updated my voter registration, wonder if they'd claim that as a win if I ever ran for office.
Just run Kander in every state shinra! Problem solved.
Hot take, all we currently know is that if you run a fascist country and call it communist it doesn't work
Edit: in general your whole argument on this topic is weirdly confused between socialism as an economic idea and state socialism as a political idea. Europe is pretty happy having functional socialist parties everywhere advocating socialist stuff. They just don't have socialist states. Those definitely didn't work! Consider the reason why it's called "social democracy" and not "socialist capitalism."
neurosisxeno
Member
Kander would only win in southern states. He would be too moderate in the NE and West Coast I think. He's the perfect Democrat for the South and midwest.
This goes to my point about not feeding the ignorance of the voter. In reality, every voter who gets upset about Manchin should be educated about how state culture is different from the national culture, and how those state cultures vary depending social and economic situations. Like, I'd like to see the Legalise Marijuana voters go to the states where opioid addiction is spiralling out of control, and argue that recreational drug use is good, because even if they can do it (doubtful), it would raise awareness of how difficult it is to form a cohesive message about a difficult subject nationally.
Likewise, I'd like to see the anti-Wall Street voters go to some rural town where there's a lack of employment opportunities, and realise that people without jobs don't give a fuck about Wall Street per se, they just want to be employed and care for their families.
Unfortunately, political naivety may sink the Dems in 2020 like it sank Hillary in '16. Because without adjusting voter expectations, you're going to have the same people arguing the same points, ignorant of how the things people care about depend largely on where they are, if their friends are employed, and how rich they feel.
I already know plenty about white supremacy in the South actually thanks anyway
Har de har har.
And if you weren't joking...
I was more talking about the people who argue that because the Democratic Party promotes one liberal viewpoint nationally, it should be the same on the state level. In reality, promoting a single liberal outlook without taking account of demographics and economics is just plain dumb, and ignores the ability to be politically pragmatic. Just because the Democratic Party believes in LGBTQ rights, does not necessarily mean that the overt campaign message in KY, MO, or AL should be LGBTQ rights. Which is not the same as throwing minorities under the bus, since the Dems still believe in these rights, they're just choosing to campaign on a different message in states where that different message is relevant.
However, politically naive activists who think not-shouting something from the rooftops is the equivalent of throwing it to one side are the worst.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
I'm skeptical of the 50 state strategy (as someone who lives in a state that would be a beneficiary) because local politics are dead. The "run someone who is moderate in a red state and is a good fit" line is silly to me because Democrats already do that. James Piotrowski ran as a moderate in my district who loved fishing, hunting and outdoorsy stuff and wanted to keep federal lands from being privatized. He wanted to "stand up to extremists in both parties" or whatever. He then got 31% of the vote. People just want the Republican.
Hell our last Democratic congressman was endorsed by the Tea Party and the best he could do was get 40% of the vote when trying to get reelected.
Also yeah what pigeon said.
Hell our last Democratic congressman was endorsed by the Tea Party and the best he could do was get 40% of the vote when trying to get reelected.
Also yeah what pigeon said.
Har de har har.
And if you weren't joking...
I was more talking about the people who argue that because the Democratic Party promotes one liberal viewpoint nationally, it should be the same on the state level. In reality, promoting a single liberal outlook without taking account of demographics and economics is just plain dumb, and ignores the ability to be politically pragmatic. Just because the Democratic Party believes in LGBTQ rights, does not necessarily mean that the overt campaign message in KY, MO, or AL should be LGBTQ rights. Which is not the same as throwing minorities under the bus, since the Dems still believe in these rights, they're just choosing to campaign on a different message in states where that different message is relevant.
However, politically naive activists who think not-shouting something from the rooftops is the equivalent of throwing it to one side are the worst.
Not campaigning on LGBTQ rights, for example, because you don't think your state supports LGBTQ rights, means you don't have the freedom to vote on LGBTQ rights. If you don't think your state supports them, and talking about them will make you lose the election, casting your vote for them will definitely make you lose the election. Which means you don't practically support LGBTQ rights either. Manchin is a very good example of this problem!
It also leads to the collapse of our intersectional strategy, and again Manchin is the example. The Democrats should be going out there and pushing the message that Jeff Sessions is a white supremacist and a Russian sympathizer and every senator who voted for him should be voted out. But they can't. They have to say that every senator who voted for him should be voted out EXCEPT FOR JOE MANCHIN. Hopefully it's clear why that's a much weaker and less effective message! Compromising our principles to include senators who aren't actually in line with the Democratic strategy (which, to be clear, is "no Nazis, no treason") means we can't actually maintain moral authority or project a nationwide message.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Agreed. Local politics is dead. Almost no non-presidential candidate in 2016 had significantly different performances from Trump-Clinton in that state. We live in the era of the internet and Facebook and 24 hours news and instant response and the ability for someone in California to talk to someone in Maine instantaneously from the comfort of their own chair. Everything is national now; everyone is associated with the candidate at the top of the ticket. Trying to run different messages in different areas just makes you incoherent and weak.
This doesn't necessarily mean run Sanders in every state
I wish
RastaMentality
Banned
lol who was this?
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Walt Minnick
I would argue the first point. It assumes people who don't explicitly know that the Dems believe in (in this case) LGBTQ rights should be prioritized over those who are more knowledgable about their representative. From the stand-point of getting re-elected, it may be an issue, yes, depending upon how problematic it is in the state, how close the previous election was, etc. But to argue that the Dem representative can't vote on them? I don't get that. How many representatives - on both sides, and across the US - vote against the interests of their voters? I mean, isn't that what the AHCA ultimatum is? Vote for this that's against your constituents interests, or be shown to be useless time-wasters?
My argument certainly has flaws - like, if we shift this argument to guns, then we've already seen the NRA push a lot of funds against any candidate who happens to speak out in favour of gun control. But I suppose I'm taking the opinion that if someone's been elected, then they have the right to do things which are in the state's best interests, even if their base hasn't voted for them, because they ought to have a duty to all people within their state. Which I will readily admit is both somewhat naive, and a dangerous line of thinking. But at the same time, it already occurs?
As for your second point, yeah, I totally agree with you. But at the same time, I don't actually understand why Manchin felt compelled to vote for Sessions, unless he personally likes him. To break party-lines on Sessions is bizarre, and to me speaks more to Manchin's moral failings than any attempt to keep his constituents happy, if only because Manchin ought to be the Senator for WV in its entirety, not just the racists.
More succinctly, I suppose my argument is one that says that messaging is different from personal belief.
But Manchin is literally the example of somebody who campaigned on a platform that ignored racism and then once in office went ahead and broke ranks with the Democrats to cast a pro-racism vote to stay popular with his constituency. You say you don't understand why he did it but my argument literally explains it! West Virginia is incredibly racist!
So I'd argue it's a moral failing of Manchin's, not a flaw in my argument. Essentially, Manchin is a racist dick who wants to stay in power, and favours that over doing good. He gamed the system in the way I'm arguing, he's just not voting with the Dems.
Edit to add: I can see the line of reasoning that he votes to stay in power so he can vote with the Dems when needed, but if he's not going to use that place of power to vote against Sessions, then what value is he? I mean, if his bar to voting against his base is "worse than Sessions for AG", then he has no value?
This post actually sums up my argument. We get no benefit from running a Democrat who has to be okay with white supremacy in order to get the job.
I guess you're arguing that we should run Dems that toe the national line on everything but just don't admit it until they get elected. I just don't believe that's a real strategy. There's a reason politicians mostly vote the way they campaigned. People notice when you just straight up lie!
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Manchin is a bad example of this, but John Bel Edwards is probably a better example.
JBE is a white supremacist, but he's a white supremacist who managed to win in Louisiana and fixed up the state's horrible budgetary issues a bit, got the poor health insurance, and promoted LGBTQ rights.
Governor races are still extremely local and not determined entirely by presidential results and you can win in hard red states if you promote ugly bigotry to go along with promoting giving things to the poor and taxing the rich.
But there is a tradeoff of trust among voters of color that comes from allowing white supremacists into your party, of course.
JBE is a white supremacist, but he's a white supremacist who managed to win in Louisiana and fixed up the state's horrible budgetary issues a bit, got the poor health insurance, and promoted LGBTQ rights.
Governor races are still extremely local and not determined entirely by presidential results and you can win in hard red states if you promote ugly bigotry to go along with promoting giving things to the poor and taxing the rich.
But there is a tradeoff of trust among voters of color that comes from allowing white supremacists into your party, of course.
Yeah, that's a shorter version of my argument.
There's two things I would argue with the summation, though. One is that it's not necessarily lying. Someone saying he wouldn't vote for LGBTQ rights and then doing so is lying. But someone who says that "I would have to see what the legislation was before voting on it" is not. And it's an entirely honest phrase that politicians use all the time.Edit: And if this sounds a bit too much like the Dem version of dog-whistles, this quote from Bernie is the kind of thing that politicians say all the time when they don't want to commit without seeing legislation
The other thing is that we really ought to wait until the mid-terms before we claim that "People notice when you just straight up lie". I mean, it didn't really affect Trump's voters, did it?
nature boy
Member
Forget the Senate it can't pass the House.
GENIUS
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
They pushed it through Ways and Means committee overnight with no amendments. It is crazy.
This constant lying about how "democrats did this with Obamacare!!!" is infuriating.
I'm fascinated by what is happening here and the political fallout from it. Trump is clearly behind this thing. He whipped people. He is known for "making deals." If this fails, how will he react?
A Serious Man
Member
Watching the color drain from Paul Ryan's face as Tucker fucking Carlson of all people grills him on tax breaks for the rich was a delight.
nature boy
Member
Blame the Dems, "Obamacare is a disaster, I tried, loser Dems didn't help".
I believe it needs the full vote of the House and Senate before it goes to the President?
And right on cue
Aaron Strife
Banned
Seriously, ACA took like a year and a half to legislate. There was no rushing it, no "shoving it down our throats," etc.
They're trying to do this repeal shit in like a week. Fuck that.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
There was also 30 days between final draft and first vote.
Cuts to housing https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...et915pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.d2dd498e4c79
and Medicare are going to decimate the elderly. My mother was a (proud) Trump voter, and utterly mislead by conservative media. She had planned on moving into subsidized housing for the elderly this year, and likely will need a Medicaid bed soon. I'm furious right now. This needs to stick.
and Medicare are going to decimate the elderly. My mother was a (proud) Trump voter, and utterly mislead by conservative media. She had planned on moving into subsidized housing for the elderly this year, and likely will need a Medicaid bed soon. I'm furious right now. This needs to stick.
Unless you're rich, granny can get fucked.
https://twitter.com/ddiamond/status/839797264432377857
Hahaha... That's pretty nuts, for many reasons. But mostly because it just gives Trump and the GOP even more ownership of the AHCA. If it gets killed in committee they have an out, saying they tried. But this way?
Madness.
Hahaha... That's pretty nuts, for many reasons. But mostly because it just gives Trump and the GOP even more ownership of the AHCA. If it gets killed in committee they have an out, saying they tried. But this way?
Madness.
That threat really only works if Trump is super popular next year, in which case, House Republicans wouldn't be in any kind of peril at all.
If voters turn against House Republicans in 2018, it's because they're turning against Trump, so a Trump-backed primary challenger, in my eyes, doesn't really get anywhere.
Yeah that doesn't make any sense. Unless Rubio and Cotton are bullshitting about AHCA not having the votes in the Senate, McConnell taking this bill up for a vote just to see it killed on the floor would be a huge embarrassment to the party and Trump. Why do that to themselves?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked