Support NeoGAF

[daedalius]

So, after Comey's testimony today... is he just so far up the ass of Lawful Good that he felt the need to send his letter? Even though his aides told him, basically "you're helping Trump by doing this!"

He did it anyway, because he thought it was the "right" thing to do, damn the consequences?

 

[thepotatoman]

At best, Comey was just being a coward, trying to cover his ass from republican criticism for whatever reason.

At worst, he was trying to swing the election, and given how the letter was worded in the exact way to make everyone assume the absolute worst, I tend towards that explanation. A better worded letter would be way easier to forgive.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Healthcare is fucked. And I don't know if DCCC can take advantage of it.

 

[VendettaRed07]

Long con

Obama saw the internals for Hillary were crashing so Obama directed Comey to do something drastic to gain more street cred with republicans and give the appearance he aided in Trumps victory so he would have more legitimacy conducting a Trump investigation under his presidency

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Stage flags are the freaking worst. Imagine if all countries had flags so damn complex. Gross. City flags, too! You can instantly rate how serious your city takes itself as being by the status of its flag. And by that I mean "could it sub in for a fictional nation in a pinch?" Or perhaps "was it designed by an authority higher than your local chamber of commerce?" How about "would this be embarrassing to have an at EDM festival?"

Chicago has the best city flag.

 

[Pixieking]

Healthcare is fucked. And I don't know if DCCC can take advantage of it.

This is what WaPo has on their frontpage:

If more than 22 House Republicans vote “no,” the latest version of the health-care reform bill will fail. Here’s where things stand:

20 Opposed or leaning “no”
35 Undecided or unclear
23 Switched to “yes”

That's a lot of Undecided/Unclear.

 

[Diablos]

This is what WaPo has on their frontpage:


That's a lot of Undecided/Unclear.

One day is an eternity in situations like this. It's moving so fast, those undecided could change to yes soon. Enough of them anyway.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Maryland's is great. It's like the old coat of arms before Europe got bored and decided three stripes was the name of the game. Best state flag by a mile.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Maryland's is great. It's like the old coat of arms before Europe got bored and decided three stripes was the name of the game. Best state flag by a mile.

most of them are just really ugly, it's the only one that actually hurts my eyes to look at

Ohio and Arizona's are the only good ones.

 

[jWILL253]

I can't be the only one getting malware warnings from the previous page.

 

[Pixieking]

I can't be the only one getting malware warnings from the previous page.

I'm not, but I get served very few ads on Gaf (I guess because I'm in the Middle East and most of them get blocked by the ISP? Maybe? *shrugs*)

Go to this thread and report it?

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Chicago has the best city flag.

I mean, if you like shameless rip-off's of the DC flag...

 

[Pixieking]

One day is an eternity in situations like this. It's moving so fast, those undecided could change to yes soon. Enough of them anyway.

Yeah, but it goes both ways - those Undecideds could move to No, especially if they get a ton of constituents complaining today.

Either way, today will definitely feel like an eternity, yeah.

 

[pigeon]

You're incorrect. You'd realize that if you were able to do more than reply to my posts with one sentence responses. But I'll humor you, since you think what you posted was so damn profound.

I mean, I'm perfectly capable of responding to your posts with longer responses. I just haven't bothered, because I didn't see it as worth my time, because your posts didn't demonstrate any actual interest in reading and understanding other people's position. Nor did I suggest I thought my post was profound -- I mean, it's on an internet message board. I just don't work for you, so I don't feel motivated to retype a bunch of stuff for you when you haven't made any effort to suggest you actually care about it. Do your own homework! This post is a little better, although, frankly, I think it mostly illustrates that I was right that you don't care what my argument is, you're just confident it's wrong.

This seems like a pretty long-winded method of saying you have an optics problem with a former president being compensated for stuff. Even though you contradict yourself by saying it's not about optics later in the thread.

I don't think I contradicted myself, because I don't think the argument you're quoting is about optics. That's kind of the explicit point I was making -- people keep saying my concern is "optics." I don't think it is!

That's why my next step was to ask Ignatz Mouse several questions to try to identify what "optics" means to him, why he feels my argument is "optics," and why that makes it inherently invalid. Questions he didn't answer.

If you're interested in actually having a discussion, maybe you could answer them! Then we might be on the way to having a useful conversation.

Wayment...

So, you bring up a hypothetical situation about Obama using his influence and power while in office to gain favor with the private sector, and that he could be cashing in... then say you don't actually believe he did these things? So... what's the point here? If you don't think he's either guilty or capable of these types of shenanigans, why bring up a hypothetical?

Because I was literally responding to somebody asking how it could even be possible for this to represent a payoff? The question being asked wasn't whether the situation was plausible, just whether it was possible.

Like, I didn't just mean you should read MY posts. You should actually read the conversation that's taking place. That will help you understand what's going on.

... because a former public servant, who isn't running for a position of power, making some add-to-my-Ferrari-collection money, and the literal political equivalent of OJ Simpson are totally on the same level.

I'm not suggesting they're on the same level. That's what the question mark is for. To ask you to explain why they're different.

Like I said above -- if people are going to say "this is optics and necessarily irrelevant," then I think it's reasonable to ask them a) what they mean by "optics," b) whether it really means "anything having to do with appearances no matter what," and c) why optics, by their definition is necessarily irrelevant.

These actually seem like critical points to clarify for "this is optics" to be any sort of useful response. Weirdly, nobody making that argument has answered these questions!

If you think my hypotheticals are absurd, fine. They're meant to be, to illustrate why "appearances are always and everywhere irrelevant" is a stupid argument. It's a stupid argument people seem to be making! That's why I'm responding to it. But assuming you don't think that, it turns out we actually agree that in some cases appearances are more than just "optics" and we should care about them. So our disagreement is only about where the line is, which is the topic worth actually discussing.

You go on to say that this could represent the "ongoing normalization of potentially unethical behavior in the Democratic Party", but really... This is the same party where, as I speak, Bernie Sanders is betraying his own base with his new "sort-of-want.jpg" approach to courting racists & pro-lifers;

I've been pretty clear what I think about this.

Spoiler

It is bad.

the same party where one of its major members, Anthony Weiner, can't stop sending pictures of his member to other members;

It didn't occur to me that I needed to say that Anthony Weiner is bad, but sure.

the same party who let their base get split into thirds - Bernie Busters, Jill Stein faithfuls, and the rest of us - which is all according to keikaku for Russia to tear our collective unity into shreds;

This seems mostly dumb and ill-informed. I like the idea that a third of the Democratic Party is voting Green. No wonder you're stressed out if you believe that.

the same party that has been curling in a ball & crying for the past nine years, even when they controlled the government, when they should've been crying from the rooftops "REPUBLICANS DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW HOW TO GOVERN".

Thanks, Ron Fournier.

I... think the Democrats won't feel any heat from Obama buying his daughters an expensive Happy Meal. The Dems can clearly do bad by themselves.

"It doesn't matter what Obama does because other Democrats are also bad' is the worst defense I've ever heard for this issue. Cmon.

And you didn't even mention what actual ethical laws might have been broken. So, technically, no, you never talked about that, specifically.

Well, that's because I never suggested he broke any. That was something you imputed to me, not something I said. That was actually one of my first hints that you're not actually interested in discussion, just yelling. Typically people who want to have discussions don't make up arguments they think are dumb and yell at their opponents to defend them.

Because this post highlights my biggest question, which no one has answered up to this point: why should Obama be held to a higher standard than any other president before him or since?

He's not? This continues to be false?

And what actual, punishable crimes did he commit by taking that money from Wall Street for a speech that could be about why dental hygiene is good for you, for all we know?

None. Who cares? Is your ethical standard really "Obama should do whatever won't actually get him arrested?" This is the second worst defense I've ever heard for this issue.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

This is what WaPo has on their frontpage:


That's a lot of Undecided/Unclear.

Huffington has the best counter here, confirmed no are only 16 now. Lean no are 3.

 

[Finalizer]

i like how nc's flag is basically a crummier version of texas'

Huffington has the best counter here, confirmed no are only 16 now. Lean no are 3.

okay there diablos 2.0

 

[Pixieking]

Like I said above -- if people are going to say "this is optics and necessarily irrelevant," then I think it's reasonable to ask them a) what they mean by "optics," b) whether it really means "anything having to do with appearances no matter what," and c) why optics, by their definition is necessarily irrelevant.

I'll go in with this, because I do think it's dumb, but I do also kinda get why people are arguing it...

First of all, I differentiate Appearance and Optics. Appearance is the superficial, well, appearance of something, whilst Optics is what people think. I have no clue if this is the technical difference, but to me (as someone who did a Social Sciences degree) it makes sense.

Secondly, the appearance of impropriety isn't actually impropriety. We can all agree with that, yeah?

So...

If you're holding a bloody knife over a dead body, that doesn't necessarily mean you killed a guy, it just means you were stupid or unthinking and picked up the murder weapon.

Someone who sees another person holding a bloody knife over a dead body will possibly jump to the conclusion that they're a killer. But the person holding the knife is not directly responsible for what the bystander thinks. The bystander is making an assumption based on the most likely scenario, and that most likely scenario is coloured by personal experiences, news, and entertainment.

Optics is reliant on the person observing an action bringing their own preconceptions and ideas to the table. Comey saying Hillary didn't break the law 3 days before election day didn't help with her Optics, because people bought the GOP narrative that she was corrupt. But, taken at a superficial Appearance level, Comey was right and proper to do what he did - he found no illegal activity had taken place, and said as much. This is, btw, why I flip-flop on Comey being ridiculously politically naive, and Comey wanting Trump to win.

So, by now you may have picked-up on the implication here. Optics is reliant on stupid people buying into what they've been told, either by politicians or the media.

Bringing it round to Obama and the speech money. No-one here honestly believes that Obama is corrupt, right? So, what we're arguing is that the Optics of Obama being paid money for speeches is bad, because the racist in Florida or the ignorant dick in Iowa has had it hammered into his skull that taking money for speeches is bad. Because it must be, right? I mean, Hillary did it, and she was The Devil.

So, a short-hand for Optics is "What ignorant people think", I guess. And that, there, is why this situation with Obama is so frustrating. Obama has done nothing wrong. People before him got paid for speeches. People before him may have been corrupt and bought off with these speeches, but also others before him won't have been corrupt. But the only question we should be asking is, is Obama corrupt? If your answer is no, then (I would argue ) everything you're thinking and arguing is based on Optics - "What do ignorant people think of Obama taking money for speeches?" And the only reason we're asking this is because it reflects badly on the Democratic Party, since future Dem voters may feel uneasy.

But, y'know what? They're ignorant voters, if they think the appearance of impropriety is actually impropriety. Just plain ignorant. Are they necessary to win in 2018/2020? Maybe. But that doesn't mean we have to coddle their ignorance, and it doesn't mean Obama should apologise for doing something entirely legal. Maybe if Dems actually stood up and said "I'm getting paid 400 grand for 2 hours work", people would respect them more. After all, that's pretty much what Trump said to his base, right?

That was way longer than I thought it'd be. Sorry. Hope it makes sense.

Huffington has the best counter here, confirmed no are only 16 now. Lean no are 3.

For best, you mean "most cynical", right?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Yeah, but it goes both ways - those Undecideds could move to No, especially if they get a ton of constituents complaining today.

Either way, today will definitely feel like an eternity, yeah.

I work overnights so I won't wake up until 5 or 6pm.

Can't wait to wake up and see the world is on fire.

 

[CygnusXS]

Pigeon can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's making a normative argument that politicians (even former ones) shouldn't accept large cash payments because we can't know that it's not a quid pro quo. So it's not so much about how voters view it as a reflection of the party, but rather a worry about the basic democratic functioning of the government.

That's the argument I'd make anyways.

 

[Pixieking]

Pigeon can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's making a normative argument that politicians (even former ones) shouldn't accept large cash payments because we can't know that it's not a quid pro quo. So it's not so much about how voters view it as a reflection of the party, but rather a worry about the basic democratic functioning of the government.

That's the argument I'd make anyways.

As I noted when this first blew up, this is an argument that doesn't hold water.

If Trump said "I donate my fee to a charity", would we actually believe there was no quid pro quo involved? I wouldn't, certainly, because Trump has no morals. It's not possible to fully separate out the moral character of a person taking the money, and the financial transaction (or lack of one). And if you can't do that, then whether money is involved or not makes no difference.

An extension of the above is that the argument assumes that financial transactions are the only way to have a quid pro quo. How can we know that, though Obama gives all his money to charity in the end, he wasn't also paid with insider-information? We can't. Do we therefore assume that Obama has no morals and cannot do anything post-presidency? Or do we take it on a case-by-case basis, and faith?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Pigeon can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's making a normative argument that politicians (even former ones) shouldn't accept large cash payments because we can't know that it's not a quid pro quo. So it's not so much about how voters view it as a reflection of the party, but rather a worry about the basic democratic functioning of the government.

That's the argument I'd make anyways.

This is also my argument. Even if some politicians genuinely can avoid impropriety at all times, some can't, and as citizens it is very difficult for us to determine which is which. Accordingly, we should enforce a norm that politicians should not accept large cash payments, particularly from especially large corporations whose interests are not usually aligned with the public. It might sometimes mean that some upstanding former politicians don't get as much money as they would otherwise, but on the flip side it reduces corruption and undue influence, which seems to me an acceptable trade-off to make.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

If Trump said "I donate my fee to a charity", would we actually believe there was no quid pro quo involved? I wouldn't, certainly, because Trump has no morals.

It's not necessary for this measure to ensure nothing quid pro quo ever happens. It just has to reduce the amount of quid pro quo that is possible. If Trump has to donate all his fees to charity, and provide some sort of evidence of having done so which can be scrutinised, that's one less possible avenue through which he can be immoral.

An extension of the above is that the argument assumes that financial transactions are the only way to have a quid pro quo. How can we know that, though Obama gives all his money to charity in the end, he wasn't also paid with insider-information? We can't.

This argument makes very little sense. Yes, there are other ways in which quid pro quo could be conducted. However, we've removed at least one, and accordingly made quid pro quo at least somewhat more difficult. Your argument is equivalent to saying: there's no point in banning people from breaking and entering, because these days they can just steal money online.

Do we therefore assume that Obama has no morals and cannot do anything post-presidency? Or do we take it on a case-by-case basis, and faith?

No. We say that "it's true Obama could probably do this, but it is important that we preserve the principle". Norms and principles are strong, and difficult to break. Not impossible, but certainly, setting up particular behavioural expectations and holding people to account for breaching them is something societies can and should do.

 

[KingV]

Pigeon can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's making a normative argument that politicians (even former ones) shouldn't accept large cash payments because we can't know that it's not a quid pro quo. So it's not so much about how voters view it as a reflection of the party, but rather a worry about the basic democratic functioning of the government.

That's the argument I'd make anyways.

That's basically the whole reason for anti-corruption rules right? The standard is removing the appearance of corruption, not necessarily not being able to prove quid pro quo with 100% certainty.

(I don't really care about the Obama situation one way or another, FYI, just commenting on the idea)

 

[CygnusXS]

As I noted when this first blew up, this is an argument that doesn't hold water.

If Trump said "I donate my fee to a charity", would we actually believe there was no quid pro quo involved? I wouldn't, certainly, because Trump has no morals. It's not possible to fully separate out the moral character of a person taking the money, and the financial transaction (or lack of one). And if you can't do that, then whether money is involved or not makes no difference.

An extension of the above is that the argument assumes that financial transactions are the only way to have a quid pro quo. How can we know that, though Obama gives all his money to charity in the end, he wasn't also paid with insider-information? We can't. Do we therefore assume that Obama has no morals and cannot do anything post-presidency? Or do we take it on a case-by-case basis, and faith?

You're arguing a particular case against a normative principle and I'm not sure why. The question isn't "Is Obama good or bad?" It's "what avenues can politicians have for personal enrichment that call the state's democratic legitimacy into question the least?" There's a lot of debate on that. It's open political theory. Some might not see value in any limits, some might see value in most every limit. People making this argument aren't preoccupied with any particular person's morals; we're thinking about what ethical conditions are necessary to make sure representatives are subject to as few corrupting influences as possible. And the thing about ethics is that they should apply evenly to everyone, even those that we specifically trust.

 

[Pixieking]

No. We say that "it's true Obama could probably do this, but it is important that we preserve the principle". Norms and principles are strong, and difficult to break. Not impossible, but certainly, setting up particular behavioural expectations and holding people to account for breaching them is something societies can and should do.

Okay, I can buy that. But really, then, what we should be arguing for is that this decision ought to be a legally mandated one, not one of personal decision. Because the problem with making it a personal decision (to either keep the money or give it to charity) means that, for the people who don't give it away, there will still be the Optics of wrong-doing. "After all," people will say "if they weren't doing anything wrong - if there was no quid pro quo - why didn't they give the money to charity? They don't need it."

Make it a law, and everyone is treated fairly. Make it a personal decision of Obama's, and as we have seen, people will assume that there may be the possibility of wrongdoing.

You're arguing a particular case against a normative principle and I'm not sure why. The question isn't "Is Obama good or bad?" It's "what avenues can politicians have for personal enrichment that call the state's democratic legitimacy into question the least?" There's a lot of debate on that. It's open political theory. Some might not see value in any limits, some might see value in most every limit. People making this argument aren't preoccupied with any particular person's morals; we're thinking about what ethical conditions are necessary to make sure representatives are subject to as few corrupting influences as possible. And the thing about ethics is that they should apply evenly to everyone, even those that we specifically trust.

And this kicks in now, with Obama? And specifically, after Obama has accepted a speaking engagement, not before. Does this not seem a little... odd? Certainly ethics rules should apply to everyone, but does it not seem just a bit weird that this has occurred now? Oh, sure, speeches are more in the news now than they were 8 years ago. But, again, I feel this pandering to the ignorance of voters does no justice to anyone.

 

[pigeon]

Bringing it round to Obama and the speech money. No-one here honestly believes that Obama is corrupt, right? So, what we're arguing is that the Optics of Obama being paid money for speeches is bad, because the racist in Florida or the ignorant dick in Iowa has had it hammered into his skull that taking money for speeches is bad.

Here's where we part company. I agree that Obama is not corrupt, but it does not then necessarily follow that my concern is with optics. As you observed, optics and appearances are different!

I want Obama to set clear ethical rules for the Democratic Party because doing so will help prevent unethical politicians from gaining support within the Democratic Party in the future. I think this will be good for America and good for the Democratic Party.

Hillary had optics problems about stuff she did that looked corrupt. But Hillary was also actually kind of corrupt -- after all, the cattle futures scandal was a bribe she took. It's a little bit problematic to argue that people thinking you are a criminal is just optics when you have actually committed crimes. Even if the crimes you committed aren't the ones they're angry about! So maybe that was actually bad for the Democrats and we should have cared about not having criminals in the party.

But, of course, there's no proof that the cattle futures scandal was a bribe. It could have been just a random moment of impossibly good fortune that was never again repeated for no apparent reason. So ultimately part of the problem here is appearances! Because the appearances of the situation make it impossible to ever be confident that Hillary didn't take a bribe. That is a problem, and I don't think it's just a problem for "stupid people."

A good ethical rule for the Clintons would've been "don't suddenly start making investments in something which could easily be used as a money laundering scheme, get really rich, take all the money out and never do it again." This might sound like an optics problem, but I don't think it is. Firstly, because I think intelligent people probably should've been worried about this, and secondly, because it doesn't just address the appearances, but also ensures that a less ethical person can't take a bribe this way at all.

Setting clear ethical rules requires paying attention to appearances, but not for the sake of stupid people. Rather it is for the benefit of politically aware people, who care about ethics rules, and for political professionals, who take cues from Obama on how to act. Thus it is not optics by your definition.

That was way longer than I thought it'd be. Sorry. Hope it makes sense.

It did, and I appreciate the response even though I disagree.

Pigeon can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's making a normative argument that politicians (even former ones) shouldn't accept large cash payments because we can't know that it's not a quid pro quo. So it's not so much about how voters view it as a reflection of the party, but rather a worry about the basic democratic functioning of the government.

That's the argument I'd make anyways.

This is correct, although there's also a political argument that actually doing good things and being honest is in itself a good political strategy.

 

[pigeon]

Crab and Cygnus are doing a better job of making my argument here. Thanks guys. As a side note, how do you feel about banning private automobile ownership? There's another discussion I could really use some backup on.

Okay, I can buy that. But really, then, what we should be arguing for is that this decision ought to be a legally mandated one, not one of personal decision. Because the problem with making it a personal decision (to either keep the money or give it to charity) means that, for the people who don't give it away, there will still be the Optics of wrong-doing. "After all," people will say "if they weren't doing anything wrong - if there was no quid pro quo - why didn't they give the money to charity? They don't need it."

Make it a law, and everyone is treated fairly. Make it a personal decision of Obama's, and as we have seen, people will assume that there may be the possibility of wrongdoing.

Well, yeah, but only if he makes the decision that isn't in keeping with the norm.

That's how norms work! There is no direct consequence for violating them, but people assume that if you violated the norm you did so for some reason, and that reason might not be good. So if you care about people believing that you are good, you are motivated to avoid violating the norm. It's a personal decision, but it's one people will judge you on. That doesn't strike me as a problem.

And this kicks in now, with Obama? And specifically, after Obama has accepted a speaking engagement, not before. Does this not seem a little... odd? Certainly ethics rules should apply to everyone, but does it not seem just a bit weird that this has occurred now? Oh, sure, speeches are more in the news now than they were 8 years ago. But, again, I feel this pandering to the ignorance of voters does no justice to anyone.

I would characterize this as kicking in for me at the point when I realized that there were actually some significant drawbacks to having the Clintons be major figures in the Democratic Party, like losing.

Obviously the timing isn't great. I said before that the real error here is that we normalized it with Bill Clinton. We should not have done so. I'm trying to learn from my mistakes. But, yes, it's a bummer to be trying to fix this with Obama first when I trust him implicitly.

Ultimately, though, that's just Optics.

 

[CygnusXS]

And this kicks in now, with Obama? And specifically, after Obama has accepted a speaking engagement, not before. Does this not seem a little... odd? Certainly ethics rules should apply to everyone, but does it not seem just a bit weird that this has occurred now? Oh, sure, speeches are more in the news now than they were 8 years ago. But, again, I feel this pandering to the ignorance of voters does no justice to anyone.

Well, no, not just now. Paid speeches is kind of a newer thing, but like, people have spent years complaining about the pipeline that moves DC politicians into cushy lobbying positions and Board memberships in corporations that pay them large salaries. This is just a different manifestation of an old worry.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Okay, I can buy that. But really, then, what we should be arguing for is that this decision ought to be a legally mandated one, not one of personal decision. Because the problem with making it a personal decision (to either keep the money or give it to charity) means that, for the people who don't give it away, there will still be the Optics of wrong-doing. "After all," people will say "if they weren't doing anything wrong - if there was no quid pro quo - why didn't they give the money to charity? They don't need it."

Make it a law, and everyone is treated fairly. Make it a personal decision of Obama's, and as we have seen, people will assume that there may be the possibility of wrongdoing.

I agree this ought to be legally mandated. However, until such a time when that can be put in place, I am content to 'police' this using social opprobrium.

I think it is entirely reasonable to question Obama's decision. He is, by all accounts, an exceptionally intelligent man. I have no doubt that he will have seen and understood versions of the argument pigeon and myself are putting forward, and that you now agree with. Nevertheless, the fact he took some time to announce he was donating his fees, possibly only in response to said social opprobrium, indicates Obama thought his payment was more important than upholding this important social norm (which is not optics). I do think that is a questionable decision for him to make, and I think the 'outrage' was therefore entirely justifiable and a net good (especially because that money then has gone to charity).

 

[cartoon_soldier]

CA @RepDavidValadao, @RepJeffDenham, Rep @SteveKnight25, now leaning yes, key to passage of #Trumpcare

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/03/californias-gop-whos-voting-to-repeal-obamacare/

Basically, these fucks are voting yes for 8 billion more dollars which actually won't really have any positive effect.

 

[tbm24]

Trump's desire to look like he can get something done is dooming him and the GOP given this does in the Senate. I don't understand what these house Republicans are thinking.

 

[NewFresh]

CA @RepDavidValadao, @RepJeffDenham, Rep @SteveKnight25, now leaning yes, key to passage of #Trumpcare

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/03/californias-gop-whos-voting-to-repeal-obamacare/

Basically, these fucks are voting yes for 8 billion more dollars which actually won't really have any positive effect.

But it sounds like it does!

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Trump's desire to look like he can get something done is dooming him and the GOP given this does in the Senate. I don't understand what these house Republicans are thinking.

Senate will pass some kind of bill too for sure.

House is basically relying on being able to lie to Americans that pre-existing conditions are protected and media but calling them out because both sides thing.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I think this is going to die in the senate the day after the CBO report comes out.

 

[tbm24]

Senate will pass some kind of bill too for sure.

House is basically relying on being able to lie to Americans that pre-existing conditions are protected and media but calling them out because both sides thing.

I don't see any bill that passes the Senate going back to the House and passing. There's no way the first draft of this bill failed miserably for not being as evil as some hoped, to then not run into that same problem if it leaves the Senate who will change it pretty drastically if it's going to actually get the votes.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

The Freedom Caucus has implied that they will not vote for any change at all made by the senate.

So I'm not sure what the senate does

 

[Kevinroc]

The Freedom Caucus has implied that they will not vote for any change at all made by the senate.

So I'm not sure what the senate does

The same thing the House will do. Go along with the Freedom Caucus' bill. If it requires 50+ votes in the Senate, this will pass, even if they have to get Pence to break the tie-breaker.

 

[tbm24]

I just assume house Republicans and Paul Ryan are just exceptionally incompetent. With this mad rush for a terrible bill, they've thrown away any reason for the CBO existing. One less tool to use when they are inevitably in the minority.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I just assume house Republicans and Paul Ryan are just exceptionally incompetent. With this mad rush for a terrible bill, they've thrown away any reason for the CBO existing. One less tool to use when they are inevitably in the minority.

I just don't know whether the Dems in house are competent enough to exploit it.

 

[Diablos]

The Freedom Caucus has implied that they will not vote for any change at all made by the senate.

So I'm not sure what the senate does

It may not matter. By reviving this it gives insurers like Aetna an excuse to pull out of markets given the uncertainty of how this progresses etc.

In other words they might pass it using any excuse they can to do so.

 

[Rebel Leader]

Turned on tv it was on morning joe and they had this

 

[balladofwindfishes]

The same thing the House will do. Go along with the Freedom Caucus' bill. If it requires 50+ votes in the Senate, this will pass, even if they have to get Pence to break the tie-breaker.

The FC bill likely does not meet the requirements for reconciliation

The CBO estimate will also come out before the senate votes, making easy headlines for how awful this bill is for everyone

 

[Diablos]

Turned on tv it was on morning joe and they had this

They're fucking evil.

 

[Kevinroc]

The FC bill likely does not meet the requirements for reconciliation

That's probably the only hope we have. The GOP are determined to destroy the ACA, and have been for the better part of a decade. They're not going to let this opportunity pass them by.

The CBO estimate will also come out before the senate votes, making easy headlines for how awful this bill is for everyone

I think if this whole ordeal has proved anything, it's the GOP doesn't give a single fuck about what the CBO says. I don't know what they'll do, but they won't give up on destroying the ACA.

 

[The Technomancer]

Are these stupid motherfuckers really going to do it?

 

[balladofwindfishes]

It really speaks to their confidence in Trump's re election that they made the time bomb go off while he's running in 2020

 

[Rebel Leader]

Are these stupid motherfuckers really going to do it?

They are fucking attempting!

 

[A Serious Man]

The House voting it through just for it to die in the Senate could be the best outcome for us politically but I still don't like seeing it move forward.

 

[Dyle]

I really hope they call the healthcare bill for a vote and it ends up failing when a couple moderates decide to switch last minute. I doubt we'll be that lucky though.

I mean, if you like shameless rip-off's of the DC flag...

Nope. The DC flag was adopted in the 30s, but the Chicago flag was first adopted in 1917. Plus it actually has a symbolic basis, with the blue stripes representing Lake Michigan and the Chicago River and the stars representing major events in city history, including the fire and the world's fairs.

 

[The Technomancer]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-half-of-voters-oppose-pre-existing-condition-opt-out-for-states/

Fucking christ 38% of poll respondents support rolling back pre-existing coverage requirements. I feel like the amount of people in this country who actively support healthcare regression goes under discussed, even after they helped fuel the Tea Party wave. We like to frame bad healthcare as being a result of nefarious insurance agencies and evil politicians, and there's a lot of that, but also a huge part of the problem is the fucking voters