• 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 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sadsic

Member
I work at a market research firm - I heard a survey yesterday on the AHCA from an older ardent Trump supporter. It went something like this:

Survey asks if the respondent supports the AHCA. - Respondent goes "I hate Obamacare and I'm glad the congress put something else up!"

Survey then goes through all the negative provisions of the AHCA. - Respondent answers "Strongly against bringing back pre-existing conditions. Strongly against cutting Medicare. Strongly against cutting Medicaid. Strongly against giving a tax break to insurance companies and the rich. STRONGLY against raising healthcare to five times more for the elderly."

The next question asks "Would you be more or less favorable towards your senator if they supported this bill?" - to which this respondent reverts back to something like "Oh yeah I hate Obamacare I would be very favorable!".

My question from all this is how the fuck can someone hate every single provision in the new bill and then willfully still want their senator to support it? Are people that loyal to their party they'll let their party's president do literally anything? It's completely baffling to me.

quoting myself just to say i've seen this like 100 times at this point lol
 

FyreWulff

Member
The house is an undemocratic mess, and was intended to grow with the population to keep it democratic. The fact our population has grown so significantly since the 1950s and we haven't added a single representative since is ridiculous.

I wonder why:



Sound familiar, anyone?

Yep, that changed fucked a lot of things up for how the House was supposed to actually work.
 
The house is an undemocratic mess, and was intended to grow with the population to keep it democratic. The fact our population has grown so significantly since the 1950s and we haven't added a single representative since is ridiculous.

I wonder why:



Sound familiar, anyone?

SO this is a huge problem. What is needed to solve it?
 

NeoXChaos

Member
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929

Then, in 1920, the Republicans removed the Democrats from power as the Whigs had done in 1838, taking the presidency and both houses of Congress. Due to increased immigration and a large rural-to-urban shift in population from 1910 to 1920, the new Republican Congress refused to reapportion the House of Representatives with the traditional contiguous, single-member districts stipulations because such a reapportionment would have redistricted many House members out of their districts.[7][8]

A reapportionment in 1921 in the traditional fashion would have increased the size of the House to 483 seats, but many members would have lost their seats due to the population shifts, and the House chamber did not have adequate seats for 483 members. The Reapportionment act of 1929 did away with any mention of districts at all. This provided a solution to the problem of threatened incumbents by allowing the political parties in control of the state legislatures to draw districting lines at will and to elect some or all representatives at large.

of course. Even 100 years ago Congressman were thinking about the next election or losing their seats
 
Just pass a bill tying House size to the Wyoming rule - each district should be the same population as the smallest at-large district to be determined every ten years.
 
Sen. Lankford was on NPR this afternoon echoing Paul Ryan's dumb argument that Trump is new at this and wouldn't really understand what is and is not inappropriate in dealing with the FBI. He specifically said Trump was used to "New York politics" instead of chains of command and DC which... uh... no, he's not even used to that.
It's true though. Trump does look like he's more used to Tammany Hall than Washington DC.
 

Kevinroc

Member
DOJ: Trump can accept payments from foreign governments

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...-can-accept-payments-from-foreign-governments

Lawyers for the Justice Department are arguing that President Trump isn't violating a Constitutional provision that bars federal officials from accepting payments from foreign governments because the clause doesn't apply to certain transactions.

In a new brief asking a judge to throw out a lawsuit brought against Trump by ethics watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), DOJ lawyers contend that the foreign emoluments clause doesn't apply to ”fair-market commercial transactions" like payments for hotel rooms and golf club fees, according to Bloomberg.

Trump administration lawyers also argue that CREW and other plaintiffs lack legal standing to bring the case against Trump and that Congress, not the court system, should determine whether Trump is in violation of the emoluments clause.

CREW filed the lawsuit during Trump's first week in office ”to stop President Trump from violating the Constitution by illegally receiving payments from foreign governments."

"We did not want to get to this point. It was our hope that President Trump would take the necessary steps to avoid violating the Constitution before he took office," CREW Executive Director Noah Bookbinder said at the time.

"He did not. His constitutional violations are immediate and serious, so we were forced to take legal action."

The lawsuit has since added several new plaintiffs, including an association of restaurants and restaurant workers and a woman who books banquet halls for Washington, D.C., hotels.

Edit: I see this subject has its own topic on the off-topic board.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Just pass a bill tying House size to the Wyoming rule - each district should be the same population as the smallest at-large district to be determined every ten years.

That's pretty sensible.
 

Kevinroc

Member
https://www.vox.com/health-care/2017/6/9/15772678/obamacare-no-good-very-bad-week

Vox article about the recent attacks on the ACA.

When Republican legislators talk about why they need to repeal Obamacare, they point to the areas that are struggling to attract health insurers. They point to Obamacare's bald spots.

When insurance executives talk about why they're leaving, they point the finger back at the uncertainty Republicans are sowing.

Anthem cited the individual market's "lack of overall predictability" and the "lack of certainty of funding for cost sharing reduction subsidies" in announcing its exit from Ohio on Tuesday.

When Blue Cross Blue Shield Kansas City quit on May 24, it blamed "the uncertain direction of this market.

Insurers' exits from Obamacare don't just mean fewer (or no) choices for the millions of Americans who rely on the law. They also give Republicans more ammo for pushing their repeal plan forward — and make the path toward passing a Senate bill an easier one to forge.
 
I saw video of 10 or so Trump supporters in a focus group who saw Comey hearing and came away more in support of Trump. Unanimously. This should be considered a mental illness now.

But the more I think about it, I think it's a bystander effect. If you interviewed them anonymously and individually maybe they will be more thoughtful.
 
You make actual changes that make it so it doesn't happen again. You double the size of the house, you make PR and DC a state, you make gerrymandering illegal, you do everything you can to make sure it can never ever happen again. Not by restricting voting, the exact opposite. You break the back of the Republican Party.

I agree with all of this too. The House should have like 800 seats in it.

Edit: and strong yes to the Wyoming suggestion, that's the easiest. About 600 seats. Also, everyone should check your own states to see if it would help there specifically. In MS, we only have 4 seats, 3 Republican, 1 Democratic. But the state is essentially 35-40% Dem, and if we had the Wyoming rule, we'd get another seat, likely blue.
 
18839862_1345131845542367_1846657616837932604_o.jpg


ur healthcare is in this man's hands
 
I saw video of 10 or so Trump supporters in a focus group who saw Comey hearing and came away more in support of Trump. Unanimously. This should be considered a mental illness now.

But the more I think about it, I think it's a bystander effect. If you interviewed them anonymously and individually maybe they will be more thoughtful.

There you have your answer. If you interview ten avowed Trump zealots, do you really expect them to abandon him in the face of evidence? Anti-vaxxers won't change their opinions just because you show them a documentary on the Black Plague.
 

Zolo

Member
There you have your answer. If you interview ten avowed Trump zealots, do you really expect them to abandon him in the face of evidence? Anti-vaxxers won't change their opinions just because you show them a documentary on the Black Plague.

That was from the CNN interview as well right? I generally expect people willing to get on TV to be more hardcore.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
E3 seems so inconsequential compared to last year...
 

Teggy

Member
So there is this running gag on the net where people troll by very seriously saying the Babadook is gay. Maura Healy, Attorney General of Massachusetts posted this:

We believe in equal rights for everyone — and we mean everyone. Happy #Pride2017 #Babadook
DB7KCH3U0AQqI9u
 

SexyFish

Banned
So there is this running gag on the net where people troll by very seriously saying the Babadook is gay. Maura Healy, Attorney General of Massachusetts posted this:

I had a friend refer to his asshole as the bababussy.

This meme has gone too far.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
It all started when Netflix classified it as a LGBT film.
 

Zolo

Member
Didn't think about it before, but Trump should probably be hopeful to have some Republican president take over from him due to resignation. If he doesn't, and a Dem president takes over in 4 years, he'll be open to each crime he committed while in office. I guess he could try pardoning himself, but there doesn't seem to be a standard if that would be possible.
 
Kasich seems to be laying the groundwork for a primary challenge. I think Trump would prevail in that scenario because of his fanbase, but he and the party would look weak and fractured like Jimmy Carter and the Democrats in 1980. Internecine conflict would also distract from the general election and the Democratic opponent. A Democratic takeover seems fairly likely just because of Trump's polls numbers, but a severely divided Republican Party would increase those odds.

Basically, in response to Zolo's statement, Trump shouldn't count on another Republican president who'll pardon him if he lasts this whole term.
 

Emerson

May contain jokes =>
Makes one wonder how Trump will be talked about in 10 years.

Everyone will laugh at him and hate him, and Republicans will pretend they were against him all along. It will infuriate you because you will remember these acquaintances and how in reality they supported him.

Get ready, that's what will happen.
 

Averon

Member
Everyone will laugh at him and hate him, and Republicans will pretend they were against him all along. It will infuriate you because you will remember these acquaintances and how in reality they supported him.

Get ready, that's what will happen.

So it will be George W Bush but times ten.
 
Why the hell is Steyer calling for impeachment.

Dems need to cool it, no better way to energize Republicans than make 2018 a referendum on impeaching Trump.

Republicans were bragging about how they had impeachment papers ready for hillary, Trump threatened to imprison her and hey werent going to let her have a SCJ pick even if she won, but by all means lets just keep our mouth shut and ignore the impeachable offenses he's blatantly committed.
 

Pixieking

Banned
Republicans were bragging about how they had impeachment papers ready for hillary, Trump threatened to imprison her and hey werent going to let her have a SCJ pick even if she won, but by all means lets just keep our mouth shut and ignore the impeachable offenses he's blatantly committed.

To add to that, you could argue that the 2016 election was a referendum on impeaching Hillary, considering the chants, Chafftz being a dick, and Trump egging everyone on.
 

_dazed

Member
The house should have something like 5000 members in it to get to a point where we have the same level of representation as when this country was founded.

its 2017, let the reps construct bills on a github like system that is publicly view-able, they should vote nay or nay online (with redundancy like a phone call and paper systems to make sure it wasn't hacked or something). Truly important votes, like going to war, where it would be appropriate for all the representatives to be gathered could be at a temporary venue.
 

Thaedolus

Member
Why the hell is Steyer calling for impeachment.

Dems need to cool it, no better way to energize Republicans than make 2018 a referendum on impeaching Trump.

Fuck that, go HAM and turn over the dumbass "both are the same" people from 2016 and impeach the orange bitch. No compromising. He needs to go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom