So Murkowski will vote yes? Nothing suggests she will. Paul has a better shot at voting yes than her.
McCain isn't just voting on healthcare, he's voting on Russian sanctions and some other items.
I could see a MTP vote working, but I see no indication that a healthcare bill can be passed right now.Right, and I still think people need to differentiate between a motion to proceed and the actual bill. It is by no means guaranteed that the bill would pass after the MTP was agreed upon.
Not enough laughing gifs on the internet 😂😂😂Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 1m1 minute ago
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a VERY weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes (where are E-mails & DNC server) & Intel leakers!
Even he is smart enough to know that going for Rosenstein directly is a bad look. Pointless, though, since he's made it clear that the fundamental reason he wants Sessions out is to get direct influence over the Russian investigation.And he is aiming his frustrations at Sessions, not Rosenstein.
They literally couldn't even hold the vote without McCain after they gave up on Collins and Murkowski.McCain isn't making a trip back to DC for a vote they would lose. That is my simple calculation on why MTP will pass. Pence will cast tie break.
Collins and Paul will vote No.
As I see it, Democrats' problem isn't that they're on the wrong side of policy issues. It's that they're too ready to bother too many ordinary people about too many of their personal choices, all the way down to the hamburgers they eat.
They don't always want to prohibit those choices. But they have become smug and condescending toward anyone who does not match the personal lifestyle choices of liberal elites. Why would the voters on the receiving end of that smug condescension trust such a movement to operate the government in their best interest?
The gender-reveal party you held for your most recent child inaccurately conflated gender with biological sex. ("Cutting into a pink or blue cake seems innocent enough - but honestly, it's not," Marie Claire warned earlier this month.)
You don't ride the subway because you have that gas-guzzling car, but if you did, the way you would sit on it would be sexist .
No item in your life is too big or too small for this variety of liberal busybodying. On the one hand, the viral video you found amusing was actually a manifestation of the patriarchy . On the other hand, you actually have an irresponsibly large number of carbon-emitting children .
All this scolding - this messaging that you should feel guilty about aspects of your life that you didn't really think were anyone else's business - leads to a weird outcome when you go to vote in November.
http://www.businessinsider.in/Liber...ir-hamburger-problem/articleshow/59640802.cms
It's an interesting take. Don't agree with it 100%. Do agree with it at some level. Liberals won the cultural wars, no need to take it too far. More importantly, no need to make people feel that simple things they like to do is bad for you/earth/children/atmosphere.
http://www.businessinsider.in/Liber...ir-hamburger-problem/articleshow/59640802.cms
It's an interesting take. Don't agree with it 100%. Do agree with it at some level. Liberals won the cultural wars, no need to take it too far. More importantly, no need to make people feel that simple things they like to do is bad for you/earth/children/atmosphere.
So are we about to have Saturday Night Massacre 2: Electric Trumpaloo?
The good news about the liberal cultural disconnect not really being about public policy is that Democrats don't have to change any important cultural policy positions to fix the disconnect.
I have a few ideas about how Democratic politicians can effectively signal to voters across the cultural spectrum a message along these lines: "I get you, I don't have a problem with the way you live your life, I have some ideas about how government can work better for you, and I'll otherwise get out of your way."
Don't tell people they should feel guilty. As I discussed at the top of this piece, Americans are broadly open to liberal positions on cultural policy issues. Over the last few decades, they have increasingly internalized the idea that the government should let people be free to do what they want in their lives. So embrace that ethos, by emphasizing how liberal policy positions will let members of all sorts of groups live their best lives, protected from discrimination and harm. Don't tell people they should feel bad about living their own lives as they want.
Say when you think the liberal commentariat has gone overboard. While former President Barack Obama has urged people to eat less meat, usually the leading voices of the new liberal moralism are non-politicians. Less-smug liberal commentators will usually protest that these voices are marginal, especially the college students who get so much attention on Fox News for protesting against culturally insensitive sushi in the dining hall. If these voices are so marginal, it should be easy enough for Democratic politicians to distance themselves by saying, for example, that some college students have gotten a little nuts and should focus on their studies instead of the latest politically correct cause. Showing that you also think liberal cultural politics has gotten a little exhausting is a good way to relate to a lot of voters.
Offer an agenda that provides benefits people can see mattering in their daily lives. If you want voters to refocus away from petty cultural fights and toward public policy, it's not enough to turn down the temperature on culture; you need a policy agenda they can relate to. I wrote in December about some ideas to do this , though of course you could also make such an agenda in farther-left flavors.
Don't get distracted by shiny objects. If the government can't do anything about the problem you're discussing, if it's purely a matter of the cultural discourse, should you spend your time on it, and risk alienating people on the opposite side of the issue? Probably not.
I too want to know what time I have to start watching this shit.
Figured it was Josh Barro. He whined about this the other day on Left, Right and Center.
I'd take his criticisms more seriously if Republicans didn't busybody a thousand times more (and want to enshrine their shit into actual law) and people still have no problem voting for them.
Republicans literally want to legislate what bathroom you use so I don't really buy Democrats being the ones who invade people's personal decisions too much.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
So great that John McCain is coming back to vote. Brave - American hero! Thank you John.
6:44 AM · Jul 25, 2017
If those things are indeed bad, there is most definitely a need to say so.http://www.businessinsider.in/Liber...ir-hamburger-problem/articleshow/59640802.cms
It's an interesting take. Don't agree with it 100%. Do agree with it at some level. Liberals won the cultural wars, no need to take it too far. More importantly, no need to make people feel that simple things they like to do is bad for you/earth/children/atmosphere.
Imma stop you right there.Even he is smart enoug-
Adam Schiff‏Verified account @RepAdamSchiff
Adam Schiff Retweeted Donald J. Trump
Fully transparent: @POTUS wants to force Sessions to resign so he can appoint someone to curb Mueller probe. Only works if Senate lets it.
I refuse to believe that this is Kushner's real voice...
um not to take away from the gravity of the threat of tens of millions of people potentially losing their health insurance later today but...there is still the matter of my new tag that needs to be addressed
just throwing that out there
no rush or anything
I want to post this for the people who keep saying, "The Senate will just re-hire Mueller":
The Senate needs to agree to do it. This is the same Senate that is fighting desperately to pass an incredibly unpopular health care vote. The same Senate that is bending over backwards to stay on Trump's good side, avoiding saying anything negative about him. The same Senate who is constantly "troubled" yet supports him endlessly.
I don't trust them to re-hire Mueller. Him firing Sessions and appointing someone who will could result in a disaster for this country. The investigation would be effectively dead. The IC would have to take it upon themselves to do the work under direct orders to stop.
The senate also doesn't want to have to deal with this and politicians don't want to have to answer constant questions about it. Mueller provided an easy out for them to defer all questions and make it so they didn't have to do any work or get messy doing it.
http://www.businessinsider.in/Liber...ir-hamburger-problem/articleshow/59640802.cms
It's an interesting take. Don't agree with it 100%. Do agree with it at some level. Liberals won the cultural wars, no need to take it too far. More importantly, no need to make people feel that simple things they like to do is bad for you/earth/children/atmosphere.
I didn't know you were a Tingle fan.
https://twitter.com/jonkarl/status/889826228529770497WH officials are predicting a win on this today. @VP will be there if tie-breaker is needed, but they may have the votes without him
I want to post this for the people who keep saying, "The Senate will just re-hire Mueller":
The Senate needs to agree to do it. This is the same Senate that is fighting desperately to pass an incredibly unpopular health care vote. The same Senate that is bending over backwards to stay on Trump's good side, avoiding saying anything negative about him. The same Senate who is constantly "troubled" yet supports him endlessly.
I don't trust them to re-hire Mueller. Him firing Sessions and appointing someone who will could result in a disaster for this country. The investigation would be effectively dead. The IC would have to take it upon themselves to do the work under direct orders to stop. At that point, the only hope would be the NY Attorney General filing state charges.
Maggie Haberman‏Verified account @maggieNYT 11m11 minutes ago
More
I asked two ppl close to Trump why he is tormenting Sessions instead of firing him. The answer from both, paraphrased: Because he can.
They converted Murkowski and Collins?
Okay WH officials
If everyone votes yes besides them they will have enough for MTP.
They think they have enough to not tie, which means they believe they converted one of them
Wait, wtf? They're voting today on health care?
Fuck. We're fucked.
Wait, wtf? They're voting today on health care?
Fuck. We're fucked.
They think they may.
I already know the answer to this, but just to torture myself with the question: why would McCain release a statement saying the GOP needs to work with the Dems on a bipartisan healthcare bill then, days later, return to vote yes on MTP with the Republican healthcare bill that everyone hates?
They converted Murkowski and Collins?
Okay WH officials
Which is ridiculous. The best case scenario for them at this point is a tie. And even that's asking a lot (100% of non-Murkowski/Collins need to vote yes)
They think they may.
They're voting on whether or not to debate healthcare.
Maybe they think they got Murkowski. It isn't impossible.