Yeah they need to edit that.
-
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 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
Yeah they need to edit that.
That's not even part of their consideration anymore. They've freely given up that they don't what the substance or impact of the bill will be. They're voting just for the sake of voting now.
Randolph Freelander
Member
Yeah, just gave it a read, they should edit that bit. Still catastrophic totals, mind you, but not as much of a mindfuck as 147 million.
shinra-bansho
Member
Might? That ship sailed so long ago they made a movie about an old lady thief who travelled on it that launched the career of Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, and gave Celine Dion her biggest hit selling over 15 million copies.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
He might just be an idiot.
Im firmly convinced he is just a bot that exists to get dunked on
BoogieWoogie
Banned
God damn, could it just be the 30th already so I can know how fucked we are?
It's not like he wouldn't vote for the bill if it included Alaska bribes anyway. He's as pliable as the other supposedly principled conservatives.
Randolph Freelander
Member
More of the "power to the states, unless the states actually want to help people, in which case..."
This time, from the Heritage Foundation.
http://heritageaction.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/memo-re-Graham-Cassidy.pdf
https://twitter.com/danholler/status/911232839370379264
This time, from the Heritage Foundation.
http://heritageaction.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/memo-re-Graham-Cassidy.pdf
https://twitter.com/danholler/status/911232839370379264
nature boy
Member
More of the "power to the states, unless the states actually want to help people, in which case..."
This time, from the Heritage Foundation.
http://heritageaction.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/memo-re-Graham-Cassidy.pdf
https://twitter.com/danholler/status/911232839370379264
That has been the standard Republican position on federalism since, well, forever basically - not sure why anyone still gives it credence.
"We love states' rights so long as they do things we like, if they don't let's use the federal government to bar them from doing them."
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Which most likely means they gave up on her vote.
Poodlestrike
Banned
More of the "power to the states, unless the states actually want to help people, in which case..."
This time, from the Heritage Foundation.
http://heritageaction.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/memo-re-Graham-Cassidy.pdf
https://twitter.com/danholler/status/911232839370379264
So, uh... if states aren't allowed to use the money to:
1) Expand Medicaid
2) Pay providers directly for uncompensated care
3) Form high-risk pools
What exactly could they spend the money on? Those are... basically the only 3 options here; it has to be spend on Healthcare, you can't turn it into a Guns & Police Defense fund.
Randolph Freelander
Member
I guess states will just have to do tax cuts.
Carpe Carnim
Member
We should stop assuming the GOP or their fascist base want to "solve" healthcare issues. They want people scared and/or dead. They're fucking terrorists and should be treated as such. Burn down their villages and then salt the Earth.
BoogieWoogie
Banned
Just give the money to insurance companies for no reason.
Poodlestrike
Banned
No, because suddenly getting a pile of money you can't actually use to cover your existing cuts wouldn't cause a tax cut, just a spending decrease. Or tax increase in blue states I guess.
Well yeah, but this is dumber than usual.
This could be it tbh.
exmachina64
Banned
It would become a slush fund for conservatives to abuse.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Mike Quigley (my rep, yay!) from the House Intel committee openly talking about being worried about Trump firing Mueller and sparking a constitutional crisis
https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/911049763704975360
https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/911049763704975360
Poodlestrike
Banned
Mmm... dump the money into existing services and move what they were spending before into whatever. Sneaky.
From Roy Moore, the possible future Senator for Alabama:
What an asshole.
Per capita nationwide, violence and crime rates, along with teen and unwanted pregnancies and abortion rates are all at historic lows. But then it doesn't further his idiot agenda if he painted an accurate picture of how progressive policies have actually helped things.
What an asshole.
Per capita nationwide, violence and crime rates, along with teen and unwanted pregnancies and abortion rates are all at historic lows. But then it doesn't further his idiot agenda if he painted an accurate picture of how progressive policies have actually helped things.
From Roy Moore, the possible future Senator for Alabama:
What an asshole.
Per capita nationwide, violence and crime rates, along with teen and unwanted pregnancies and abortion rates are all at historic lows. But then it doesn't further his idiot agenda if he painted an accurate picture of how progressive policies have actually helped things.
Sodomy?
Hello the 1960s, how I've not missed you.
Randolph Freelander
Member
For red states that didn't expand Medicaid in the first place, this is extra money not already in the budget. The odds they'll use it for the good of the people: nil.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Liberty and justice for all, except the long list of people previously cited who aren't heterosexual male christians.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Yeah, I hadn't thought through the logical train that if you turn it into a cover for existing services you can "spend" the freed funds on cutting taxes.
Policy and its messaging was overwhelmingly the biggest reason why Hillary lost.
Had she positioned herself as a more proactive candidate interested in seriously combatting America's social and economic problems, rather than just combatting Trump, turnout in key states would have looked more like 2008 and she'd be president.
Barack Obama had a "hope and change" campaign and a slate of policy proposals that would make the US a much more livable country. Hillary avoided discussing policy, particularly by the end of the campaign, and thought it better to list the times that Trump was rude.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Here we go again.
SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
From Roy Moore, the possible future Senator for Alabama:
What an asshole.
Per capita nationwide, violence and crime rates, along with teen and unwanted pregnancies and abortion rates are all at historic lows. But then it doesn't further his idiot agenda if he painted an accurate picture of how progressive policies have actually helped things.
I'm sure the piece of shit has no qualm with all the thing trump has done though.
You don't think more proactive campaigning and ambitious policies would have improved turnout?
Do you see any difference between these two statements?
Go ahead and think it over. I'll wait.
whyamihere
Banned
Oh my god he's so stupid.He might just be an idiot.
Can you name a bigger reason for depressed Democratic turnout vs 2008 and 2012?
GOP/media smears definitely played a major role, but I don't know if that's enough to convince 100,000 Obama voters to stay home. Obama was also smeared viciously by the right, but he had an appeal that overcame these unfair portrayals.
That was my read on it too. The clear implication that all does not mean all.
Hillary did not avoid discussing policy, the media just flat out did not cover policy.
Messaging was the biggest reason why Trump won over Hillary. But it sure as hell wasn't because Trump had more fleshed out policy positions and Hillary had next to none.
There's a world of difference between a 25-year public smear campaign and a 20odd-months public smear campaign. Particularly when one candidate is inherently charismatic and the other is not.
So in your model here, Republicans only get elected based on Democratic actions, because Republican voters are essentially a natural disaster with no volition or moral responsibility.
This seems like a pretty good model if your primary goal is to absolve white people!
Hillary's commercials were generally devoid of policy. While she did discuss her policy prosals during the debates, and ran laps around Trump, her campaign didn't properly broadcast the practical benefits of a Clinton presidency.
With language like "America is already great" and her attempts to win over moderate Republicans, I think it's pretty inarguable that Hillary's campaign was meant to be a conservative force meant to prevent Trump's monstrous changes, rather than propose any necessary changes to our society. And this didn't work.
Basileus777
Member
In large part because of Hillary's emails. We liked to downplay it last year, but it turns out that nominating someone with a never-ending scandal that continuously eats up air time can be crippling to a campaign.
CSRs and tax subsidies are my guess.
whyamihere
Banned
emails.
Trump ran a revanchist and racist campaign that appealed to both legitimate and illegitimate grievances in America, connecting them through comfortable lies that promised to repair our society to its former prosperity without taking anything from any slice of white America. This definitely led to increased turnout on the Republican side, because many white people support white supremacy. But the 2016 Trump vote still didn't match Democratic turnout for 2012 Obama, and is dwarfed by turnout for 2008 Obama.
If Hillary had run a campaign as successfully as Obama did twice, she would be president. What of the above do you disagree with?
I don't disagree with any of the above. I disagree with your original thesis, which is not supported by the above argument!
The overwhelmingly biggest reason Hillary lost was the white supremacy thing. That doesn't seem hard to understand or to see. But somehow you keep forgetting until I remind you again!
The associated argument is that Dems/Leftist policies would always naturally win except for Dems fucking it up (and if it's a leftist policy, the Dems cheated, didn't support it, are shills,etc.)
It's not even just white people, it's trying to avoid the fact that a large number of people are terrible.
So your argument is that Trump's white supremacist rhetoric convinced 100,000 Obama voters to not vote for Hillary? I don't think that's plausible, especially because Hillary is white and Obama is black.
Remember that 2016 Trump won three million fewer votes than 2012 Obama. Trump's boost in white GOP turnout wasn't enough to eclipse the status quo. Democrats had to falter for him to win.
"People are terrible" is a really bad takeaway from the inability of the Democrats to recapture Obama-levels of turnout. When millions of people from marginalized communities don't think it's worth it to vote against a white supremacist, something is seriously wrong with the opposition.
And there it is.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked