PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher

Status
Not open for further replies.
Spoiled Milk said:
Should Obama have been primaried in 2012 for not running on a public option that year?
Click to expand...

That's actually a really interesting question. I don't know about 'should', but I do think the stigma surrounding primarying an incumbent president is unhealthy for American democracy, since it frees the president from accountability to their own party. In the context of American norms, the perceived loss of authority Obama would have faced from being primaried would have completely sunk his election chances, and so in that specific context I would say no, but I think those norms are unhealthy and ought not to be encouraged. In general, I think the president ought to face competitive primaries just like everyone else.
 
Crab said:
That's actually a really interesting question. I don't know about 'should', but I do think the stigma surrounding primarying an incumbent president is unhealthy for American democracy, since it frees the president from accountability to their own party. In the context of American norms, the perceived loss of authority Obama would have faced from being primaried would have completely sunk his election chances, and so in that specific context I would say no, but I think those norms are unhealthy and ought not to be encouraged.
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't. Obama was too popular with his base to worry about that. Same with W Bush; I'd imagine far right extremists could have tried, based on his big government spending for instance, and it would have failed early. I can't think of who would have primaried Obama in 2012. Someone from the far left obviously, but who. Not Sanders.

Trump could be theoretically primaried in 2020 and would win easily. He owns that base, at least in the early states that would decide it (south). And whether he won or lost in the 2020 general election, being primaried earlier in the year would not be a factor. ASSUMING he doesn't lose the base, of course. As long as a president holds his base, he's fine.
 
Not to mention the fact that in 2012, the exchanges weren't live yet and we didn't know the lengths the GOP would go to try and sabotage the law. The need for a public option has only arisen due to Republicans preventing the law from functioning as written. Switzerland gets by just fine without a public option.
 
Cesare Borgia said:
No, it wouldn't. Obama was too popular with his base to worry about that. Same with W Bush; I'd imagine far right extremists could have tried, based on his big government spending for instance, and it would have failed early. I can't think of who would have primaried Obama in 2012. Someone from the far left obviously, but who. Not Sanders.
Click to expand...

I think we're talking slightly at cross-purposes. Spoiled Milk was saying 'do I think Obama should have been primaried'. This is a very vague question, and I interpreted it in the most interesting sense as 'if there had been a candidate for which Obama might might seriously have lost to, should that candidate have primaried Obama with singlepayer as a rallying cause'.

If the question is 'given the candidates realistically available, should one of them have primaried Obama', my answer is 'who gives a fuck, none of them would win' - which I think is more or less what you're saying.
 
Vixdean said:
Not to mention the fact that in 2012, the exchanges weren't live yet and we didn't know the lengths the GOP would go to try and sabotage the law. The need for a public option has only arisen due to Republicans preventing the law from functioning as written.
Click to expand...
Obamacare was designed explicitly with the public option to be part of it.

The only reason we don't have it is because they didn't have 60/60 votes for it in the Senate because Obama/Reid didn't nuke the fillibuster.

This isn't a situation like Single Payer where it has majority support within the party but nowhere near enough support to actually pass- the party as a whole is in broad support of the public option.
 
Ernest said:
Just because of DACA, let's not disregard other shitty things Trump is doing right now!

Trump's Nominee To Be USDA's Chief Scientist Is Not A Scientist

He's also a big tub of goo who looks like he hasn't eaten a farm grown vegetable in decades.
Click to expand...

Trump is used to hiring people who grew up as privileged trust fundy kids. He doesn't actually know how to hire people based on merit or skill. It's why he relies so much on military guys for top positions. He sees all the shiny badges and reverence military figures get and just throws them into positions cause they look good to him.
 
kirblar said:
Obamacare was designed explicitly with the public option to be part of it.

The only reason we don't have it is because they didn't have 60/60 votes for it in the Senate because Obama/Reid didn't nuke the fillibuster.

This isn't a situation like Single Payer where it has majority support within the party but nowhere near enough support to actually pass- the party as a whole is in broad support of the public option.
Click to expand...

Nuking the filibuster for such a controversial law (at the time) would have been political suicide. Even though Republicans capitalized on Obamacare in the first place, I think it would have been much worse had they nuked the filibuster to get it through the Senate with the Public Option, and we don't actually know it would have cleared the House with the Public Option intact.
 
neurosisxeno said:
Nuking the filibuster for such a controversial law (at the time) would have been political suicide. Even though Republicans capitalized on Obamacare in the first place, I think it would have been much worse had they nuked the filibuster to get it through the Senate with the Public Option, and we don't actually know it would have cleared the House with the Public Option intact.
Click to expand...

Pelosi got the bill passed in the House with a public option included. It was taken out once it hit the Senate, then the House approved that.

Unless you are saying the House would not have passed it with a public option knowing it was going to pass in the final version.
 
neurosisxeno said:
Nuking the filibuster for such a controversial law (at the time) would have been political suicide. Even though Republicans capitalized on Obamacare in the first place, I think it would have been much worse had they nuked the filibuster to get it through the Senate with the Public Option, and we don't actually know it would have cleared the House with the Public Option intact.
Click to expand...
The fillibuster should have been nuked as a matter of principle, not just for this.
 
Kevinroc said:
Speaking of Obamacare...

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/05/trump-obamacare-repeal-senate-242346

Trump wants one last Senate push on Obamacare repeal
The odds are slim, but the White House still hopes for action on a bill drafted by Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy.

What do we expect will happen with this?
Click to expand...

McCain seems solid on regular order, and they simply don't have the time for that right now. 25 days until budget deadline and the reconciliation deadline, and they need to do Harvey Relief on top of the budget in that timeframe.
 
Ogodei said:
McCain seems solid on regular order, and they simply don't have the time for that right now. 25 days until budget deadline and the reconciliation deadline, and they need to do Harvey Relief on top of the budget in that timeframe.
Click to expand...

And Irma Relief.
 
Mitch ain't bringing that shit up again.

Right now passing Harvey relief and a debt ceiling raise are doable and the bar is low enough that they can call those 'wins'.
 
GoldenEye 007 said:
Pelosi got the bill passed in the House with a public option included. It was taken out once it hit the Senate, then the House approved that.

Unless you are saying the House would not have passed it with a public option knowing it was going to pass in the final version.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying. I expect they passed it knowing their initial version was going to be chopped up by the Senate anyway. Maybe it could have passed the house but I imagine if there were 2-4 Senators who objected to a Public Option there were likely 3-5x as many Representatives that opposed it, but Pelosi ensured their votes on the initial version by assuring them the Senate would be changing the bill.
 
RDreamer said:
My dad's always been the real life version of an online comments section. He always wanted to be the loudest, most opinionated in the room. He spent literally decades watching Fox News and right wing talk radio. He has a good amount of real life intelligence, but he really lacks the sort of book smarts and intelligence capable of parsing statistics and information at a higher level, unfortunately. That's partially why the conservative "common sense" answers always seem to work for him.

What's interesting is he hated Trump. He wanted Walker or Cruz to win. He said he thought Trump was a complete moron and a democrat. He called him a democratic plant a few times but then just settled on the fact that he's actually a democrat. He voted for him hoping he'd be impeached at Pence would become president.

He still defends nearly everything Trump does now, though. We've clashed a few times since election and he's unfriended me on Facebook. He's said since the election I've been a "bully" online when I call people out for their racism, etc.
Click to expand...

This sounds exactly like my dad, and it fucking sucks.

Fox News is always on at their house, he listens to Limbaugh every day, and the five. Totally bought into Benghazi, Clinton was the worst person in the world, and planned parenthood is a company of evil filled with evil people that sell baby parts.

My parents are both completely insufferable and I never bring up politics anymore, it's like arguing with an angry brick wall.

Who knows what kind of excuse he will have after the Trumpsterfire of this administration, probably that trump is a secret democrat or equally vapid.
 
I considered dragging my neoliberal shill ass into the Hillary thread but ultimately decided to abstain. I see the usual characters being as tiresome as ever, though.

Besides, I have my hands full. Some of my colleagues hate ~~~PELOSI~~~ and can't articulate why, so I have hearts and minds to change. #blueheartland #yeahright
 
CrimzonSamurai said:
Who has two thumbs and has to cook dinner for Betsy Devos?

:(
Click to expand...

Yuck.

On that note, however, I think Democrats in rural areas and suburbs should consider using DeVos and Trump's educational policy as campaign issues. Her nomination elicited ire from every direction, with even Republicans deeming her unqualified. People, even conservative ones, hate the idea of their kids' education being attacked. A state House seat here in OK flipped to blue partly because the candidate ran on education, and another one might follow suit next week.
 
B-Dubs said:
They can't possibly be stupid enough to try and pass it next year, in an election year.

I say that, forgetting temporarily how dumb they are...
Click to expand...
Well they could always do it this year. The deadline isn't over yet!

Honestly I think with everything that's going on, they'll pass something called Graham Cassidy that's just as shitty as everything else when no one expects it. Don't buy the hype on needing x% of governors. They'll do it regardless.

I've been reading healthcare headlines and articles post repeal failure just now... they never really stopped trying...
 
I don't see how the Senate could possibly pass an Obamacare repeal. There just isn't enough time, and too many must-pass items on the docket to keep the lights on. And that's before you get to the pressure there will be to do something on DACA

All that and it offers no political upside.
 
Autodidact said:
Yuck.

On that note, however, I think Democrats in rural areas and suburbs should consider using DeVos and Trump's educational policy as campaign issues. Her nomination elicited ire from every direction, with even Republicans deeming her unqualified. People, even conservative ones, hate the idea of their kids' education being attacked. A state House seat here in OK flipped to blue partly because the candidate ran on education, and another one might follow suit next week.
Click to expand...

From the outside looking in, it always surprises me that education isn't a larger campaign issue. It's potentially a unifier of both left and right, since "I believe my child should be educated to a good standard and education shoudn't be elitist" is something literally everyone can get behind. When you get into details it gets trickier to appease both sides, but it should be fairly easy to create a decent non-partisan education plan, surely? Or am I missing something?
 
jtb said:
I don't see how the Senate could possibly pass an Obamacare repeal. There just isn't enough time, and too many must-pass items on the docket to keep the lights on. And that's before you get to the pressure there will be to do something on DACA

All that and it offers no political upside.
Click to expand...
They don't care. Why should they? There's what, a 30% chance of winning the House if I'm not mistaken and we'd be lucky to tie the Senate next year? Even when Republicans lose, they win. Because they have safety in numbers that their party hasn't seen since the 20's... they can get away with anything they want.
 
jtb said:
I don't see how the Senate could possibly pass an Obamacare repeal. There just isn't enough time, and too many must-pass items on the docket to keep the lights on. And that's before you get to the pressure there will be to do something on DACA

All that and it offers no political upside.
Click to expand...

/tinfoil hat on

Trump is trying to overburden congress so when he resigns before the Russia investigation catches up to him he can resign and claim congress was the problem and he couldn't fix any part of a fundamentally broken system. It's the perfect out for him--his base still thinks he's a champion and congress sucks, and congress already has abysmal approval ratings so people believe his lies.
 
Diablos said:
They don't care. Why should they? There's what, a 30% chance of winning the House if I'm not mistaken and we'd be lucky to tie the Senate next year? Even when Republicans lose, they win. Because they have safety in numbers that their party hasn't seen since the 20's... they can get away with anything they want.
Click to expand...

Right. So, by that logic, why force it now? Why not just run it back again and, after they win in 2018, then go for a new Obamacare push with a renewed mandate?

There's no political need for the GOP to force this into a nigh-impossible window. It's just not feasible from a parliamentary perspective.
 
neurosisxeno said:
/tinfoil hat on

Trump is trying to overburden congress so when he resigns before the Russia investigation catches up to him he can resign and claim congress was the problem and he couldn't fix any part of a fundamentally broken system. It's the perfect out for him--his base still thinks he's a champion and congress sucks, and congress already has abysmal approval ratings so people believe his lies.
Click to expand...

Trump isn't going to resign with the current investigation going on. His status as president is what protects him more than anything.
 
neurosisxeno said:
/tinfoil hat on

Trump is trying to overburden congress so when he resigns before the Russia investigation catches up to him he can resign and claim congress was the problem and he couldn't fix any part of a fundamentally broken system. It's the perfect out for him--his base still thinks he's a champion and congress sucks, and congress already has abysmal approval ratings so people believe his lies.
Click to expand...


Occam's razor hat/

Trump is burnt out over being President and Kelly is taking away all his friends. He wants other people to do his job for him.
 
Pixieking said:
From the outside looking in, it always surprises me that education isn't a larger campaign issue. It's potentially a unifier of both left and right, since "I believe my child should be educated to a good standard and education shoudn't be elitist" is something literally everyone can get behind. When you get into details it gets trickier to appease both sides, but it should be fairly easy to create a decent non-partisan education plan, surely? Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

The problem as I see it:

A "non-partisan education" plan might work in a state such as OK because all tiers of education - primary, secondary, tertiary - have been slashed to the point of debilitation. We all agree that schools need more funding. Now, some people here seem loath to lay the blame where it belongs (i.e., at Republicans' feet), but they'll at least acknowledge the crisis and perhaps vote for Democrats who promise to fix it. (Next week's special election will tell us if we have a trend!)

However, once you progress beyond "education needs more money," a unifying issue, you encounter some of the enduring, divisive conflicts. To state matters bluntly, a lot of racist white people can't stomach the thought of their kids attending school with black people. That disgusting fact has been the basis of every educational battle in the last 63 years, since Brown v. BoE. The fuss over the "inconvenience" of busing? White people wanted to keep black kids away from white schools. This new voucher craze? Rich white parents get a reprieve on tuition and get to remove their kids from "failing" (i.e., black and brown) public schools. The fight over the inequitable property tax scheme used for school funding? White people like that their richer zip codes net them better schools. Education functions as a microcosm of society, and we won't fix the issues with our public schools until we fix society's issues with race. Just as campaigning explicitly on race alienates the white supremacists, campaigning on specific education issues also ignites their bigotry - again, because the educational realm serves as an encapsulation of broader racial issues.

The moment Democrats make education a campaign centerpiece, the dog whistles will start, and those particular dog whistles, particularly "school choice," have been effective.

But what does a neoliberal shill English teacher know?
 
So of all the various bills that are being talked about, the DREAM ACT that Graham and Durbin have sponsored are the one we want to pass right? That's the bill I should bug my Senator about?
 
Crocodile said:
So of all the various bills that are being talked about, the DREAM ACT that Graham and Durbin have sponsored are the one we want to pass right? That's the bill I should bug my Senator about?
Click to expand...
Assuming it's the same as the one Democrats tried passing in 2010, that's our best outcome here short of a full overhaul of the immigration system.

Autodidact said:
Yuck.

On that note, however, I think Democrats in rural areas and suburbs should consider using DeVos and Trump's educational policy as campaign issues. Her nomination elicited ire from every direction, with even Republicans deeming her unqualified. People, even conservative ones, hate the idea of their kids' education being attacked. A state House seat here in OK flipped to blue partly because the candidate ran on education, and another one might follow suit next week.
Click to expand...
I think that's a great idea.

It could especially work in Wisconsin and Kansas where the school budgets have been ravaged. Our best candidate in Wisconsin is the state supernintendo, even.
 
Autodidact said:
The moment Democrats make education a campaign centerpiece, the dog whistles will start, and those particular dog whistles, particularly "school choice," have been effective.

But what does a neoliberal shill English teacher know?
Click to expand...

Jesus... How does the US even still exist, when it has racism running through every level of society and politics?
 
Pixieking said:
From the outside looking in, it always surprises me that education isn't a larger campaign issue. It's potentially a unifier of both left and right, since "I believe my child should be educated to a good standard and education shoudn't be elitist" is something literally everyone can get behind. When you get into details it gets trickier to appease both sides, but it should be fairly easy to create a decent non-partisan education plan, surely? Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Nope, very little agreement on that. Conservatives (Fox News) have dehumanized teachers as liberal brainwashers with no accountability due to unions. Note, conservatives do not see unions as a natural part of free markets, or they argue that so the people that fund them ("job creators") can maximize profits.

Strict conservatives don't think the federal government should be involved in education at all. Less strict conservatives are okay with funding education, but they want the state to provide vouchers in order to defund public education and pay for private "alternative" (read: religious) education.

For an example of Fox News poisoning the well, see link:

Fox News "school choice" propaganda.
 
jtb said:
Right. So, by that logic, why force it now? Why not just run it back again and, after they win in 2018, then go for a new Obamacare push with a renewed mandate?

There's no political need for the GOP to force this into a nigh-impossible window. It's just not feasible from a parliamentary perspective.
Click to expand...
Why? Because they're not rational. Who cares about their mandate when they're all but guaranteed to hold on to both chambers in 2018? Frankly it makes more sense to do it now because they'll still probably lose some seats in the House and some Gov seats too. But outside of that, they're not rational people so you can't expect them to make sound and rational decisions.

They are taking full advantage of the hyperpartisanship era we are living in.
 
Diablos said:
Why? Because they're not rational. Who cares about their mandate when they're all but guaranteed to hold on to both chambers in 2018? Frankly it makes more sense to do it now because they'll still probably lose some seats in the House and some Gov seats too.

They are taking full advantage of the hyperpartisanship era we are living in.
Click to expand...

When did a 7 out of 10 chance become "all but guaranteed"?

You paid attention during the hyperbole lesson.
 
DACA repeal and the hurricane about to knock my house done are really taking their toll on my composure. Haven't been able to follow the policy specifications as closely as I should have.

Are DACA kids being deported right now or in six months? Why the delay?
 
Valhelm said:
DACA repeal and the hurricane about to knock my house done are really taking their toll on my composure. Haven't been able to follow the policy specifications as closely as I should have.

Are DACA kids being deported right now or in six months? Why the delay?
Click to expand...

Because Trump doesn't want to be responsible for deporting them.

He's kicking the can off to Congress so that he can say it was up to them to save the Dreamers and they failed.
 
Crab said:
I'm pretty happy to say she supported it in 2008. She didn't support it in 2016. That is important! If you support the Civil Rights Act in 2020, then suddenly go very quiet on the issue of disenfranchising minorities in 2028, I'm not obligated to vote for you because of what you said 8 years ago!
Click to expand...

Ok, since that other thread is moving way too fast and you are calling out me and royalan here, let's cut to the chase.

This entire argument actually dovetails perfectly with her analogy in the book:

Bernie: I think America should get a pony.
Bernie: I think there should be Universal Health Care that's Medicare for All.

Hillary: How will you pay for the pony? Where will the pony come from? How will you get Congress to agree to the pony?
Hillary: How will you pay for your plan? How are you going to pass this plan?

Bernie: Hillary thinks America doesn't deserve a pony.
Bernie: Her criticisms are nonsense.

Bernie Supporters: Hillary hates ponies!
Crab: Hillary is not for Universal Health Care.

Hillary: Actually I love ponies!
Hillary: I'm for the public option. (starts mentioning it explicitly in February: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-health-care-bernie-sanders-219643

Bernie Supporters: She changed her position! #WhichHillary #WitchHillary
Crab: She's a flip flopper. Can't be trusted.

Now you and pigeon can proceed to tear me to shreds. It doesn't really matter, at the end of the day I'm voting for the Democratic candidate as I don't have really any choice when it comes to Presidential politics.
 
So incredibly MacAuthur has reached a deal with the freedom Caucus re Obamacare stabilization. It would fund the CSR's for 3 years too.

Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.) says that he has reached an agreement with Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, on the terms for a bill aimed at stabilizing ObamaCare markets.

MacArthur, who is more centrist than Meadows and previously worked with him on a deal for ObamaCare repeal legislation, says that he has reached agreement with Meadows on the outline of a proposal, though some details need to be worked out.

This proposal is far different from their repeal efforts, focusing on the stabilization of markets while giving states more flexibility to repeal ObamaCare regulations.
Click to expand...

Seems like they've given up on repeal. If only someone would tell Trump.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...hed-with-house-freedom-caucus-chair-on-health
 
Barzul said:
So incredibly MacAuthur has reached a deal with the freedom Caucus re Obamacare stabilization. It would fund the CSR's for 3 years too.



Seems like they've given up on repeal. If only someone would tell Trump.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...hed-with-house-freedom-caucus-chair-on-health
Click to expand...

"More flexibility to repeal regulations sounds like it's the CSRs plus repealing MHBs again.

If so this bill is DOA.

Edit: yup, it's 1332 waivers. Literally the same shit that killed the last house bill. What a surprise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
Fantasy Football Discussion Thread - 2017 Season
68 69 70 71 72
4K
254K
PlayALLtheGames replied
Football Thread 2017/18 |OT2| Fractured but Ox
166 167 168 169 170
8K
553K
Hideous Snake replied
Top Bottom