The General 'Murican Politics Thread

[SenEDDtor Missile]

6 minutes ago, CleverSonicUsername said:

It's weird to think how Past Trump would fuckin hate President Trump. He'd be right there with us.

Honestly, I get the feeling Past and Present(dent) Trump were the same, except back then he was parroting us rather than the GOP for brownie points.

[CleverSonicUsername]

4 hours ago, SenEDDtor Missile said:

Honestly, I get the feeling Past and Present(dent) Trump were the same, except back then he was parroting us rather than the GOP for brownie points.

I should clarify that yes I'm aware of this, but as a *~character~*, it's kinda funny how Past Trump would be railing against himself, all things being equal.

[Tani Coyote]

Worth consideration that Trump has very few real opinions of his own, the only constants being his hatred for NAFTA and a massive ego that will be so satisfying to see ruined.

If Democrats lose Georgia/Montana: "Haha American people are showing their belief I will MAGA."

If Democrats win Georgia/Montana/any race: "Well the GOP still has the majority."

If Democrats retake a chamber of Congress: "Well they only won because millions of illegal votes."

If he gets impeached and removed: "I was a victim of the establishment, who care only for themselves and don't want to MAGA."

I hope that once he's out of office he fades into obscurity rather than trying to keep an opinion, but we all know that's not how he rolls. With the exception of the last one, of course. It would be wonderful if he'd turn a sizable portion of the GOP voter base away from the polls and thus allow a Democratic sweep.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/30/us/politics/democrats-2020.html

Just a brief recap of the various likely Democrat candidates. We have three frontrunners: Biden, Warren, and Sanders, all of whom are old but tower over everyone else in popularity. Then there's a giant group of younger candidates.

Personally, I think we need to stop making age a central issue in candidate picks (especially given Trump's own age). All an older President means is that the Vice Presidential pick is more important. Someone young who knows what they're doing should sit right behind an older President. Plus, an older President might have the good character to resign if they see declining mental faculties. Not everyone is like Reagan and Trump.

A young VP is critical, I feel, because I wouldn't put it past the opposition Party to not acknowledge a Vice Presidential nominee (in the event the President passed away or was incapacitated) in the hopes that the new President would likewise be incapacitated, thus letting the Speaker (which is a Republican-leaning position) become Acting President.

[Tani Coyote]

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/334147-abortion-poses-hurdle-for-senate-healthcare-bill

It's sounding like the AHCA will be sacrificed on the altar of Planned Parenthood.

That is, with moderates like Collins and Murkowski being fairly adamant about not gutting it in the Senate, and a hardline pro-life caucus in the House demanding to gut it, it will likely end up being the dealbreaker. Obamacare's compromise provisions are such that federal funds cannot be used for abortions except for the usual three exceptions - rape, incest, and risk to the mother's life - but the hardliners in the GOP are as usual pushing for defunding anything that offers abortion as a service. This in spite of the fact the law requires federal funds be stored separately by insurers, Planned Parenthood, etc. so they aren't used for abortion.

Of course, Collins and Murkowski tried to block De Vos only for Pence to strut in and confirm her anyway, so they alone can't stop it.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/15/politics/congress-health-care-senate/index.html

Meanwhile, we're seeing the beginnings of the shitshow over the Senate bill.

Lamar Alexander, a Republican and chair of the Health committee, proposed a compromise: states can repeal Obamacare regulations if they automatically enroll consumers in health insurance that covers health emergencies. Naturally, the GOP was terrified at the idea, because it sounds like the start of single payer.

Meanwhile, Rob Portman, wants to phase out Medicaid slowly as opposed to abruptly ending the expansion. This may sound conservative, but let's consider the reality: if the Medicaid expansion's repeal is slowed down enough, it is ample time for the Democrats to regain power and resume the expansion. The language is defended as helping people transition off Medicaid rather than leaving them in the dust, but if other GOP moderates share it, I presume it's a clever ploy to say they voted for repeal without absolutely destroying their base back home.

Speaking of healthcare, I have a present:

A list of every Democrat who has not yet endorsed HR 676, the Medicare for All Act. Support has grown steadily, and if you type "Medicare for All Democrats" into Google, you'll see there have been many versions of this chart documenting the gradually shrinking number of holdouts.

Honorable mention to Nancy Pelosi, who continues to show why she needs to go.

[Conando]

Stephen Lynch? He doesn't support it? What's the issue here? I swear Boston's politicans can be just as regressive as they are progressive in other ways. Going to have to get his number, the poor of Boston already have enough issues as it is. I should know, I've been essentially homeless for 4 years. Thank god I have a family to fall back on.

I should disclose that I'm on MassHealth, but only because I'm disabled. If I were not, I'd have to pay for some bullshit called Cobra which costs 800 dollars a month out of pocket.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Conando
I misread the entire photo

[KHCast]

Oh and yes, of fucking course this is "controversial"(nevermind half of these people have rainbow things on their scarfs indicating that they more than likely aren't Pence fans)

[Tani Coyote]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/05/22/supreme-court-strikes-down-north-carolina-maps-congress/100855582/

Clarence Thomas, well known for his archconservatism, broke with the right and voted to strike down North Carolina's district maps, finding they were designed to disenfranchise minorities. Thomas has a reputation for swinging left on racial issues; for example, upholding a state's right to ban Confederate flag license plates and arguing against legal cross burning.

The other conservative justices felt the other way, arguing the districts were drawn to benefit Republicans, not disenfranchise minorities. Because that is so much better.

For reference, prior to these districts being drawn, the Democrats had 7 seats to the Republicans' 6, but afterward, the GOP had 10 seats to the Democrats' 3. With these maps being struck down, the Democrats' chances of retaking the House have increased.

13 hours ago, Conando said:

Stephen Lynch? He doesn't support it? What's the issue here? I swear Boston's politicans can be just as regressive as they are progressive in other ways. Going to have to get his number, the poor of Boston already have enough issues as it is. I should know, I've been essentially homeless for 4 years. Thank god I have a family to fall back on.

I should disclose that I'm on MassHealth, but only because I'm disabled. If I were not, I'd have to pay for some bullshit called Cobra which costs 800 dollars a month out of pocket.

Ironically, it seems the case is that urban politicians are the most hesitant to support it. In Pelosi's case, she argues that America isn't ready for single payer, and she wouldn't support it for a platform, but she would support it on the floor. Which makes her lack of support for this bill in an era where AHCA backlash is the norm really telling.

Keep in mind the 2016 Democratic Platform did call for single payer, and Clinton won the popular vote. Pelosi doesn't know what she's talking about.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Is it bad that I forgot Pelosi was even relevant?

[Tani Coyote]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/22/republican-redistricting-is-taking-a-beating-in-the-courts-again/?utm_term=.6b5e75e2de3c

Recap of the beating gerrymandering is taking in the Courts. The American common law system is founded on the principle that judges regularly consider each other's opinions. This means that with each gerrymandering case where it gets struck down, the odds increase future cases will go that way. We saw this with gay marriage a few years ago, where one court after another struck down gay marriage bans and it was only after a single circuit ruled in favor that the Supreme Court got involved. Given the Supreme Court has struck down racially gerrymandered districts, it's a safe assumption future court battles are going to end favorably for opponents of gerrymandering. By proxy, this means a huge Democratic edge.

It doesn't help that Trump, by regularly insulting judges, has no doubt earned himself the ire of judges all across the ideological spectrum. They're going to be looking for ways to hurt him and the GOP in retribution for his rising above his station.

It is noted here that every time this happens, Democrats pick up a seat or two. Those "safe" GOP seats might very well end up redrawn before 2018, meaning the Democrats' chances of retaking the House are increasing by the day.

Speaking of...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/22/republican-redistricting-is-taking-a-beating-in-the-courts-again/?utm_term=.6b5e75e2de3c

Jon Ossoff is now leading Handel 51% to 44% in the Georgia 6th US House district. Provided Democrats turn out in force and don't let this convince them they can skip election day, the Democrats might just have their first major pickup in the coming weeks.

Whereas a few months ago it looked like the Democrats would need to wait until 2022 at the earliest to retake Congress, a combination of anti-Trump energy and court battles might just advance that by several years.

2 hours ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Is it bad that I forgot Pelosi was even relevant?

Nah, she's been playing second fiddle to Obama and later Schumer ever since she lost the House in 2010.

However, she does run a Politburo within the House, using her influence to intimidate Democrats into backing whatever she wants. If you don't back Pelosi, you can say goodbye to committee assignments. Not to mention campaign donations, because she brings in a ton of money despite the fact an overwhelming majority of Americans do not like her.

[Tani Coyote]

 

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/400-billion-price-tag-for-california-single-payer-bill/

Legislative analysis of California's Medicare for All bill has come out. Total price tag: $400 billion.

Now, existing public money for Medicare, Medicaid, etc. would go towards this, bringing it down to $200 billion. Adjusting for changes in private spending, it comes down to $50 to $100 billion in new spending overall, but that is a lot when the state's general budget is $125 billion.

Democrats have the super majorities in both chambers necessary to pass a tax increase and override a likely veto from Governor Brown, but it will take a lot of political will to pass this bill given the likely way to pay for it is a payroll tax increase of 15%. Even if it passes, Democrats must work hard to sell it to voters by emphasizing benefits such as being able to freely visit doctors to stave off more expensive care down the line, never mind the time benefits of not needing to deal with private or limited public insurance. While the Democrat majority likely has protection from too many losses given the anti-Trump wave that will surely come in 2018, it's still a very risky bill to pass.

[Patticus]

I was always under the impression that single payer healthcare would at the very least break even when compared to current costs, if not be cheaper?

Healthcare reform came at a terrible cost for the Obama and Clinton administrations, and California has half a dozen GOP House seats it needs to flip if it wants to retake the House next year. Could they not just, you know, wait a bit?

[Tani Coyote]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/334843-trump-hiring-marc-kasowitz-as-personal-lawyer-for-russia-probe

Trump has officially hired a lawyer. Private lawyers have the advantage of being able to claim client privilege, whereas government lawyers often do not.

While it is standard procedure to hire a lawyer for personal issues, it certainly isn't making him look any more innocent.

2 hours ago, Patticus said:

I was always under the impression that single payer healthcare would at the very least break even when compared to current costs, if not be cheaper?

I assume part of it is upfront reorganization costs, though a lot of it is going to boil down to insuring the uninsured, who aren't accounted for in cost savings from switching from plans to government insurance. I would have thought extension of benefits to the undocumented without a change in legal (and thus tax) status would have contributed some to the gap, but it appears even with legalization, that would only raise half a billion in tax revenue.

Quote

Healthcare reform came at a terrible cost for the Obama and Clinton administrations, and California has half a dozen GOP House seats it needs to flip if it wants to retake the House next year. Could they not just, you know, wait a bit?

I expect some of the Democrats in one chamber will peel away, which will allow the bill to be killed either by Brown's veto or by the inability to raise taxes to pay for it all.

They should really consider a more barebones single payer program, such as paying for doctor visits and emergency care, rather than a full-scale program. It would probably be far more affordable while at the same time solving two primary evils in the American healthcare system: the ability of people to get emergency treatment without putting money into the system, and the difficulty of preventive care that drives up costs in the end.

As it stands, just paying for everything is going to be surefire way to enable abuse. The government needs to get tough and drive down the costs of healthcare in other areas while also gradually expanding coverage. Frankly, something as small as changing food subsidies could go a long way because healthier diets will lead to less demand and thus lower prices.

[Nepenthe]

Dems have flipped the first seat in the special elections! On top of that, Eddie DesMarais is the first Democrat to hold this particular seat in New Hampshire. Crossing my fingers it's the first of many victories!

[Tani Coyote]

That moment when Nepenthe beats me to it despite me being the one following all the special state elections. </3

This is fantastic news, however, and the trend first seen with the Oklahoma House seat has finally been proven to mean something. These smaller races, if nothing else, are now looking like valid targets, even in ruby red territory. Hopefully this inspires Democrats everywhere to try and ride the anti-Trump backlash. In these small races, just a few votes is all it takes to push a person over the line to victory.

The Republican won the other New Hampshire House race today, but still, a win is a win. 9 point swing from 2016.

http://www.politicususa.com/2017/05/23/sean-hannity-losing-calls-fox-news-part-liberal-media.html

Meanwhile, have a lol. Sean Hannity is calling Fox News part of the liberal media after it yanked a conspiracy theory that he supports.

It looks like the era of Trump might push Fox into the liberal fold with how fast these conservative pundits are falling like flies.

[Tani Coyote]

https://patch.com/new-york/massapequa/9th-assembly-district-flips-democrats-pellegrino-defeats-gargiulo

...and. Holy crap. The Democrats flipped another seat today, this one in Long Island. In the last legislative election, the GOP beat the Democrats 69-31 here. Today they were 42-58. A switch of 27 points towards the Democrats.

We had it wrong, guys. Donald Trump is the best President we've had in years. He broke the system. Just about every district is in play now.

A toast to Donald for breaking it so hard Herbert Hoover would blush. Ruby red districts might just end up becoming sapphire blue if this keeps up.

The real test will be Montana on the 24th and Georgia next month, though. These Democrat wins, while inspiring, have small constituencies which mean a small but motivated group of angry Democrats can flip them. The larger constituencies will be a far tougher task. The New York Assembly seat had 9600 votes cast with Democrats ahead by 1500, though, so there's a possibility to see this translate to gains elsewhere. Midterm 2014 turnout for this seat was 30,000, though. We'll have to see if Democrats can retain these seats in the 2018 midterms.

[Patticus]

Trump left a message at the Holocaust Memorial in Israel. Here it is (top), compared to Obama (middle) and Clinton (bottom):

Quote

I am grateful to Yad Vashem and all of those responsible for this remarkable institution,” he wrote. “At a time of great peril and promise, war and strife, we are blessed to have such a powerful reminder of man’s potential for great evil, but also our capacity to rise up from tragedy and remake our world. Let our children come here, and know this history, so that they can add their voices to proclaim ‘never again.’ And may we remember those who perished, not only as victims, but also as individuals who helped and loved and dreamed like us, and who have become symbols of the human spirit.

How did we go from the eloquence and class of Obama and Clinton, to a barely literate child? He's a first grader on a field trip, not a president.

Meanwhile, Trump appeared to accidentally confirm what everyone suspected, but nobody knew for sure - that the classified intel he shared with the Russian ambassador belonged to Israel:

The Washington Post's article not once asserted the intelligence's origins, and the NY Times' article only said that their anonymous sources believed the intel may have come from Israel. Whoops!

And then emerged more evidence for obstruction of justice:

Quote

Trump asked intelligence chiefs to push back against FBI collusion probe

President Trump asked two of the nation’s top intelligence officials in March to help him push back against an FBI investigation into possible coordination between his campaign and the Russian government, according to current and former officials.

Trump made separate appeals to the director of national intelligence, Daniel Coats, and to Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, urging them to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion during the 2016 election.

Coats and Rogers refused to comply with the requests, which they both deemed to be inappropriate, according to two current and two former officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private communications with the president.

Current and former senior intelligence officials viewed Trump’s requests as an attempt by the president to tarnish the credibility of the agency leading the Russia investigation.

A senior intelligence official said that Trump’s goal was to “muddy the waters” about the scope of the FBI probe at a time when Democrats were ramping up their calls for the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel, a step announced last week.

Senior intelligence officials also saw the March requests as a threat to the independence of U.S. spy agencies, which are supposed to remain insulated from partisan issues.

“The problem wasn’t so much asking them to issue statements, it was asking them to issue false statements about an ongoing investigation,” a former senior intelligence official said of the request to Coats.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-asked-intelligence-chiefs-to-push-back-against-fbi-collusion-probe-after-comey-revealed-its-existence/2017/05/22/394933bc-3f10-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.d05cc3ada89f

It's like he has no idea what he's doing.

[Tornado]

On 5/20/2017 at 11:09 PM, CleverSonicUsername said:

It's weird to think how Past Trump would fuckin hate President Trump. He'd be right there with us.

No he wouldn't, because President Trump would still be Trump.

[Tani Coyote]

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/334920-mcconnell-cbo-analysis-for-house-bill-a-technical-step

McConnell is ramping up the spin, making the AHCA all about repealing the individual mandate.

Quote

He added that the CBO analysis will repeat "things we already know, like that fewer people will buy a product they don't want when the government stops forcing them to."

What a piece of human garbage, trying to pass this off as some great victory for consumer choice as he steals healthcare away from millions of people who desperately need it and are too poor to buy inflated insurance prices.

Quote

He added that "whatever the CBO says about the House bill, the status quo under ObamaCare is completely unacceptable and totally unsustainable." 

Funny thing is most Democrats (and many moderates and Republicans) agree with you, Mr. McConnell. Except they want to expand healthcare and get rid of the half-baked proposals of Obamacare, not throw it out the window.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/24/buddy-carter-expects-cbo-score-new-health-care-bil/

More GOP handwaving by the privileged. Here one Representative says that people with preexisting conditions are fine, as they only pay higher rates if they allow their coverage to lapse.

Because that totally doesn't happen and totally isn't why the original Obamacare bill bans higher startup costs to begin with.

The GOP drinking game: take a shot every time you're not sure if most GOP politicians are stupid or evil.

[Nepenthe]

7 hours ago, Patticus said:

How did we go from the eloquence and class of Obama and Clinton, to a barely literate child? He's a first grader on a field trip, not a president.

It's honestly embarrassing that probably the dumbest president (and this is counting post-stroke Wilson) immediately precedes one of the most eloquent ones of modern times. Like, even fucking ISIS clowned on us over this shit.

[Patticus]

7 hours ago, Tornado said:

No he wouldn't, because President Trump would still be Trump.

Past Trump would adore President Trump, because he's the President so he obviously won the election. With him, winning > all else.

 

Now then, it looks like Trump's core base may be shrinking, contrary to all of our expectations and the prevailing conventional wisdom, according to a FiveThirtyEight analysis of relevant polling data:

Quote

To the contrary, Trump’s base seems to be eroding. There’s been a considerable decline in the number of Americans who strongly approve of Trump, from a peak of around 30 percent in February to just 21 or 22 percent of the electorate now. (The decline in Trump’s strong approval ratings is larger than the overall decline in his approval ratings, in fact.) Far from having unconditional love from his base, Trump has already lost almost a third of his strong support. And voters who strongly disapprove of Trump outnumber those who strongly approve of him by about a 2-to-1 ratio, which could presage an “enthusiasm gap” that works against Trump at the midterms. The data suggests, in particular, that the GOP’s initial attempt (and failure) in March to pass its unpopular health care bill may have cost Trump with his core supporters.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-base-is-shrinking/

If this holds true, and if Trump's budget still screws his own base over even after a summer of heavy editing, he's going to get a savage wake-up call in next year's midterms. We have all suspected that '18 will be bad for the GOP anyway for some time, but it'll be made much worse if his core base starts evaporating, as it did for Bush in '05.

[Nepenthe]

Hell, if things keep at this pace, it might stand to help us out in this year's local and special elections that much more. We need to win all the races we can muster.

Don't pussy out on us, blue voters.

[Tani Coyote]

1 hour ago, Nepenthe said:

Hell, if things keep at this pace, it might stand to help us out in this year's local and special elections that much more. We need to win all the races we can muster.

Don't pussy out on us, blue voters.

Real trick is getting the millennials to turn out for this stuff. With how many peeled from the Democrats in 2016 and such facepalm-inducing events as a "symbolic" hunger strike, I find it hard to be too enthusiastic. My real fear is satisfaction from participating in a demonstration undermining the importance of actually voting; politicians will quickly learn to ignore demonstrators if they see few translate into angry voters. The youth vote seems to alternate between being incredibly powerful and meaningless with how sporadic actual participation in polls can be.

As it stands, women by far seem to be the most militant group, forming 86% of anti-Trump calls and playing key roles in the Georgia campaigns (and as we're seeing, campaigns just about everywhere). It appears Trump's constant, repeated sexism is finally catching up to him in a spectacular act of karma.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

I'm honestly convinced putting all the higher ups in the GOP into forced labor in the same hellish conditions they try to advocate for our country (poor healthcare, low pay, etc) with no means to buy their way out of it is the only way to make any of them change their tune. Nothing like a healthy dose of karma to knock them down a few pegs.

[SSF1991]

So hey. Remember how the FBI handled the whole Hillary email thing pre-election? Turns out that may have been based on Russian interference too.

...This whole thing is just an infinite hole of suck. I'm tired of it.

 

[Rusty Spy]

31 minutes ago, SenEDDtor Missile said:

I'm honestly convinced putting all the higher ups in the GOP into forced labor in the same hellish conditions they try to advocate for our country (poor healthcare, low pay, etc) with no means to buy their way out of it is the only way to make any of them change their tune. Nothing like a healthy dose of karma to knock them down a few pegs.

It's not as far-fetched. A lot of conservatives conveniently have leftist views on specific issues that they're personally affected by.