The far right nutbar caucus ("Freedom Caucus") voted to oppose any ACA repeal that isn't as strong as the ones they passed in the last Congress. The responsibility free obviously going to be vetoed full repeal. Which leaves the Republicans in a bit of a pickle, politically.
The far right nutbar caucus ("Freedom Caucus") voted to oppose any ACA repeal that isn't as strong as the ones they passed in the last Congress. The responsibility free obviously going to be vetoed full repeal. Which leaves the Republicans in a bit of a pickle, politically.
What are the odds that splits the House?
The numbers don't work out without some of them or Democrats, I don't think. Meanwhile some GOP Senators are demanding the Medicaid expansion stay in somehow so they don't get hit at home.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I'm beginning to feel that the ACA repeal (partial or whole) is not going to happen until one of two things happens:
1.) Trump hits a scandal that is big enough that the three lesser scandals that follow it in the following two weeks are not salacious enough to dislodge it and he demands some sort of cover.
2.) The 2018 election is close and the GOP panics as they start getting called out by party faithful for failing to act on their "One Job" and something that is done entirely in haste goes through.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
I'm beginning to feel that the ACA repeal (partial or whole) is not going to happen until one of two things happens:
1.) Trump hits a scandal that is big enough that the three lesser scandals that follow it in the following two weeks are not salacious enough to dislodge it and he demands some sort of cover.
2.) The 2018 election is close and the GOP panics as they start getting called out by party faithful for failing to act on their "One Job" and something that is done entirely in haste goes through.
#2 is like the best case scenario for Democrats. Any smart Dem wakes up late at night in a hot sweat with a raging hard-on/wetter then Lake Oroville at the possibility of being able to run in the midterms on stopping a full ACA repeal.
I'm beginning to feel that the ACA repeal (partial or whole) is not going to happen until one of two things happens:
1.) Trump hits a scandal that is big enough that the three lesser scandals that follow it in the following two weeks are not salacious enough to dislodge it and he demands some sort of cover.
2.) The 2018 election is close and the GOP panics as they start getting called out by party faithful for failing to act on their "One Job" and something that is done entirely in haste goes through.
Number 2 is why the repeal is unlikely to happen at all, since the next election's always only two years away. If they're too scared to do it this year, then they'll never get it done. I think Paul Ryan knows that.
I'd argue it's the case for any of their "third-rail" ideas, like privatizing medicare or social security. It's something that would have to be done at the beginning of a new Republican presidential administration or it could never be done for fear of electoral backlash.
It is refreshing to see that the Freedom Caucus at least stands up for their bomb-throwing-anarchist style of government, and aren't willing to play along for kicks just because the GOP is in power. Like the Kochs, they're bad, but they have some damn principles.
In related news, here's Raul Labrador (R-ID) coming to a sort of self-awareness.
I'm beginning to feel that the ACA repeal (partial or whole) is not going to happen until one of two things happens:
1.) Trump hits a scandal that is big enough that the three lesser scandals that follow it in the following two weeks are not salacious enough to dislodge it and he demands some sort of cover.
2.) The 2018 election is close and the GOP panics as they start getting called out by party faithful for failing to act on their "One Job" and something that is done entirely in haste goes through.
Number 2 is why the repeal is unlikely to happen at all, since the next election's always only two years away. If they're too scared to do it this year, then they'll never get it done. I think Paul Ryan knows that.
I'd argue it's the case for any of their "third-rail" ideas, like privatizing medicare or social security. It's something that would have to be done at the beginning of a new Republican presidential administration or it could never be done for fear of electoral backlash.
It is refreshing to see that the Freedom Caucus at least stands up for their bomb-throwing-anarchist style of government, and aren't willing to play along for kicks just because the GOP is in power. Like the Kochs, they're bad, but they have some damn principles.
In related news, here's Raul Labrador (R-ID) coming to a sort of self-awareness.
I'm beginning to feel that the ACA repeal (partial or whole) is not going to happen until one of two things happens:
1.) Trump hits a scandal that is big enough that the three lesser scandals that follow it in the following two weeks are not salacious enough to dislodge it and he demands some sort of cover.
2.) The 2018 election is close and the GOP panics as they start getting called out by party faithful for failing to act on their "One Job" and something that is done entirely in haste goes through.
Number 2 is why the repeal is unlikely to happen at all, since the next election's always only two years away. If they're too scared to do it this year, then they'll never get it done. I think Paul Ryan knows that.
I'd argue it's the case for any of their "third-rail" ideas, like privatizing medicare or social security. It's something that would have to be done at the beginning of a new Republican presidential administration or it could never be done for fear of electoral backlash.
It is refreshing to see that the Freedom Caucus at least stands up for their bomb-throwing-anarchist style of government, and aren't willing to play along for kicks just because the GOP is in power. Like the Kochs, they're bad, but they have some damn principles.
In related news, here's Raul Labrador (R-ID) coming to a sort of self-awareness.
I want Pelosi to make sure that Republicans hold the bag for any repeal that gets passed
Key is you couldn't get 50 Republican Senators to agree to "no replacement," but, if the Freedom Caucus holds their ground to a man, "no replacement" is the only thing that will get enough GOP support to get out of the House.
Apparently the same thing is happening to Ryan's tax plan. Current version only has about 35 GOP senators on board.
+21
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
I want Pelosi to make sure that Republicans hold the bag for any repeal that gets passed
Key is you couldn't get 50 Republican Senators to agree to "no replacement," but, if the Freedom Caucus holds their ground to a man, "no replacement" is the only thing that will get enough GOP support to get out of the House.
Apparently the same thing is happening to Ryan's tax plan. Current version only has about 35 GOP senators on board.
I mean, good
democrats have to stonewall, because all of these policies are incorrect--don't get onboard with any of this shit, don't try to rationalize a mediocre replacement as "better than the alternative"
make the GOP implement the government they want, and be accountable for it in 2018
is it "And that is why...we just need to completely repeal Obamacare THIS WEEK without a replacement and let the free market/death figure it out"
I think that was about the sum of the 2015 repeal bill, yeah. Restore pre-existing condition discrimination, bring back caps, cut taxes for the rich, kill the exchanges, kill the medicaid expansion.
is it "And that is why...we just need to completely repeal Obamacare THIS WEEK without a replacement and let the free market/death figure it out"
I think that was about the sum of the 2015 repeal bill, yeah. Restore pre-existing condition discrimination, bring back caps, cut taxes for the rich, kill the exchanges, kill the medicaid expansion.
I still think they're too afraid to actually do this. Almost self-realization about what his party has been doing aside, I do think the eventual endgame of the ACA is either repeal and replace with the exact same thing without the taxes, which then fails due to it's funding source being cut feed the beast style, or they constantly dance around it for months and never actually manage to do anything.
Parts of the ACA are too popular to repeal in full, pre-existing conditions, on parent's insurance until 25, no lifetime caps, etc. "The ACA" is an abstract policy that you can get people to dislike, especially if you tie Obama's name to it for the republicans, but "my kid gets insurance through me for 7 years" or "my sister with a chronic condition can get insurance and treatment even with a pre-existing condition" are popular and removing them will be fraught with peril. And the GOP has mostly forgotten how to govern or make good policy in the 8 years since they became a party with no ideas except stop Obama, so I don't trust them to navigate that with any grace.
This is why I highly doubt Ryan will ever get his medicare privatization passed, even if he adds an exemption for 55 and over or some arbitrary number. It's an extremely dangerous knob to start fiddling with, and the gerrymandered districts in the house are not safe from the swings that might be caused by such fiddling.
I want Pelosi to make sure that Republicans hold the bag for any repeal that gets passed
Key is you couldn't get 50 Republican Senators to agree to "no replacement," but, if the Freedom Caucus holds their ground to a man, "no replacement" is the only thing that will get enough GOP support to get out of the House.
Apparently the same thing is happening to Ryan's tax plan. Current version only has about 35 GOP senators on board.
I mean, good
democrats have to stonewall, because all of these policies are incorrect--don't get onboard with any of this shit, don't try to rationalize a mediocre replacement as "better than the alternative"
make the GOP implement the government they want, and be accountable for it in 2018
You make it sound like they are going to actually get something done anytime soon. The GOP congress doesn't know what they want, and they have had months to prepare for it. It's day 25, right? Two bills have been passed. First was to let a cabinet member serve. The second was for the GAO to get documents for their analyses. The stimulus bill in 2009? Signed by Obama on Feb. 17 2009.
There isn't anything close to sense of urgency from the GOP. I still don't believe that Trump has even a prototype healthcare plan he will propose to Congress. I assume this because even a draft would have been leaked already by the White House staff.
There are other things they have to deal with eventually - the continuing resolution, debt ceiling, the 2018 budget. The Democrats are slowing them down, but parties are better at being united against something than for anything.
Like you said, they actually have to do their jobs now, and most of what they're being told to do - by the twin monsters they created, their base and the guy that base elected - is flat out impossible (usually in a "all of the good parts, none of the parts we don't like" sense - see also Brexit). But they also can't say "yeah, actually, ha ha, we've been lying to you for the last decade or two, we can't give you any of that stuff."
It'd be delicious to watch, if it wasn't all of our heads in the noose too.
In related news, here's Raul Labrador (R-ID) coming to a sort of self-awareness.
(tweet snipped for screen realestate; see Mr Khan's post)
He seems to have voted for many (most? all? it's hard to find each of them individually) of the ACA repeal attempts that came up in his time in office with the exception of the one in January, so he's kiiiiiiinda slow on the uptake. Hopefully it might stick.
is it "And that is why...we just need to completely repeal Obamacare THIS WEEK without a replacement and let the free market/death figure it out"
I think that was about the sum of the 2015 repeal bill, yeah. Restore pre-existing condition discrimination, bring back caps, cut taxes for the rich, kill the exchanges, kill the medicaid expansion.
I still think they're too afraid to actually do this. Almost self-realization about what his party has been doing aside, I do think the eventual endgame of the ACA is either repeal and replace with the exact same thing without the taxes, which then fails due to it's funding source being cut feed the beast style, or they constantly dance around it for months and never actually manage to do anything.
Parts of the ACA are too popular to repeal in full, pre-existing conditions, on parent's insurance until 25, no lifetime caps, etc. "The ACA" is an abstract policy that you can get people to dislike, especially if you tie Obama's name to it for the republicans, but "my kid gets insurance through me for 7 years" or "my sister with a chronic condition can get insurance and treatment even with a pre-existing condition" are popular and removing them will be fraught with peril. And the GOP has mostly forgotten how to govern or make good policy in the 8 years since they became a party with no ideas except stop Obama, so I don't trust them to navigate that with any grace.
This is why I highly doubt Ryan will ever get his medicare privatization passed, even if he adds an exemption for 55 and over or some arbitrary number. It's an extremely dangerous knob to start fiddling with, and the gerrymandered districts in the house are not safe from the swings that might be caused by such fiddling.
Wasn't it someone else in this thread who said that those gerrymanders are based strongly on likely voter figures, and anything that causes "unexpected" voters to turn out puts all of those carefully calculated districts into shit.
is it "And that is why...we just need to completely repeal Obamacare THIS WEEK without a replacement and let the free market/death figure it out"
I think that was about the sum of the 2015 repeal bill, yeah. Restore pre-existing condition discrimination, bring back caps, cut taxes for the rich, kill the exchanges, kill the medicaid expansion.
I still think they're too afraid to actually do this. Almost self-realization about what his party has been doing aside, I do think the eventual endgame of the ACA is either repeal and replace with the exact same thing without the taxes, which then fails due to it's funding source being cut feed the beast style, or they constantly dance around it for months and never actually manage to do anything.
Parts of the ACA are too popular to repeal in full, pre-existing conditions, on parent's insurance until 25, no lifetime caps, etc. "The ACA" is an abstract policy that you can get people to dislike, especially if you tie Obama's name to it for the republicans, but "my kid gets insurance through me for 7 years" or "my sister with a chronic condition can get insurance and treatment even with a pre-existing condition" are popular and removing them will be fraught with peril. And the GOP has mostly forgotten how to govern or make good policy in the 8 years since they became a party with no ideas except stop Obama, so I don't trust them to navigate that with any grace.
This is why I highly doubt Ryan will ever get his medicare privatization passed, even if he adds an exemption for 55 and over or some arbitrary number. It's an extremely dangerous knob to start fiddling with, and the gerrymandered districts in the house are not safe from the swings that might be caused by such fiddling.
Wasn't it someone else in this thread who said that those gerrymanders are based strongly on likely voter figures, and anything that causes "unexpected" voters to turn out puts all of those carefully calculated districts into shit.
Maybe it was tbloxham ?
It's certainly true, yea. The very nature of the thing means that the GOP districts are inherently more "at risk" as it were. Generally the districts are drawn that it would still take a small miracle to flip the house (I think dems need like +10 nationally to take back the house? it's real bad) but nothing is going to cause a small miracle faster than poking around at people's healthcare.
is it "And that is why...we just need to completely repeal Obamacare THIS WEEK without a replacement and let the free market/death figure it out"
I think that was about the sum of the 2015 repeal bill, yeah. Restore pre-existing condition discrimination, bring back caps, cut taxes for the rich, kill the exchanges, kill the medicaid expansion.
I still think they're too afraid to actually do this. Almost self-realization about what his party has been doing aside, I do think the eventual endgame of the ACA is either repeal and replace with the exact same thing without the taxes, which then fails due to it's funding source being cut feed the beast style, or they constantly dance around it for months and never actually manage to do anything.
Parts of the ACA are too popular to repeal in full, pre-existing conditions, on parent's insurance until 25, no lifetime caps, etc. "The ACA" is an abstract policy that you can get people to dislike, especially if you tie Obama's name to it for the republicans, but "my kid gets insurance through me for 7 years" or "my sister with a chronic condition can get insurance and treatment even with a pre-existing condition" are popular and removing them will be fraught with peril. And the GOP has mostly forgotten how to govern or make good policy in the 8 years since they became a party with no ideas except stop Obama, so I don't trust them to navigate that with any grace.
This is why I highly doubt Ryan will ever get his medicare privatization passed, even if he adds an exemption for 55 and over or some arbitrary number. It's an extremely dangerous knob to start fiddling with, and the gerrymandered districts in the house are not safe from the swings that might be caused by such fiddling.
Wasn't it someone else in this thread who said that those gerrymanders are based strongly on likely voter figures, and anything that causes "unexpected" voters to turn out puts all of those carefully calculated districts into shit.
is it "And that is why...we just need to completely repeal Obamacare THIS WEEK without a replacement and let the free market/death figure it out"
I think that was about the sum of the 2015 repeal bill, yeah. Restore pre-existing condition discrimination, bring back caps, cut taxes for the rich, kill the exchanges, kill the medicaid expansion.
I still think they're too afraid to actually do this. Almost self-realization about what his party has been doing aside, I do think the eventual endgame of the ACA is either repeal and replace with the exact same thing without the taxes, which then fails due to it's funding source being cut feed the beast style, or they constantly dance around it for months and never actually manage to do anything.
Parts of the ACA are too popular to repeal in full, pre-existing conditions, on parent's insurance until 25, no lifetime caps, etc. "The ACA" is an abstract policy that you can get people to dislike, especially if you tie Obama's name to it for the republicans, but "my kid gets insurance through me for 7 years" or "my sister with a chronic condition can get insurance and treatment even with a pre-existing condition" are popular and removing them will be fraught with peril. And the GOP has mostly forgotten how to govern or make good policy in the 8 years since they became a party with no ideas except stop Obama, so I don't trust them to navigate that with any grace.
This is why I highly doubt Ryan will ever get his medicare privatization passed, even if he adds an exemption for 55 and over or some arbitrary number. It's an extremely dangerous knob to start fiddling with, and the gerrymandered districts in the house are not safe from the swings that might be caused by such fiddling.
Wasn't it someone else in this thread who said that those gerrymanders are based strongly on likely voter figures, and anything that causes "unexpected" voters to turn out puts all of those carefully calculated districts into shit.
While it's theoretically true, unfortunately I don't know of any cases where gerrymandering flipped back to bite in any real way.
The real damage of gerrymandering has been that it let Tea Party types take out moderates, since districts became Tea Party vs GOPe instead of R vs D.
Gerrymandering also fades over time as demographics shift (people move) over the course of a decade. Which, hey, 2018 is 6 years on from the 2010 maps.
0
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
While appreciated this is the dinkiest of bones to throw our way at this point.
It's on the podium in terms of first 26 days Trump scandals. Probably third behind threatening the judicial branch and selling out the country to the Russians, but it's on the podium!
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
While appreciated this is the dinkiest of bones to throw our way at this point.
It's on the podium in terms of first 26 days Trump scandals. Probably third behind threatening the judicial branch and selling out the country to the Russians, but it's on the podium!
They will clear everyone from wrong doing except the nuclear football guy who is totally getting fired and replaced by a white guy.
While appreciated this is the dinkiest of bones to throw our way at this point.
It's on the podium in terms of first 26 days Trump scandals. Probably third behind threatening the judicial branch and selling out the country to the Russians, but it's on the podium!
I forget, what powers of subpoena do ranking members have independent of the Chair?
While appreciated this is the dinkiest of bones to throw our way at this point.
It's on the podium in terms of first 26 days Trump scandals. Probably third behind threatening the judicial branch and selling out the country to the Russians, but it's on the podium!
I forget, what powers of subpoena do ranking members have independent of the Chair?
As I recall, Clyburn gets nothing. So yeah that's a problem.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Like you said, they actually have to do their jobs now, and most of what they're being told to do - by the twin monsters they created, their base and the guy that base elected - is flat out impossible (usually in a "all of the good parts, none of the parts we don't like" sense - see also Brexit). But they also can't say "yeah, actually, ha ha, we've been lying to you for the last decade or two, we can't give you any of that stuff."
It'd be delicious to watch, if it wasn't all of our heads in the noose too.
If we're lucky, this cycle will be the rest of the Trump presidency; Trump and co propose something batshit insane / actually impossible, congress stalls and generally tries to look busy while actually doing nothing, infighting ensues when it becomes obvious that nothing is getting done, a few sacrificial lambs are eventually fired / shamed / made to resign, and the cycle begins again. The danger of course is that some of the insane shit actually gets through, and we're already seeing border control and ICE putting on their nicest brown shirts more-or-less unprovoked.
House Speaker Paul Ryan also downplayed the incident on Tuesday, telling reporters, "It's my understanding that no classified information was discussed. And talking about foreign policy at the dinner table is perfectly appropriate."
Hahaha, are you kidding me???
Sure, discussing foreign policy at the dinner table is perfectly appropriate when you are not the PotUS at said dinner table with the PM of Japan during an international crisis.
Then suddenly it isn't appropriate at all, because your words and actions at that moment are completely inseparable from concerns of national security.
Senior Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday sought to stave off town hall protests from their own party, asking Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to reach out and urge activists to redirect their anger at Republicans instead of at moderate Democratic lawmakers.
The request came in a weekly meeting of top Democratic senators, according to a senator in attendance, ahead of a congressional recess next week when lawmakers in both parties are expected to face large crowds stirred in recent weeks by President Trump’s early executive actions and ongoing Republican attempts to revamp the Affordable Care Act.
Over the past two weeks, crowds — and conflict-hungry media crews — have swarmed town halls and protested at congressional offices. Republicans have gotten the brunt of it, with several members escorted by police through lines of shouting protesters, and some caught scrapping or rescheduling public events or leaving out back doors to dodge angry activists.
But protesters have also gathered in blue states, marching to Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer’s home in Brooklyn to demand the obstruction of Trump nominees, and showing up at the offices of safe-seat Democrats to demand that they filibuster Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch.
A bit on everyone's favorite DINO:
Manchin is among the most imperiled Democrats facing reelection next year — one of five senators from states that Trump won in last year’s presidential election. In total, 25 Democrats face reelection in 2018.
Manchin insisted on Tuesday that the Democratic caucus is “unified in not wanting to repeal the Affordable Care Act. It’s unified! So why would [protesters] spend any energy on any member who’s already committed to that? They might not like those of us who come from other parts of the country that doesn’t adhere to everything they say or want done, but on the big items, put your energy somewhere else. Bernie can deliver that message better than anybody else.”
...
After Monday night’s vote to confirm Steve Mnuchin as treasury secretary, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee urged its members to complain to Manchin, the one Democrat who supported Trump’s nominee.
“He voted with Wall Street and against working families. Can you call him right now to express disapproval of this vote?” PCCC asked in the email blast. “Sen. Manchin needs to hear from constituents that voting with Wall Street is the opposite of being ‘independent.’ It’s favoring the big guys against the little guy. That’s the opposite of what West Virginians need.”
Manchin said on Tuesday that he isn’t worried about confronting progressive activists back home. “I’m not concerned about it at all. It is what it is. I love people to come and voice their thoughts,” he said.
But he urged progressives to be selective about when and where to speak out.
“If they’re coming to disrupt, make sure they’re going to the people who are opposing what they’re for,” he said.
Posts
What are the odds that splits the House?
I'm curious to see what the nut jobs do when they have to pass a debt ceiling increase this time.
I dunno, Pelosi seemed like she was having fun last time she had the gavel
For some reason the Republicans can't corral their own bombthrower caucus, though
Sure, I mean after 2010 and the republicans removed all the speaker's carrots and most of the sticks.
The numbers don't work out without some of them or Democrats, I don't think. Meanwhile some GOP Senators are demanding the Medicaid expansion stay in somehow so they don't get hit at home.
1.) Trump hits a scandal that is big enough that the three lesser scandals that follow it in the following two weeks are not salacious enough to dislodge it and he demands some sort of cover.
2.) The 2018 election is close and the GOP panics as they start getting called out by party faithful for failing to act on their "One Job" and something that is done entirely in haste goes through.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
#2 is like the best case scenario for Democrats. Any smart Dem wakes up late at night in a hot sweat with a raging hard-on/wetter then Lake Oroville at the possibility of being able to run in the midterms on stopping a full ACA repeal.
Number 2 is why the repeal is unlikely to happen at all, since the next election's always only two years away. If they're too scared to do it this year, then they'll never get it done. I think Paul Ryan knows that.
I'd argue it's the case for any of their "third-rail" ideas, like privatizing medicare or social security. It's something that would have to be done at the beginning of a new Republican presidential administration or it could never be done for fear of electoral backlash.
It is refreshing to see that the Freedom Caucus at least stands up for their bomb-throwing-anarchist style of government, and aren't willing to play along for kicks just because the GOP is in power. Like the Kochs, they're bad, but they have some damn principles.
In related news, here's Raul Labrador (R-ID) coming to a sort of self-awareness.
pfffahahahhaahhahaaaahhhhhoo hoohooo *sobs*
I mean, yeah, no shit.
Key is you couldn't get 50 Republican Senators to agree to "no replacement," but, if the Freedom Caucus holds their ground to a man, "no replacement" is the only thing that will get enough GOP support to get out of the House.
Apparently the same thing is happening to Ryan's tax plan. Current version only has about 35 GOP senators on board.
I mean, good
democrats have to stonewall, because all of these policies are incorrect--don't get onboard with any of this shit, don't try to rationalize a mediocre replacement as "better than the alternative"
make the GOP implement the government they want, and be accountable for it in 2018
I assume 95% of these kinds of laws are attempts to force the issue back into the SCOTUS eventually
ding ding ding ding ding!
(yes, that's it, exactly.)
The two important numbers are their score, and their plus/minus, which reflects how off their support is from their polity's.
Yes but what is the quote after that
is it "And that is why...we just need to completely repeal Obamacare THIS WEEK without a replacement and let the free market/death figure it out"
NNID: Hakkekage
I think that was about the sum of the 2015 repeal bill, yeah. Restore pre-existing condition discrimination, bring back caps, cut taxes for the rich, kill the exchanges, kill the medicaid expansion.
I still think they're too afraid to actually do this. Almost self-realization about what his party has been doing aside, I do think the eventual endgame of the ACA is either repeal and replace with the exact same thing without the taxes, which then fails due to it's funding source being cut feed the beast style, or they constantly dance around it for months and never actually manage to do anything.
Parts of the ACA are too popular to repeal in full, pre-existing conditions, on parent's insurance until 25, no lifetime caps, etc. "The ACA" is an abstract policy that you can get people to dislike, especially if you tie Obama's name to it for the republicans, but "my kid gets insurance through me for 7 years" or "my sister with a chronic condition can get insurance and treatment even with a pre-existing condition" are popular and removing them will be fraught with peril. And the GOP has mostly forgotten how to govern or make good policy in the 8 years since they became a party with no ideas except stop Obama, so I don't trust them to navigate that with any grace.
This is why I highly doubt Ryan will ever get his medicare privatization passed, even if he adds an exemption for 55 and over or some arbitrary number. It's an extremely dangerous knob to start fiddling with, and the gerrymandered districts in the house are not safe from the swings that might be caused by such fiddling.
You make it sound like they are going to actually get something done anytime soon. The GOP congress doesn't know what they want, and they have had months to prepare for it. It's day 25, right? Two bills have been passed. First was to let a cabinet member serve. The second was for the GAO to get documents for their analyses. The stimulus bill in 2009? Signed by Obama on Feb. 17 2009.
There isn't anything close to sense of urgency from the GOP. I still don't believe that Trump has even a prototype healthcare plan he will propose to Congress. I assume this because even a draft would have been leaked already by the White House staff.
There are other things they have to deal with eventually - the continuing resolution, debt ceiling, the 2018 budget. The Democrats are slowing them down, but parties are better at being united against something than for anything.
It'd be delicious to watch, if it wasn't all of our heads in the noose too.
He seems to have voted for many (most? all? it's hard to find each of them individually) of the ACA repeal attempts that came up in his time in office with the exception of the one in January, so he's kiiiiiiinda slow on the uptake. Hopefully it might stick.
Wasn't it someone else in this thread who said that those gerrymanders are based strongly on likely voter figures, and anything that causes "unexpected" voters to turn out puts all of those carefully calculated districts into shit.
Maybe it was @tbloxham ?
It's certainly true, yea. The very nature of the thing means that the GOP districts are inherently more "at risk" as it were. Generally the districts are drawn that it would still take a small miracle to flip the house (I think dems need like +10 nationally to take back the house? it's real bad) but nothing is going to cause a small miracle faster than poking around at people's healthcare.
While it's theoretically true, unfortunately I don't know of any cases where gerrymandering flipped back to bite in any real way.
The real damage of gerrymandering has been that it let Tea Party types take out moderates, since districts became Tea Party vs GOPe instead of R vs D.
Chaffetz is actually fucking doing something. There will be a probe into the handling of intelligence over the weekend at Mar-a-lago.
Gerrymandering also fades over time as demographics shift (people move) over the course of a decade. Which, hey, 2018 is 6 years on from the 2010 maps.
While appreciated this is the dinkiest of bones to throw our way at this point.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
It's on the podium in terms of first 26 days Trump scandals. Probably third behind threatening the judicial branch and selling out the country to the Russians, but it's on the podium!
They will clear everyone from wrong doing except the nuclear football guy who is totally getting fired and replaced by a white guy.
I forget, what powers of subpoena do ranking members have independent of the Chair?
As I recall, Clyburn gets nothing. So yeah that's a problem.
If we're lucky, this cycle will be the rest of the Trump presidency; Trump and co propose something batshit insane / actually impossible, congress stalls and generally tries to look busy while actually doing nothing, infighting ensues when it becomes obvious that nothing is getting done, a few sacrificial lambs are eventually fired / shamed / made to resign, and the cycle begins again. The danger of course is that some of the insane shit actually gets through, and we're already seeing border control and ICE putting on their nicest brown shirts more-or-less unprovoked.
Hahaha, are you kidding me???
Sure, discussing foreign policy at the dinner table is perfectly appropriate when you are not the PotUS at said dinner table with the PM of Japan during an international crisis.
Then suddenly it isn't appropriate at all, because your words and actions at that moment are completely inseparable from concerns of national security.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democrats-brace-for-town-hall-protests-directed-at-them/2017/02/14/923365e4-f300-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html
A bit on everyone's favorite DINO:
So far that's been you, dude, on almost every confirmation vote.
Also, why the hell aren't there "red dog" Republicans who have to moderate their votes to stay alive in purple districts?
Because republicans actually bother to vote.
And gerrymandering plus state demographics plus 2018 senate election distribution patterns