Jump to content
Awoo.

The General 'Murican Politics Thread


Tornado

Recommended Posts

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/politics/us-officials-info-suggests-trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians/index.html?adkey=bn

Oh God.

"The FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign, US officials told CNN."

This is going to be a real shitshow now. FBI will have difficulty establishing connections as Russia has changed its methods of communication since the inauguration, but... this is going to hang over Trump for a while.

Hopefully this demoralizes enough of his base in time for the midterms that the Democrats have a respectable sweep of seats.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The longer the investigation goes on, the more demoralizing it's going to be for his general GOP base, and the more off-putting he's going to look to the exact same people who (reluctantly?) left the Democrats for him last autumn. If that lasts well into late 2018, it may spell big trouble for the Congressional GOP and Republican Governors nationwide.

If Trump entered the White House with any credibility, and political capital at all, this investigation and all of the attendant leaks and news scoops that'll go along with it are going to sap it - especially if it drags out beyond months and into years. The drip-feeding of email leaks over months and years drained Hillary Clinton's credibility and capital in exactly the same way, and despite her having been found guilty of no crime, she still lost the election. This may well be Trump's email scandal, hell it could be his Watergate, and could cost him dearly in 2018 and 2020, and if he loses one of the two houses, his agenda's going to be shot to pieces.

Now, I don't think it'll ever cost him any of his core base of support in the electorate-at-large, but the demoralizing vision of their orange knight embroiled in one big scandal after another might lead to their turnout at the polls dropping, which would be good news for the Democrats if they can put into action a voter turnout campaign more effective than one only able to capture the popular vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2017 at 6:39 PM, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

What was it that people were legitimately concerned with regarding the e-mail scandal?

Serious question, because I never actually bothered to delve deep into that. Were they teying to connect that with Benghazi or something?

When the Benghazi investigation was occurring, it became known fairly soon into it that no one conducting the witchhunt actually had any independent access to any of the correspondence the State Department had done while Clinton was SecState, because her staff had been conducting all official business through the email server Hilary had so the government itself had no oversight over it (which was legal at the time, but really kinda sketchy since the Bush Administration had done something similar). This led to the (justifiable if it had been the real reason, so overblown in actuality) concern that she or someone in her staff had used a non-sanctioned equipment to transfer classified material.

Then blow that up as filtered through various idiot talking heads assuming she was a borderline Russian spy all this time; and Trump talking about essentially having her arrested for running against him; and the people conducting the investigation looking for something, anything, to take her out of the race and put her in jail rather than any wrongdoing she might have actually done.

 

 

 

 

In the end, it turned out that classified material had been transferred, but very little and not intentionally, because her staff did know not to do it and what proper procedures were for handling that sort of content. Hence why Coney just basically called her an idiot but said there was no point in filing chargers.

Far more damaging to Clinton was how badly she and her handlers handled each revelation about the case and how much it swarmed the news throughout the entire election cycle when she got caught up in something she claimed; coupled with how quickly the government acted to make what she had done against the law instead of just frowned upon. "I didn't do anything wrong" is hard to quantify on the public when what you did was outlawed right after you did it and you keep getting tripped up when the things you said on the matter aren't actually... uh, true. It coming up again a week before the election probably didn't help when the FBI found a bunch more emails that were relevant to the case but not given to them, but I suspect by that point she had already lost the election with what she had said about emails to that point; nevermind other comments (basket of deplorables, put coal out of business, etc). It's just no one had realized it yet since no one was admitting that they would actually vote for Trump.

 

On 3/19/2017 at 5:03 AM, Volphied said:

Again, the comparison to Britain's loss of influence came from the people working in the State Department. Please don't take this as an insult, but I'll take their word over yours.

I bet Trump thinks otherwise, and I'll appeal to his authority way before any guy in the State Department.

On 3/20/2017 at 3:03 AM, Volphied said:

Without Rammstein base the US would not be able to stear a single drone in Asia

I'm pretty sure they could manage to fly drones over Asia from a boat sitting in the Indian Ocean that happens to project military power greater than all but a handful of countries' entire militaries.

Quote

The US, without its allies, is nothing

The United States, without its allies, has economic growth and military strength that rivals or exceeds every other trade and defense union on the planet. That's before considering the preeminent example of the former is facing a borderline dissolution crisis and the United States forms the backbone of the biggest of the latter. That power and economic growth is purely centralized in a (more or less) single large area with a historically strong sense of nationalism that loaded with natural resources and the ability to return to a manufacturing economic base if need be.

 

 

The US surely benefit from not just telling all of its friends to go fuck themselves; and it would definitely be hurt by it if Trump did something to that effect and got in a trade war with China that somehow made everyone else in the world side with China. But benefiting from external trade is not the same thing as requiring it.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Patticus said:

Now, I don't think it'll ever cost him any of his core base of support in the electorate-at-large, but the demoralizing vision of their orange knight embroiled in one big scandal after another might lead to their turnout at the polls dropping, which would be good news for the Democrats if they can put into action a voter turnout campaign more effective than one only able to capture the popular vote.

There's also the implications for the Presidential campaign: Ted Cruz was in a pretty strong position despite his loss, and he just might be able to challenge Trump for the 2020 nomination. With Trump looking to be beset by scandals that would make President Grant blush, I think his "fresh face," "outsider," etc. credibility are worn out. He just might end up being the first President since the 19th century to lose his Party's nomination when re-election comes around. Cruz is just one option; there's always the chance for another contender to run a more traditional conservative campaign against someone who has been exposed as a corrupt, clueless, bigoted moron.

And if there's a brutal primary battle... that's likely to have negative effects on the GOP in the general election. If Trump is ousted, his supporters will shy away from the Party even worse than Sanders' supporters shied away from Clinton, but if Trump isn't, the more traditional Republican base might feel too disillusioned to cast votes for him.

This doesn't even consider option C: Trump is ousted and, in typical Trump fashion, refuses to accept defeat and mounts a third party campaign that splits the GOP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only March. I have to keep reminding myself that he hasn't even been in office for a quarter of a year and already look at all this shit.

I have to imagine that even if the Russian scandal doesn't persist through his term, he'll generate enough bad press that eventually something is going to give.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2017/03/22/conservative-pa-rep-explains-he-voted-for-ahca-for-this-reason-n2302537

This really does highlight the problem with the Trump camp. This House rep swung his vote from "no" to "yes" for the AHCA on one topic alone: whether or not the bill covers undocumented people.

All the evidence coming out of how badly this will hurt seniors - an active voting bloc that leans GOP - and all he cared about was "dem illegulz." Ugh.

If it wasn't so tragic, I'd be happy he's too stupid to realize he's destroying the GOP's base. I'd love if guys like this would help push more and more seniors into the single payer camp, and thus comfortably into the Democrats' grasp come the 2018 midterms.

The AHCA aka Ryancare aka Trumpcare (I like how nobody in the GOP can decide who owns it if it bombs) will be going to a vote later today.

http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Faso-plans-to-vote-for-AHCA-Cuomo-predicts-doom-11018709.php

Another Republican has come in favor of the bill as a result of an amendment that requires New York state to absorb over $2 billion in Medicaid costs for counties outside NYC, or else federal funding will be cut by that same amount. Let's remember Congress has been awfully reluctant about repaying the millions of dollars NYC has spent on extra security to protect Trump Tower, Melania Trump, and Barron.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/03/ahca-legislative-broccoli-no-one-wants-eat

Ultimately, such an attitude towards NYC reflects what this article discusses as the only real reason someone could vote for the ACHA: to stick it to liberals by tearing up Obama's legacy (supposedly). It is believed that this alone will help it squeeze by both Houses.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/biden-defends-obamacare-hill-republican-leaders-hunt-votes-n737086

But we'll see about that. A lot of conservative interest groups infamous for keeping track of votes and primarying politicians who go against them are urging Republicans to vote against the bill, because it is not a full on repeal.

In other words: let us be grateful the "Repeal or bust!" camp is likely to be just as dangerous to Trump and Ryan as "Bernie or Bust!" was to Clinton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's something that may well sway the vote against Ryan/McConnell/Trump's precious AHCA: The Koch Brothers, billionaire GOP donors long hated by the Democrats, are now pledging to withhold millions of dollars from any Republican candidate who votes Yes to the AHCA. And not because it harms Americans, oh no, it's because it doesn't go far enough.

Quote

The advocacy groups helmed by Charles and David Koch have unveiled a new pool of money for advertisements, field programs and mailings that would exclude those who vote for the health care bill they oppose on Thursday. The effort, which they described as worth millions of dollars, is an explicit warning to on-the-fence Republicans from one of the most influential players in electoral politics not to cross them.

The Koch-aligned networks oppose the bill because they think it does not do enough to scale back former President Barack Obama's health care policies.

"We want to make certain that lawmakers understand the policy consequences of voting for a law that keeps Obamacare intact," Americans for Prosperity president Tim Phillips said. "We have a history of following up and holding politicians accountable, but we will also be there to support and thank the champions who stand strong and keep their promise."

The vote is not a litmus test: Other money and resources would still be available to Republicans who do not vote with the network, formally called the Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce. But those who vote with the network will have access to more.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/politics/kochs-reserve-fund-health-care/index.html

Republicans grovel at the feet of the influential Koch brothers regularly, seeking favor and campaign funding, so it'll be interesting to see who's desperate enough for more money in 2018 to flip from a Yes to a No.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, AHCA is about to crash and burn. Awkward.

Gotta say it's hilarious to see that the GOP is as incompetent as they are evil.

How will they explain to their crazy voter base that Obamacare still exists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.startribune.com/perry-calls-for-investigation-of-texas-a-amp-m-s-election-of-gay-student-body-president/416938414/

Rick Perry's panties are in a twist over a gay student winning a student election despite losing the popular vote. The irony is apparently lost on him.

He is arguing the popular vote winner (who was accused of rigging the election; the irony is lost on Perry) was unfairly disqualified so as to let a gay person win the election. The student government insists it was because the initial winner didn't disclose all financial information related to the campaign. Again, the irony is fucking lost on Perry.

http://www.healio.com/infectious-disease/practice-management/news/online/{acda83c1-7162-42a3-84a8-3e7210391ce0}/gop-leaders-postpone-house-vote-on-ahca

Meanwhile, the AHCA vote has been delayed until tomorrow.

5 hours ago, Volphied said:

How will they explain to their crazy voter base that Obamacare still exists?

My money is on Obamacare becoming the next Roe v. Wade or gun rights. There will be incessant moaning about it every election cycle, but the GOP will never actually do much to change the status quo. And it will never get any better because a lot of conservative voters will continue to either fall in line behind them every cycle, or continue to wrongly believe that some blanket repeal will make everything better.

We have to remember, this is the same camp that took Bill Clinton's criticisms of Obamacare (from a speech where he was arguing in favor of single payer as part of his wife's campaign) and used it as evidence for full repeal.

The overall main perk to the stubborn far right elements in our Congress? It means the status quo is going to be largely maintained. I think we might see a defunding of Planned Parenthood at some point, but the Medicaid expansion, preexisting conditions, and mandates were the meat and potatoes of Obamacare, and those are likely to stay.

Keeping the status quo around? Those are true conservatives if I ever saw any!

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

538 has an article on Trump's options as far as this goes, and none of them look great:

Quote

Trump could fold. This would involve making some public declaration that the Republicans needed to go back to the drawing board on health care or move on to other priorities. While this might allow Trump to save some face, it would nevertheless be a costly play. He’d concede defeat on one of his signature priorities, his reputation as a deal-maker would take a hit, and The House Freedom Caucus would feel as though they had a notch in their belt. It would be embarrassing — and if the past is any guide, Trump wouldn’t handle his embarrassment very well.

Trump could raise, going “all-in” on the bill and doing everything he could to secure passage. This would probably involve making further compromises with the House Freedom Caucus — pushing the bill further to the right and perhaps making it even less popular — and then threatening moderate Republican who dared to defect from the bill. It just might work to get the bill across the finish line in the House. Then again, it might not, and Trump would have wasted more political capital without getting anywhere. Or the bill could pass the House and then die in the Senate, putting House Republicans in a position where they’d taken a roll call vote on an extremely unpopular bill and had nothing to show for it. Or perhaps the bill eventually would pass the Senate and become law, only for Republicans to discover that the public wasn’t bluffing when they told pollsters that they hated the bill, hurting Trump’s approval rating and costing Republicans dozens of seats at the midterms. Republicans might face another round of political backlash, furthermore, once millions of Americans discovered they were no longer able to afford their health insurance or their policies didn’t cover as much as they used to.

Finally, Trump could call — which would mean distancing himself from the bill without a clear plan for what came next. He wouldn’t officially declare the Republicans’ health care efforts dead; in fact, he and Press Secretary Sean Spicer would stubbornly resist the “FAKE NEWS” narrative that the bill had failed. But he’d largely stop lobbying Republicans on behalf of the bill, instead telling House Speaker Paul Ryan to figure things out for himself. The risks here are obvious enough. Trump — who remains popular with rank-and-file GOP voters and members of Congress — is the best salesmen Republicans have. Without his working on its behalf, the GOP bill would probably become even more unpopular. But Ryan might not have an exit strategy and relations between the White House and Capitol Hill could fray. The whole process could play out for months, exerting a continuous drag on Trump’s popularity, as the Democrats’ health care bill did to President Obama.

Read more here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-has-no-good-options-on-health-care/

Based on what we know of how Trump's general behavior, the first option seems unlikely, as it's just not in his character to just give up, particularly on big ticket items like this. The second option might happen, if he's desperate enough to get one over on Obama's legacy, although either the Senate or the unending parade of compromises and counter-compromises for Senate and Congressional Republicans will probably kill it stone dead anyway. To my mind, the last option doesn't seem like one he'd be down with either... but it's possibly the more likely one? Never admit defeat, fake news the shit out of naysayers, let Ryan pick up the wreckage and hope he builds something better, and if he can't, come back later on to do a Bill Clinton and roll out a tiny compromise non-repeal "Oh yeah this is such a big repeal" bill instead.

Hm. Apparently if tomorrow's vote fails, Trump's prepared to let go and move on. First or last options a-go, then (if he doesn't do yet another 180 on what he said the day before)? Assuming it flops, he's definitely going to want to rack up other policy wins (tax reform, immigration, that infrastructure plan that never seems to go anywhere etc) if he wants to maintain or rebuild his damaged credibility. A few of his campaign promises seemed to be projects that can take up entire presidential agendas on their own, and he promised lightning fast action on a couple, so if he can't score a big win on at least one of his signature projects before the midterms ramp up next year, his agenda's in tremendous trouble. Hell, thanks to the healthcare debacle and the smoldering fire that is Russia, it may already be on the ropes.


If you're interested, you can monitor Trump's approval ratings on 538 as well, here. It has the different weights assigned to different pollsters, sample sizes, what segment of the electorate was polled, projections etc. Pretty handy stuff.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all honesty, I'm only seeing him score a victory on tax reform and maybe the infrastructure bill. Tax cuts/reform are pretty popular as a policy objective, so he'll most likely get somewhere there, though I imagine legions of lawyers are ready to lobby for the code to remain convoluted as Hell.

Infrastructure might win some Democratic votes, but his emphasis on private sector tax cuts means he probably won't get that much. Plus while American history is full of the government using private industry to advance infrastructure projects, it has always had a heavy government hand nonetheless. The federal government didn't give railroad companies tax cuts and ask them to buy land and build railways; it sold the land to them at cheap prices so they could easily build across the country and make huge profits from both passenger tickets and selling the real estate. Urban renewal projects and the interstate highway system likewise wouldn't have gone far without huge outlays by the federal government. This "tax cuts for projects" approach is nonsense that will only allow development in the most lucrative areas... something which is probably not going to help the poorest areas, which lean Republican. Party unity being the beast it is, though, maybe that's intentional.

The trend with immigration is to just let the system work as is. Give amnesty to people already here and then give a token beefing up of the border force. I assume the "No compromise!!" Republicans will once again sink the Captain's ship when they see federal outlays for a wall of questionable effectiveness (that Mexico will not pay for, thus making it an unpopular waste of money) or amnesty provisions (which are supported by half of Trump's voters).

This is why we need a Constitutional requirement that outsiders be barred from the Presidency. People like Trump have no business running the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Gregg (Ogilvie) said:

My money is on Obamacare becoming the next Roe v. Wade or gun rights. There will be incessant moaning about it every election cycle, but the GOP will never actually do much to change the status quo. And it will never get any better because a lot of conservative voters will continue to either fall in line behind them every cycle, or continue to wrongly believe that some blanket repeal will make everything better.

Yeah, but there's also the thing that the GOP tried to repeal Obamacare something like 60 times while there was a Democrat in the White House.

I don't think it's possible to explain, without looking like a complete buffoon, why something they had no problem to vote on more than 60 times before is now suddenly impossible for them to vote for just once.

The way the GOP gerrymandered the country means that if their loony base decides to punish them by not bothering to vote, the GOP will see losses even more catastrophic than 2006.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Volphied said:

Yeah, but there's also the thing that the GOP tried to repeal Obamacare something like 60 times while there was a Democrat in the White House.

I don't think it's possible to explain, without looking like a complete buffoon, why something they had no problem to vote on more than 60 times before is now suddenly impossible for them to vote for just once.

Probably more or less why it's been called Trumpcare over Ryancare, despite it originally being Ryan's idea. If it fails, it can all be pinned on Trump, and few will question it since he's not exactly a bright bulb.

To be honest I can see the failure being spun as "Democrat obstruction" even though the Democrats have minorities in both chambers.

That seems insane until you remember all the Democrats calling for obstruction on the basis of "payback," blissfully ignoring the Republicans were able to obstruct so much because they had a majority in at least one House for 6 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Gregg (Ogilvie) said:

Probably more or less why it's been called Trumpcare over Ryancare, despite it originally being Ryan's idea. If it fails, it can all be pinned on Trump, and few will question it since he's not exactly a bright bulb.

Well... so far I've seen both terms being used an equal amount of time. It's become a hot potato they're throwing around.

 

35 minutes ago, Gregg (Ogilvie) said:

To be honest I can see the failure being spun as "Democrat obstruction" even though the Democrats have minorities in both chambers.

That will only last a few seconds before Trump blames the GOP. And you know how Trump always blames everything on his underlings. He had no problem with throwing Fox News under the bus over the wire-tapping claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ACA repeal bill is on course to fail. Paul Ryan reportedly went to the White House this morning to inform Easy D that he didn't have the votes.

The credibility of Ryan and Trump will both be hit by this, but Ryan practically staked his career on this gambit, and stands to lose far more.

Exposed as not being a great unifier, the reputation that lead to him being begged to become House Speaker to begin with, and instead presiding over a House GOP more divided and fractious than under Boehner, his agenda and his career look to be heading down a familiar road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's still not leave it entirely to chance and uncross our fingers just yet though!

The last thing we need is an upset like the 2016 presidential election itself!

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose that it could still be pulled from the fire, but right now it's just not looking good.

At first the Freedom Caucus was holding out, then the administration made a bevy of 11th hour desperation concessions to them, which included eliminating the ACA provision that prevented denial of health insurance due to pre-existing conditions (which also broke a promise Trump made on the campaign trail). Moderate Republicans were obviously deeply unhappy with this change. I believe a few were flipped into the No column by the concession.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, the bill is dead for good. They couldn't ensure enough votes and all their threats failed. Of course, they could always try a different bill, but that would be suicidal.

The GOP is a mess.

Also, lol @ Trump:

EDIT: Twitter is a goldmine right now

 

  • Thumbs Up 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People do know Trump like Obama don't write these things.  Don't they? He simply back it.  honestly it was a rush3d bill that has no purpose then idiots trying to say oh look we pulled Obama care cause we could. 

Honestly way do we even need either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He simply backed it, and then proceeded to threaten GOP politicians with their re-election, threatened to keep Obamacare in place forevermore, and used Planned Parenthood and women's health as a bargaining chip with the Freedom Caucus, malignant reprobates they may be.

 

His hand was clearly in play here. And considering the ACA was introduced by Pelosi 8 months before Obama signed it, compared to the 17 days AHCA had, Trump was particularly willing to get this thing passed.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh look, it seems like one of the "moderate republicans" has a new plan on how to destroy Obamacare.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which is now run by Trump's appointee, has the ability to completely sabotage Obamacare markets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, -Robin- said:

He simply backed it, and then proceeded to threaten GOP politicians with their re-election, threatened to keep Obamacare in place forevermore, and used Planned Parenthood and women's health as a bargaining chip with the Freedom Caucus, malignant reprobates they may be.

 

His hand was clearly in play here. And considering the ACA was introduced by Pelosi 8 months before Obama signed it, compared to the 17 days AHCA had, Trump was particularly willing to get this thing passed.

Wasn't this ryans bill more than anything? And most things they are just trying to shove into the fryer before they are ready just to tout they did something. Should be interesting next few days. For me I just want whatever happened the last few years to cause prices to jump and people to lose coverage to go back before OC came around. Lot of friends lost coverage last 2 years that they had for years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was Ryan's bill.

 

But Trump said he would bring and pass an Obamacare repeal bill to the floor immediately. One of his golden promises, including building that godforsaken wall, and defeating ISIS in a month (a time limit that passed four weeks ago, due to the Yemen raid being conducted Jan. 29).

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.