The General 'Murican Politics Thread

[8ther]

Looks like that bill may not go through..

 

[Mick]

On 7/19/2017 at 6:31 AM, Lord Liquiir (Ogilvie) said:

Communist?

A large part of the federal reserve is privately owned. If anything it'd be state capitalist.

Communists don't befriend the bankers. They seize everything they have. No compromise, no negotiations, everything is just flat out taken.

I don't entirely disagree with getting rid of private banks, however, given banks are like insurance companies and frankly don't provide much of a service meriting they be kept private. All they do is push money around.

The idea bankers and insurers should be free to toss absurd amounts of money around is rightfully challenged every time it crops up.

Central banking gets its roots from communist literature.  Read here for more on that.

Read more about the Communist Manifesto and the planks.

Here's another good article.

I was once a big time leftist, I remember I voted for John Kerry in the 2004 US Presidential Election.  I don't participate in those anymore.  The last US Presidential Election I participated in was the 2012 one and I wrote in Ron Paul.

[TailsTellsTales]

I am surprised how loyal so many of you all to the corrupt democratic party. I can't stand them both honestly. It's just one is open about serving the wealthy while the other try and hide it which Hillary failed to do miserably.

I do find it sad that in a country that desperately needs healthcare, there are so many who truely believe at the bottom of their cold heart that people deserve to die an agonizing death for not being able to afford healthcare or as they call it, FREEDOM!

[Tani Coyote]

2 hours ago, CD Sanic said:

Looks like that bill may not go through..

 

Trump's opinion is irrelevant. If it gets two-thirds in both chambers, which isn't entirely a foreign possibility, he just has to eat it.

1 hour ago, Foxboy Mick said:

Central banking gets its roots from communist literature.  Read here for more on that.

Actually, the oldest recognized central banks are from the 1600s, long before Marx and Engels were even born.

Do socialists and communists call for central banks? Of course. But it's hardly their idea.

Social welfare is as old as human history, yet socialists often call for it. That doesn't make it a socialist idea. Quite the contrary, huge right-wing authoritarians like Otto von Bismarck loved the idea of social welfare to steal votes from the radical left.

1 hour ago, Foxboy Mick said:

Here's another good article.

I think it's a given Marx hadn't figured everything out, the same way the Framers of the U.S. Constitution hadn't figured everything out. The nature of science makes it near impossible to predict what things will look like a century from now, even a decade from now.

53 minutes ago, TailsTellsTales said:

I am surprised how loyal so many of you all to the corrupt democratic party. It's just one is open about serving the wealthy while the other try and hide it which Hillary failed to do miserably.

I don't think anyone here is in denial that Democrats are awful too.

But Democrats aren't the ones trying to keep gay people from marrying or adopting. They're not actively pushing to take away the rights of people to live their gender identity. They're not pushing for aggressive punishment of people who smoke marijuana. They're not the ones saying insurers should be free to do as they please.

This isn't campaign rhetoric. It's actual damned policy.

False equivalency will always be nonsense.

53 minutes ago, TailsTellsTales said:

I do find it sad that in a country that desperately needs healthcare, there are so many who truely believe at the bottom of their cold heart that people deserve to die an agonizing death for not being able to afford healthcare or as they call it, FREEDOM!

I'll give you three guesses what side of the political spectrum those people trend towards, and the first two don't count.

[SSF1991]

5 hours ago, Lord Liquiir (Ogilvie) said:

I don't think anyone here is in denial that Democrats are awful too.

But Democrats aren't the ones trying to keep gay people from marrying or adopting. They're not actively pushing to take away the rights of people to live their gender identity. They're not pushing for aggressive punishment of people who smoke marijuana. They're not the ones saying insurers should be free to do as they please.

This isn't campaign rhetoric. It's actual damned policy.

False equivalency will always be nonsense.

This.

Not to mention Republicans are guilty of corruption too. Much worse corruption. There is absolutely no comparison, and in my opinion, "But Hillary/Obama/Democrats" is not a valid argument. Democrats aren't perfect, but Republicans make them look like saints. At least Democrats have been learning most of their mistakes, they have been embracing progressive policies more and more every day. Besides, Democrats are not the ones in control of the government, including Congress, anyway.

It has nothing to do with loyalty, it's about recognizing a much greater threat and focusing on that for the time being.

[KHCast]

5 hours ago, Lord Liquiir (Ogilvie) said:

Trump's opinion is irrelevant. If it gets two-thirds in both chambers, which isn't entirely a foreign possibility, he just has to eat it.

Actually, the oldest recognized central banks are from the 1600s, long before Marx and Engels were even born.

Do socialists and communists call for central banks? Of course. But it's hardly their idea.

Social welfare is as old as human history, yet socialists often call for it. That doesn't make it a socialist idea. Quite the contrary, huge right-wing authoritarians like Otto von Bismarck loved the idea of social welfare to steal votes from the radical left.

I think it's a given Marx hadn't figured everything out, the same way the Framers of the U.S. Constitution hadn't figured everything out. The nature of science makes it near impossible to predict what things will look like a century from now, even a decade from now.

I don't think anyone here is in denial that Democrats are awful too.

But Democrats aren't the ones trying to keep gay people from marrying or adopting. They're not actively pushing to take away the rights of people to live their gender identity. They're not pushing for aggressive punishment of people who smoke marijuana. They're not the ones saying insurers should be free to do as they please.

This isn't campaign rhetoric. It's actual damned policy.

False equivalency will always be nonsense.

I'll give you three guesses what side of the political spectrum those people trend towards, and the first two don't count.

To add to this, they also aren't against basic things like basic education for everyone, nature, and science

edit: oh and affordable healthcare. Yeah dems have their shit moments, but even their incredibly dumb and controversial moments simply do not compare in the long term to the shit coming from the GOP/Reps. Especially in the race/sexuality prejudice departments.

[KHCast]

http://ti.me/2tVAG0X

Trumps boyscout speech was shit and I'm both disappointed and upset that the children were there, as they're easily impressionable, and are taking in what this shit sponge is spouting.

[Tani Coyote]

As we wait to see the results of the healthcare bill, some good news:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/politics/brownstein-millennials-largest-voter-group-baby-boomers/index.html

Millennials will have a larger voter-eligible population than the Baby Boomers come the midterms next year, gradually increasing with each year.

Of course, there still remains the biggest hurdle: actual participation. The Democrats' attempts to increase early and absentee voting are going to be more important than ever as a means to engage younger people.

As part of that same campaign, however, Democrats need to be sure to only run candidates who fire up younger voters. Record numbers of young voters went third party last year, and the Party needs to understand they can't rely on party loyalty to win the day.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/politics/vote-tally-senate-health-care/index.html

Motion to proceed has passed, 50-50, with Pence voting to break the tie. The two GOP defectors were Collins and Murkowski, as happened with De Vos' confirmation.

A lot of people are despairing about this, but let's step back for a minute. This is just a motion to open debate on the House bill. It doesn't mean it will pass.

Indeed, every Senator is now in a position to offer amendments that will be voted on on the spot, and this means the 48 Democrats who were excluded now have a chance to push moderate proposals some GOP defectors agree to. I hope they don't waste their time with single payer or troll amendments and instead try to put in things that are good, like a Medicaid buy-in or striking out the Planned Parenthood defunding. They now have a serious chance to improve Obamacare, because it's become apparent the GOP on its own can't do anything.

On that note, that's the other silver lining. The whole reason the Senate tried its own bill first is probably because they knew so many amendments would be made the AHCA would be unrecognizable afterward. The House bill is likely to see a ton of amendments from both left and right as debate goes on.

[Nepenthe]

So Trump randomly decided on his own to disbar transgender individuals from military service because fuck them (also probably needs a distraction issue.)

[KHCast]

10 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

So Trump randomly decided on his own to disbar transgender individuals from military service because fuck them (also probably needs a distraction issue.)

The literal fuck is wrong with this cartoon vilain?

[SenEDDtor Missile]

2 minutes ago, KHCast said:

The literal fuck is wrong with this cartoon vilain?

He's a cartoon villain in a real, complex world is what.

[Tani Coyote]

I have to say.

This is legitimately the shittiest wakeup surprise push notification I have ever gotten.

Fuck this guy. Hopefully it can be challenged in court.

[Nepenthe]

Here's the utterly delicious kicker if true.

Basically, they're doing this to force Democrats to potentially campaign on an obviously egregious violation of human decency come the midterms (else they face potential backlash from their own base), hoping the Rust Belt will decry this as the Dems playing (non-white) social politics and vote against them out of spite.

So congratulations to Hillary on ultimately being right. Even Republican politicians think their own base is deplorable enough to use this as political leverage.

 

[Tani Coyote]

I'm going to laugh my ass off if the Supreme Court just ends up going "...nope!" on the issue. Or even Congress, for that matter. The fact a House majority sunk a bill to strip transgender soldiers of transition care (once again, argued on "oh noes, expensive!!") indicates that even some House Republicans think it's a load of BS.

I'm questioning the whole strategy, though. I don't think many Democrats will make the transgender ban, as unfortunate as it is, the center of their campaign. It's generally a bad idea to be a single issue candidate in general.

And it runs contrary to the newly-revealed 2018 strategy. The Democrats are likely to continue fighting for social justice while at work, but on the campaign trail, they are putting economics at the forefront. And once elected, while they may not enact a hugely progressive social agenda, at the very least they're probably not going to be so viciously attacking minority rights like the GOP is doing.

Democrats don't even need to make this about social justice.

There's already Republicans coming out against it - even Senate President Pro Tempore Orrin Hatch, from deeply red Utah. There's a frequent bipartisan reverence for the military and service therein, and Trump's order is seen as a completely unnecessary act of discrimination. Democrats can just as easily turn this against him, saying he's arbitrarily deciding who can and can't serve their country. Even John McCain, the guy people were crucifying yesterday for voting yes on healthcare debate, is coming out against this.

The GOP's trying a desperate move that I'm not sure will really work out in their favor.

[Tani Coyote]

Double post in light of good news:

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-07-26/senate-begins-vote-o-rama-on-obamacare-repeal-efforts?int=news-rec

It sounds like the BRCA, "Repeal and Replace," Trumpcare... whatever you call it, is officially dead (again). It failed 43-57, with 9 Republicans defecting to side with the Democrats.

The Senate will now proceed to a vote on the full repeal plan with no replacement, which is expected to fail.

After that, it's vote-o-rama time, with hundreds of amendments being passed or failing.

It's expected McConnell will end up rendering the whole process moot by proposing a "slim repeal" at the end which rolls back the mandates and changes some taxes.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-set-vote-straight-repeal-obamacare-n786691

Full repeal has failed 45-55. 7 defectors as opposed to 9. For all the hate directed towards McCain for his vote yesterday, he was one of the Nays.

What's humorous is that when it hit 49 against, the room stopped for a bit... nobody wanted to be the final no vote. The honor fell to Feinstein of California. Once one more vote came in that made it 51 against, a lot of Republicans suddenly lodged Yea votes, presumably because now it wouldn't make a difference.

With that, both the replacement and repeal bills are dead in the water. Senators will now move to vote on amendment after amendment. Whatever survives the process will be cobbled together in a final bill that can likely pass with 50 votes and be negotiated further with the House.

Hopefully Democrats use this as an opportunity to try and push alternate reforms: single payer, a Medicaid buy-in, etc. GOP Senator Collins recognizes the importance of mandates to the insurance industry's stability, so she has called for an opt out provision; everyone would automatically be enrolled in insurance unless they agreed to opt out. She just might end up pushing us closer to single payer unintentionally with such a provision.

[ElectricAngel]

Well that seems kind of stupid of Trump. :U From the quick research I did there seems to be only a little over 2k trans people active in the military.. And hormones are dirt cheap so "tremendous medical costs" my ass. 

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2017/07/26/doj-anti-gay-discrimination-perfectly-ok-federal-law/

Department of Justice has submitted a brief arguing sexual orientation discrimination is perfectly legal as it doesn't qualify as sex discrimination.

Hoping cases like this get taken up with the SCOTUS. Between Kennedy's swing vote and Roberts' increasingly pro-LGBT voting record, I think Trump and co. are in for a smackdown.

41 minutes ago, ElectricAngel said:

Well that seems kind of stupid of Trump. :U From the quick research I did there seems to be only a little over 2k trans people active in the military.. And hormones are dirt cheap so "tremendous medical costs" my ass. 

I think he knows what he's doing.

He's just pulling the usual contrived excuse of "expenses" to avoid looking like a bigot.

Fortunately it's not working. We already have Defense Department studies showing that in the end, the impact on finances and morale by open service by transgender people is negligible. There's really no reason to single them out.

[KHCast]

I find it quite telling how after pride month, the very next month it seems to be an all out attack on LGBT people by this fucking shit pile. It's like Trump this morning set off the green light for republicans to start proposing tons of these 

[Tani Coyote]

Just now, KHCast said:

I find it quote telling how after pride month, the very next month it seems to be an all out attack on LGBT people by this fucking shit pile. 

We already know why, too.

As Nepenthe noted, Trump is basically trying to set the Democrats up to have to die on the hill of social justice, in the hopes it will keep conservative but economically populist people in the Rust Belt and swing states from supporting the Democrats next year.

It's really just a desperate attempt to score some victory as it becomes rapidly apparent he's probably not getting any real victories. His only "victory" is appointment of Gorsuch, and that's because McConnell did all the work for him.

Plus, it's a desperate strategy. Only the strongest ideologues are going to make LGBT rights the front and center of their platform. Democrats are focusing on jobs and the economy, to say nothing of healthcare. As for minority rights, it's a given Democrats are better for those than the Republicans. When it comes to a lesser evil vote, anyone interested in minorities will pick the "not doing anything new, but not trying to repeal anything either" Democrats over the "ruin everything Obama accomplished" Republicans.

[Patticus]

The GOP is going to force a vote on single payer healthcare tomorrow:

Quote

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) wants Democrats to show their cards on single-payer.

The GOP senator has filed an amendment to implement a government-funded healthcare system in a political maneuver aimed at forcing Democrats to say whether or not they support the concept that is picking up steam on the left.

A vote on the amendment has been scheduled for Thursday.

To be clear, it's almost certain Daines doesn't support a single-payer system.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/344038-gop-senator-forces-dems-to-vote-on-single-payer?amp

Perhaps they're trying to line up a list of targets to target attack ads at, with an eye to attempting to inch towards a Senate super-majority next year. Or maybe they'll watch the vote fail and cry "See! Your precious single payer failed the vote, too! You're not so superior!" from the rooftops, or there could be some other reason, I don't know.

What I do know. however, is that that now is clearly not the right time for a vote on single payer - it's being put up there to die a death, for whatever nefarious reason. The Democrats should be voting up amendments that improve the ACA, or strike down the defunding of Planned Parenthood - anything that mitigates the potentially lethal harm that the GOP could potentially do to millions of Americans.

I'd laugh a hearty laugh if it somehow passes, though.

[KHCast]

4 hours ago, Lord Liquiir (Ogilvie) said:

We already know why, too.

As Nepenthe noted, Trump is basically trying to set the Democrats up to have to die on the hill of social justice, in the hopes it will keep conservative but economically populist people in the Rust Belt and swing states from supporting the Democrats next year.

It's really just a desperate attempt to score some victory as it becomes rapidly apparent he's probably not getting any real victories. His only "victory" is appointment of Gorsuch, and that's because McConnell did all the work for him.

Plus, it's a desperate strategy. Only the strongest ideologues are going to make LGBT rights the front and center of their platform. Democrats are focusing on jobs and the economy, to say nothing of healthcare. As for minority rights, it's a given Democrats are better for those than the Republicans. When it comes to a lesser evil vote, anyone interested in minorities will pick the "not doing anything new, but not trying to repeal anything either" Democrats over the "ruin everything Obama accomplished" Republicans.

Basically, leave the big LGBT issues for us to spread the word on about how shitty certain policies are. Let us kick the fuss about them. We've proven we can get change to happen on our own terms. In the current state of things, as much as I'd love dems to work side by side with us and highlight how shit the republicans are,  all that's currently gonna do is unfortunately push people away if we make those issues frontwards issues.

[Phos]

15 hours ago, Nepenthe said:

So Trump randomly decided on his own to disbar transgender individuals from military service because fuck them (also probably needs a distraction issue.)

He's getting dissenters out of the military. Probably Brannon's idea. 

[KHCast]

http://www.hrc.org/blog/trump-administration-asserts-civil-rights-laws-wont-apply-to-lgbtq-people

 

Im done. I can't say fuck these men enough. Literally going and doing a 180 on quite literally everything he said in support for us lol. Guess he figured winning us is a lost cause so may as well make his discrimination known 

[8ther]

 

@Lord Liquiir (Ogilvie) I thought Trump couldn't stop this bill

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/26/trump-transgender-military-ban-behind-the-scenes-240990

Turns out Trump's transgender ban was motivated to try and save House bills providing funding for things like his wall. Republicans were split on the issue of denying transition care to transgender soldiers, and that threatened to sink all the various proposals that were close to fruition.

In the end, the conservative House members went to Secretary of Defense James Mattis, asking him to end transition care so as to take the issue off the table, but Mattis refused to so quickly change military policy. Cue those same conservatives going straight to Trump, and he was happy to issue the ban for the sake of his policies going forward. Turns out a lot of the conservatives who asked him about it were surprised; they didn't want a full-on ban of transgender soldiers, just an end to transition care.

https://mic.com/articles/182967/despite-trumps-tweets-military-leaders-say-there-will-be-no-changes-to-transgender-policy?utm_medium=web&utm_source=micPush#.DGyf6NZ2D

Joint Chiefs of Staff have snubbed Trump on the transgender ban. They say there will be no policy changes until Secretary of Defense Mattis reviews the proposal and issues implementation guidance.

As mentioned, Mattis is not comfortable with a sudden ban on transgender soldiers. He's going to want formal review processes. This ignoring that prior Defense Department studies last year show no real benefit from banning transgender soldiers, nor any costs to keeping them in.

Given Mattis was confirmed 98-1, he has the ever unifying support for soldiers behind him. If Mattis refuses to comply and Trump fires him for it, it would be a PR disaster. He would literally be fired for doing his job.

13 hours ago, Patticus said:

The GOP is going to force a vote on single payer healthcare tomorrow:

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/344038-gop-senator-forces-dems-to-vote-on-single-payer?amp

Perhaps they're trying to line up a list of targets to target attack ads at, with an eye to attempting to inch towards a Senate super-majority next year. Or maybe they'll watch the vote fail and cry "See! Your precious single payer failed the vote, too! You're not so superior!" from the rooftops, or there could be some other reason, I don't know.

It is most likely meant as an attack ad to encourage people to come out and vote Republican next year.

Of course... it might just backfire, because people might be encouraged to give the Democrats more power seeing what they want on healthcare.

I'd hope so, because we know the GOP won't be honest in its ads. They will paint single payer as a massive totalitarian takeover of healthcare, just as the Affordable Care Act was in its infancy.

Quote

What I do know. however, is that that now is clearly not the right time for a vote on single payer - it's being put up there to die a death, for whatever nefarious reason. The Democrats should be voting up amendments that improve the ACA, or strike down the defunding of Planned Parenthood - anything that mitigates the potentially lethal harm that the GOP could potentially do to millions of Americans.

I'm hoping the Democrats will put forward public options as the debate goes on. Medicaid and Medicare buy-ins, for example.

Obama overcomplicated the process. He wanted a brand new government agency to sell insurance. Just use the ones that are already there.

That will help win over fiscal conservatives, as well, given Medicare and Medicaid have a good deal of popularity.

11 hours ago, KHCast said:

Basically, leave the big LGBT issues for us to spread the word on about how shitty certain policies are. Let us kick the fuss about them. We've proven we can get change to happen on our own terms. In the current state of things, as much as I'd love dems to work side by side with us and highlight how shit the republicans are,  all that's currently gonna do is unfortunately push people away if we make those issues frontwards issues.

It might be for the best, as well. A lot of LGBT victories have been delivered by the Supreme Court, and to keep that Court from sliding far to the right, there need to victories at the state and local levels where pro-LGBT judges and legislators are elected, so they can get into federal legislative and judicial offices. If the national Democrats don't focus quite as strongly on the issue, it incentivizes the lower parties to build up their base.

Which is really needed. The reason the Democrats got, well, owned in 2010 is because they've been neglecting smaller races.

While voter suppression is one issue affecting Democratic victories, I think it's disingenuous to think it's the only issue. There's a general lack of motivation to participate in primaries, state races, etc. There's a notorious gap between Presidential and non-Presidential year turnout for Democrats. We're just not as politically involved as a whole, and that needs to change.

Let's consider: the reason Bernie Sanders got so far to begin with was because of highly motivated voters swamping caucuses and giving him extra delegates. He'd have been crushed in a straight, nationwide primary.

3 hours ago, CD Sanic said:

 

@Lord Liquiir (Ogilvie) I thought Trump couldn't stop this bill

I should clarify.

The President can still veto something with broad supermajorities. It just gets sent back to Congress for reconsideration.

Congress then calls a veto-override vote. Assuming few people change their vote, it will meet the two-thirds required in both houses, and go into law anyway.