[Silencer]

QuickTidal, on 26 July 2017 - 06:28 PM, said:

Not only that, a Trump Admin official said the following about it:

“This forces Democrats in Rust Belt states like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin to take complete ownership of this issue,” said the unnamed official. “How will the blue-collar voters in these states respond when senators up for re-election in 2018 ... are forced to make their opposition to this a key plank of their campaigns?”


Which is scheming at a level I can't even comprehend.

So I feel like this is one part distraction - "Don't look at Russia or Healthcare! Look over here at my super bigoted stance on LGBT in the military!" and one part working the next election by appealing to his terribly bigoted base supporters. It's despicable all around.

Oh, the timing on this is very glaringly a distraction - he has had a(nother) shocking week. In some ways that just doubles down on the bigotry though. "let's use trans people as a distraction... By dehumanising them and devaluing their service to the country!" ugh.

Unfortunately it needs to be dealt with as a real issue, even if 45 thinks it's a devious distraction. Thankfully people can multi-task.

[worry]

What in the world. Is it possible DJT's own team doesn't understand why he won? Sure there's all the bigotry stuff, but it was populist bigotry (for most voters I mean -- his actual advisory team is, again, genuine bigots). Most of his voters don't care about this issue -- which is why they are willing to sacrifice people if it means economic help -- the latter is what they care about. People may not understand, and they might even consider deviant, Trans people -- but even among that group I doubt banning them from military service is a winning position. And I don't think Dems will have a very tough time defending the position that anyone who wants to serve should be able to -- people in the rust belt are not people in the bible belt. Dems' problems are on economic policy & messaging, not the social issue stuff. This just isn't the wedge issue it once was.

This post has been edited by worry: 26 July 2017 - 08:25 PM

[Silencer]

worry, on 26 July 2017 - 08:24 PM, said:

What in the world. Is it possible DJT's own team doesn't understand why he won? Sure there's all the bigotry stuff, but it was populist bigotry (for most voters I mean -- his actual advisory team is, again, genuine bigots).

Literally everything you need to answer your own question is in this line. XD

[worry]

I just don't see the gain. The religious right and the alt right are both already loyal.

The Department of Justice did also just file a brief arguing that the Civil Rights Act doesn't protect LGBT workers from discrimination, so maybe it's in tandem with that.

[Silencer]

worry, on 27 July 2017 - 09:48 AM, said:

I just don't see the gain. The religious right and the alt right are both already loyal.

The Department of Justice did also just file a brief arguing that the Civil Rights Act doesn't protect LGBT workers from discrimination, so maybe it's in tandem with that.

Of course they did. Honestly, the gain is more likely to be had at the expense of the Democrats than anything else - the idea is to make them treat it like a focus issue, detracting from arguments about the economy, and basically making them waste time and resources on it as part of a campaign. They're trying to control the tone, knowing that there was a non-zero number of people last time around who claimed that the Democrats focusing on social issues was what turned them off that vote, and knowing that it's where they are strongest, given by the time the next lot of voting rolls around it will be clear that they haven't delivered on any of their economic promises. So push the debate back around easily strawmanned social problems (of their own creation) rather than letting the Democrats engage their new platform of economic reform (which I believe they're rolling out at the moment).

[worry]

Yah I think that's essentially right, I just think they're barking up the wrong tree.

[Tiste Simeon]

And now Preibus has gone. Dunno who John Kelly is but I imagine he's another lickspittle keen to nod enthusiastically at whatever nonsense spews forth...

[worry]

He was DJT's Sec. of Homeland Security, previously a general in the Marine Corps, and I guess one of the least embarrassing dudes in the cabinet. I don't know about toadying -- he's there to provide stability, but it's pretty clear he's entering a den of vipers, and I really don't know what to expect.

[Malankazooie]

So the White House Sunday School Teacher Press Secretary read a letter from nine year old Dylan (aka "Pickle"), because yeah, we all need a little reaffirmation that Trumpito is loved and who better to convince his detractors that he is loved then an sweet letter from an innocent child.

And it's totally legit, because what nine year old boy doesn't want a MAGA themed birthday party.

[Itwæs Nom]

http://edition.cnn.c...lure/index.html

At 9 seconds in, what appears to be cocaine falls out of Trump's nose

[Aptorian]

Could also be a boogger, some tissue paper, a reptillian mind parasite or a host of other possibilities. replaying it over and over I can't if it's actually from the side of his head not shown by the camera.

Saying it appears to be cocaine is a bit far fetched. Guy's in his seventies.

This post has been edited by Seduce Goose: 29 July 2017 - 02:36 PM

[amphibian]

That's not coke, that's being sick with a drippy nose. It's liquid.

Coke looks a little different falling out of a nose.

[Macros]

Did McCain go against the party line and vote against repealing Obamacare?
Is this common or surprising?

[worry]

McCain is one of three R senators to vote No on "Skinny" repeal, yah. The whole thing was uncommon because the ostensible goal was to vote through an awful bill hoping the House wouldn't accept it as is, and the two chambers would get together to revise -- a dangerous bet to say the least. Murkowski and Collins were principled No's and McCain got to ruin McConnell and Trump's day.

[Cause]

I find your system confusing. Am I correct the skinny bull was not binding and more a statement of intent? You need 60 votes to pass the bill?

Also when Trump says just let Obama care did and fix it later. Does that seem as dangerous and short sighted as it sounds. Does that not mean letting millions of people's insurance lap or do I not understand

[worry]

Hmm, it's not that it's not binding (in the sense of a purely symbolic bill), it's that it's still an early step. The standard formula for complicated legislation is House or Senate passes a bill, the other chamber passes a version of the same bill, then they get together to hash out the language to make it identical, and then both chambers must pass it again...then it goes to the president.

In this case, the House has passed their bill, so the Senate aimed to pass its awful version of the bill hoping (gambling) that the House GOP would come together to iron out a final version whose language would pass in both chambers -- the gamble being that the Senate knew the skinny repeal was an awful idea, and were hoping the House wouldn't just pass an identical bill to get it over with instead of coming together to rewrite. The skinny repeal -- which bypasses (via removal/manipulation of various financial components) procedural rules that would require 60 votes -- it needed 50 (plus Pence as tie breaker).

When Trump says let Obamacare die, he's perpetuating the myth that it's already in a "death spiral" -- it's not, and that's kind of why it's a bluff on DJT's part and they really wanted/needed the legislation. There are of course ways the president can sabotage Obamacare though -- for instance they have already shut down major ACA help programs in 18 cities (http://abcnews.go.co...cities-48750607) and DJT is threatening to stiff insurers on subsidies. Very petty stuff, and this whole debacle has shown how totally planless the GOP and the Trump admin both are.

[Macros]

I really don't get why anyone who isn't wealthy, and probably white, would ever vote republican.

They are out to kill the poor man

[Silencer]

worry, on 31 July 2017 - 05:06 PM, said:

Hmm, it's not that it's not binding (in the sense of a purely symbolic bill), it's that it's still an early step. The standard formula for complicated legislation is House or Senate passes a bill, the other chamber passes a version of the same bill, then they get together to hash out the language to make it identical, and then both chambers must pass it again...then it goes to the president.

In this case, the House has passed their bill, so the Senate aimed to pass its awful version of the bill hoping (gambling) that the House GOP would come together to iron out a final version whose language would pass in both chambers -- the gamble being that the Senate knew the skinny repeal was an awful idea, and were hoping the House wouldn't just pass an identical bill to get it over with instead of coming together to rewrite. The skinny repeal -- which bypasses (via removal/manipulation of various financial components) procedural rules that would require 60 votes -- it needed 50 (plus Pence as tie breaker).

When Trump says let Obamacare die, he's perpetuating the myth that it's already in a "death spiral" -- it's not, and that's kind of why it's a bluff on DJT's part and they really wanted/needed the legislation. There are of course ways the president can sabotage Obamacare though -- for instance they have already shut down major ACA help programs in 18 cities (http://abcnews.go.co...cities-48750607) and DJT is threatening to stiff insurers on subsidies. Very petty stuff, and this whole debacle has shown how totally planless the GOP and the Trump admin both are.

As far as I can tell, the whole "let it die" thing is basically premised on the idea that by removing the subsidies, insurers will hike premiums, thus lending credence to the myth that "Obamacare costs more" and thus removing the staggering support it has had from the general public calling their representatives, etc.
Also known as "letting people die to prove our point", but hey.

[Aptorian]

The Mouch has been removed from his position as Communications director. No real news yet of whether he is actually fired or just repositioned to some other comedic platform.

https://www.nytimes....house.html?_r=0

He lasted 9 days. His official start was supposed to be in August but he didn't even get to have his first day on the job.

Ahh, Trump's White House. How you entertain me.

[Vengeance]

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. Wall street versus military. The Military guy won hands down.