Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
...Fuck. If Murkowski flips, there is almost no chance of killing this in the Senate.
Yeah, I don't see Lisa going for this one - it's still a cut to Alaska and Planned Parenthood. She's a kleptocrat, not a Kill the Poor ideologue, and she's not an idiot.
edited 20th Sep '17 12:13:21 PM by Ramidel
Exactly. Alaska still loses, just relatively less than others.
However, after 2026, EVERYONE loses.
edited 20th Sep '17 12:20:30 PM by Eschaton
You've got a slight mischaracterization there - the Supreme Court didn't strike it down, it was more akin to "The time when this is needed has passed, so pull the existing legislation and adjust accordingly". Obviously given what happened, their judgment on that was wrong, but it was never found Unconsitutional, which is an important bit in terms of repairing the damage wrought since its removal.
And speaking of Cassidy, Jimmy Kimmel, of all people, is on a bit of a warpath over Cassidy having lied to his face before proposing this bill. Kimmel stoked public interest by relating the story of his son - born with a defective heart - needing multiple surgeries and the fact that Obamacare prevents the worst examples of insurance (namely denial for pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps on coverage) from coming into play. Cassidy's bill, meanwhile, allows for both to be judged by the States, which Kimmel pointed out is guaranteeing that it will be permitted.
And oh goody! Cassidy is being dumb enough to say that "I'm sorry he does not understand", even though he's being evasive as all hell regarding the particulars of what the bill does.
edited 20th Sep '17 12:25:17 PM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
Will republicans keep trying to make repeal efforts after the budget is passed? My concern about them is that everyone thought they would stop trying before, and they kept going.
Figure of Hourai
They can't. Not unless they get so desperate as to scrap the filibuster entirely. Forever.
Avatar Source
And Mc Connell knows that doing that will inevitably blow up in their faces when the Democrats get a majority again.
The reason they're pushing so hard now is because September is their last chance to pull it off without having to go a (shudder) bipartisan route.
The question there becomes could things reach a point where he'd do it anyway?
edited 20th Sep '17 1:24:44 PM by sgamer82
This. The deadline is literally the end of September, and I gotta say, it'd be a tremendously shitty birthday present to have this turd pass the day afterward.
edited 20th Sep '17 1:35:47 PM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
Not even Mitch is batshit crazy enough to destroy the Fillibuster. That would destroy Congress in literally all but name. We'd have to rely on the executive branch for effective governance.
Nothing short of a Constitutional rework of our government would bring any sense of normal back.
New Survey coming this weekend!
& Given, among other things, how they've approached this whole healthcare issue with all the work ethic if a lazy school child (procrastinating for seven years and producing a bunch of half assed work in the last minute) I've not considered the GOP among our finer and saner long term thinkers.
Maybe McConnell Individually, but not the party
edited 20th Sep '17 1:39:04 PM by sgamer82
The GOP are stupid but removing the filibuster during a time when it's looking like the Democrats can possibly flip Congress would be suicidal, unless they hate Obamacare so much that they're willing to throw away their entire existence just to get rid of it.
Given my constant belief that their motives have decayed to "OBAMA BAD!" and not much else... I honestly wouldn't put it past them...
The problem is that history has literally hinged on what was a dumb decision made out of desperation (e.g. WWI starting in part because Austria decided to declare war before they were ready for war - or even before filling their Generals in on the plan). So while it's a slight chance, the fact remains that there is a chance.
![[down]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_down.png "[down]"){kind=icon}
Like I said, the key factor is desperation. They're desperate for a legislative win so that the next Congress doesn't see a Blue Wave - so with that thought process in mind, how far of a leap is it for them to think that it's a good idea? After all, they'll be able to retain control because they removed the barrier keeping them from being productive! Or so goes their hypothetical thought process, at least.
edited 20th Sep '17 1:57:53 PM by ironballs16
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"
Bruh. This healthcare bill is terrible, no doubt. Don't let anyone fool you saying that it's not.
However.
Destroying the Filibuster is an ORDER of magnitudes worse than any shitty healthcare bill, they come up with.
New Survey coming this weekend!
My concern is I wouldn't put it past them to do it anyway out of desperation.
Their most prominent victory, Gorusch, was achieved by declaring Screw the Rules, I Make Them!, and literally one of the first things Republicans in Congress tried to do this year was gut an ethics committee.
Their capacity for Stupid Evil when they think they hold all the cars is proven fact, far as I'm concerned. I can't imagine it's likely to be any different if they feel cornered or desperate.
edited 20th Sep '17 2:06:42 PM by sgamer82
Eh, the filibuster is a shitty, shitty idea. If the GOP kill it, that will likely be a good thing for the US. ... Not for the next two years, granted, but, past that. Not that that will be why they do it, so no credit to them.
The Dev Cat
not really. A democracy running on a 51% majority rule is still a democracy, but it is far less stable than a democracy that runs off a 60% majority rule.
if 51% of people agree on a thing, but 49% disagree, you have a majority decision, but a very divided governing body, and is not a state a governor should be making major decisions on.
decisions should be made on a reasonable majority, not what counts as the smallest technical majority, which is what the GOP has been trying to do while they can. note
edited 20th Sep '17 2:47:06 PM by Jetyl
I'm afraid I can't explain myself, sir. Because I am not myself, you see?
Figure of Hourai
Also, you should absolutely not allow simple majorities in any body with no basis in population or one with so few people. Yes when it represents population, though supermajorities should be demanded for massive constitutional alterations; no when you're assigning a fixed number of people on arbitrary drawings on a map.
edited 20th Sep '17 2:47:35 PM by RainehDaze
Avatar Source
.. As a practical matter, a whole bunch of nations invest nigh-absolute power in simple majorities, and are, in fact, stable as all get out. It is, for example, the case in every single one of the Scandinavian nations.
The US is a two-chamber democracy. The senate represents each state, regardless of their population, the house of representatives is weighted by population, correct? Therefore, any measure that passes both houses has the backing of a majority of both population representatives, and a majority of the states. Adding further barriers on top of this and the presidential veto just makes for gridlock, and indeed, the US government spends an awful lot of time snarled up doing nothing.
Parties that get elected should, in a democracy, get to carry out policies. If that means bad policies get enacted, well, hopefully the electorate gets a clue and stops voting for that particular bunch of incompetents.
edited 20th Sep '17 3:32:21 PM by Izeinsummer
You're comparing apples to oranges.
This wasn't the case about 15 or barely even ten years ago, but the right-wing and the left-wing of the US, genuinely despise each other on a personal level. Maybe (and that's an enormous maybe) the politicians themselves don't, but for the people that vote them in? That's absolutely the case.
You'll get stuck in a situation where everytime a party gets power, they'll try to tear the legacy of the other party down because their base demands it. Back and forth, in and endless cycle.
This type of partisanship is virtually unheard of in other democracies.
New Survey coming this weekend!
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
Yeah this is not a theoretical voting problem from a civics book. This is a population that's only a step or two away from shooting each other in the streets.
Oh really when?
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
Note that I'm only basing this based on the summary I quoted, since the link to the full article refuses to open up for some reason.
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.