The General US Politics Thread

They'll carry on. They have a loyal base that isn't going to vote them out of office unless they run this country into the ground. All they have to do is not screw up enough or blame the Democrats, and they'll hold onto some power at least.

It's bad to underestimate the survivability of either party in a two party system. As the past has shown, neither party really collapses, they just change their suits.

An actual article

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/17/obamacare-senators-turn-on-mcconnell-240646

Once again, the Republican party has saved Obamacare in its quest to doom it.

Correction; the Tea Party has saved ObamaCare, the thing they ran against, yet again. All those Tea Party supporters must feel so betrayed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_agencies_affected_by_the_United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_2013

Each department has latitude to decide who keeps working and who doesn't. Military pay is protected by law as of 2014 but civilian contractors may be out of luck. Various percentages of personel deemed essential are likely to remain on the job.

I saw that Moran was upset it didn't repeal the whole thin but I'm not sure who is and who is not a Tea Partier. I know the Tea Party/Freedom Caucus stopped the first attempt at the House bill.

Still, if this pans out long enough then, unless I'm mistaken, future attempts at this will at least require Democrat support, so a bipartisian effort can at least be achieved.

Granted, McConnell at one point used bipartisanship as a threat, but still... I'm going to hold on to a bit of hope here.

I disagree with just free trade but I thinkg there have been a wave of populism in the world that start at early 90(chavez go power in 98) in part because of US past dickery reach apex with the Iraq Fiasco and in general is the idea that things have been in the status quo too much.

And of course that depend on country country, the US have is share of idiot president and the like but they didnt deal with idiot populist like trump before compared to Europe or latin america who have deal with that bullshit before and you kinda get it why the world is like this.

The UK wants a word with you there.

Anyway, my question's not one of electoral failure—it's whether these disagreements are going to eventually have one side or another just break off.

The US frankly did a lot of bullying all over South and Central America from the 60s through the 90s so it's understandable that region of the world would be soured on "free trade but actually it's heavily exploitative in favor of the US and if you don't give us what we want we'll send spooks to install people who will".

NAFTA and its ilk were considerably more equitable by comparison. NAFTA improved our overall relationship with Mexico and Canada considerably.

edited 17th Jul '17 6:47:26 PM by Elle

There's also the fact that the Federalists, National Republicans (not the Party of Lincoln), the Whigs, and the Know Nothings all rose to power and collapsed (with the latter 2 dying from Slavery), for new Parties to take their place. Considering the Republican Party is a) divided to the point they cannot govern, and b) unwilling to change anything about themselves, it is possible the Current Republicans could collapse, and we get a new re-alignment in America.

In keeping with Trump failing, Trump Administration creates 150,000 more 'Temporary Visas' for Foreign Workers to work in the USA, going against another one of his Campaign Promises (to make American Companies hire American Workers).

I support the Creation of more Work Visas (although I'd rather do away with the Quota system entirely, and most forms of the Visa, like the Work Visa, myself), but considering Trump was against doing this until just now, I support it even more.

edited 17th Jul '17 6:49:50 PM by DingoWalley1

Yeah, I'm sceptical of this being the end of the health care battle. Way I see it, either McConnell hastily makes an amendment to appease them, or he looks them in the eye and says 'if you really want the story to be that you cast the deciding vote that killed the Obamacare appeal effort, go ahead and vote against it.' Because I don't trust any Teapublican to call that bluff. (Except Rand Paul, who has a well-documented of love not voting for things)

edited 17th Jul '17 6:50:47 PM by Gilphon

Yeah, when it comes down to it, the UK's main parties look comparatively stable. The Tories haven't gone anywhere in over 200 years now, and we still have the liberals (now the lib dems) hanging around.

And the chance that "if I vote for too much of my state to lose insurance I'm out of a job with a bad rep" winning over the moderates...?

edited 17th Jul '17 6:53:04 PM by RainehDaze

Yep, that rat Mc Connell has too much at stake here personally to let the bill die. If it does die he's probably going to end up stepping down as leader.

With our luck, that will lead to Ted Cruz becoming leader in his place. Joy.

edited 17th Jul '17 6:53:33 PM by M84

An even more polarised leader seems like a benefit to the opposition party, though.

Cruz is still disliked by most of his own party, isn't he? Unless they wanted to throw him in as a sacrificial goat...

Thinking on it some more, would any of the current GOP Senators even want the job if Mc Connell steps down?

Plus Trump claimed that his father helped to assassinate JFK. So, y'know, what lovely diplomatic relations the Senate would have with the White House in that hypothetical scenario.

x3 He might also get voted out in 2018, but that depends on the rest of this year, and the beginning of next year. Considering how the GOP is acting now, though, Cruz might actually get the boot. Even as a Republican Senator in Texas.

edited 17th Jul '17 7:02:25 PM by DingoWalley1

x6 No, actually, Ted Cruz as Senate leader would be pretty good for the Democratic party because nobody can stand him. For example, Lindsey Graham said that "If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you".

Edit:

Edit 2: Relevant

edited 17th Jul '17 7:05:42 PM by IFwanderer

While we're back on the subject of Cruz...

I just learned about this recently, but Craig Mazin, the writer/director of Superhero Movie was Cruz's roommate in college, and did not have kind things to say about him. So it's not limited to fellow Congresspeople.

I've been thinking about a theoretical split Republican Party a lot in relation to precedent: Theodore Roosevelt, who got some damn good leverage out of it. If the party can't get it together and ends up without direction I wonder how much we can look to historical precedent on what'll happen next.

The historical precedent would be it collapsing and getting replaced by another party. I can't imagine what party would replace it...

Does Cruz's formal position mean that the Republicans are going to have Cruz as their base come hell or high water then?

Cruz is just a senator right now, so I'm not understanding your question here. All talk of him taking Mc Connell's position was just speculation.

This is, of course, assuming Mc Connell gets voted out of either his current position or his senatorship. I don't think I've heard any speculation about him retiring.

You know, every now and then I think back to Boehner and how he must be laughing in crazed relief that he got out when he did.

Why is Mc Connell redlinking when I post?

edited 17th Jul '17 7:43:37 PM by AceofSpades

It's redlinking because it gets converted to a trope page. Surround it with [= and it should stop. Sadly, I can't remember how to avoid syntax from working, else I'd give an example. xD

edited 17th Jul '17 7:45:24 PM by RainehDaze