So today is the big day for the Ryancare/Trumpcare. I got my popcorn out and waiting for the aftermath.
Well, I'm seeing reports that they just killed the bill and won't be bringing it to a vote. Should be interesting to see how this goes, yes.
Now wait for the republicans to wait for the democrats to celebrate, get drunk, then run back home and pass it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now wait for the republicans to wait for the democrats to celebrate, get drunk, then run back home and pass it.
Already working on step two here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now wait for the republicans to wait for the democrats to celebrate, get drunk, then run back home and pass it.
Wouldn't make any difference if there wasn't a single Democrat on the floor. They didn't have enough Republicans. The Democrats couldn't have stopped this no matter what they did or didn't do.
Now wait for the republicans to wait for the democrats to celebrate, get drunk, then run back home and pass it.
They already know democrats won't vote for it. It was members of their own party, especially the Freedom Caucus, that did the bill in.
They tried to appease them with further changes to the bill, but that only alienated the moderate wing of the party, and they started defecting. And the Freedom Caucus still was NOPE.
Given that the Freedom Caucus (whose members seem to mostly vote No to everything) don't actual want or are willing to tolerate compromise, I actually don't think Republicans are going to be able to pass a bill that doesn't severely hurt them.
Wait, Ryan's saying he pulled the bill at Trump's request? I bet the President tweets a different story at 4 a.m. tomorrow morning. :P
In more comedic and less serious news:
Shia LaBeouf's wild ride is once again interrupted in Liverpool
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Trump and Republican Party Honeymoon might be over...
I am seeing a future with a very vindictive Trump targeting those Freedom Caucus folks.
Either that or he decides to throw Ryan under the bus and joins the Freedom Caucus on healthcare.
They already know democrats won't vote for it. It was members of their own party, especially the Freedom Caucus, that did the bill in.
10. What is a quorum?
A quorum in the House of Representatives is when a majority of the Members are present. When there are no vacancies in the membership, a quorum is 218. When one or more seats are vacant, because of deaths or resignations, the quorum is reduced accordingly. Because of Members' other duties, a quorum often is not present on the House floor. But any Member may insist that a quorum must participate in any vote that takes place in the House. If a Member makes a point of order that a quorum is not present, and the Speaker agrees, a series of bells ring on the House side of the Capitol and in the House office buildings to alert Members to come to the Chamber and record their presence.
You don't need half the house to pass a law, you need half the house thats there. So you need to watch out for them showing up at midnight with the blankets under the flashlight routine and passing the bill with 110 out of 218
This is the president that, after all, made money losing other peoples money for a tax return.
Yeah, this is essentially the same problem Boehner had, before they drove him out. The Republican House is unmanageable. The Freedom Caucus has enough members to kill anything they don't like, but anything they support starts to lose the less crazy wing. Especially in the Senate where the margins are even narrower.
Once you start losing people from both ends of the party on a bill, there really isn't anything you can do to fix it.Frankly, I wouldn't have been surprised if they'd squeaked through in the House only to fail in the Senate, but this is even nicer.
They've already started sowing the seeds of Plan B though: Leave it in place, weaken it through executive action and neglect, claim it's death spiralling and blame it all on Democrats. Likely with the help of the Left, always happy to bash it for not being single-payer.
I am pretty sure "Undermine and let it death spiral" will be the new strategy going forward.
At some point though Trump and Ryan are going to have to come into conflict with the Freedom Caucus. About the only thing I can currently imagine all parties agreeing with is the tax reform. Certainly if Healthcare reform can't pass Trump has no change of getting his infrastructure bill in, and the budget could also be an issue. I suspect there is quite a bit of overlap with Trump's base and people who like the Freedom Caucus. Direct conflict between Trump and them is going to weaken the party overall, although in an ideal world the Freedom Caucus will take enough of a hit that they fail to get re-elected and congress can be just a bit more bipartisan.
They already know democrats won't vote for it. It was members of their own party, especially the Freedom Caucus, that did the bill in.
10. What is a quorum?
A quorum in the House of Representatives is when a majority of the Members are present. When there are no vacancies in the membership, a quorum is 218. When one or more seats are vacant, because of deaths or resignations, the quorum is reduced accordingly. Because of Members' other duties, a quorum often is not present on the House floor. But any Member may insist that a quorum must participate in any vote that takes place in the House. If a Member makes a point of order that a quorum is not present, and the Speaker agrees, a series of bells ring on the House side of the Capitol and in the House office buildings to alert Members to come to the Chamber and record their presence.
You don't need half the house to pass a law, you need half the house thats there. So you need to watch out for them showing up at midnight with the blankets under the flashlight routine and passing the bill with 110 out of 218
This is the president that, after all, made money losing other peoples money for a tax return.
Okay...so what next? congratulations, you passed a bill that a significant number of your own party hates through the House. Good luck weathering any political fallout from that, or being able to do the same thing in the senate, which would be the next step.
It's one thing to do that sort of stuff if you are just working around an opposing party. Pulling it the folks you need as allies within your own party? Have fun with that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's one thing to do that sort of stuff if you are just working around an opposing party. Pulling it the folks you need as allies within your own party? Have fun with that.
That's kind of been trumps MO. He makes up with his enemies that try to stop him from getting elected. When they're republicans.
You're relying on someone caring about what happens beyond the now with trump: he doesn't work that way. He is happy to leave a smouldering ruin of a deal, business, building, as long as HE walks out of it thinking he did good.
I'm just curious...how many GOP clusterf$++s must Congressional Democrats unanimously oppose before people stop claiming there is "no difference" between the parties?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am pretty sure "Undermine and let it death spiral" will be the new strategy going forward.
Unfortunately, that's the GOP approach to government in general.
I'm just curious...how many GOP clusterf@&*s must Congressional Democrats unanimously oppose before people stop claiming there is "no difference" between the parties?
To paraphrase Brando, "How many you got?"
To paraphrase Brando, "How many you got?"
I'm afraid we're going to have ample opportunity to find out.
I'm afraid we're going to have ample opportunity to find out.
To paraphrase Brando, "How many you got?"
Y'know, I was planning on an edit, but, sure, I'll reply instead. I was just name checking Brando to be snarky, but right after I hit the submit button, the I realized the truthiness of my own sarcasm.
I honestly do not believe that a Republican majority Congress under President Trump will stop clusterf$~~ing themselves to a degree that Democrats will say, "I usually vote the party line, but this time I have vote with the Republicans for the sake of the least among us." Like, ever, at all, infinity times. So, if you're still reading this Bugley, I guess my serious answer is, 2018 at earliest.
It's not what we want, it's just where we happened to end up.
Depending on which Democrats you mean, I really don't think that's true. There's a small, but vocal group of leftists who do want that, but they don't really have the power. Nor, unlike the Tea Party 8 years ago do they have massive corporate funding and major news channel behind them.And now Democrats want the same thing for their party...The Republican House is unmanageable. The Freedom Caucus has enough members to kill anything they don't like, but anything they support starts to lose the less crazy wing.
Big talk for a political party that controls basically nothing and wins basically no elections outside of very specific regions.
It's one thing to do that sort of stuff if you are just working around an opposing party. Pulling it the folks you need as allies within your own party? Have fun with that.
That's kind of been trumps MO. He makes up with his enemies that try to stop him from getting elected. When they're republicans.
You're relying on someone caring about what happens beyond the now with trump: he doesn't work that way. He is happy to leave a smouldering ruin of a deal, business, building, as long as HE walks out of it thinking he did good.
Trump doesn't control the congress though. He has absolutely no power to force any of the House leadership to do this sort of thing.
Sure Trump doesn't probably care, but Paul Ryan would probably prefer not being kicked from his position, which the Freedom Caucus would have no problem with doing so.
Sorry, I don't follow politics that much, is Bannon the Speaker, or the President? :P
Sorry, I don't follow politics that much, is Bannon the Speaker, or the President? :PHe's Speaker for the President.
When Trump talks you can see Bannon's lips move.
I prefer to think that when Trumps talks I see Bannon's hands move, in the same way that when I see Kermit the Frog speak, I see Henson's hands move. Well, Whitmire since 1990, but you get my point.
Not that I think Bannon doesn't have to sound out the long words, he probably moves his lips while he reads.
Trump seems to be trying to shift the blame to Democrats for not supporting his act...which is to be expected but I doubt will get much mileage.
Sorry, I don't follow politics that much, is Bannon the Speaker, or the President? :PHe's Speaker for the President.
When Trump talks you can see Bannon's lips move.
hand
Which of course just goes to show how double downing on your own base and alienating everyone else is...shockingly...horrible political strategy.
Trump seems to be trying to shift the blame to Democrats for not supporting his act...which is to be expected but I doubt will get much mileage.
Speaking seriously, I think over the next two months, the Trump administration is going to start blaming Congress instead of the Democrats. It's going to get a bit weird, considering how often he mentioned working with Congress during his campaign. Sad thing is, I doubt his base will stop to consider the difference between his campaign promises and his actions in office, and I really doubt news outlets will put the two in any kind of historical perspective.
Yes, I just described the last two years as "historical," what can I tell you, it's been that tiring an election cycle.
Trump seems to be trying to shift the blame to Democrats for not supporting his act...which is to be expected but I doubt will get much mileage.Speaking seriously, I think over the next two months, the Trump administration is going to start blaming Congress instead of the Democrats. It's going to get a bit weird, considering how often he mentioned working with Congress during his campaign. Sad thing is, I doubt his base will stop to consider the difference between his campaign promises and his actions in office, and I really doubt news outlets will put the two in any kind of historical perspective.
Yes, I just described the last two years as "historical," what can I tell you, it's been that tiring an election cycle.
Yeah I don't really know how this is going to shake up. So far Trump has basically just ruled via executive order (some of which have also been blocked by the courts). The healthcare bill failing is a pretty major legislative failure. Without Obamacare gone, any major effort at tax reform is likely limited, which impacts another major part of the Trump agenda. and the GOP really has no interest in an infrastructure act, something he would almost certainly need help from the democrats with.
Given the factional infighting, someone is going to be on the wrong end of the blame gun for this. I still don't know if Ryan is going to get thrown under the bus and the White House will align themselves with the Freedom Caucus. Bannon seems to lean more towards these folks. OR...if the Freedom Caucus is going to be the target, in which case the Priebus faction likely benefits.
I don't really know what either of those mean for the long run. Personally I would love Trump going after the Freedom Caucus, because they are further right wing and those members losing elections would strengthen the more moderate wing, and "gasp" maybe increase the odds of a more bipartisan congress.
Which of course just goes to show how double downing on your own base and alienating everyone else is...shockingly...horrible political strategy.I suspect it all goes more to show how pretty much any political event can be interpreted to mean "I was right all along."
How so?
Bannon is a Sith Lord for Nationalism. Just not the nation.
Also I think this bill is dead and even IF they could get a quorum, the Freedom Caucasus would find a way to block. Because that's just how they roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think maybe you read the wrong thing into my response. I wasn't necessarily implying OMG REPUBLICANS ARE TOO EXTREME, so much as in:
1) Trump creates a lot of friction where none is needed. It's possible a less incendiary demeanor would have at least not energized the protests on the left as much, or which may have allowed at least some swing state dems to work with him
2) In turn, Trump I don't think really has the respect or loyalty of his own party. Yes, everyone is still "YES SIR" for the most part, but as an outsider and someone who just doesn't provoke an air of competence, he might be limited in the force he can bear on his party. Maybe NO REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT could have gotten this bill passed, but I am not sure that is really true. I think Trump weakens his own political capital with his own party on a weakly basis
3) Trump is in somewhat of a bind, because his platform isn't a 100% stereotypical Republican one. In particular, the whole infrastructure element as well as many of his stances on trade pretty much rub normal Republicans the wrong way. On Infrastructure, it's really really hard to see any way this is going to go through without dem support, something that pre January Schumer and co were at least interested in working with Trump on, but which no has become probably politically untenable. I just don't see how the Infrastructure bill can happen with only republican support, who might not even bother taking it to vote.
In general I do think in the long term the Strategy of the Freedom Caucus is not tenable. It's one thing to be the party of NO when you are the minority or when the opposing party has control of other branches. But there is some expectation that you will need to actually legislate at some point. I think a lot of Republicans actually know this, but it doesn't do them any good if a hyperpartisan atmosphere is in place between parties, and you have a faction of your own party who is incapable of compromise.
None of the above may actually matter of course. It's going to really come down to how Trump deals with his own party over the next year.
MMC,
That and the voters feelings in 2018 when those Freedom guys come up for election...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The American electorate has no f@#+ing memory.
With two exceptions in my 45 years, every two cycles we toss the incumbent party out of the presidency. It's like the US is a giant cargo ship that keeps handing control of the tiller back and forth between R and D every fifteen minutes, despite the fact that it takes an hour to actually turn the goddamned boat around.
Meanwhile we keep sailing toward the cliff...
Bulgey,
Right now I'm waiting for the boat to fall of the edge...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being the Party of NOPE doesn't seem to work quite so well when you're actually in charge. Shocker. People actually want you to govern.They already know democrats won't vote for it. It was members of their own party, especially the Freedom Caucus, that did the bill in.
They tried to appease them with further changes to the bill, but that only alienated the moderate wing of the party, and they started defecting. And the Freedom Caucus still was NOPE.
Given that the Freedom Caucus (whose members seem to mostly vote No to everything) don't actual want or are willing to tolerate compromise, I actually don't think Republicans are going to be able to pass a bill that doesn't severely hurt them.
Nope isn't working, and it's all they're good at.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
#GOPdnd
Posts like that are why I still occasionally check this thread thank you.
[Blushes]