|
empty whippet box posted:I have a hard time believing that there is anything the republicans can or will do that will result in a CBO score that isn't a horrific slaughter of tens of thousands of people with tens of millions losing insurance. It's just a matter of whether it's 20-25 million, it seems like. Why would it be any easier to get it passed if 20 million were to lose insurance instead of 23? Why wouldn't it? 47+ Senators are on board, it's just a matter of how much of a treat they can extort for their personal project.
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:23 |
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:https://twitter.com/AP/status/881508544515903488 Why? What would even be the point of this? There are no drawbacks to this program..getting rid of this would only incite cause for violence. I mean, how much is saved by this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Boon posted:Why wouldn't it? 47+ Senators are on board, it's just a matter of how much of a treat they can extort for their personal project. Yep. Keep in mind for all but a small handful of R senators, the bill was totally fine as written
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I really wish people would stop falling for the myth of the "reasonable" Republican. It was physically painful to watch people fawn over John Kasich during the primary. At least Kasich just vetoed a Medicaid freeze
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:Air pressure. I don't get the point of this honestly. Water always had a freezing/boiling point. Man developed a way to measure temperature so 0 and 100 seem too perfect to be coincidence? Is that the point?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:I don't get the point of this honestly. Water always had a freezing/boiling point. Man developed a way to measure temperature so 0 and 100 seem too perfect to be coincidence? Is that the point? You gotta have faith man
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Sasse is One Of The Good Ones in the eyes of the media. Why else would the result of that CNN interview earlier be a headline about how Sasse is troubled by trump's attacks on the media? You know, as opposed to taking health care away from 32 million people by repealing Obamacare first.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:I don't get the point of this honestly. Water always had a freezing/boiling point. Man developed a way to measure temperature so 0 and 100 seem too perfect to be coincidence? Is that the point? The point is that the person who made that apparently doesn't understand that the boiling and freezing points of water are the metrics used to set 0C and 100C. So it is proof of design but not in the way they're probably thinking.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Hastings posted:Why? What would even be the point of this? There are no drawbacks to this program..getting rid of this would only incite cause for violence. I mean, how much is saved by this? $3.5 billion if he abolishes the whole danged thing. 6 million households.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Hastings posted:Why? What would even be the point of this? There are no drawbacks to this program..getting rid of this would only incite cause for violence. I mean, how much is saved by this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Celsius was clearly invented by God, and all us non-metric using heathens are going straight to hell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
mistaya posted:Celsius was clearly invented by God, and all us non-metric using heathens are going straight to hell. That's alright, I heard it's a cool 75C. That doesn't sound bad at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:$3.5 billion if he abolishes the whole danged thing. 6 million households. Does he honestly genuinely believe he can make money off of the govt. and run it like a business? Yes, 3.5 billion is a decent amount, but it isnt like he would use it elsewhere to help others.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Don't do this. I thought it was funny.  Hastings posted:Does he honestly genuinely believe he can make money off of the govt. and run it like a business? Yes, 3.5 billion is a decent amount, but it isnt like he would use it elsewhere to help others. His budget was probably mostly the brainchild of Mick Mulvaney, who apparently scoured the federal budget for all the best, most successful low-profile programs so he could destroy them. My personal favorite is his desire to save $12 million a year by abolishing the Chemical Safety Board. Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Jul 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:Enough people with web development skills do for it to be a problem. no one hates zuck more than the tech industry
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Hastings posted:Does he honestly genuinely believe he can make money off of the govt. and run it like a business? Yes, 3.5 billion is a decent amount, but it isnt like he would use it elsewhere to help others. It would be to cut taxes. Are you actually perplexed here? Cut taxes and services has been the Republican M.O. for like, ever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:It would be to cut taxes. Yeah, this too. The White House is advertising it as a budget that turns the deficit into a surplus and cuts taxes without cutting Medicare and Social Security! Hooray! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Oh great, the Trump budget proposal pops its head up again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
So how long till Trump has a Silvio Berlusconi-style gross floppy rager orgy in the White House and people willingly defend it as normal?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I really wish people would stop falling for the myth of the "reasonable" Republican. It was physically painful to watch people fawn over John Kasich during the primary. You've got plenty of reasonable Republicans, it's just that the majority of the party is, at this point, beholden to their idiot wing of know-nothings who have an outsized impact on party politics due to the polarized political climate and narrative.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Trump's a self promoter who had a personal brand as an entertainer for decades. Zuckerberg's some tech nerd most people wouldn't even recognize if they saw him. This idea that the only thing that can beat a billionaire with zero political experience is another billionaire with zero political experience is unbelievably stupid. At least run a loving celebrity if you want to run an anti-Trump. 1000x this. Trump spent decades portraying himself to the American public as a successful alpha male who makes tough decisions, helped along with carefully staged shows like the Apprentice. Since people subconsciously put so much stock in what we see on television, there existed this idea that Trump must be doing something right to have his name on the side of skyscrapers and planes and a show which is solely about how competent he is. And Trump, understanding public perception in a way few people do, played that role to the hilt. On the other hand, Zuckerberg has largely kept out of the media spotlight aside from that movie about how he screwed people out of Facebook money. He's not a "known" quantity in the eyes of the public and I doubt he has the force of personality to build a personal brand in four years. Not to mention there's certainly no guarantee that after 4 years of Trump the public will still see a lack of experience as a virtue for President. So if Zuckerberg or Dems think "random Rich white guy + no experience = President!," then they're setting themselves up for disaster. So, expect to see Zuckerberg/Cuban on the Democratic ticket in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:You've got plenty of reasonable Republicans, it's just that the majority of the party is, at this point, beholden to their idiot wing of know-nothings who have an outsized impact on party politics due to the polarized political climate and narrative. This is a pretty strange definition of "reasonable." The polarized political climate exists because those reasonable Republicans created this monster and allowed it to exist for as long as it was beneficial to them, and now they can't control it anymore. No one is holding a gun to their head and preventing them from working with Democrats to pass better legislation. No one is stopping them from at least attempting to regain control of the narrative rather than immediately bowing to pressure from the far right and their own party. Republican politicians have had a hundred chances over the last few decades to pull out of this nosedive and yet here we are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
So their plan is to placate Rand Paul with this and get ONE of Murkowski, Collins and Heller and pass it that way?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:So how long till Trump has a Silvio Berlusconi-style gross floppy rager orgy in the White House and people willingly defend it as normal? I mean the Christian Right already defends this man's sexual proclivities, I am sure it's only a matter of time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Hastings posted:Why? What would even be the point of this? There are no drawbacks to this program..getting rid of this would only incite cause for violence. I mean, how much is saved by this? gently caress the poor
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Hastings posted:Why? What would even be the point of this? There are no drawbacks to this program..getting rid of this would only incite cause for violence. I mean, how much is saved by this? If global warming is real, then why do you need money to heat your homes? Checkmate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Hastings posted:Why? What would even be the point of this? There are no drawbacks to this program..getting rid of this would only incite cause for violence. I mean, how much is saved by this? Because making poor people's lives worse gives conservatives massive erections.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
didn't see this posted yet. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/881604490041995271
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
botany posted:didn't see this posted yet. Erdogan or Puin could've easily given that speech.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
And once again we're back to leftists saying we have to abandon principles or decorum and do everything we can to just cripple the GOP, then saying they'll never support the one person who can do that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
GamingHyena posted:1000x this. Trump spent decades portraying himself to the American public as a successful alpha male who makes tough decisions, helped along with carefully staged shows like the Apprentice. Since people subconsciously put so much stock in what we see on television, there existed this idea that Trump must be doing something right to have his name on the side of skyscrapers and planes and a show which is solely about how competent he is. And Trump, understanding public perception in a way few people do, played that role to the hilt. Trump had a personal brand built over the years, but he also had a tremendous amount of scandals and lawsuits and various other cruft that weighed him down. Zuckerberg has the benefit of starting with a mostly blank slate. While I agree that 4 years is not enough time to convince the American public that he is president-material, after Trump's election I loving don't know anymore. If I were Zuckerberg I would run for Senate first. Primary the poo poo out of Feinstein, who is quite terrible for many reasons, then spend 4-5 years in the Senate to gain experience and establish a track record. That's basically what Obama did, and it was sufficient to counter most criticisms regarding him being too young.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
You mean gain experience and build a track record? That doesn't sound like disrupting the industry to me
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
Hastings posted:Why? What would even be the point of this? There are no drawbacks to this program..getting rid of this would only incite cause for violence. I mean, how much is saved by this? The benefit is that many more dead Democratic voters by the spring of 2018.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Oh great, the Trump budget proposal pops its head up again. The more visible it is to the general population the better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:It would be to cut taxes. Are you actually perplexed here? Cut taxes and services has been the Republican M.O. for like, ever. I understand this on a superficial level, but then I hit a wall where it does not compute. I just do not understand the logic because it is the least logical, efficient thing I could think of. It makes no sense to cut these small projects when so much of the excess money is in defense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Hastings posted:I understand this on a superficial level, but then I hit a wall where it does not compute. I just do not understand the logic because it is the least logical, efficient thing I could think of. It makes no sense to cut these small projects when so much of the excess money is in defense. Defense money distracts them from their tiny flaccid cocks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Hastings posted:I understand this on a superficial level, but then I hit a wall where it does not compute. I just do not understand the logic because it is the least logical, efficient thing I could think of. It makes no sense to cut these small projects when so much of the excess money is in defense. Trump has pledged himself to massive defense spending in order to make our military great again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:This is a pretty strange definition of "reasonable." I'm not even sure if they can wrest the narrative back at this point. They thought they had control up until the presidential election started, I think, and then they realized it was gone and they were totally beholden to their crazy wing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:Trump has pledged himself to massive defense spending in order to make our military great again. Trump can pledge himself to suck my non-existent dick. e: I am a lady 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:23 |
|
|
Hastings posted:I understand this on a superficial level, but then I hit a wall where it does not compute. I just do not understand the logic because it is the least logical, efficient thing I could think of. It makes no sense to cut these small projects when so much of the excess money is in defense. Defense is legitimate spending based on the constitution, unlike spending on poor people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 22:07
|
|