|
No Safe Word posted:In McCain's home state nonetheless, I'm sure he's deeply concerned Article states he was a client there and aged out of being able to use the services Edit: Toby Tax  
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Do you think Saramucci has ever said "crushing some pussy" Like, this week or?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:the bill needs 60 votes to proceed because it can't pass through reconciliation I wouldn't count on that. We don't have a final bill until the great turtle declares we have a final bill to vote on. If there's a problem with the parliamentarian, they can modify the bill until they get something that fits within the rules. Not having a score is a problem, but they can always put up some bullshit cobbled-together score sent over by a Trump appointee and say "we'll go with this instead of the CBO" like they had been planning to do a week or two ago until they realized they didn't have 50 votes and didn't bother.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
ShutteredIn posted:Like, this week or? Good point
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:Wait if it goes to conference it needs 60 votes? But if the the skinny repeal is voted on as is it doesn't? Skinny repeal as has been described so far contains provisions that are prohibited by the Byrd Rule and don't qualify for inclusion in a reconciliation bill (the mechanism for passing something with 50+1). If the conference bill contains any of those provisions (many of which were cornerstones to the House's original bill), that will require 60 votes as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Do you think Saramucci has ever said "crushing some pussy" Probably in the context of killing actual cats, absolutely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I wouldn't count on that. We don't have a final bill until the great turtle declares we have a final bill to vote on. If there's a problem with the parliamentarian, they can modify the bill until they get something that fits within the rules. Not having a score is a problem, but they can always put up some bullshit cobbled-together score sent over by a Trump appointee and say "we'll go with this instead of the CBO" like they had been planning to do a week or two ago until they realized they didn't have 50 votes and didn't bother. They're referring to the Wall bill that passed the House
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:Wait if it goes to conference it needs 60 votes? But if the the skinny repeal is voted on as is it doesn't? Different bill, they're talking about DOD Appropriations bill that had wall funding attached. It will need Democratic support in the Senate and will change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
What's the time limit on debate for this bill?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Wait so if the skinny repeal bill needs 60 votes no matter how they slice it why are we worried about it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:They're referring to the Wall bill that passed the House oh, well that probably does need 60 votes. Building a wall is not a strict budget thing, it clearly has political and policy changes outside of funding, taxes, and spending limits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:What's the time limit on debate for this bill? 20 hours, which people were saying that they have to vote around 8 PM? I don't think they can just table it and try again later since they got the MTP.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:Wait so if the skinny repeal bill needs 60 votes no matter how they slice it why are we worried about it? the skinny repeal only needs 50 votes (probably) the dod appropriations bill needs 60. you should worry about the former and not the latter right now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:Wait so if the skinny repeal bill needs 60 votes no matter how they slice it why are we worried about it? No one loving knows anything at this point It might require 60, it might not, they might rework the the bad passages to be Byrd compliant, they might just remove those bits from the bill At this point, no one knows anything and nothing is final
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
and to add onto that, if there's a parliamentary problem in the skinny repeal, the turtle can probably fix it with minor changes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Do you think Saramucci has ever said "crushing some pussy" I think we finally found one of those "chads" the incel crowd won't shut up about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:the skinny repeal only needs 50 votes (probably) Okay I misread. This is loving bananas, they're giving a drunk monkey a handgun because they don't want the cops to see them with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Rigel posted:oh, well that probably does need 60 votes. Building a wall is not a strict budget thing, it clearly has political and policy changes outside of funding, taxes, and spending limits. Even if it were they only get two reconciliation bills and they're not about to waste one of them on Trump's invisible wall.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Rigel posted:oh, well that probably does need 60 votes. Building a wall is not a strict budget thing, it clearly has political and policy changes outside of funding, taxes, and spending limits. no it's not a byrd rule thing, it's that the bill with wall funding isn't a reconciliation bill at all so there are no avenues to get it to a 50 vote threshold
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
conservative twitter is p fun right now https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/890703815770427393
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:no it's not a byrd rule thing, it's that the bill with wall funding isn't a reconciliation bill at all so there are no avenues to get it to a 50 vote threshold Which explains Schumer telling McCain that the Dems might filibuster unless the skinny repeal is killed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Police seem to think this is a former client of the center, so be on the lookout for suspicious LGBTQ people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/890702487044456449 Okay a few points here. First, this is not for a Trump-appointed position it's one that is selected by the DHS Secretary. Second, this is the position David Clarke claimed he was offered.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/URnvrwrong/status/890704747069661188
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
Right now, more than anything, I'm looking forward to Trump's weekend tweetstorm. After the complete clusterfuck this week, it should be a thing of beauty.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Not sure why but it seems like nothing interesting happens in the House, the Senate is where to go
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Right now, more than anything, I'm looking forward to Trump's weekend tweetstorm. After the complete clusterfuck this week, it should be a thing of beauty. I mean, with no exaggeration, it will just be him self-fellating on how he successfully repealed Obamacare.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
So the whole idea is to pass something, anything, and begin a process of working with the House to craft a bill that both sides will vote on, right? Maybe this is a stupid question, but couldn't the House and Senate GOP just, y'know, get together on their own and hash out a bill? Is there a reason that it HAS to go through all this nonsense first?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
Recycle Bin posted:So the whole idea is to pass something, anything, and begin a process of working with the House to craft a bill that both sides will vote on, right? Maybe this is a stupid question, but couldn't the House and Senate GOP just, y'know, get together on their own and hash out a bill? Is there a reason that it HAS to go through all this nonsense first? I think it's because they tried that and got nowhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
DreamShipWrecked posted:Not sure why but it seems like nothing interesting happens in the House, the Senate is where to go The house is fun when there's a highly anticipated vote. They are angrier, barely clinging to the veneer of being friendly to the other side, and watching the numbers tick upward during the vote is dramatic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Recycle Bin posted:So the whole idea is to pass something, anything, and begin a process of working with the House to craft a bill that both sides will vote on, right? Maybe this is a stupid question, but couldn't the House and Senate GOP just, y'know, get together on their own and hash out a bill? Is there a reason that it HAS to go through all this nonsense first? Because they know nothing they could come up with would pass reconciliation standards. It's a shell game. They're hoping to pass anything in such a way that everyone can claim they didn't do it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
I can't tell what's supposed to make sense anymore. Is this how McCain goes through life?  TheBalor posted:Because they know nothing they could come up with would pass reconciliation standards. It's a shell game. They're hoping to pass anything in such a way that everyone can claim they didn't do it. Basically a game of Hot Potato, but with a nasty piece of poo poo that can kill millions of innocents. Spun Dog fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Jul 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Recycle Bin posted:So the whole idea is to pass something, anything, and begin a process of working with the House to craft a bill that both sides will vote on, right? Maybe this is a stupid question, but couldn't the House and Senate GOP just, y'know, get together on their own and hash out a bill? Is there a reason that it HAS to go through all this nonsense first? Because there is literally no version of these bills that doesn't boil down to hot poisoned coal tar garbage. No rational person would ever proposed any of this. It's all an exercise in upward failure and hot potato style buck passing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/KateAurthur/status/890702832310943744
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Recycle Bin posted:So the whole idea is to pass something, anything, and begin a process of working with the House to craft a bill that both sides will vote on, right? Maybe this is a stupid question, but couldn't the House and Senate GOP just, y'know, get together on their own and hash out a bill? Is there a reason that it HAS to go through all this nonsense first? there's two main things going on: 1) this is plan, like, ZZA. all of the other plans have failed. they never, ever, intended to wind up here, and they are just desperately trying to keep the ball in the air while they think of some way to make this work. sure, they could have hammered out a plan ahead of time, but they didn't intend to wind up here 2) the hope with a conference commitee is that, up till now, no votes have been "final" - you could always say you're voting no but if you fix it, maybe we can talk, but that a conference committee bill would be "final" - either you vote for it, or obamacare repeal is dead. problem is, as everyone has cottoned onto, this is not true - the House can just pass the "skinny repeal" bill instead if the conference committee bill dies (as it's likely to do).
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Because there is literally no version of these bills that doesn't boil down to hot poisoned coal tar garbage. No rational person would ever proposed any of this. It's all an exercise in upward failure and hot potato style buck passing. Or, in short, everything every republican has said about health care for the last nine years is an absolute, shameless lie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
DreamShipWrecked posted:Not sure why but it seems like nothing interesting happens in the House, the Senate is where to go the senate is set up to give individual senators large amounts of independent power the house is set up to try to make the speaker hold all of the power - it is a relatively rare situation that you have something like the HFC acting as a quasi-third party that the speaker has to woo and keep on his side
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:there's two main things going on: Note that these are problems that can literally only come up when you have a majority of senators acting in bad faith
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
Covok posted:I mean, with no exaggeration, it will just be him self-fellating on how he successfully repealed Obamacare. Nah, after Mooch's meltdown I'll bet we see something about leaks as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 23:57
|
|