Here we go: Trump now ready to work with Democrats on health-care fix

[bigheadfred]

Half our side *IS*  unified...  with the Democrats and the Washington Establishment.

I don't think that is true. They are all unified. D and R is only a matter of convenience.  It is clear they are unified against me. I don't think I want to be a martyr. I will leave that up to them.

[libertybele]

No, indeed, you apparently believe in actually achieving...nothing.

So you'd rather compromise your principles and surrender your integrity for the sake of saying that you achieved something regardless of how crappy it really is.  Gottcha.  Yep ... you'd be just as well off passing unicorn farts!

[INVAR]

This is getting weighed down with unnecessary complexity.  So allow me to simplify. The ONLY way anything on the right gets done is if GOP moderates, libertarians and conservatives compromise with one another. If one or all of these groups refuse to do so, we are collectively screwed.

If they don't find a way to cooperate...on the things most of us want...you know what happens?  Absolutely nothing.

Some here are OK with glorious failure...or "nothing", as long as they can mentally march their egos into righteous heaven like Martyrs from Quo Vadis proclaiming what great holy soldiers they are...armored in their own pride and wielding the sword of their own moral prejudice. Its a very grand form of political suicide that seems to send a saintly thrill down the legs of moral narcissists throughout the party.

The rest of us would like to actually pass real legislation that turns this nation back towards the right...to the greatest extent possible. So you can imagine how frustrated we are to be thwarted by the inflated egos who prefer the purity of glorious suicide to an incremental but consistent turn to the Right.

Allow me to simplify - GET LOST.

You go ahead and compromise with tyranny and Communism.  Do it on your own, because we have no intention of joining you in getting along by negotiating with and compromising with despotism and tyranny.

[skeeter]

No, indeed, you apparently believe in actually achieving...nothing.

How times change, eh?

Now look who's all about insider dealmaking.

[INVAR]

So you'd rather compromise your principles ....

What principles?

All he cares about is the empty perception of 'winning' and achieving Socialism while insisting that it is not so bad when run by his party and his political messiah.

[Smokin Joe]

I hope you enjoy the continued abomination of ObamaCare!

This fight isn't over, unless the Liberal wing of the GOP is ready to roll over for the Democrats--and then it still isn't over. You sure are defeatist, trying to infect the rest of the Republicans with your "we tried and the world is going to end" stuff.
In the words of one of my favorite seafarers, "We have not yet begun to fight!"

The WSJ's lead editorial this morning continued to pound the foolishness of the Freedom Caucus,  noting the AHCA's block-granting of Medicaid "would have put the program on a budget for the first time since it was created in 1965".   

I'm sure WaPo and the NYT had more things you'd agree with, maybe even CNN and MSNBC, too. They can all #sand.
 

The Freedom Caucus's irresponsible behavior will be seen in future years as a tragedy for conservatism.   

Not for Conservativism, it won't. If we lose, more like the 300, if we prevail, more like the Alamo. We aren't going to win every battle--Washington didn't win until Trenton--but we're going to prevail in the end.

[Mesaclone]

So you'd rather compromise your principles and surrender your integrity for the sake of saying that you achieved something regardless of how crappy it really is.  Gottcha.  Yep ... you'd be just as well off passing unicorn farts!

Oh the drama.

Again, put simply. No compromise, and nothing happens. Is this what you want?

If you are so rigid, so certain that only you are 100% in the right that you can't move an iota from your position to gain consensus with fellow Republicans....that's not principle, its arrogance and foolishness. Most intelligent and wise human beings can compromise with their colleagues WITHOUT compromising their principles and integrity....because they don't let the certitude of their own righteousness obliviate their reasoning faculty.

[Mesaclone]

How times change, eh?

Now look who's all about insider dealmaking.

I've never been against dealmaking. No legislative achievement of any kind can be achieved in its absence.

[Mesaclone]

What principles?

All he cares about is the empty perception of 'winning' and achieving Socialism while insisting that it is not so bad when run by his party and his political messiah.

I've got more principle in my pinkie toe than you hold within your entire being....based on what you've posted on this site the last few days. The first principle I hold is the assumption that while god may be perfect, I am not....meaning I don't get to speak for god nor pretend that my understanding of his will is exclusively right and that those who disagree are expansively wrong. Only an arrogant...and ignorant...fool would do otherwise.

Proclaiming your political positions are god directed is the height of intellectual depravity and moral bankruptcy. Really, its the opposite of a "principle"...more of a sin, really. If not against god, against reason itself...which is essentially the same thing.

[INVAR]

Proclaiming your political positions are god directed is the height of intellectual depravity and moral bankruptcy.

Exactly what I would expect someone like you to say.

So, the person whose political positions against abortion or Homosexuality is directed by their understanding of the scriptures is the height of intellectual depravity and moral bankruptcy?

I do not think you know what spirit you speak from.

[DB]

I've got more principle in my pinkie toe than you hold within your entire being....based on what you've posted on this site the last few days. The first principle I hold is the assumption that while god may be perfect, I am not....meaning I don't get to speak for god nor pretend that my understanding of his will is exclusively right and that those who disagree are expansively wrong. Only an arrogant...and ignorant...fool would do otherwise.

Proclaiming your political positions are god directed is the height of intellectual depravity and moral bankruptcy. Really, its the opposite of a "principle"...more of a sin, really. If not against god, against reason itself...which is essentially the same thing.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So what do you call that thing that is the bases of human rights which is the very foundation of our "political positions"?

[Mesaclone]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So what do you call that thing that is the bases of human rights which is the very foundation of our "political positions"?

That foundational phrase referring to the Creator...which notably refers to a theistic deity rather than a specifically Christian one, is a reflection of Enlightenment thought declaring all men to be innately of equal value...it's an abrogation of earlier Christian/conservative thought that asserted the innate superiority of the nobility and of royalty. A refutation, if you will, of the pre-enlightenment thought about the "divine right" of kings and nobles to rule over the common man.

So, the quote you cite precisely counters your own assertion that specific political positions such as your view on Health Care, come from god. On the contrary, this phrase makes clear that the measuring stick is now that of reason rather than religious fervor....it is making clear that asserting "divine" privilege for one's views is supplanted entirely...and that all men now must operate on a field that has been leveled by the Creator...who now leaves each men to support or fail his own ideals/concepts through the power of his own intellectual ability.

Why you would cite the specific phrase that most undermines your general assertion...is fascinating.

[Jazzhead]

Proclaiming your political positions are god directed is the height of intellectual depravity and moral bankruptcy. Really, its the opposite of a "principle"...more of a sin, really. If not against god, against reason itself...which is essentially the same thing.

These are the sins of pride and hubris.   

[Silver Pines]

Again, put simply. No compromise, and nothing happens. Is this what you want?

@Mesaclone

If what happens SUCKS, then YES.  If the government is trying to push its way in where it has no business going, if it's trying to force on me a lousy piece of legislation that would be practically as harmful as the one forced on me by the previous Democrat, then YES.

[Silver Pines]

These are the sins of pride and hubris.

"I've got more principle in my pinkie toe than you hold within your entire being"

@Jazzhead
@Mesaclone

[Jazzhead]

"I've got more principle in my pinkie toe than you hold within your entire being"

@Jazzhead
@Mesaclone

Be fair, CofA - you omitted this important qualifier in Mesaclone's post:

I've got more principle in my pinkie toe than you hold within your entire being....based on what you've posted on this site the last few days.

Mesaclone's responding to INVAR's self-righteousness and hubris.    INVAR basically thinks he's God's Baghdad Bob.   

[Silver Pines]

Be fair, CofA - you omitted this important qualifier in Mesaclone's post:

Mesaclone's responding to INVAR's self-righteousness and hubris.    INVAR basically thinks he's God's Baghdad Bob.   

@Jazzhead

I've seen quite a bit of virtue signaling around here, tbh.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@CatherineofAragon

If the government is trying to push its way in where it has no business going....

The problem is the government is already there -- the ACA passed in 2010 and is the law of the land until it is changed.  If we were pre-2010, there's no way in hell I'd have supported either the ACA or AHCA.  But we're not.

[Cyber Liberty]

@CatherineofAragon

The problem is the government is already there -- the ACA passed in 2010 and is the law of the land until it is changed.  If we were pre-2010, there's no way in hell I'd have supported either the ACA or AHCA.  But we're not.

The correct solution when the government is where they don't belong is not to shrug our shoulders and say "aw heck, that's the way it goes," it's to get the government back out, and that's been the stated goal of FC, no matter what you may think of their tactics.

[Silver Pines]

@CatherineofAragon

The problem is the government is already there -- the ACA passed in 2010 and is the law of the land until it is changed.  If we were pre-2010, there's no way in hell I'd have supported either the ACA or AHCA.  But we're not.

@Maj. Bill Martin

No, it isn't 2010.  It's post-election 2017, after Trump and almost every Republican out there swore for years they would repeal it.  They need to live up to that.  I won't give them a pass for lying.

[INVAR]

These are the sins of pride and hubris.

That's hilarious coming from you.   Given your Apologetics for homosexuality and abortion alone, you have absolutely no clue whatsoever what sin even is in accordance with scripture.

But from your perspective, I am sinning against Liberal Statism and daring to be arrogant against your intellectual superiority.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The correct solution when the government is where they don't belong is not to shrug our shoulders and say "aw heck, that's the way it goes," it's to get the government back out, and that's been the stated goal of FC, no matter what you may think of their tactics.

My issue with the tactics, not the goal.  My concern is if there is no deal at all.  That would mean full-bore ObamaCare, huge political price to be paid in 2018, and the Democrats getting to "fix" it by making it even more socialistic.  I would hope that if necessary, the FC would compromise for something less than full repeal rather than have that nightmare scenario.

I want to get enacted into law the most conservative, least-intrusive deal we can.  I do not think that's a full repeal, but I'd be happy if it was.

[Cyber Liberty]

My issue with the tactics, not the goal.  My concern is if there is no deal at all.  That would mean full-bore ObamaCare, huge political price to be paid in 2018, and the Democrats getting to "fix" it by making it even more socialistic.  I would hope that if necessary, the FC would compromise for something less than full repeal rather than have that nightmare scenario.

I want to get enacted into law the most conservative, least-intrusive deal we can.  I do not think that's a full repeal, but I'd be happy if it was.

I can agree with that.  Reading up and down this now-long thread, that seems to be everybody's deal:  It's not the goals, it's the tactics.  Well, everybody except for one troll.   

[r9etb]

The correct solution when the government is where they don't belong is not to shrug our shoulders and say "aw heck, that's the way it goes," it's to get the government back out, and that's been the stated goal of FC, no matter what you may think of their tactics.

If you want to talk about "correct solutions," it's useful to consider how they might be achieved.  A solution that you just talk about is useless; it's got to be put in place. 

Which brings up the main problem with the FC: it's at most 30 people.  However wonderful their stated goals, they're only about 7% of the House.  Any solution they may propose is going to require them to convince about 190 other representatives just to get a bare majority in the House, and the Senate is a separate matter.

If they want to be effective in any way, they're going to have to adjust their strategy.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Maj. Bill Martin

I won't give them a pass for lying.

Who is "them"?

You can't hold every Republican to promise made by some of them.   Some of them were open about wanting to preserve parts of Obamacare.

But here's the bottom line -- would you rather they pass nothing than anything less than a full repeal?