The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on March 30, 2017, 06:54:01 pm
-
Centrist group in House 'will never' meet with Freedom Caucus
By Peter Sullivan - 03/30/17 11:40 AM EDT
The centrist Tuesday Group affirmed at a meeting Wednesday that it will not meet with the conservative House Freedom Caucus to negotiate changes to an ObamaCare replacement bill, according to Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.).
“I am not speaking for the White House; I'm not speaking for the Speaker; but I will speak for the Tuesday Group,” Collins, a member of the group, told reporters. “We have never negotiated with the Freedom Caucus. There was never a meeting scheduled with the Freedom Caucus. We will never meet with the Freedom Caucus, because it's not appropriate for a group of ad hoc members.”
more
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/326502-centrist-group-in-house-will-never-meet-with-freedom-caucus
-
Collins rates an F (23%) on the Conservative Review Liberty Scorecard. That's not centrist...that's pretty much Liberal.
It would only be considered "centrist" if he was a Democrat.
-
“We have never negotiated with the Freedom Caucus. There was never a meeting scheduled with the Freedom Caucus. We will never meet with the Freedom Caucus, because it's not appropriate for a group of ad hoc members.”
then they'll turn right around and accuse the freedom caucus of refusing to compromise or even meet with them.
-
Yet we will be told that the FC is the problem, not the lefties who refuse to even talk to them.
-
Yet we will be told that the FC is the problem, not the lefties who refuse to even talk to them.
There may be some who say that, but I have not seen them posting here.
-
There may be some who say that, but I have not seen them posting here.
Then you've missed postings by Right_In_Virginia, JazzHead and DCPatriot all saying that the FC is the problem and are cheering Trump's attacks on them.
-
Collins rates an F (23%) on the Conservative Review Liberty Scorecard. That's not centrist...that's pretty much Liberal.
It would only be considered "centrist" if he was a Democrat.
I copied your statement into the comments at the site.
-
I copied your statement into the comments at the site.
Thank you...that's pretty cool. :beer:
-
Then you've missed postings by Right_In_Virginia, JazzHead and DCPatriot all saying that the FC is the problem and are cheering Trump's attacks on them.
What I have not seen is people saying, "not the lefties who refuse to even talk to them."
The rational posters have pretty much uniformly suggested that both sides need to talk to each other.
-
The problem is that the centrists have the stronger bargaining position, and they know it.
-
The problem is that the centrists have the stronger bargaining position, and they know it.
I'm also going to note Collins' choice of weasel words, which suggest that he's not nearly so hard-over as it may seem:
“I am not speaking for the White House; I'm not speaking for the Speaker; but I will speak for the Tuesday Group,” Collins, a member of the group, told reporters. “We have never negotiated with the Freedom Caucus. There was never a meeting scheduled with the Freedom Caucus. We will never meet with the Freedom Caucus, because it's not appropriate for a group of ad hoc members.”
Translation: unlike the FC, which sees itself as a voting bloc, the Tuesday Group is not a voting bloc. They don't hold each other to agreed-upon votes, have a fixed set of principles, and so on. As a group, they're not a lock-step chunk of votes.
So the members of this group may be approachable on an individual level, but the group itself seems to be more of a mutual interest society.
-
Then you've missed postings by Right_In_Virginia, JazzHead and DCPatriot all saying that the FC is the problem and are cheering Trump's attacks on them.
Ever since I joined TBR, I have been amazed to see how few really zealous Trumpsters there are on this forum. President Trump should take notice of that.
Trump's base is not as strong as he wants to believe (or as solid as Rush wants to claim, for that matter). By the time of the 2016 Convention, even a huge percentage of Trump's delegates were praying that he not be allowed to win the nomination. When their prayers went unanswered, the ONLY reason why Trump went on to win the election is because HRC was far and away the worst Presidential candidate in history--and because Trump was very clearly promising to put her in jail.
Many of Trump's voters have not forgiven Trump for going out of his way to call the Clintons "good people." The good things he definitely has done in office thus far pale in comparison to his disgusting, bald-faced lie about those "good people."
Trump's infamous narcissism could very well become his downfall. He was actually one of the lousiest Republican candidates in history. Sadly, he can't face that fact. Moreover, he is so self-assured concerning his own wonderfulness that he cannot grasp the reality of how quickly a crucial segment of his voters could publicly and vociferously turn against him. So, although he is not at all worried about that, he should be. He is declaring war on the FC, threatening to primary the FC members, but I think their political positions are more stable than his.
In short, it seems to me that a huge percentage of Trump voters are having pretty serious buyer's remorse--and we haven't even finished the First Quarter of Trump's first year in office. If Trump keeps ignoring real conservatives (the Constitutionally thoughtful kind), there is a very good chance that he could get impeached, say, after the midterm elections.
A lot of Republicans believe that Pence would be a much better POTUS.
-
Ever since I joined TBR, I have been amazed to see how few really zealous Trumpsters there are on this forum. President Trump should take notice of that.
Trump's base is not as strong as he wants to believe (or as solid as Rush wants to claim, for that matter). By the time of the 2016 Convention, even a huge percentage of Trump's delegates were praying that he not be allowed to win the nomination. When their prayers went unanswered, the ONLY reason why Trump went on to win the election is because HRC was far and away the worst Presidential candidate in history--and because Trump was very clearly promising to put her in jail.
Many of Trump's voters have not forgiven Trump for going out of his way to call the Clintons "good people." The good things he definitely has done in office thus far pale in comparison to his disgusting, bald-faced lie about those "good people."
Trump's infamous narcissism could very well become his downfall. He was actually one of the lousiest Republican candidates in history. Sadly, he can't face that fact. Moreover, he is so self-assured concerning his own wonderfulness that he cannot grasp the reality of how quickly a crucial segment of his voters could publicly and vociferously turn against him. So, although he is not at all worried about that, he should be. He is declaring war on the FC, threatening to primary the FC members, but I think their political positions are more stable than his.
In short, it seems to me that a huge percentage of Trump voters are having pretty serious buyer's remorse--and we haven't even finished the First Quarter of Trump's first year in office. If Trump keeps ignoring real conservatives (the Constitutionally thoughtful kind), there is a very good chance that he could get impeached, say, after the midterm elections.
A lot of Republicans believe that Pence would be a much better POTUS.
Can't argue with any of that. Well said sir.
-
He is declaring war on the FC, threatening to primary the FC members, but I think their political positions are more stable than his.
He was the slightly less unpopular candidate of the two most unpopular candidates in history. Many congressmen won by far wider margins of victory than Trump. I voted for Darrell Castle and my GOP congressman.
Trump doesn't have room to continue making enemies
-
He is declaring war on the FC, threatening to primary the FC members, but I think their political positions are more stable than his.
This is an excellent point. There's only a certain type of district that would elect a FC-type of candidate in the first place, and anybody who is elected on that basis is probably in a pretty safe seat.
In short, it seems to me that a huge percentage of Trump voters are having pretty serious buyer's remorse--and we haven't even finished the First Quarter of Trump's first year in office. If Trump keeps ignoring real conservatives (the Constitutionally thoughtful kind), there is a very good chance that he could get impeached, say, after the midterm elections.
A lot of Republicans believe that Pence would be a much better POTUS.
Which means ... if it ever comes to the point of Trump facing impeachment, he cannot count on the same sort of groundswell of support that Bill Clinton got from his own party (or supposed party, in Trump's case). And I think there are a fair number of plausible impeachment scenarios.
-
Which means ... if it ever comes to the point of Trump facing impeachment, he cannot count on the same sort of groundswell of support that Bill Clinton got from his own party (or supposed party, in Trump's case). And I think there are a fair number of plausible impeachment scenarios.
It occurs to me that Trump could get cyber-framed by the CIA. Or some egregiously unethical deal from his past could come to light. Or someone might prove up mob connections that arguably tie Trump into a crime of some sort. Or Trump could do something monumentally stupid like trying to skirt a court order or defy a subpoena like the Obama administration sometimes did with impunity.
-
What I have not seen is people saying, "not the lefties who refuse to even talk to them."
The rational posters have pretty much uniformly suggested that both sides need to talk to each other.
I listened to Ted Poe, who resigned from the FC after a 90 minute session whereby President Trump agreed with each of the FC's requests.
And then they said they still would vote against the measure. That looks a lot like negotiating in bad faith.
So when they ALL get finished name calling, let's get back to work.
-
Ever since I joined TBR, I have been amazed to see how few really zealous Trumpsters there are on this forum. President Trump should take notice of that.
Trump's base is not as strong as he wants to believe (or as solid as Rush wants to claim, for that matter). By the time of the 2016 Convention, even a huge percentage of Trump's delegates were praying that he not be allowed to win the nomination. When their prayers went unanswered, the ONLY reason why Trump went on to win the election is because HRC was far and away the worst Presidential candidate in history--and because Trump was very clearly promising to put her in jail.
Many of Trump's voters have not forgiven Trump for going out of his way to call the Clintons "good people." The good things he definitely has done in office thus far pale in comparison to his disgusting, bald-faced lie about those "good people."
Trump's infamous narcissism could very well become his downfall. He was actually one of the lousiest Republican candidates in history. Sadly, he can't face that fact. Moreover, he is so self-assured concerning his own wonderfulness that he cannot grasp the reality of how quickly a crucial segment of his voters could publicly and vociferously turn against him. So, although he is not at all worried about that, he should be. He is declaring war on the FC, threatening to primary the FC members, but I think their political positions are more stable than his.
In short, it seems to me that a huge percentage of Trump voters are having pretty serious buyer's remorse--and we haven't even finished the First Quarter of Trump's first year in office. If Trump keeps ignoring real conservatives (the Constitutionally thoughtful kind), there is a very good chance that he could get impeached, say, after the midterm elections.
A lot of Republicans believe that Pence would be a much better POTUS.
Thanks for the laughs. Funniest post I've seen in here in days. :beer:
-
Thanks for the laughs. Funniest post I've seen in here in days. :beer:
888high58888 @DCPatriot
-
Then you've missed postings by Right_In_Virginia, JazzHead and DCPatriot all saying that the FC is the problem and are cheering Trump's attacks on them.
Oh good grief @txradioguy -- please try and connect all the dots. The HFC is the problem in that they want it their way at 100% or they threatened to shut everything down.
Since you appear to have such close ties to them, why not suggest to them this is no way to govern and remind them of Reagan's 80/20 rule.
PS: don't forget to add the "@" when "quoting" a poster: @DCPatriot @Jazzhead
-
The problem is that the centrists have the stronger bargaining position, and they know it.
That's because we haven't played "Cowboys and Centrists" yet.
-
888high58888 @DCPatriot
888high58888 Back atcha, @Right_in_Virginia
-
Oh good grief @txradioguy -- please try and connect all the dots. The HFC is the problem in that they want it their way at 100% or they threatened to shut everything down.
Since you appear to have such close ties to them, why not suggest to them this is no way to govern and remind them of Reagan's 80/20 rule.
PS: don't forget to add the "@" when "quoting" a poster: @DCPatriot @Jazzhead
You wouldn't know anything about Reagan 's 80/20 philosophy if 80% of it slapped 20% of your head.
As for the @...if I'd wanted your uninformed Populist/Liberal opinion I'd have put that in there.
I didn't want or need it so... :shrug:
-
888high58888 @DCPatriot
888high58888
@Right_in_Virginia
;)
-
The problem is that the centrists have the stronger bargaining position, and they know it.
It sure does seem that way.
Although I'm not sure why - it wasn't the 'centrist' message that won the GOP the WH and both ends of capitol hill.
The GOP was very unambiguous about what they wanted to do then.
-
It sure does seem that way.
Although I'm not sure why - it wasn't the 'centrist' message that won the GOP the WH and both ends of capitol hill.
The GOP was very unambiguous about what they wanted to do then.
To quote BHO "It's just words"
-
It sure does seem that way.
Although I'm not sure why - it wasn't the 'centrist' message that won the GOP the WH and both ends of capitol hill.
The GOP was very unambiguous about what they wanted to do then.
Sir, I have seen the bolded text above quoted often here, without attribution. I kindly ask you, can you provide us with some verifiable information that backs that claim?
To be clear, my heart pines for an America in 2017 in which your proposition is correct, but I simply see no evidence of that.
From a simple numbers point of view, if you accept the premise that the HFC represents the "pure conservative" voting population, their 30-odd members are a small minority of GOP Representatives. How could the disparity in the wishes of the GOP voting population end up minimized in House member representation?
(Even factoring in the impact of incumbency, it would seem to me that if your supposition were true, we would see better than 100 members strong in the HFC, no?)
-
And we're yokels to be milked for votes every election, afterwards expected to sit down and shut up.
Because we just don't understand how the system is supposed to work.
-
Sir, I have seen the bolded text above quoted often here, without attribution. I kindly ask you, can you provide us with some verifiable information that backs that claim?
To be clear, my heart pines for an America in 2017 in which your proposition is correct, but I simply see no evidence of that.
From a simple numbers point of view, if you accept the premise that the HFC represents the "pure conservative" voting population, their 30-odd members are a small minority of GOP Representatives. How could the disparity in the wishes of the GOP voting population end up minimized in House member representation?
(Even factoring in the impact of incumbency, it would seem to me that if your supposition were true, we would see better than 100 members strong in the HFC, no?)
How many supposed Conservatives has the TEA Party voted in to only be slapped in the face when they go home with the RINOs? You have to add those in with the HFC numbers as they were voted in to do one thing; although they did another. Our Congress folks don't seem to understand that "You go home with the one that brought you to the dance."
I hope they will learn that lesson in 2018.
-
Sir, I have seen the bolded text above quoted often here, without attribution. I kindly ask you, can you provide us with some verifiable information that backs that claim?
To be clear, my heart pines for an America in 2017 in which your proposition is correct, but I simply see no evidence of that.
From a simple numbers point of view, if you accept the premise that the HFC represents the "pure conservative" voting population, their 30-odd members are a small minority of GOP Representatives. How could the disparity in the wishes of the GOP voting population end up minimized in House member representation?
(Even factoring in the impact of incumbency, it would seem to me that if your supposition were true, we would see better than 100 members strong in the HFC, no?)
And what numbers of the GOP membership last year voted to repeal on what is ostensibly the current Freedom Caucus position?
Wasn't it something like all of them?
-
888high58888
@Right_in_Virginia
;)
Welcome @EdJames :beer:
-
Sir, I have seen the bolded text above quoted often here, without attribution. I kindly ask you, can you provide us with some verifiable information that backs that claim?
To be clear, my heart pines for an America in 2017 in which your proposition is correct, but I simply see no evidence of that.
From a simple numbers point of view, if you accept the premise that the HFC represents the "pure conservative" voting population, their 30-odd members are a small minority of GOP Representatives. How could the disparity in the wishes of the GOP voting population end up minimized in House member representation?
(Even factoring in the impact of incumbency, it would seem to me that if your supposition were true, we would see better than 100 members strong in the HFC, no?)
I don't know where to start with your question other than to encourage you to watch all 2 dozen debates and what seemed like hundreds of Trump rallies from the recent primary and general election season.
I'd also reference the poll numbers of the campaign's most long lived centrist candidate, Gov John Kasich. Somewhere around 5%, I think.
-
How many supposed Conservatives has the TEA Party voted in to only be slapped in the face when they go home with the RINOs? You have to add those in with the HFC numbers as they were voted in to do one thing; although they did another. Our Congress folks don't seem to understand that "You go home with the one that brought you to the dance."
I hope they will learn that lesson in 2018.
Do you have to add them in to the HFC numbers?
Or perhaps add them in to the numbers of House & Senate members that talked a "good game" on the campaign trail, i.e., played to the "Tea Party" electorate in 2010, 2012, 2014.... for the purpose of getting elected! It is my opinion, that both chambers (the House more so) are filled with members that were very happy to run for election (or re-election for some) under the "Tea Party" banner as it allowed them to pick up the votes of people seeking change, regardless of their intent to work toward such change.
Hence, I think that we are at a wash if we consider those rogues!
-
And what numbers of the GOP membership last year voted to repeal on what is ostensibly the current Freedom Caucus position?
Wasn't it something like all of them?
Heh! I think that everyone here recognizes that a VAST majority of those votes were proffered by the disingenuous members that knew (a priori) that the results of their legislation would end up on the scrap heap of Obama's veto.
Call me a pessimist, but I think that 90+% of the GOP House and Senate are more than happy with the status quo, with respect to the ACA and too many other issues.
-
I don't know where to start with your question other than to encourage you to watch all 2 dozen debates and what seemed like hundreds of Trump rallies from the recent primary and general election season.
I'd also reference the poll numbers of the campaign's most long lived centrist candidate, Gov John Kasich. Somewhere around 5%, I think.
I reply saying that your response is an apples and oranges comparison!
We are focused on House members, the Representatives that were elected or re-elected by voters (mostly GOP voters, but not exclusively in many cases), in contrast to General Election Trump voters.
And let me be very clear, in my personal opinion, Trump screwed up royally on the campaign trail with respect to his rhetoric on the fate of the ACA.
To be succinct and not have to dig up a volume of direct quotes, he spoke out of both sides of his mouth on the subject. On one hand he would often say: "Day one folks.... day one.... what are we going to do? That's right, get rid of Obamacare..... all of it, folks.... all of it..... its got to go folks.... its got to go..... it is hurting too many people... its bad.... Day one.... Day one we end it..." (or something very close).
On the other hand he would say: "Folks we are going to replace it with some better.... much, much better.... we are going to have fantastic choices for everyone.... that's right.... everyone.... a lot of Republicans won't like my plan.... they won't.... but we are going to cover everyone..... even those that can't afford it.... we've got to folks.... its the right thing to do.... its the right thing to do...."
I suggest that in light of the above, there was a LOT of selective listening going on.... many people heard what they wanted to hear from the above.... and either ignored (or rationalized away) what they didn't want to hear....
-
Heh! I think that everyone here recognizes that a VAST majority of those votes were proffered by the disingenuous members that knew (a priori) that the results of their legislation would end up on the scrap heap of Obama's veto.
So their votes on the issue before they stood for election do not represent evidence that the public wanted this thing repealed?
Call me a pessimist, but I think that 90+% of the GOP House and Senate are more than happy with the status quo, with respect to the ACA and too many other issues.
I think this is true. I think that Washington D.C. does something to people. I've been there. It has a weird feeling. It's like reality is being warped and you can almost feel it in the air. It's hypnotic.
Somehow it turns our guys against us. They may go there as staunch principled conservatives, but after a few years, they start becoming the establishment that just wants to keep bribing poor voters and wealthy donors with public money.
And so they lie to us.
-
That's because we haven't played "Cowboys and Centrists" yet.
But it's comin.....lol.
-
And let me be very clear, in my personal opinion, Trump screwed up royally on the campaign trail with respect to his rhetoric on the fate of the ACA.
To be succinct and not have to dig up a volume of direct quotes, he spoke out of both sides of his mouth on the subject. On one hand he would often say: "Day one folks.... day one.... what are we going to do? That's right, get rid of Obamacare..... all of it, folks.... all of it..... its got to go folks.... its got to go..... it is hurting too many people... its bad.... Day one.... Day one we end it..." (or something very close).
On the other hand he would say: "Folks we are going to replace it with some better.... much, much better.... we are going to have fantastic choices for everyone.... that's right.... everyone.... a lot of Republicans won't like my plan.... they won't.... but we are going to cover everyone..... even those that can't afford it.... we've got to folks.... its the right thing to do.... its the right thing to do...."
I suggest that in light of the above, there was a LOT of selective listening going on.... many people heard what they wanted to hear from the above.... and either ignored (or rationalized away) what they didn't want to hear....
I heard both sides. I figured we would get some sort of halfway measure between the two because I have always believed Trump is at heart a New York Liberal Democrat that has only recently came over to the Republican/conservative side.
I also suspect he has only came over to our side because he realized it would have been impossible for him to take the nomination away from a Democrat who is already in the line of "succession." His only chance of winning was as a Republican, so that's what he did.
I never thought Trump could be fully trusted, I always thought he would do stuff like this. That being said, I am still thrilled to death that we didn't end up with that Psychotic Nazi hate-witch Hillary.
I'll live with Trump being Trump.
-
So their votes on the issue before they stood for election do not represent evidence that the public wanted this thing repealed?
I think this is true. I think that Washington D.C. does something to people. I've been there. It has a weird feeling. It's like reality is being warped and you can almost feel it in the air. It's hypnotic.
Somehow it turns our guys against us. They may go there as staunch principled conservatives, but after a few years, they start becoming the establishment that just wants to keep bribing poor voters and wealthy donors with public money.
And so they lie to us.
That's probably because under Bubba Clinton's infamous Oral Office desk ...there's a hidden door in the floor, leading to a hellmouth portal. All the DC insiders go and come through that portal several times a week. Problem is, the more times they go in, the less rightie they come out....as planned, of course....lol.
Of course, that's just a supposition on my part. Could also be aliens/ETs that have podded them all. :laugh:
-
So their votes on the issue before they stood for election do not represent evidence that the public wanted this thing repealed?
>>> You raise a good point, sir! Perhaps their votes represented what they thought their constituency wanted? Or perhaps their votes represented what their constituency did indeed want? I suggest that it is unknowable (with any degree of certainty at this point), but I willingly concede that your perspective could be true!
-
What I have not seen is people saying, "not the lefties who refuse to even talk to them."
The rational posters have pretty much uniformly suggested that both sides need to talk to each other.
They will not talk to conservatives except to threaten, bribe and cajole them into submission. We were told we'll have to pass it before seeing it- we were told all kinds of things- then they barely released it before the planned vote and said no amendments would be considered. The RINO's are acting just like Democrats did with ObamaCare.
-
Collins rates an F (23%) on the Conservative Review Liberty Scorecard. That's not centrist...that's pretty much Liberal.
It would only be considered "centrist" if he was a Democrat.
Wow. Collins could only get a lower score if he invited Putin to lunch.
-
I heard both sides. I figured we would get some sort of halfway measure between the two because I have always believed Trump is at heart a New York Liberal Democrat that has only recently came over to the Republican/conservative side.
I also suspect he has only came over to our side because he realized it would have been impossible for him to take the nomination away from a Democrat who is already in the line of "succession." His only chance of winning was as a Republican, so that's what he did.
I never thought Trump could be fully trusted, I always thought he would do stuff like this. That being said, I am still thrilled to death that we didn't end up with that Psychotic Nazi hate-witch Hillary.
I'll live with Trump being Trump.
888high58888
I heard both sides too. I will admit to being in the category of rationalizing away part of what I heard... "He'll learn when he gets elected... his advisers will clue him in.... he'll come to understand the role of FedGov under our Constitution...."
(You can call me naive.)
-
I reply saying that your response is an apples and oranges comparison!
We are focused on House members, the Representatives that were elected or re-elected by voters (mostly GOP voters, but not exclusively in many cases), in contrast to General Election Trump voters.
And let me be very clear, in my personal opinion, Trump screwed up royally on the campaign trail with respect to his rhetoric on the fate of the ACA.
To be succinct and not have to dig up a volume of direct quotes, he spoke out of both sides of his mouth on the subject. On one hand he would often say: "Day one folks.... day one.... what are we going to do? That's right, get rid of Obamacare..... all of it, folks.... all of it..... its got to go folks.... its got to go..... it is hurting too many people... its bad.... Day one.... Day one we end it..." (or something very close).
On the other hand he would say: "Folks we are going to replace it with some better.... much, much better.... we are going to have fantastic choices for everyone.... that's right.... everyone.... a lot of Republicans won't like my plan.... they won't.... but we are going to cover everyone..... even those that can't afford it.... we've got to folks.... its the right thing to do.... its the right thing to do...."
I suggest that in light of the above, there was a LOT of selective listening going on.... many people heard what they wanted to hear from the above.... and either ignored (or rationalized away) what they didn't want to hear....
How many times has the GOP in the House voted to repeal ACA since the GOP took over? Between 6 and 60, depending upon who you ask.
The GOP has been riding the 'full repeal' bandwagon since 2010.
-
Wow. Collins could only get a lower score if he invited Putin to lunch.
She. Susan Collins from Maine (I think)
-
Heh! I think that everyone here recognizes that a VAST majority of those votes were proffered by the disingenuous members that knew (a priori) that the results of their legislation would end up on the scrap heap of Obama's veto.
Call me a pessimist, but I think that 90+% of the GOP House and Senate are more than happy with the status quo, with respect to the ACA and too many other issues.
Calling you a pessimist would be an understatement, but you fit in pretty good with the general sentiment here.
-
She. Susan Collins from Maine (I think)
Susan has that odd look ... just seeing her, you would immediately take her to be a democrat.
-
She. Susan Collins from Maine (I think)
No the one in question is a dude from NY.
-
That's probably because under Bubba Clinton's infamous Oral Office desk ...there's a hidden door in the floor, leading to a hellmouth portal. All the DC insiders go and come through that portal several times a week. Problem is, the more times they go in, the less rightie they come out....as planned, of course....lol.
Of course, that's just a supposition on my part. Could also be aliens/ETs that have podded them all. :laugh:
That is a farfetched idea that somehow sounds believable.
I live on a little cul de sac that is populated by pod people. There are probably 17 little kids under the age of six (this in a neighborhood of maybe 10 houses). They all look alike ...they are blond and chubby and adorable and dangerous. I have nearly been killed many times. They go up to the top of steep driveways and come down at warp speed on their little devices disguised as skateboards, scooters and tricycles.
-
That is a farfetched idea that somehow sounds believable.
I live on a little cul de sac that is populated by pod people. There are probably 17 little kids under the age of six (this in a neighborhood of maybe 10 houses). They all look alike ...they are blond and chubby and adorable and dangerous. I have nearly been killed many times. They go up to the top of steep driveways and come down at warp speed on their little devices disguised as skateboards, scooters and tricycles.
I've known some pod people. They remind me of this infamous quip by Bob Hope....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a6YdNmK77k
-
I've known some pod people. They remind me of this infamous quip by Bob Hope....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a6YdNmK77k
Great clip ... can you imagine anyone in Hollywood saying that today?
-
They will not talk to conservatives except to threaten, bribe and cajole them into submission. We were told we'll have to pass it before seeing it- we were told all kinds of things- then they barely released it before the planned vote and said no amendments would be considered. The RINO's are acting just like Democrats did with ObamaCare.
If the "moderates" want any changes at all to Obamacare -- and I believe they actually do -- then they're going to have to talk the conservatives, and vice versa. Both sides represent swing votes in a somewhat slim House majority. Neither side can get what it wants without the other.
-
Collins rates an F (23%) on the Conservative Review Liberty Scorecard. That's not centrist...that's pretty much Liberal.
It would only be considered "centrist" if he was a Democrat.
They are so scared of being branded 'moderate' they have adopted the moniker 'center-right'.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150109/NEWS02/150109833/moderate-is-now-a-dirty-word-for-some-house-republicans
-
Oh good grief @txradioguy -- please try and connect all the dots. The HFC is the problem in that they want it their way at 100% or they threatened to shut everything down.
Why don't you connect the dots by seeing for the first time it was the Dems who were against the bill in far greater numbers than the Freedom Caucus has.
This is the Dems ditching it into the gutter, and you have fallen into the media talking-point trap.
-
Anyone else notice that the article mentions that the Tuesday Group met on Wednesday?
They are a pathetic dupe-group it seems.
-
How many times has the GOP in the House voted to repeal ACA since the GOP took over? Between 6 and 60, depending upon who you ask.
The GOP has been riding the 'full repeal' bandwagon since 2010.
Till it was actually on their plate. Then they want to pretend like the position they voted for numerous times is now unreasonable.
-
The title of this thread's article is:
"Centrist group in House 'will never' meet with Freedom Caucus"
What does this have to do with Trump?
Sounds like a problem with them, not him.
-
Anyone else notice that the article mentions that the Tuesday Group met on Wednesday?
They are a pathetic dupe-group it seems.
They represent a constituency within the GOP, who don't think a functioning and fair system of health insurance constitutes tyranny.
But I do think it's wrong for them to meet on a Wednesday.
-
Do you have to add them in to the HFC numbers?
Or perhaps add them in to the numbers of House & Senate members that talked a "good game" on the campaign trail, i.e., played to the "Tea Party" electorate in 2010, 2012, 2014.... for the purpose of getting elected! It is my opinion, that both chambers (the House more so) are filled with members that were very happy to run for election (or re-election for some) under the "Tea Party" banner as it allowed them to pick up the votes of people seeking change, regardless of their intent to work toward such change.
Hence, I think that we are at a wash if we consider those rogues!
Yep.
People voted for conservatives and some of them got liars instead.
-
Great clip ... can you imagine anyone in Hollywood saying that today?
Sure, on their way to do their next job as a voice-over extra....
-
Anyone else notice that the article mentions that the Tuesday Group met on Wednesday?
They are a pathetic dupe-group it seems.
I wonder if they are a dollar short, too?
-
That's because we haven't played "Cowboys and Centrists" yet.
No -- the centrists have the stronger bargaining position because they're more willing to live with the status quo, which means they lose less if there is no deal at all.
-
Yep.
People voted for conservatives and some of them got liars instead.
The conservatives aren't the problem. They'll vote for repeal.
The problem is the people who were moderates/centrists/RINO's all along, and campaigned that way. That's why it is so tough to force them to compromise.
-
Centrists campaigned on a promise to fix the ACA. (Some) conservatives campaigned on a promise to repeal it in toto. The President, of course, aligns with the centrists.
That's reality. Also reality - Dems are united in opposition to anything coming from the GOP caucus.
So - just as was the case eight years ago when the ACA was passed, any change is going to have to be the result of a compromise that both centrists and ideologues can live with. That's why the ACA is such a mash-up. And why any fix is going to have to look the same.
What's frustrating is that the ACHA was not hastily conceived - it was intended to be an inelegant mash-up that addressed the most important concerns of both ends of the GOP coalition. For conservatives, the benefits were considerable - an end to the hated mandates, and an unprecedented use of block grants to restrain the grown of a big federal entitlement program.
The deal appears to have foundered on a late change that was a bridge too far for centrists, even as it was cynically rejected by the Freedom Caucus. Trump apparently agreed to eliminating the "essential health benefits" (EHB) language from the ACA. That's a welcome change from the perspective of permitting insurers to offer skinnier (and, of course, cheaper) plans in the marketplace. But to centrists, it was a red flag for their re-election chances. Imagine the demagoguery that Dems could unleash against the centrists in toss-up seats - in the midst of an opioid epidemic, insurers can now issue policies that don't cover substance abuse treatment!
The AHCA was always a carefully crafted, delicate compromise. Unity was precious, and the FC essentially blew that unity apart. It's hard to see how an ACA fix can be resurrected at this point. I agree with Trump that it is senseless to waste more time and resources on the effort until the GOP caucus re-dedicates itself to unity and compromise in furtherance of the greater good.
-
I need a white board to keep up with all the new factions in Washington.
We have the Never Conservative faction who bill themselves as centrists, which translates to whichever way the wind blows and the money flows.
And then there are the RINOs who believe that combining two government programs into a single program makes government smaller.
And of course the Freedom Caucus who prefers to stick with Reagan.
(http://www.notable-quotes.com/r/ronald_reagan_quote.jpg)
-
I need a white board to keep up with all the new factions in Washington.
We have the Never Conservative faction who bill themselves as centrists, which translates to whichever way the wind blows and the money flows.
And then there are the RINOs who believe that combining two government programs into a single program makes government smaller.
And of course the Freedom Caucus who prefers to stick with Reagan.
(http://www.notable-quotes.com/r/ronald_reagan_quote.jpg)
:amen:
And I would add this one from Reagan too:
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'
-
They represent a constituency within the GOP, who don't think a functioning and fair system of health insurance constitutes tyranny.
You mean that as a matter of principle, they are okay with Socialism.
As a matter of principle, I am not okay with socialism. Any effort to move in that direction needs to be opposed.
-
No -- the centrists have the stronger bargaining position because they're more willing to live with the status quo, which means they lose less if there is no deal at all.
Well this needs to be evaluated over a time period. In the short run your argument may be true. In the long run I believe it is not true at all.
I have always advocated for playing the long game.
-
In any battle between those who favor unrestricted expansion of government power and those who favor restraints upon such power, those in the "middle" will always lose.
It is always easier to cede one's liberties to the State than it is to ever get them back.
-
It's hard to see how an ACA fix can be resurrected at this point.
Yup. Best to just scrap it and start over fresh. Oh wait, you didn't mean it that way, did you?
-
Compromise can be a noble goal. Half a loaf is sometimes OK.
But when it comes to the health of my children I'll accept neither.
-
Weird. Yet it's the Freedom Caucus that get labelled the intransigent ones. :shrug:
-
The title of this thread's article is: "Centrist group in House 'will never' meet with Freedom Caucus"
What does this have to do with Trump?
Sounds like a problem with them, not him.
(http://www.radicallychristian.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/be-quiet.jpg)
-
The problem is the people who were moderates/centrists/RINO's all along, and campaigned that way. That's why it is so tough to force them to compromise.
Why do you use the acronym "RINO" (Republican in Name Only) when the Republican Party has always been a moderate/centrist political party?
Just curious @Maj. Bill Martin
-
Centrists campaigned on a promise to fix the ACA.
I do not know a single Republican who ran on the platform of fixing Obamacare. All I heard were a few "Repeal"s and a lot of "Repeal and Replace". Didn't hear any calls for 'Fix Obamacare'.
The President, of course, aligns with the centrists.
Trump campaigned that he liked the mandates. No surprise here that you agree with Trump.
What's frustrating is that the ACHA was not hastily conceived - it was intended to be an inelegant mash-up that addressed the most important concerns of both ends of the GOP coalition.
What's frustrating is that the ACHA does not do what Republicans have been promising to do for the last seven years. Not even close.
-
I do not know a single Republican who ran on the platform of fixing Obamacare. All I heard were a few "Repeal"s and a lot of "Repeal and Replace". Didn't hear any calls for 'Fix Obamacare'.
One might loosely equate "fix" with "repeal and replace."
Trump campaigned that he liked the mandates. No surprise here that you agree with Trump.
And he also campaigned that he didn't like them -- what he said, and to whom, depended on the exigencies of the moment.
What's frustrating is that the ACHA does not do what Republicans have been promising to do for the last seven years. Not even close.
To be fair, as for those alleged promises, I think a lot of voters heard what they wanted to hear, rather than what was actually said.
But as the saying goes, "politics is the art of the possible." The reality was always that they weren't going to do what some Republicans promised to do, because they were never going to have the super-majority necessary to do it. The Democrat push-back was predictable, as was the disagreement between the FC and the moderates about what was happening.
Particulars aside, something like the AHCA is the most we were ever going to get. Of course, at the moment what we've (still) got is Obamacare.
-
Yup. Best to just scrap it and start over fresh. Oh wait, you didn't mean it that way, did you?
Be careful what you wish for, DL:
Why Trump Should Embrace Single Payer Health Care (http://nypost.com/2017/03/30/why-trump-should-embrace-single-payer-health-care/)
That wasn’t what Trump promised, in any event. What he said he wanted was a plan that would leave no one uninsured.
The simplest way to do this is universal health care, on the Canadian model, with a right of individuals to purchase a Cadillac plan on top of this out of pocket. And there are things that might be added, like removing the ban on reimporting drugs from Canada.
Not only would this be close to what Trump promised, but it would be a responsible response to the problem — one, moreover, that would reach across the aisle to the Democrats. Take out all the killer amendments that would give them a plausible excuse to reject it, and ask them to put up or shut up.
Now let me tell you who’d support this. The people who elected Trump in 2016. They weren’t right-wing ideologues. They were people who had lost or who feared they’d lose their jobs. Many were but a few steps away from the diseases of despair, social isolation, drug and alcohol poisonings and suicide that Anne Case and her husband, Nobel laureate Sir Angus Deaton, tell us have lowered the life expectancy of white Americans.
The defeat of RyanCare is thus a victory for the Trump agenda, if used wisely as a means of reinventing the Republican Party as a party of working Americans of all races and ethnicities. Split the Republican Party, if need be. Send the Charles Koch Institute packing. The defeat of RyanCare shows the party needs splitting, if it’s not entirely split already.
Leave behind all the people who hated you, who curse when you succeed. Reach out to the people who voted for you. Challenge the Democrats by offering them what they’ve always said they wanted.
In “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” Thomas Frank asked how it was that the poor folks of his home state voted for a Republican Party that cared so little for their economic interests. Become the jobs and the health-care president, and you’ll have answered Frank’s question. And the answer will be — nothing, now.
Steve Bannon has said the Republicans will become a party of “economic nationalism.” No one has bothered to define this, but here’s one thing it must mean: We’re going to treat Americans better than non-Americans. We’re going to see that Americans have jobs, medical care and an enviable safety net.
Trump gave conservatives a shot at working with him. They rejected him. But there are other coalitions that can be formed to address the concerns of THOSE WHO VOTED FOR HIM.
-
Be careful what you wish for, DL:
Why Trump Should Embrace Single Payer Health Care (http://nypost.com/2017/03/30/why-trump-should-embrace-single-payer-health-care/)
Wow. What an ... interesting .... article. Of course, Mr. Buckley neglects all of the economic consequences of his suggestion. For reference, here's how one big Single Payer system is faring:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/26/nhs-plans-radical-cuts-to-fight-growing-deficit-in-health-budget (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/26/nhs-plans-radical-cuts-to-fight-growing-deficit-in-health-budget)
-
Trump gave conservatives a shot at working with him. They rejected him. But there are other coalitions that can be formed to address the concerns of THOSE WHO VOTED FOR HIM.
Trump wanted single payer healthcare all along...he's on record as advocating for it. This is no surprise to those that pay attention to these things.
And what about the concerns of those that voted for representatives and senators who vowed...if elected...to repeal Obamcare "root and branch"...do those voters matter?
-
Trump wanted single payer healthcare all along...he's on record as advocating for it. This is no surprise to those that pay attention to these things.
And what about the concerns of those that voted for representatives and senators who vowed...if elected...to repeal Obamcare "root and branch"...do those voters matter?
My point is that Trump's supporters aren't necessarily conservative. And the rejection of the AHCA by conservatives is no skin off of Trump's nose.
Trump has paid admirable attention to conservative issues and conservative priorities. But when conservatives in Congress repay such attention with disloyalty, well, then, Trump will do what he has to do. Trump's supporters want a functioning health care system. Ideology is a luxury for those with good jobs and great health care plans. Trump's supporters are hurting - and they are disgusted with GRIDLOCK in Congress that keeps the nation from fixing its problems.
-
And what about the concerns of those that voted for representatives and senators who vowed...if elected...to repeal Obamcare "root and branch"...do those voters matter?
Well, what about them? If the votes in Congress aren't there for such a thing, then they're not there. The real question is, can those voters (and their representatives) lower their sights a little to achieve something for which the votes are there?
-
Trump wanted single payer healthcare all along...he's on record as advocating for it. This is no surprise to those that pay attention to these things.
I would say that if that is the case, then we should have leapt at the opportunity to repeal 25-35% of ObamaCare. Because if the alternative is going to be him turning to single payer, then tossing away Ryan's bill will have been a horrible mistake. And that's what I'm really worried about, to be honest. Trump has been rather shockingly more conservative as President than he was as a candidate, almost right across the board. He talked about the public option during the campaign, he talked about global warming, etc., and he's been to the right on all that. Frankly, even Ryan's bill was more conservative than what Trump was saying during the campaign. Getting something that rolled back a good chunk of ObamaCare without a public option is more than we probably should have expected from the guy.
And what about the concerns of those that voted for representatives and senators who vowed...if elected...to repeal Obamcare "root and branch"...do those voters matter?
Sure they do. But we're in a representative republic, and any given group of voters isn't guaranteed to get what they want. And whether anyone wants to admit it or not, most of that group of 50 or so members of the Tuesday Group ran on keeping at least some parts of ObamaCare. So if we all just say "I'm entitled to get what I voted for", nothing is going to pass. Of course, there are some who actually want nothing to pass.
-
Well, what about them? If the votes in Congress aren't there for such a thing, then they're not there. The real question is, can those voters (and their representatives) lower their sights a little to achieve something for which the votes are there?
I don't think they should have to lower their sights. Voters trusted these people to go there and get rid of this fiscal train wreck that Obama and company forced on us...if they don't repeal all of it and succeed somehow in getting some squishy lite version of the ACA as you've pointed out...the Republican voters will stay home and the Dems will be back in control in about 18 months.
-
But when conservatives in Congress repay such attention with disloyalty, well, then, Trump will do what he has to do.
First off, they don't owe "loyalty" to Trump, and Trump should understand that.
But at the same time, those conservatives of whom you speak do owe something to their constituents. They were elected not simply to do the voters' will, but rather to act in the most effective way possible on matters which the voters themselves have neither the time nor resources to grapple with. And in their intransigence they failed, having now guaranteed the prolongation of the very thing they claim to be against. They set what was possible against their "principles," and thereby failed their constituents.
All that said: the AHCA was not a well-conceived bill. It was rushed to the floor when it should not have been. The proper role of all Republicans, whether moderate or conservative, was to work with Ryan to get a bill that could pass. Instead, it seems that there was a lot of posturing that only led to defeat.
-
That is a farfetched idea that somehow sounds believable.
They go to DC to reform and fix it. They go to meetings and drink afterwards. They wake up next to a dead underage child with their supposed "pals" taking pictures. Welcome to the club, now you're as compromised as the rest.
-
I would say that if that is the case, then we should have leapt at the opportunity to repeal 25-35% of ObamaCare. Because if the alternative is going to be him turning to single payer, then tossing away Ryan's bill will have been a horrible mistake. And that's what I'm really worried about, to be honest. Trump has been rather shockingly more conservative as President than he was as a candidate, almost right across the board. He talked about the public option during the campaign, he talked about global warming, etc., and he's been to the right on all that. Frankly, even Ryan's bill was more conservative than what Trump was saying during the campaign. Getting something that rolled back a good chunk of ObamaCare without a public option is more than we probably should have expected from the guy.
This. Conservatives weren't given a mandate. But they WERE given an opportunity. They would be wise not to blow it.
-
I don't think they should have to lower their sights. Voters trusted these people to go there and get rid of this fiscal train wreck that Obama and company forced on us...if they don't repeal all of it and succeed somehow in getting some squishy lite version of the ACA as you've pointed out...the Republican voters will stay home and the Dems will be back in control in about 18 months.
That's all very nice, but again: the votes aren't there! If the representatives can't lower their sights, and the voters can't understand the reason why, then they're either going to get more of the same (Obamacare), or perhaps something far worse (Trump working with Democrats).
It's fine to have goals, but you and others seem to be saying that the only proper way to achieve them, is in one huge chunk -- which is demonstrably a fantasy proposition. Lower the sights, chew it apart in smaller bites, and in the end you may get something worth having.
-
That's all very nice, but again: the votes aren't there! If the representatives can't lower their sights, and the voters can't understand the reason why, then they're either going to get more of the same (Obamacare), or perhaps something far worse (Trump working with Democrats).
IMHO he wanted to work with the dems all along. Trying to work with the GOP is a fan dance.
It's fine to have goals, but you and others seem to be saying that the only proper way to achieve them, is in one huge chunk -- which is demonstrably a fantasy proposition. Lower the sights, chew it apart in smaller bites, and in the end you may get something worth having.
The problem with going at this with small bites is it never gets repealed like it should. The Republican hold on the House and Senate isn't forever. Hell it might not last through the mid terms.
And when the Dems do get back in control...they'll make sure there is no way ever again the Republicans can even attempt to repeal government run healthcare.
That's why it all needs to be gone...NOW. There won't be a next good opportunity to do away with this monstrosity.
-
That's all very nice, but again: the votes aren't there! If the representatives can't lower their sights, and the voters can't understand the reason why, then they're either going to get more of the same (Obamacare), or perhaps something far worse (Trump working with Democrats).
It's fine to have goals, but you and others seem to be saying that the only proper way to achieve them, is in one huge chunk -- which is demonstrably a fantasy proposition. Lower the sights, chew it apart in smaller bites, and in the end you may get something worth having.
The votes aren't there to pass the squishy lite version either, so Trump is out there trying to bring public pressure to bear to get one side to change their vote.
Accountants count votes, leaders change them. Like or hate Trump, thats what leaders are supposed to do. Of course he could just as easily be pressuring moderates for full repeal instead, which would make him more consistent with his campaign rhetoric.
-
The problem with going at this with small bites is it never gets repealed like it should.
The Democrats don't think like that. They scratch and claw for every tiny concession they can get over the alternative of getting nothing, and look at where there strategy has put them today.
I will absolutely agree with you that if we can pass a full repeal, we should. But if we can't, then how does doing nothing help us?
-
The Democrats don't think like that. They scratch and claw for every tiny concession they can get over the alternative of getting nothing, and look at where there strategy has put them today.
I will absolutely agree with you that if we can pass a full repeal, we should. But if we can't, then how does doing nothing help us?
Trump and Ryan automatically went with a watered down version of the ACA...we KNOW it can be fully repealed because the House voted for that very thing in 2015.
Bring that bill word for word back up for a vote...pass it on tot he Senate then on to Trump's desk.
-
.
Accountants count votes, leaders change them. Like or hate Trump, thats what leaders are supposed to do. Of course he could just as easily be pressuring moderates for full repeal instead, which would make him more consistent with his campaign rhetoric.
As I recall, there was a report that Trump met with the moderates, and Ryan met with the conservatives, each trying to persuade that group to move. Or maybe it was the reverse. The point is, they have pressured both groups.
But the reality is that the Senate is even less conservative than the House, and the moderates in both chambers are more willing to live with Obamacare than agree to a full repeal. So there is just less leverage to be used on them. And the truth is the more members of the HFC you can get on board with a bill, the fewer moderates have to be enticed to join, so the more conservative the bill can be.
-
IMHO he wanted to work with the dems all along. Trying to work with the GOP is a fan dance.
That's perhaps true; all the more reason for everybody within the GOP majority to pull their heads out to prevent it from happening.
The problem with going at this with small bites is it never gets repealed like it should. The Republican hold on the House and Senate isn't forever. Hell it might not last through the mid terms.
Irrelevant. As it stands now, Obamacare hasn't been repealed at all and looks like it won't be, unless the GOP starts working together -- which requires all sides to budge to get a bill that they can all vote for.
And when the Dems do get back in control...they'll make sure there is no way ever again the Republicans can even attempt to repeal government run healthcare.
Which is all the more motivation for everybody on the GOP side to do what's possible. That means the Freedom Caucus and the Tuesday Group are going to have to descend from the lofty heights of their high horses.
That's why it all needs to be gone...NOW. There won't be a next good opportunity to do away with this monstrosity.
OK, so this is just you refusing to accept reality. What you're demanding has no chance of ever happening. The votes are not there. They will never be there. They were never going to be there.
-
The Democrats don't think like that. They scratch and claw for every tiny concession they can get over the alternative of getting nothing, and look at where there strategy has put them today.
I will absolutely agree with you that if we can pass a full repeal, we should. But if we can't, then how does doing nothing help us?
I totally agree we should be so lucky that our leadership would mimic the democrats.
The reason being the democrats never find themselves 'scratching for concessions'. No, their leaders put the whole enchilada out there and beat their members into lockstep & get it done and to hell with the consequences. Because they BELIEVE.
WE'RE the ones who scratch for concessions. Thats why we're at the place we are today.
-
Trump and Ryan automatically went with a watered down version of the ACA...we KNOW it can be fully repealed because the House voted for that very thing in 2015.
C'mon, you know that isn't true. First, there are fewer Republicans in the House now than there were in 2015 -- that makes it much tougher to pass bills because you can afford fewer defections. Second, that passed with the votes of a bunch of moderate Republicans who stated at that time that they'd want a replacement that preserved some elements of ObamaCare.
It's like you're trying to score rhetorical points rather than addressing today's reality. Just because they voted for it in 2015 does not mean they must vote for it now, and many of them have been public about requiring the preservation of some of ObamaCare. I wish the votes were there too, they're not. And honestly, anyone following the GOP attempts to come together on a replacement bill even before the election should have seen this coming, because they could not agree on that bill even then.
What happened is that so many people convinced themselves that repeal was going to happen that they just stopped seeing evidence to the contrary that was available even prior to the election. I mean, conservatives constantly mock politicians for lying, right? So why cling to the fiction that they must vote the same way they voted (when it didn't count) back in 2015?
-
OK, so this is just you refusing to accept reality. What you're demanding has no chance of ever happening. The votes are not there. They will never be there. They were never going to be there.
It passed in 2015 with pretty universal GOP support.
-
I totally agree we should be so lucky that our leadership would mimic the democrats.
The reason being the democrats never find themselves 'scratching for concessions'. No, their leaders put the whole enchilada out there and beat their members into lockstep & get it done and to hell with the consequences. Because they BELIEVE.
From your perspective, ObamaCare was "the whole enchilada." From the perspective of a great many Democrats, it was a crappy compromise with the public option that they really wanted. And for awhile, the Progressive Caucus said they wouldn't support a bill unless it had a "robust public option". Many on the left criticized Obama for giving up on the public option too easily. ObamaCare was not the bill most of them wanted, but they had to make all these compromises go squeak out enough votes in the House.
Don't you remember that?
Anyway, the point is that most of those progressives ended up swallowing what they saw as a turd of a bill because they bought the argument that even if it wasn't what they wanted, it was nevertheless a move in the right direction.
-
It passed in 2015 with pretty universal GOP support.
Indeed. It's so very easy to pass something you know has no chance of ever actually becoming law. A totally unaccountable gesture.
When it came down to making something that would get signed.... turns out to be a bit more difficult, because people can be held accountable for that. It's like being sentenced to hang: it focuses the mind wonderfully.
-
Trump's supporters are hurting - and they are disgusted with GRIDLOCK in Congress that keeps the nation from fixing its problems.
Increasing government intervention in the economy is not fixing problems, it is compounding them.
-
From your perspective, ObamaCare was "the whole enchilada." From the perspective of a great many Democrats, it was a crappy compromise with the public option that they really wanted. And for awhile, the Progressive Caucus said they wouldn't support a bill unless it had a "robust public option". Many on the left criticized Obama for giving up on the public option too easily. ObamaCare was not the bill most of them wanted, but they had to make all these compromises go squeak out enough votes in the House.
Don't you remember that?
Anyway, the point is that most of those progressives ended up swallowing what they saw as a turd of a bill because they bought the argument that even if it wasn't what they wanted, it was nevertheless a move in the right direction.
What I remember was 'you gotta pass it the find out whats in it', 11 pm Christmas Eve 100% party line vote. I do not recall any horse trading or bargaining. At all.
ACA represented a watershed, long sought after achievement for the left - total government run health insurance. That it didn't represent their eventual goal is immaterial - once their foot was in the door that end became pre-ordained anyway. So in reality it was the whole, foot in the door, enchilada.
They did it even though they knew it would cost them. And that the GOP would either be too cowardly - or too complicit - to do what it took to undo it.
-
Indeed. It's so very easy to pass something you know has no chance of ever actually becoming law. A totally unaccountable gesture.
When it came down to making something that would get signed.... turns out to be a bit more difficult, because people can be held accountable for that. It's like being sentenced to hang: it focuses the mind wonderfully.
But why are the ones who meant it are the bad guys? The ones who would call for repeal and then support a crap sandwich are the ones we can't trust, IMO.
-
The Democrats don't think like that. They scratch and claw for every tiny concession they can get over the alternative of getting nothing, and look at where there strategy has put them today.
So Obamacare was a tiny concession? I thought it was a massive fell swoop!
Why must our side sit at the back of the bus when we win power? Why don't we get fell swoops too?
You talk about Democrats clawing for tiny concessions, but the more accurate cause of their success is iron party discipline.
I will absolutely agree with you that if we can pass a full repeal, we should. But if we can't, then how does doing nothing help us?
Obamacare becomes increasingly worse. Perhaps people will get their fill of this idea that the Government should be involved in healthcare.
Something else the Democrats do is to set up for future success by insisting on an intractable ideological point in the present. (Don't ask don't tell.)
-
Indeed. It's so very easy to pass something you know has no chance of ever actually becoming law. A totally unaccountable gesture.
Which argues it's own solution. Make them accountable for lying by making certain their constituents know they lied, deliberately, and as a meaningless gesture.
Now if we only had a trillion dollar broadcast infrastructure like the Democrats posses...
-
So Obamacare was a tiny concession? I thought it was a massive fell swoop!
Why must our side sit at the back of the bus when we win power? Why don't we get fell swoops too?
"Our side" transposed in the context of the Democrats means the far left, the ones who want single payer, and who pressed hard for a robust "public option" as part of the ACA. They didn't get it - they had to settle for a bill that satisfied the centrists in the Democratic Party, which is why the ACA includes such things as the individual mandate, an idea straight out of seventies conservative think tanks! There's a reason that Mitt Romney was criticized for the similarities between RomneyCare and the ACA. It wasn't a bill intended primarily to satisfy the hard left - but the hard left went along with it because they saw it as a step in the right direction.
You talk about Democrats clawing for tiny concessions, but the more accurate cause of their success is iron party discipline.
That's correct - to get the ACA passed, Dem leadership told the far left to accept half a loaf, and they agreed.
-
But why are the ones who meant it are the bad guys? The ones who would call for repeal and then support a crap sandwich are the ones we can't trust, IMO.
There are plenty of bad guys to go around on this one. Ryan's roll-out of this plan was very poorly executed. Neither the "moderates" nor the "conservatives" seem to have any interest in finding common ground, and thus guarantee that the current unsupportable situation will continue.
The problem I have with the FC is that they're such "principled" fellows that they'd apparently lose everything, rather than accept incremental gains.
It pretty much seems that they won't work with anybody who's not willing to give them 100% of what they want. And so ... nobody's going to work with them, and the effective majority in the House transitions to the Democrats.
To get anywhere at all, is going to require the GOP to figure out how to put together a bill that will allow members from across the political spectrum to vote for it. Nobody's going to get everything they want. Everybody's going to have to bend a little.
-
That's correct - to get the ACA passed, Dem leadership told the far left to accept half a loaf, and they agreed.
No they were told it would have to be done in stages. Obama laid out the ground work for this plan early on:
In 2003, as a state Senator in Illinois, Obama publicly supported single payer.
“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program,” Obama said at the time. “I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/12/obama-obamacare-and-single-payer/
Now it looks like Trump wants to finish what Obama started.
-
"Our side" transposed in the context of the Democrats means the far left, the ones who want single payer, and who pressed hard for a robust "public option" as part of the ACA. They didn't get it - they had to settle for a bill that satisfied the centrists in the Democratic Party, which is why the ACA includes such things as the individual mandate, an idea straight out of seventies conservative think tanks!
They won *EVERYTHING* regarding the only part that matters; The principle that government would be involved in Health Care. It's like negotiating for a rape and winning penetration. You may not have gotten as much as you wanted, but you got *ALL* of the only part that mattered.
There's a reason that Mitt Romney was criticized for the similarities between RomneyCare and the ACA. It wasn't a bill intended primarily to satisfy the hard left - but the hard left went along with it because they saw it as a step in the right direction.
Because it concedes the principle involved. It establishes the premise under which all future debate will take place.
That's correct - to get the ACA passed, Dem leadership told the far left to accept half a loaf, and they agreed.
You have that backwards. They told the non-far-left to accept all of a principle. The hard left got all of the only piece that mattered. The rest is details and trivia.
-
Oh good grief @txradioguy -- please try and connect all the dots. The HFC is the problem in that they want it their way at 100% or they threatened to shut everything down.
Since you appear to have such close ties to them, why not suggest to them this is no way to govern and remind them of Reagan's 80/20 rule.
PS: don't forget to add the "@" when "quoting" a poster: @DCPatriot @Jazzhead
@Right_in_Virginia
Gee... invoking Reagan again. But I see that when I asked you to invoke Reagan in *this* post...
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,256231.msg1276313.html#msg1276313
...you suddenly went missing.
What's the matter? Did the emperor suddenly realize the she had no clothes?
You need to stop invoking Reagan when Trump does things that Reagan would never, ever do. Also, moving your account to TOS would probably help your case, too.
-
The problem I have with the FC is that they're such "principled" fellows that they'd apparently lose everything, rather than accept incremental gains.
Losing the fight over the principle involved can never be assuaged by whatever minor operating details are conceded. Lose the "gay marriage" fight, and you will be baking gay wedding cakes whether you like it or not. Anyone who has watched how this stuff works, knows that if you lose the principle involved, the rest of your objections will also be swept away eventually.
It pretty much seems that they won't work with anybody who's not willing to give them 100% of what they want. And so ... nobody's going to work with them, and the effective majority in the House transitions to the Democrats.
Democrats with an "(R)" behind their names.
To get anywhere at all, is going to require the GOP to figure out how to put together a bill that will allow members from across the political spectrum to vote for it. Nobody's going to get everything they want. Everybody's going to have to bend a little.
Yeah, the many bills they had previously voted for are simply not good enough, because they were lying back then, and now they are telling us that they sorta like socialized medicine because it helps their corporate donors save money.
They are probably also in favor of the US Government absorbing their corporate donor's failing pension systems.
-
Losingthefightovertheprincipleinvolvedcanneverbeassuagedbywhateverminoroperatingdetailsareconceded.Losethe"gaymarriage"fight,andyouwillbebaking
gayweddingcakeswhetheryoulikeitornot.Anyonewhohaswatchedhowthisstuffworks,knowsthatifyoulosetheprincipleinvolved,therestofyourobjectionswillalsobesweptawayeventually.
Democratswithan"R)"behindtheirnames.Yeah,themanybillstheyhadpreviouslyvotedforaresimplynotgoodenough,becausetheywerelyingbackthen,andnowtheyaretellingust
hattheysortalikesocializedmedicinebecauseithelpstheircorporatedonorssavemoney.TheyareprobablyalsoinfavoroftheUSGovernmentabsorbingtheircorporatedonor'sfailingpensionsystems.
All of that to say, you'd rather lose.
-
No they were told it would have to be done in stages. .
And so the Freedom Caucus was told that more conservative reforms would occur in stages 2 and 3. The difference is that the hard left compromised to move its agenda along, while the FC refused to compromise and its insistence on purity ended up restoring the leftist status quo.
-
All of that to say, you'd rather lose.
To speak more slowly so that you might better understand:
"I'd rather lose a battle than lose the war."
-
And so the Freedom Caucus was told that more conservative reforms would occur in stages 2 and 3. The difference is that the hard left compromised to move its agenda along, while the FC refused to compromise and its insistence on purity ended up restoring the leftist status quo.
"The hard left compromised to move its agenda along" :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:
What exactly did they compromise on @Jazzhead?
-
And so the Freedom Caucus was told that more conservative reforms would occur in stages 2 and 3. The difference is that the hard left compromised to move its agenda along, while the FC refused to compromise and its insistence on purity ended up restoring the leftist status quo.
And that's not what the Republicans got elected promising. There was no "three buckets" pledge if Candidate X got sent to Washington.
The hard left...of which you are a part...NEVER compromises on anything...it's either their way or they destroy those that oppose them.
And again I will point out...it wasn't the Freedom Caucus that sunk this measure. But drones like you and others here just follow Trump's lead and blame whomever he tells you to blame via twitter.
-
And so the Freedom Caucus was told that more conservative reforms would occur in stages 2 and 3.
Shall we take a walk down memory lane and do a quick review on how that strategy has worked out in the past?
-
"The hard left compromised to move its agenda along" :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:
What exactly did they compromise on @Jazzhead?
They wanted single payer and instead settled for a federal version of RomneyCare.
-
And that's not what the Republicans got elected promising. There was no "three buckets" pledge if Candidate X got sent to Washington.
The hard left...of which you are a part...NEVER compromises on anything...it's either their way or they destroy those that oppose them.
And again I will point out...it wasn't the Freedom Caucus that sunk this measure. But drones like you and others here just follow Trump's lead and blame whomever he tells you to blame via twitter.
Oh, stop whining.
-
They wanted single payer and instead settled for a federal version of RomneyCare.
They "settled" for nothing...they got exactly what they wanted...having learned the lessons from their failure under Bill Clinton to get a "compromise" with the GOP passed.
They completely shut out Republicans...accepted no changes to the bill and passed it with absolutely every single member of the House voting for it.
Then Harry Reid used some downright dirty tricks to pass it in the Senate.
If you honestly don't think the Dems didn't know what they were doing...you're more clueless than some people here give you credit for.
-
They wanted single payer and instead settled for a federal version of RomneyCare.
No, that was just their bargaining position. What they wanted was to establish the principle that government should be intimately involved in Health Care.
They got that. They got 100% of that.
Don't you know how this bargaining stuff works? You always ask for far more than you want.
-
And that's not what the Republicans got elected promising. There was no "three buckets" pledge if Candidate X got sent to Washington.
The hard left...of which you are a part...NEVER compromises on anything...it's either their way or they destroy those that oppose them.
And again I will point out...it wasn't the Freedom Caucus that sunk this measure. But drones like you and others here just follow Trump's lead and blame whomever he tells you to blame via twitter.
It's so disheartening to see the GOPe, now under Trump, going back to the same old play - offer up lame half baked socialism as an answer to the left, toss in a scrap or two obstensibly for the benefit of conservatives, then drop the hammer on conservatives when they refuse to play along.
And all we're asking is that they fulfil their promises.
-
Losing the fight over the principle involved can never be assuaged by whatever minor operating details are conceded. Lose the "gay marriage" fight, and you will be baking gay wedding cakes whether you like it or not. Anyone who has watched how this stuff works, knows that if you lose the principle involved, the rest of your objections will also be swept away eventually.
Great wisdom posted there in that statement folks. Read it again and recognize what is being demanded of us by those who tell us that we need to support maybe getting a partial loaf instead of insisting in a full loaf, or risk getting none.
We surrender the principle, we surrender everything - even if we are being beguiled with a partial loaf.
-
@Right_in_Virginia
What's the matter? Did the emperor suddenly realize the she had no clothes?
I've already addressed this @bolobaby, but since I'm sensing you're bored, I'll give it one last shot: I limit the amount of time and energy I waste during a day. Haters gonna hate Bolobaby --- and neither fact nor reason will change that. I've simply chosen to let the haters spew and carry on without interruption. I apologize if this shortens your playtime.
You need to stop invoking Reagan when Trump does things that Reagan would never, ever do. Also, moving your account to TOS would probably help your case, too.
If only you had the power and the right to tell me or even suggest to me what I should and should not do -- this would be a damned powerful statement Bolobay. But, all you did was waste my time ... yet again. I will be checking every now and then to see if you change this, so keep trying. I'm rooting for you! :beer:
-
And all we're asking is that they fulfil their promises.
The votes aren't there. The real world is a fine place to live - try it sometime.
-
We surrender the principle, we surrender everything - even if we are being beguiled with a partial loaf.
We stood for principle when the ACA was passed - not one Republican voted for it.
But now the task is a pragmatic one - how to undo the damage.
Martyrdom is, well, just selfish and stupid.
-
The votes aren't there. The real world is a fine place to live - try it sometime.
Sounds like a miserable, cynical place.
No thanks. I'll keep insisting on something better.
-
Martyrdom is, well, just selfish and stupid.
Thank God you were not there during our War for Independence, because you would definitely be fighting for the British instead of something 'selfish and stupid'.
-
Thank God you were not there during our War for Independence, because you would definitely be fighting for the British instead of something 'selfish and stupid'.
Oh, please! You think we'd have taken him? Didn't think your opinion of our professionalism was that low. :tongue2:
-
Oh, please! You think we'd have taken him? Didn't think your opinion of our professionalism was that low. :tongue2:
He obviously would not do the really tough stuff, so you might be right, and could have just stayed in England instead of undergoing the trauma of the long ship ride to the Colonies.
-
He obviously would not do the really tough stuff, so you might be right, and could have just stayed in England instead of undergoing the trauma of the long ship ride to the Colonies.
:beer:
Though you might have wound up with him anyway. Don't forget, the US was our dumping ground for none criminal malcontents until you all got stroppy about paying for the French Indian War.
Still, worked out pretty good in the long run. :beer:
-
We stood for principle when the ACA was passed - not one Republican voted for it.
But now the task is a pragmatic one - how to undo the damage.
Martyrdom is, well, just selfish and stupid.
Words from someone who is conquered and subjugated.
-
They wanted single payer and instead settled for a federal version of RomneyCare.
@Jazzhead, so, who was it they compromised with?
-
:beer:
Though you might have wound up with him anyway. Don't forget, the US was our dumping ground for none criminal malcontents until you all got stroppy about paying for the French Indian War.
Still, worked out pretty good in the long run. :beer:
I'll take a 12% tax on my tea over 31% federal income, 12% state income, 9% sales tax, plus property, plus license, plus gas, plus yada yada.
Old KGIII looks pretty damn good right now.
-
@Jazzhead, so, who was it they compromised with?
The centrists in their own party. Remember, the political climate at the of the ACA was similar to the political climate today. No Republicans were going to vote for the ACA, so the Dems needed complete unity to pass the bill. Leftists and centrists had to all agree on a compromise bill. The leftists preferred single payer, centrists did not. So the ACA basically represents the bill that was able to gain the support of the most centrist Dem Congressmen. The hard left compromised, satisfied as a strategic matter with their "half a loaf."
-
Oh, please! You think we'd have taken him? Didn't think your opinion of our professionalism was that low. :tongue2:
Actually, no. I think he'd get the Benedict Arnold treatment if he were on your side of the pond.
-
The votes aren't there. The real world is a fine place to live - try it sometime.
Then what is wrong with calling out the people who's votes were there in 2015 but who have now decided their votes are no longer there?
Flim flam people need to be called out and punished for their flim flamery.
I say the house needs to be cleaned of people on "our side" who lie to us. So does the Senate.
We should thank them for identifying themselves as our next set of targets.
-
We stood for principle when the ACA was passed - not one Republican voted for it.
But now the task is a pragmatic one - how to undo the damage.
Yes, undoing the immoral things that Obama did is just so complicated. Far be it that we just vote to overturn what he did.
That is just completely unreasonable.
-
The centrists in their own party. Remember, the political climate at the of the ACA was similar to the political climate today. No Republicans were going to vote for the ACA, so the Dems needed complete unity to pass the bill. Leftists and centrists had to all agree on a compromise bill. The leftists preferred single payer, centrists did not. So the ACA basically represents the bill that was able to gain the support of the most centrist Dem Congressmen. The hard left compromised, satisfied as a strategic matter with their "half a loaf."
You just ignore the point I make. The *ONLY* issue was whether the government would be involved or not. *HOW MUCH* the government *WILL* be involved can be endlessly negotiated at subsequent future dates so long as they win 100% of the principle that THE GOVERNMENT will run Health Care.
The left did not compromise on this core principle. The moderates in the Democrat party were forced to accept this principle 100%.
The boundary line of the war is that principle. It is not *HOW* the government is involved or to what degree, or how much they will pay, or who they will serve, or how their involvement will be managed by what group of people following whatever policies, it is *WHETHER* the health care system will be controlled and ran by the GOVERNMENT.
It is the only issue of significance in the entire debate, and you avoid that point like the plague.
-
The boundary line of the war is that principle. It is not *HOW* the government is involved or to what degree, or how much they will pay, or who they will serve, or how their involvement will be managed by what group of people following whatever policies, it is *WHETHER* the health care system will be controlled and ran by the GOVERNMENT.
It is the only issue of significance in the entire debate, and you avoid that point like the plague.
No he doesn't.
He has stated on several threads now that Government is there to run things better than the private sector, because they exist to mandate fairness, equality and provide for those who are not "lucky" in life's lottery.
He outed his love for Communism some time back.
-
You just ignore the point I make. The *ONLY* issue was whether the government would be involved or not. *HOW MUCH* the government *WILL* be involved can be endlessly negotiated at subsequent future dates so long as they win 100% of the principle that THE GOVERNMENT will run Health Care.
By that definition, the issue was lost long before the ACA. State governments have been regulating insurance for most of the last century. Medicare, Medicaid, the FDA, the licensing of doctors and drugs, the requirement that public hospitals treat everyone....these were all things that pre-existed the ACA by decades. And if "how much" doesn't matter, then we shouldn't even bother. The battle was already lost, so who cares if we repeal the ACA anyway?
But obviously, how much really does matter a lot. We're talking about the effect of policies on the lives of citizens, not simply as some abstract philosophical principle, and of course the magnitude of any given change is going to have an effect on the lives of citizens. To dismiss the "how much" question is to reduce the entire issue to one of theoretical ideological purity, rather than on how it actually effects the lives of people.
It's like saying there's no difference between an 80% income tax rate, and a 1% tax rate, because either way, you've already lost "the issue" of taxes based on income. We live in a real world, not in some game where "winning" and "losing" are the only two possible results.
-
I've already addressed this @bolobaby, but since I'm sensing you're bored, I'll give it one last shot: I limit the amount of time and energy I waste during a day. Haters gonna hate Bolobaby --- and neither fact nor reason will change that. I've simply chosen to let the haters spew and carry on without interruption. I apologize if this shortens your playtime.
If only you had the power and the right to tell me or even suggest to me what I should and should not do -- this would be a damned powerful statement Bolobay. But, all you did was waste my time ... yet again. I will be checking every now and then to see if you change this, so keep trying. I'm rooting for you! :beer:
Typical. Can't address on substance, so posts some dismissive BS.
Fact: RIV is a Trump shill who selectively invokes Reagan, but when confronted with the plain disparities between Trump and Reagan, she runs and hides.
All the hallmarks of an aloof fraud, as most here have figured out.
Sad! (ha.)
-
But obviously, how much really does matter a lot. We're talking about the effect of policies on the lives of citizens, not simply as some abstract philosophical principle, and of course the magnitude of any given change is going to have an effect on the lives of citizens. To dismiss the "how much" question is to reduce the entire issue to one of theoretical ideological purity, rather than on how it actually effects the lives of people..
"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."
This principle had an immediate effect on the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts, and a longer term effect in the rest of the nation in the subsequent years.
That principle was the dominant force in abolishing slavery in the United States.
It is principles which guide the subsequent results.
The destination is always ultimately decided by the foundational principle involved.
The rest is just details.
-
"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."
This principle had an immediate effect on the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts, and a longer term effect in the rest of the nation in the subsequent years. That principle was the dominant force in abolishing slavery in the United States.
I think this actually proves my point.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be guided by principles, or ever cease striving to achieve that end. We absolutely should do both. But being guided by principle in your actions does not mean a rigid insistence on immediate, 100% compliance with that principle, or nothing else. If it did, the Constitution would not have granted 20 more years of the slave trade.
-
I think this actually proves my point.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be guided by principles, or ever cease striving to achieve that end. We absolutely should do both. But being guided by principle in your actions does not mean a rigid insistence on immediate, 100% compliance with that principle, or nothing else. If it did, the Constitution would not have granted 20 more years of the slave trade.
And how did that compromise work out in the long run?
-
"Quia parvus error in principio magnus est in fine."
-
You just ignore the point I make. The *ONLY* issue was whether the government would be involved or not. *HOW MUCH* the government *WILL* be involved can be endlessly negotiated at subsequent future dates so long as they win 100% of the principle that THE GOVERNMENT will run Health Care.
The left did not compromise on this core principle. The moderates in the Democrat party were forced to accept this principle 100%.
There are no moderates in the Democratic party who reject the notion that the government can be involved in the regulation of the health insurance market. The role of government in regulating specialized markets characterized by natural disparities of information is seen as the norm, indeed integral to the functioning of a modern economy.
You can't return to your ideal of a 19th century limited role for the federal government. It's a practical impossibility. The government will regulate the industries of insurance, annuities, pension promises, and public securities markets. If you refuse to accept that then you're just a crank.
The question becomes the quality and philosophy of regulation, the predisposition toward honoring such values as individual liberty, commercial freedom and privacy, and the sunsetting of rules unnecessary or intrusive.
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DEMONSTRATED ITS CORE VALUES WHEN NOT A SINGLE MEMBER VOTED FOR OBAMACARE.
But standing on principle is possible when the goal is resistance. When you've barked in righteous protest and caught the car, you've got to change your focus and drive the damn thing, on the road and not into the ditch.
The GOP cannot vote to just get rid of the ACA, seven years in and with millions taking advantage of insurance they likely could not have gotten before. You have to manage the transition, you have to address the unwinding of expectations.
The AHCA was part of a plan to do that, and whether you agree with it or not, it was a responsible plan, not a reaction to agitprop conservatives thinking they won a mandate to drop a bomb on one-seventh of the economy.
-
The GOP cannot vote to just get rid of the ACA, seven years in and with millions taking advantage of insurance they likely could not have gotten before.
And how do you suppose this occasion of bribing the people from the government treasury will eventually resolve itself?
You have to manage the transition, you have to address the unwinding of expectations.
Has any entitlement, once give, ever been unwound? I knew at the time that the longer this thing was allowed to linger, the more impossible it would be to get rid of it.
The absolute worst thing the Republicans could have done was to ameliorate it's harmful effects, because if it made the nation scream out in pain, it would have not only been repealed, it would have enacted a vengeance upon those who created it.
But once more, the moderates won that conflict, and Obamacare was delayed and softened until it was only a nuisance to most instead of an unbearable agony.
The AHCA was part of a plan to do that, and whether you agree with it or not, it was a responsible plan, not a reaction to agitprop conservatives thinking they won a mandate to drop a bomb on one-seventh of the economy.
Because dropping a bomb on 1/7th of the economy is only okay when Democrats do it. We should be more responsible and not upset Democrat constituencies by cutting them off from the Taxpayer's teat.
Yeah, that's going to work out well in the long run.
-
And how do you suppose this occasion of bribing the people from the government treasury will eventually resolve itself?
Has any entitlement, once give, ever been unwound? I knew at the time that the longer this thing was allowed to linger, the more impossible it would be to get rid of it.
The absolute worst thing the Republicans could have done was to ameliorate it's harmful effects, because if it made the nation scream out in pain, it would have not only been repealed, it would have enacted a vengeance upon those who created it.
But once more, the moderates won that conflict, and Obamacare was delayed and softened until it was only a nuisance to most instead of an unbearable agony.
Because dropping a bomb on 1/7th of the economy is only okay when Democrats do it. We should be more responsible and not upset Democrat constituencies by cutting them off from the Taxpayer's teat.
Yeah, that's going to work out well in the long run.
You do know what it is you are arguing with don't you?
-
First off, they don't owe "loyalty" to Trump, and Trump should understand that.
Precisely.But at the same time, those conservatives of whom you speak do owe something to their constituents. They were elected not simply to do the voters' will, but rather to act in the most effective way possible on matters which the voters themselves have neither the time nor resources to grapple with. And in their intransigence they failed, having now guaranteed the prolongation of the very thing they claim to be against. They set what was possible against their "principles," and thereby failed their constituents.
Negotiate much? If I say "I want ABC" and you throw a mishmash of "qRl&9" on the table, and say "take it or leave it", well "Have a nice day. Bless your heart. GTFO." are all possible responses, but i won't jump on that piece of roadkill like a starving coyote. I'll leave it.
The attempt to shift blame for this to those who would not jump on the first tender which fell far short of the spec is only that much more to be held against those who proffered it in the first place.
All that said: the AHCA was not a well-conceived bill. It was rushed to the floor when it should not have been. The proper role of all Republicans, whether moderate or conservative, was to work with Ryan to get a bill that could pass. Instead, it seems that there was a lot of posturing that only led to defeat.
Not all Republicans were given that option. In fact this was crafted without input from the FC. If you want a bill all republicans can work with Ryan on, then perhaps having all Republicans in on crafting it would be a step in the right direction.
-
"The hard left compromised to move its agenda along" :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:
What exactly did they compromise on @Jazzhead?
I'm curious what stages 2 and 3 of that monstrosity were.
-
They wanted single payer and instead settled for a federal version of RomneyCare.
IIRC, Romneycare (AKA the Hillarycare template) wasn't so far off, in principle, from Obamacare. That is why Romney did so swimmingly well at the polls.
-
And how did that compromise work out in the long run?
The slave trade ended in 1808, so I'd say it worked out pretty well.
But I'm now a bit unclear as to your point. I thought you were making the point that the Founders were men of principle who didn't compromise, and that's why you quoted the quoted the Declaration. I'm pointing out that those exact same men, for the most part, showed a perfect willingness to compromise on the issue of slavery. And if they were willing to wait 20 years to end something as horrible as shoving human beings into boats like cattle, and taking them half a world away against their will, then maybe repealing a health care bill over the course of a few years shouldn't cause a crisis of conscience.
-
Here's how compromising works, in the long run, illustrated by a delicious cake:
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/11/08/cake-and-compromise-illustrated-guide-to-gun-control/
-
By that definition, the issue was lost long before the ACA. State governments have been regulating insurance for most of the last century. Medicare, Medicaid, the FDA, the licensing of doctors and drugs, the requirement that public hospitals treat everyone....these were all things that pre-existed the ACA by decades. And if "how much" doesn't matter, then we shouldn't even bother. The battle was already lost, so who cares if we repeal the ACA anyway?
The States, and the people retain that right, and that is an issue for the several states to decide individually. The Federal Government does not have that power: Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The seminal argument remains one of Federal usurpation of power.
But obviously, how much really does matter a lot. We're talking about the effect of policies on the lives of citizens, not simply as some abstract philosophical principle, and of course the magnitude of any given change is going to have an effect on the lives of citizens. To dismiss the "how much" question is to reduce the entire issue to one of theoretical ideological purity, rather than on how it actually effects the lives of people.
It is the turd in the punchbowl. How much is too much? The correct answer is any present is too much. Once the punch has been polluted, how much is mainly irrelevant, it has been rendered unfit for human consumption. The only correct answer is "none".
It's like saying there's no difference between an 80% income tax rate, and a 1% tax rate, because either way, you've already lost "the issue" of taxes based on income. We live in a real world, not in some game where "winning" and "losing" are the only two possible results.
See above. When the correct answer is "zero", even 1% is too much.
-
I think this actually proves my point.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be guided by principles, or ever cease striving to achieve that end. We absolutely should do both. But being guided by principle in your actions does not mean a rigid insistence on immediate, 100% compliance with that principle, or nothing else. If it did, the Constitution would not have granted 20 more years of the slave trade.
This particular usurpation may have become effective over time, but it was passed at once. It can be repealed the same way. The only ones not enslaved by this legislation are those who passed it and their staffs. "Equal", indeed.
-
"Quia parvus error in principio magnus est in fine."
Veritas!
-
But I'm now a bit unclear as to your point. I thought you were making the point that the Founders were men of principle who didn't compromise, and that's why you quoted the quoted the Declaration. I'm pointing out that those exact same men, for the most part, showed a perfect willingness to compromise on the issue of slavery.
Red herring. Slavery was not the principle the Founders were standing on. Liberty was the principle and tyranny was the Object they sought to abolish in the Colonies by Independence.
The Founders did not compromise on the fundamental principles of liberty and Independence once it became clear that the Crown intended to impose tyranny. Compromises that were made, were made in the direction of Independence.
Your entire premise argues from a conceded principle that tyranny (The government imposing that which it usurped authority to impose) is somehow something we must compromise with in order to keep what liberty is left.
The moment you concede a principle in order to make a compromise, it is no longer a principle that governs. It has no value. You threw it away.
-
The slave trade ended in 1808, so I'd say it worked out pretty well.
But I'm now a bit unclear as to your point. I thought you were making the point that the Founders were men of principle who didn't compromise, and that's why you quoted the quoted the Declaration. I'm pointing out that those exact same men, for the most part, showed a perfect willingness to compromise on the issue of slavery. And if they were willing to wait 20 years to end something as horrible as shoving human beings into boats like cattle, and taking them half a world away against their will, then maybe repealing a health care bill over the course of a shouldn't cause a crisis of conscience.
You seem to misunderstand the meaning of the term, "compromise." It doesn't mean, "shut up and take whatever we throw on the table." If the proposing side wants true compromise, it has to move toward the other side just as much as that side has to move. Happy to educate you.
-
The slave trade ended in 1808, so I'd say it worked out pretty well.
But I'm now a bit unclear as to your point. I thought you were making the point that the Founders were men of principle who didn't compromise, and that's why you quoted the quoted the Declaration. I'm pointing out that those exact same men, for the most part, showed a perfect willingness to compromise on the issue of slavery. And if they were willing to wait 20 years to end something as horrible as shoving human beings into boats like cattle, and taking them half a world away against their will, then maybe repealing a health care bill over the course of a shouldn't cause a crisis of conscience.
From:
http://www.tracingcenter.org/resources/background/northern-involvement-in-the-slave-trade/ (http://www.tracingcenter.org/resources/background/northern-involvement-in-the-slave-trade/)
A central fact obscured by post-Civil War mythologies is that the northern U.S. states were deeply implicated in slavery and the slave trade right up to the war.The slave trade in particular was dominated by the northern maritime industry. Rhode Island alone was responsible for half of all U.S. slave voyages. James DeWolf and his family may have been the biggest slave traders in U.S. history, but there were many others involved. For example, members of the Brown family of Providence, some of whom were prominent in the slave trade, gave substantial gifts to Rhode Island College, which was later renamed Brown University.
While local townspeople thought of the DeWolfs and other prominent families primarily as general merchants, distillers and traders who supported ship-building, warehousing, insurance and other trades and businesses, it was common knowledge that one source of this business was the cheap labor and huge profits reaped from trafficking in human beings.
The North also imported slaves, as well as transporting and selling them in the south and abroad. While the majority of enslaved Africans arrived in southern ports–Charleston, South Carolina was the largest market for slave traders, including the DeWolfs—most large colonial ports served as points of entry, and Africans were sold in northern ports including Philadelphia, New York, Boston, and Newport, Rhode Island.
The southern coastal states from Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland were therefore home to the vast majority of enslaved persons. But there were slaves in each of the thirteen original colonies, and slavery was legal in the north for over two hundred years. While the northern states gradually began abolishing slavery by law starting in the 1780s, many northern states did not act against slavery until well into the 19th century, and their laws generally provided only for gradual abolition, allowing slave owners to keep their existing slaves and often their children. As a result, New Jersey, for instance, still had thousands of persons legally enslaved in the 1830s, and did not finally abolish slavery by law until 1846. As late as the outbreak of the Civil War, in fact, there were northern slaves listed on the federal census.
More at the link.
-
Red herring. Slavery was not the principle the Founders were standing on. Liberty was the principle and tyranny was the Object they sought to abolish in the Colonies by Independence.
.
.
.
The moment you concede a principle in order to make a compromise, it is no longer a principle that governs. It has no value. You threw it away.
Indeed. As when you concede a principle on, say, liberty -- such as the liberty of the enslaved. Seriously, man, do you even read your own stuff?
-
Last night I was present at of a small meeting with Ted Cruz and about 30 conservative leaders from around the state, and I've been trying to formulate what exactly to report back. Obviously we touched on a lot of important topics, but what was the overall message?
Honestly, it was bleak at moments. Some of the candid conversations Ted shared confirmed what we all know...most legislators frankly couldn't care less about the people or right vs wrong. Negativity breeds quickly, and a couple leaders began to do nothing but complain and point fingers. Nothing gets under my skin faster than that sort of defeatist attitude. I was about to lose it...until Ted broke in. He said all he knows to do is to "get up every day and keep fighting." Awww, I love that! Trump is a wild card; we don't know which battles we will win, but we stay in the game and use positive influence to massage things in our direction. NE Tarrant Tea Party is successful because we had a rule from the get-go...all speakers must leave us with a plan of action. We don't have gripe fests or pity parties. We identify the problem and motivate people to work towards the solution. Ted had 4 markers to determine if this will be a successful term with Trump: deal with Obamacare, instate Gorsuch, and get regulations and tax reform. He has regular conversations with Trump, and I will continue to pray that Trump has the wisdom to discern who his wisest advisors are.
-
Indeed. As when you concede a principle on, say, liberty -- such as the liberty of the enslaved. Seriously, man, do you even read your own stuff?
Liberty of the slaves was not the issue. Retaining liberty as a free people via separation from the Crown when it became clear that the Colonists Rights as Englishmen no longer existed - WAS the issue.
THAT was the fundamental principle. Dumping slavery as a proof text that the Founders compromised with the tyranny of the Crown in order to gain liberty is ludicrous.
Slavery was a separate issue we paid for in blood almost a century later.
-
Last night I was present at of a small meeting with Ted Cruz and about 30 conservative leaders from around the state, and I've been trying to formulate what exactly to report back. Obviously we touched on a lot of important topics, but what was the overall message?
Honestly, it was bleak at moments. Some of the candid conversations Ted shared confirmed what we all know...most legislators frankly couldn't care less about the people or right vs wrong. Negativity breeds quickly, and a couple leaders began to do nothing but complain and point fingers. Nothing gets under my skin faster than that sort of defeatist attitude. I was about to lose it...until Ted broke in. He said all he knows to do is to "get up every day and keep fighting." Awww, I love that! Trump is a wild card; we don't know which battles we will win, but we stay in the game and use positive influence to massage things in our direction. NE Tarrant Tea Party is successful because we had a rule from the get-go...all speakers must leave us with a plan of action. We don't have gripe fests or pity parties. We identify the problem and motivate people to work towards the solution. Ted had 4 markers to determine if this will be a successful term with Trump: deal with Obamacare, instate Gorsuch, and get regulations and tax reform. He has regular conversations with Trump, and I will continue to pray that Trump has the wisdom to discern who his wisest advisors are.
Did Cruz discuss compromising his position on repealing ObamaCare in order to provide government-mandated health insurance for everyone? That seems to be the starting point for any discussion about 'moving the ball down the field'.
-
This particular usurpation may have become effective over time, but it was passed at once.
That's actually not correct. The Constitution did not say "the slave trade will end in 20 years," which is what you are arguing here. What it actually said was:
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight,"
In other words, the Constitution prohibited Congress from even trying to pass a law to limit the slave trade for 20 years. At the end of that 20 years, Congress would then be permitted to pass a law limit the slave trade, but there was absolutely no guarantee that would actually happen. In other words, the Constitution not only punted the issue of the slave trade - it actually prohibited future Congress from even considering the issue. It was actually worse than if the Constitution had said absolutely nothing about the slave trade.
That's a pretty heavy moral compromise for those who opposed the slave trade on grounds of principle -- and there were many of them.
-
You seem to misunderstand the meaning of the term, "compromise." It doesn't mean, "shut up and take whatever we throw on the table." If the proposing side wants true compromise, it has to move toward the other side just as much as that side has to move. Happy to educate you.
The both have moved. Just not enough.
-
The federal Beast has no role, authority or right to nationalize an industry and mandate all citizens must purchase and carry a product and service that they, themselves set the criteria for simply to live unmolested. That is tyranny. That is a principle that is not able to be compromised, surrendered or worked with. Otherwise we have just green-lit Fascism as our form of government.
Obamacare was imposed via corruption, stealth, lies and "passed" in the middle of the night without a single representative reading the bill, with a SCOTUS sleight-of-hand to make it 'legal'. It nationalized 1/7 of the economy and handed government the authority over every aspect of our lives should they decide to regulate everything from diet to lifestyle in order to streamline costs.
Full repeal and ENDING that tyranny is imperative. The longer it remains, the more permanent it becomes:
"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" - Ronald Reagan
But we are being lectured that we have to compromise in order to "fight" and move the ball down the field for the goal of retaining half a loaf of liberty instead of none.
Compromising with tyranny is not an option.
Leaving any part of Obamacare in place, means we have ceded and surrendered to the Beast, the right for government to direct our health care, and mandate what we must purchase and what we are prohibited from purchase or possession - simply to live and exist in this country. Once that precedent is cemented as an authority the feds have - you can bank on the fact that they will mandate and force us to purchase other items, services and programs they nationalize and set the criteria for in the future. Then we will be forced to provide subsidy for others to meet those mandates, simply to exist or face punishment (or "shared Responsibility Payments").
Simply renaming it while softening the mandates and other hard aspects for the short term as a compromise, is not acceptable. The federal Beast has no authority to run health insurance or health care. Period.
This principe is immovable and non-negotiable: We are opposed to any government control and nationalization of health care or any industry and practice in the private sector.
That is a power only the greatest tyrannies and despotisms possessed over their subjects.
Compromise is surrender.
The votes may not be there for full repeal, but compromise by agreeing to leave any part of nationalized health care intact is ceding to the Feds, authority it did not have in the first place and signs the GOP over as co-authors and saviors of ObamaCare.
-
Compromising with tyranny is not an option.
Leaving any part of Obamacare in place, means we have ceded and surrendered to the Beast, the right for government to direct our health care, and mandate what we must purchase and what we are prohibited from purchase or possession - simply to live and exist in this country. Once that precedent is cemented as an authority the feds have - you can bank on the fact that they will mandate and force us to purchase other items, services and programs they nationalize and set the criteria for in the future. Then we will be forced to provide subsidy for others to meet those mandates, simply to exist or face punishment (or "shared Responsibility Payments").
Simply renaming it while softening the mandates and other hard aspects for the short term as a compromise, is not acceptable. The federal Beast has no authority to run health insurance or health care. Period.
This principe is immovable and non-negotiable: We are opposed to any government control and nationalization of health care or any industry and practice in the private sector.
That is a power only the greatest tyrannies and despotisms possessed over their subjects.
Hear hear !
-
The federal Beast has no role, authority or right to nationalize an industry and mandate all citizens must purchase and carry a product and service that they, themselves set the criteria for simply to live unmolested. That is tyranny. That is a principle that is not able to be compromised, surrendered or worked with. Otherwise we have just green-lit Fascism as our form of government.
Obamacare was imposed via corruption, stealth, lies and "passed" in the middle of the night without a single representative reading the bill, with a SCOTUS sleight-of-hand to make it 'legal'. It nationalized 1/7 of the economy and handed government the authority over every aspect of our lives should they decide to regulate everything from diet to lifestyle in order to streamline costs.
Full repeal and ENDING that tyranny is imperative. The longer it remains, the more permanent it becomes:
"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" - Ronald Reagan
But we are being lectured that we have to compromise in order to "fight" and move the ball down the field for the goal of retaining half a loaf of liberty instead of none.
Compromising with tyranny is not an option.
Leaving any part of Obamacare in place, means we have ceded and surrendered to the Beast, the right for government to direct our health care, and mandate what we must purchase and what we are prohibited from purchase or possession - simply to live and exist in this country. Once that precedent is cemented as an authority the feds have - you can bank on the fact that they will mandate and force us to purchase other items, services and programs they nationalize and set the criteria for in the future. Then we will be forced to provide subsidy for others to meet those mandates, simply to exist or face punishment (or "shared Responsibility Payments").
Simply renaming it while softening the mandates and other hard aspects for the short term as a compromise, is not acceptable. The federal Beast has no authority to run health insurance or health care. Period.
This principe is immovable and non-negotiable: We are opposed to any government control and nationalization of health care or any industry and practice in the private sector.
That is a power only the greatest tyrannies and despotisms possessed over their subjects.
Compromise is surrender.
The votes may not be there for full repeal, but compromise by agreeing to leave any part of nationalized health care intact is ceding to the Feds, authority it did not have in the first place and signs the GOP over as co-authors and saviors of ObamaCare.
You're right. After all of these decades its time to stop passively enabling the tyranny.
-
Liberty of the slaves was not the issue. Retaining liberty as a free people via separation from the Crown when it became clear that the Colonists Rights as Englishmen no longer existed - WAS the issue.
Ah, I see. "Liberty for me, but not for thee." So, really, not ALL men are created equal, just the English ones.....
Slavery is a perfect example of how even the greatest can and do compromise on principle.
Many of the Founders compromised their principles even to themselves -- Jefferson, for example. You perhaps were unaware that his original draft of the Declaration contained the following passage:
He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another. - See more at: http://www.blackpast.org/primary/declaration-independence-and-debate-over-slavery#sthash.apRhIjSn.dpuf
The passage was deleted -- a compromise made to ensure the adoption of the larger Declaration. "Decades later Jefferson blamed the removal of the passage on delegates from South Carolina and Georgia and Northern delegates who represented merchants who were at the time actively involved in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade."
Jefferson, a slave-owner himself, was also a man who advocated for its abolition. "But Jefferson always maintained that the decision to emancipate slaves would have to be part of a democratic process; abolition would be stymied until slaveowners consented to free their human property together in a large-scale act of emancipation. To Jefferson, it was anti-democratic and contrary to the principles of the American Revolution for the federal government to enact abolition or for only a few planters to free their slaves." (see: https://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-slavery)
Another compromise -- even for such a universal principle it was up to the voters to make it happen.
-
You're right. After all of these decades its time to stop passively enabling the tyranny.
So we leave it in place? Just to gain the satisfaction of adhering to "principle" and refusing to "compromise"?
That's ridiculous; no, more to the point, it's selfish. Lots of folks are suffering because of ObamaCare (some are being helped). But it needs to be fixed. What you call "principle" I call an abdication of responsibility. We are not backbenchers anymore. You indulge in your luxuries; the business of governing includes compromise when necessary, because it is the people our legislators serve.
-
You really do like that word selfish, don't you. Guess what? I am. My people first, that's my rule. The rest of the world can stand in line, or better still look out for their own.
People are hurting under Obamacare? No matter WHAT is done, someone's dear old Mom is gonna get shafted. That's how it is.
-
Hear hear !
I would go on to offer my own endorsement of INVAR's warning about our long history of compromising with political tyrants by saying that our repeated compromises have already turned America into what Levin calls a "post-Constitutional society." Someone on this thread, perhaps even me, needs to point out very clearly that the Obama's ACA was Constitutionally illegal--no matter what the SCOTUS ruled.
We should not keep saying that the SCOTUS ruling makes it legal--i.e. by a sort of Constitutional definition. Black does not become white just because some usurper of our freedoms declares that black is white or that white is black. The SCOTUS ruling concerning Obamacare was in itself illegal.
One ought to wonder what kind of pizza John Robert likes.
By the same token, the immigration ruling by Derrick Watson (and other federal judges) was not merely wrong but patently illegal. Watson had no legal authority to make his legal ruling.
Granted, our Constitution has left us in a nasty box of legalism. Ideologically corrupt judges are not easy to deal with, but we'd better remember what Thomas Jefferson called "the greatest threat to a Constitutional Republic." He said it would be activist judges.
The only Constitutional recourse we have at this time is to use the very real authority of the Legislative branch to overrule (in effect) the SCOTUS by repealing Obamacare--lock, stock, and barrel. And we should go on to hold an Article V Convention of States to find a way to stop the greased-pig crooks (Dems and RINOs) from implementing wickedly anti-Constitutional nonsense--including even "slightly" unconstitutional nonsense. And I would personally vote for opening a serious investigation of Obama's right even to make the appointments that he made during his tenure in the Presidency.
-
So we leave it in place? Just to gain the satisfaction of adhering to "principle" and refusing to "compromise"?
That's ridiculous; no, more to the point, it's selfish. Lots of folks are suffering because of ObamaCare (some are being helped). But it needs to be fixed. What you call "principle" I call an abdication of responsibility. We are not backbenchers anymore. You indulge in your luxuries; the business of governing includes compromise when necessary, because it is the people our legislators serve.
Just so we're clear, I believe you are a statist and my opponent, not my ally.
-
Ah, I see. "Liberty for me, but not for thee." So, really, not ALL men are created equal, just the English ones.....
Slavery is a perfect example of how even the greatest can and do compromise on principle...
Another compromise -- even for such a universal principle it was up to the voters to make it happen.
Tell you what, YOU go ahead and keep compromising your principles for an empty promise of less tyranny, and see where that gets you and your posterity. May your chains rest lightly upon you and yours.
I refuse to surrender any more principles. Done. Finished. I've seen where doing so leads. So I will no longer compromise. I will not support anyone who advocates compromise with tyranny. I will continue to advocate others not to compromise or surrender essential liberty.
I will continue to do so, even if I am the only one left in the nation who refuses to surrender those principles and end up suffering for it.
So you and yours will eat the fruit of your way. I won't take a bite of the bitter harvest you are sowing for yourself. I will no longer partake in sowing the seeds of our own destruction.
-
Just so we're clear, I believe you are a statist and my opponent, not my ally.
We're both Republicans. Deal with it.
-
Tell you what, YOU go ahead and keep compromising your principles for an empty promise of less tyranny, and see where that gets you and your posterity. May your chains rest lightly upon you and yours.
I refuse to surrender any more principles. Done. Finished. I've seen where doing so leads. So I will no longer compromise. I will not support anyone who advocates compromise with tyranny. I will continue to advocate others not to compromise or surrender essential liberty.
I will continue to do so, even if I am the only one left in the nation who refuses to surrender those principles and end up suffering for it.
So you and yours will eat the fruit of your way. I won't take a bite of the bitter harvest you are sowing for yourself. I will no longer partake in sowing the seeds of our own destruction.
The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector....
-
The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector....
It is the oft-used tactic of the Left to attack anyone who stands on principle and refuses to bend and compromise with evil as being a self-righteous Pharisee that stands on the corner so everyone can see them pray.
I see that same thing from Homosexual Marriage advocates. I see that same thing from self-identifying Christians who are abortion proponents.
There is a big difference between standing on a corner so everyone can see you pray out loud so you can create the illusion you are religious - and standing against evil and tyranny while praying in secret.
The truth of the matter is, too many people LIKE evil and tyranny and HATE those who stand against it. So they accuse us of being Pharisees for the purpose of shaming us into silence and capitulation.
That tactic does not work on me.
-
It is the oft-used tactic of the Left to attack anyone who stands on principle and refuses to bend and compromise with evil as being a self-righteous Pharisee that stands on the corner so everyone can see them pray.
Sometimes the shoe just fits, son, and you certainly wear it proudly.
-
We're both Republicans. Deal with it.
BTW I never did understand the whole 'deal with it' repartee. Of course I'll deal with it.
I despise where your point of view and sophistry have been taking us, especially for the past 50 years. Its destructive and contrary to your rhetoric leads to general social decay and eventually widespread suffering. I'll deal with it by disagreeing and by doing what little I can to oppose it whenever and wherever the opportunity affords itself.
-
Sometimes the shoe just fits, son, and you certainly wear it proudly.
If you say so. I'll agree with you that in your eyes I am a self-righteous jerk because I refuse to bend and compromise with evil, sin and tyranny and rail against it.
You do not like that.
Your disdain is duly Noted.
-
The truth of the matter is, too many people LIKE evil and tyranny and HATE those who stand against it. So they accuse us of being Pharisees for the purpose of shaming us into silence and capitulation.
That tactic does not work on me.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/de/74/b9/de74b9d54d69014c149f5ac3e9362f16.jpg)
-
We're both Republicans. Deal with it.
I, for one, am seriously considering leaving the GOP, friend.
Republicanism is supposed to emphasize the idea of the Republic, and that necessarily requires that real Republicans emphasize that which constitutes these United States as a Republic. The constituting instrument, of course, is our United States Constitution.
There are only two basic types of genuine self-governance: democracy and Constitutional Republicanism. Democracy is a kind of mobocracy, as one of history's great political philosophers declared. The thing that allows us to be self-governing is not the fact that we were founded as a democracy. Heck, we weren't founded as a democracy--because our Framers and Founders regarded democracy as a sure road to tyranny. The USA was founded under a rare and wonderful system of self-rule that has a document as the head of our Body Politic. That document primarily secures our freedoms. Would-be tyrants, unfortunately, have always tried to supplant that blessed document as the head of our Body Politic.
(Even Trump does not grasp the Spirit of the Law, the Spirit of the Constitution. Trump's idea of Presiding is to bully conservatives in the Legislative Branch. His "bigshot" attitude is inconsistent with proper American governance.)
And since today's GOPe doesn't seem to give a fig for our Constitution, the Republican Party--which as a whole loathes constitutionally principled conservatives--has become something of a political farce.
P.S. Today, I have been listening to really good tunes by Stanley Jordan. Are you familiar with him?
-
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/de/74/b9/de74b9d54d69014c149f5ac3e9362f16.jpg)
So in other words (and cartoons), next time you can just tell me to sit down, shut up and hang this bumper sticker on the thread:
(https://denmotherblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/eatyourpeas.png?w=595)
I can post cartoons too you know.
(http://www.teapartytribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/obama-eat-your-own-peas.jpg)
-
It's what I like about Bookace. Lotsa meme, not so many pesky words and stuff.
-
Did Cruz discuss compromising his position on repealing ObamaCare in order to provide government-mandated health insurance for everyone? That seems to be the starting point for any discussion about 'moving the ball down the field'.
Nope. In fact, he was adamant that he would never do that because I personally pressed him on that very thing.
-
That's actually not correct. The Constitution did not say "the slave trade will end in 20 years," which is what you are arguing here. What it actually said was:
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight,"
In other words, the Constitution prohibited Congress from even trying to pass a law to limit the slave trade for 20 years. At the end of that 20 years, Congress would then be permitted to pass a law limit the slave trade, but there was absolutely no guarantee that would actually happen. In other words, the Constitution not only punted the issue of the slave trade - it actually prohibited future Congress from even considering the issue. It was actually worse than if the Constitution had said absolutely nothing about the slave trade.
That's a pretty heavy moral compromise for those who opposed the slave trade on grounds of principle -- and there were many of them.
I was referring to Obamacare, not the slave trade. Enacted at once, went into effect over time. However, considering both concern ownership of another human, I can understand your confusion.
-
It is the oft-used tactic of the Left to attack anyone who stands on principle and refuses to bend and compromise with evil as being a self-righteous Pharisee that stands on the corner so everyone can see them pray.
I see that same thing from Homosexual Marriage advocates. I see that same thing from self-identifying Christians who are abortion proponents.
There is a big difference between standing on a corner so everyone can see you pray out loud so you can create the illusion you are religious - and standing against evil and tyranny while praying in secret.
The truth of the matter is, too many people LIKE evil and tyranny and HATE those who stand against it. So they accuse us of being Pharisees for the purpose of shaming us into silence and capitulation.
That tactic does not work on me.
Compromise is not wrong in principle. Compromises with a vendor over the cost of goods or services, for example, are morally neutral. But compromises with evil are always evil, as you point out.
I would even go so far as to say that the slavery compromises contained in the original U.S. Constitution were evil, because slavery is evil. Some of our Framers knew this, but their sworn (?) priority was to establish these United States as best as they could, and there are strong indications that many of them prayed that the new Nation would be able to weather the moral mess inherent in their compromise.
Well, America weathered it in a less than lovely way. It only cost us 600,000 deaths in the War Between the States, a war that also started the avalanche that has practically destroyed true federalism.
Here is the object lesson: compromising with evil is never justified--even when it seems to be. (That axiom, by the way, helps to explain why I didn't vote for Trump. :pondering:)
-
Compromise is not wrong in principle. Compromises with a vendor over the cost of goods or services, for example, are morally neutral. But compromises with evil are always evil, as you point out.
I would even go so far as to say that the slavery compromises contained in the original U.S. Constitution were evil, because slavery is evil. Some of our Framers knew this, but their sworn (?) priority was to establish these United States as best as they could, and there are strong indications that many of them prayed that the new Nation would be able to weather the moral mess inherent in their compromise.
Well, America weathered it in a less than lovely way. It only cost us 600,000 deaths in the War Between the States, a war that also started the avalanche that has practically destroyed true federalism.
Here is the object lesson: compromising with evil is never justified--even when it seems to be. (That axiom, by the way, helps to explain why I didn't vote for Trump. :pondering:)
You run the risk of being accused of being a Pharisee and making the perfect the enemy of the good because you do not embrace pragmatism as an operating principle above all else.
Principles are just guidelines to strive for by compromising with sin and evil in order to enjoy peace and security while you are able to have it.
-
Those dam Conservatives, continue to call his Bluff and he keeps tweetin'...
Donald J. Trump
✔ @realDonaldTrump
The failing @nytimes finally gets it - "In places where no insurance company offers plans, there will be no way for ObamaCare customers to..
10:59 AM - 1 Apr 2017
Donald J. Trump
✔ @realDonaldTrump
...use subsidies to buy health plans." In other words, Ocare is dead. Good things will happen, however, either with Republicans or Dems.
11:06 AM - 1 Apr 2017
(http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/3500000/Tweety-Bird-tweety-bird-3547297-384-649.jpg)
-
You run the risk of being accused of being a Pharisee and making the perfect the enemy of the good because you do not embrace pragmatism as an operating principle above all else.
Principles are just guidelines to strive for by compromising with sin and evil in order to enjoy peace and security while you are able to have it.
LOL!
Pharisees are little more than guys who lower the heart-and-soul standards of true righteousness until they can claim for themselves sinless perfectionism--and attack others, of course. That is narcissism run amok.
The Pharisees of the New Testament never felt they needed to ask for forgiveness from God (where else have we seen that?), and they leveled viciously dishonest accusations against a genuinely good man (where else have we seen that?).
Anyway, you and I are not at all qualified to be Pharisees. We are admittedly lousy sinners. We just feel the sociopolitical need to warn others about the hypocrisy of professed Republicans who aren't properly concerned about the state of the Republic--which is necessarily a Constitutional concern.
Political pragmatism when the Constitution is at stake is RINOism. No one who is not a Constitutional Republican has any right to be called anything but a Republican in Name Only. Heck, political pragmatism on the part of self-serving, lying, cowardly, deal-making RINOs is the wicked mess that accounts for our modern slide of Creeping Socialism, now getting uncomfortably close to a complete collapse of America as we know it.
Everything about Obamacare was contemptuous of the Constitution. And now the RINOs have revealed themselves as powermongers who play political shell games at our expense. Like so many bullies, they are actually too cowardly to do the hard work of reversing our Constitutional slide downhill. They don't even have the guts to keep their promise to repeal a widely unpopular, much less unconstitutional law so as to start over from scratch to help those who are being crushed so the Socialists can play their class warfare games to destroy America.
I would specifically say that the "Centrists" in the title of the article are a Band of Political Bastards (i.e., phony brothers in American liberty) who won't even negotiate (oooh, compromise?) with real Republicans over monumentally serious concerns about RINO-Care (which earned only a woeful 17% national popularity, mind you). The Pubbies who dig in their heels and malign us genuine conservatives as nasty-spirited, stupid "purists" are just nasty-spirit, stupid "purists" themselves.
As Ted Cruz pointed out in a recent town hall meeting, the smarmy GOPe guys do not care a flip about their constituents (or by extension, I would say, their country). I SAY WE NEED TO THROW 'EM ALL OUT.
Our government is becoming one of the most corrupt in the world. The GOPe is a huge part of the D.C. swamp--which is why I don't see any draining getting started. Trump is just suctioning at the outfall of the swamp to pretend that he is doing what needs to be done.
(Among other things, we need to see criminal prosecutions--LOTS of them.)
-
Compromise is not wrong in principle. Compromises with a vendor over the cost of goods or services, for example, are morally neutral. But compromises with evil are always evil, as you point out.
I would even go so far as to say that the slavery compromises contained in the original U.S. Constitution were evil, because slavery is evil. Some of our Framers knew this, but their sworn (?) priority was to establish these United States as best as they could, and there are strong indications that many of them prayed that the new Nation would be able to weather the moral mess inherent in their compromise.
Well, America weathered it in a less than lovely way. It only cost us 600,000 deaths in the War Between the States, a war that also started the avalanche that has practically destroyed true federalism.
Here is the object lesson: compromising with evil is never justified--even when it seems to be. (That axiom, by the way, helps to explain why I didn't vote for Trump. :pondering:)
Once you fold on one of your core principles, all your core principles are compromised. The foundation you stand on has been broken.
-
LOL!
Pharisees are little more than guys who lower the heart-and-soul standards of true righteousness until they can claim for themselves sinless perfectionism--and attack others, of course. That is narcissism run amok.
The Pharisees of the New Testament never felt they needed to ask for forgiveness from God (where else have we seen that?), and they leveled viciously dishonest accusations against a genuinely good man (where else have we seen that?).
Anyway, you and I are not at all qualified to be Pharisees. We are admittedly lousy sinners. We just feel the sociopolitical need to warn others about the hypocrisy of professed Republicans who aren't properly concerned about the state of the Republic--which is necessarily a Constitutional concern.
Political pragmatism when the Constitution is at stake is RINOism. No one who is not a Constitutional Republican has any right to be called anything but a Republican in Name Only. Heck, political pragmatism on the part of self-serving, lying, cowardly, deal-making RINOs is the wicked mess that accounts for our modern slide of Creeping Socialism, now getting uncomfortably close to a complete collapse of America as we know it.
Everything about Obamacare was contemptuous of the Constitution. And now the RINOs have revealed themselves as powermongers who play political shell games at our expense. Like so many bullies, they are actually too cowardly to do the hard work of reversing our Constitutional slide downhill. They don't even have the guts to keep their promise to repeal a widely unpopular, much less unconstitutional law so as to start over from scratch to help those who are being crushed so the Socialists can play their class warfare games to destroy America.
I would specifically say that the "Centrists" in the title of the article are a Band of Political Bastards (i.e., phony brothers in American liberty) who won't even negotiate (oooh, compromise?) with real Republicans over monumentally serious concerns about RINO-Care (which earned only a woeful 17% national popularity, mind you). The Pubbies who dig in their heels and malign us genuine conservatives as nasty-spirited, stupid "purists" are just nasty-spirit, stupid "purists" themselves.
As Ted Cruz pointed out in a recent town hall meeting, the smarmy GOPe guys do not care a flip about their constituents (or by extension, I would say, their country). I SAY WE NEED TO THROW 'EM ALL OUT.
Our government is becoming one of the most corrupt in the world. The GOPe is a huge part of the D.C. swamp--which is why I don't see any draining getting started. Trump is just suctioning at the outfall of the swamp to pretend that he is doing what needs to be done.
(Among other things, we need to see criminal prosecutions--LOTS of them.)
Excellent analysis!
-
Once you fold on one of your core principles, all your core principles are compromised. The foundation you stand on has been broken.
Good point, DB! (Thanks for your courteous input.)
I like to think of convictions as not merely those views that you happen to hold, but those views that hold you. Genuine conservative convictions necessarily produce rock-ribbed conservatives. We have only a handful of these guys and gals in our amazingly corrupt capital.
I have heard it said that hell will not be hot enough for most of our political leaders. I am convinced, on the other hand, that it most certainly will be.