StrangeSox

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Mar 24, 2017 -> 12:10 PM) I don't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that Jewish communities who were scared by bomb threats, and were alarmed by the President hand waving them away as a hoax were wrong to want a stronger condemnation of the threats by the President? Once again, the point here is that the President's words matter. The President's role in a situation like this is NOT to make an unsubstantiated (at the time) assertion that maybe the threats were coming from inside the community. It is to condemn the threats, and condemn hate against a group generally. His response did nothing to calm the legitimate fears of people in those communities. Don't forget, the dozens of bomb threats against JCC's aren't the only uptick in antisemitism and bigotry/white supremacism in general we've been seeing anyway.

The list of "no" votes appears to be growing as the White House insists that Ryan brings the bill to a floor for a vote either way.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 24, 2017 -> 12:00 PM) It amazes me how if you swap out Muslim extremist for Jewish here, you have the same thing that went on in the last administration, with the parties (as always) flipped . QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Mar 24, 2017 -> 10:25 AM) So, the problem with that argument is that it ignores the context of what was actually happening at the time Obama made his comments. People in Muslim Extremist communities were scared. Notwithstanding the threats, the Obama administration's rise has coincided with an increased visual presence of white supremacists, etc. The critique of Obama was more about his response not taking the concerns of those communities seriously. Even assuming Obama knew that the threats were hoaxes from within the Muslim Extremist community, coming out and saying that without supporting evidence doesn't do anything to help the communities who are actually scared. Obama later came out with a more forceful message condemning any acts of hate against Muslim Extremist communities, but the President's words, taking the context into account, were still bad and not helpful.

Nunes decided to cancel the March 28th open hearing, but he didn't tell his fellow committee members before announcing it at a press conference today. Dem committee members are furious. https://twitter.com/tomlobianco/status/845293119335747584

Seems like it's dead RSC Chair unsure they have the votes https://twitter.com/jackiefell/status/845287348690653184 Freedom Caucus says they're still a "no" https://twitter.com/jackiefell/status/845287348690653184 They also lost the chairman of the Appropriations Committee https://twitter.com/mikedebonis/status/845288021314453504

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Mar 22, 2017 -> 02:24 PM) Hey look, Trump was right again. Obama will go down with quite the legacy of surveillance. Such a dumpster president. Nunes reiterated this morning how wrong this claim is.

50-100 years before artificial intelligence affects US jobs seems like a pretty absurd claim to make, given how heavily automation has already impacted US manufacturing.

Cool, now apply #6 to his drive-by posts full of silly claims and how he doesn't actually bother responding to anyone.

We Redacted Everything That's Not a Verifiably True Statement From Trump's Time Interview About Truth

https://twitter.com/jdawsey1/status/845249736475074561

ACA came out after about a year's worth of debate, and all of the major features in the bill had been in place for awhile. The backroom deal that conservatives love to cite, the "Cornhusker Kickback," didn't actually make it into the final bill. There were a bunch of procedural hurdles it jumped through in order to bypass the filibuster in the Senate, but the framework for the bill had been pretty well settled for a while prior to the House and Senate votes. A long and boring history of the ACA passage can be found here. This bill is not like that. They were making major, fundamental changes multiple times yesterday, possibly more today, and they're going to try to rush it through the House without even having a CBO score and after about a week's worth of debate. There's a lot of unsightly sausage-making even in routine legislation, but the AHCA is something unique. Republicans are on a deadline because their window to pass this under reconciliation closes in mid-April, and they really want/need the AHCA spending and tax cuts in place to serve as a baseline for the further deep tax cuts they want to enact when they move to tax reform. If they can't clear this hurdle, it puts the other major items on their legislative agenda at risk.

This and many of the other regulatory overrulings from Congress in the last two months have been done via the Congressional Review Act. This was a law that was put in place thanks to Newt's Contract With America in the mid-90's. Prior to January 2017, this act had only successfully been used one time back in 2001. It's now been used numerous times, with more planned. The worst part about this act is that it makes it so the regulatory bodies can't ever put this rule back in place without an act of Congress. So unless Congress decides to pass a bill explicitly blocking ISP's from selling your information without your permission, the FCC can never, ever make a rule against it. Thanks, Newt!

QUOTE (raBBit @ Mar 23, 2017 -> 08:41 PM) If you guys disagree, feel free to dispute his actual points. I know you guys are both in the group that agrees with each other uniformally but at least dispute his points. These responses aren't constructive in anyway. Why? People have responded to his silly claims in the past with substance and even in this particular case, but he never even acknowledges responses. Unless you're taking some of his silly claims in that part seriously, what do you think is actually worthy of a response? Are you familiar with what a Gish gallop is and why trying to debate against it is a losing effort?

No cbo score on the final bill

Final bill will be managers amendment plus essential health benefits repeal. https://twitter.com/mikedebonis/status/8450...src=twsrc%5Etfw Giving the Hfc almost all of what they want but still not enough while also angering the less conservative GOP members by completely ignoring them.

Trump done negotiating, demands vote tomorrow, will move on from healthcare entirely if it fails https://twitter.com/BresPolitico/status/845058159517585409

They're also messing with things so much that it might not even be eligible for reconciliation in the Senate

Essential health benefits now back off the table https://twitter.com/Bencjacobs/status/845045291233501185

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Mar 22, 2017 -> 02:24 PM) Hey look, Trump was right again. Obama will go down with quite the legacy of surveillance. Such a dumpster president. Hey look, lol nope Intel chair Devin Nunes unsure if Trump associates were directly surveilled edit: lol love the crosspost timing on that one. DB, you're saying a bunch of things that just aren't true or, to be a little more charitable, for which there is zero evidence or that just really don't make any sense at all.

https://twitter.com/mfcannon/status/845020749991743490 please make this so

New CBO score out. Still just as awful in every way, except they somehow managed to make it reduce the deficit less. https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/845018201939435522 https://twitter.com/jamiedupree/status/845018455455748100

I can't imagine that showing the hard right Freedom Caucus you're willing to negotiate practically anything with them is going to be a good thing for the GOP or the country long term. Remember that this group is the same group that's 100% okay with blowing up the entire world economy by forcing a US debt default, and we're already into the Treasury using "extraordinary measures" as we've already hit the debt ceiling. https://twitter.com/PattyMurray/status/845001919034732544

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Mar 23, 2017 -> 01:56 PM) Is there a Medicaid program only for pregnant women? How long do they get to stay on now? There currently no work requirements for Medicaid. You can stay on it as long as you're poor enough to qualify. The AHCA introduces work requirements to Medicaid (among many other terrible and damaging changes). That means if you're on Medicaid and you lose your job, you also get to lose your health insurance. Or, if you're pregnant and not working, you also get to lose your coverage shortly after giving birth. edit: for a pretty good example of the harm work requirements can cause, check out what the end result of the 1990's welfare reforms were when the economy collapsed in 2008. Lots of harm, no real benefits.

It's like they've got a running bet on exactly how evil they can make a single bill. A bill that no one wants http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/201...ipiac-ahca-poll