Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 335

TV’s Frink said:

Latest bill goes down 55-45. Four R’s switch from Y to N, six switch from N to Y. I’m not even sure anyone knows what they’re voting on.

Maybe that’s the strategy? Make sure no one knows what they’re voting for so that they’ll vote for it anyway? It doesn’t to be working, for what it’s worth.

Here’s my take:

The Senate will pass a bill. I think the bill they’ll pass will be of the so-called “skinny repeal” variety. Rand Paul seems to be on board with this, so I think it has a good shot of passing.

But beware, skinny repeal is no panacea (pun not intended). The CBO estimates 15 million people could lose insurance under this plan. It might do well in the court of public opinion, however, since it repeals two very unpopular measures of the ACA: the insurance mandate and the medical device tax. Maybe Republicans can trumpet (pun maybe intended) the fact that they repealed the least popular parts of Obamacare. That 15 million statistic may be hard to get past, though.

I could be completely wrong about all of this, however. I’m just some dummy on the Internet with a keyboard. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/senate-vote-health-care/?lpup=10215864#livepress-update-10215864

At the risk of being slightly repetitive, we’re basically looking at four major possibilities at this point.

• Possibility 1: “Skinny repeal” doesn’t pass the Senate. Health care reform is dead, at least for the time being.
• Possibility 2: “Skinny repeal” passes the Senate, and the House also passes “skinny repeal.” “Skinny repeal” becomes law.
• Possibility 3: “Skinny repeal” passes the Senate, but the bill that emerges out of conference is an AHCA-type bill instead. Both chambers vote to approve the AHCA-type bill, which becomes law.
• Possibility 4: “Skinny repeal” passes the Senate, but the conference bill fails, either because the House and Senate can’t agree on a compromise or because an AHCA-type bill can’t pass the Senate.

Scenarios No. 2 and 4 are looking more likely than No. 1 and 3 at this very moment, but all four are live possibilities. And who knows if there are other potential solutions, such as if “skinny repeal” becomes a little fatter and transforms into “Dad Bod/Mom Bod repeal” as amendments are added during the vote-a-rama.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/senate-vote-health-care/?#livepress-update-25453492

I think my takeaway has been that many of these senators have not meant anything they said. Remember when Bill Cassidy was going on Jimmy Kimmel’s show criticizing these bills? He voted for both. If you are a liberal, Capito and Cassidy are backing bills they were saying that they would not. If you are a conservative, Capito, Portman and McCain voted for this repeal-only bill when Obama was president but against it just now.

Yikes.

https://twitter.com/mattizcoop/status/890289306857811968

ON @MSNBC, @RepBuddyCarter just said on @lisamurkowski: “Somebody needs to go over there to that Senate and snatch a knot in their ass.”

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

“In God We Trust” shouldn’t be on official currency anyway but don’t get me started.

I’d like to hear your argument on that. Not necessarily that I disagree. I’m just curious.

The text was added in the 50’s (along with “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance) as a way of distinguishing our nation from the godless Communist menace presented by the Soviet Union.

So first of all, it’s an anachronistic holdover from the Cold War–so even if you agree with the logic that put it on our currency, that foundational reason no longer exists. Secondly, it’s a poor descriptor of our nation, which our founders explicitly stated is not a Christian nation. And thirdly, even at the time, it was a bad way to distinguish us from the Soviets–belief in God was a much less distinguishing characteristic than the freedom to believe or not believe in God as you chose. Or democracy. Or other civil rights.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Everyone has an opinion on this transgender/military issue, when I suspect that .01% of people actually know anything about it. I certainly don’t know anything about it. I’ve never known a transgender soldier. I don’t know how successful or unsuccessful they have been in the military compared to other enlistees. I don’t know how much they have cost the military compared to other soldiers. I don’t know how much they request medical care related to their status. I don’t know their rate of mental stability compared with other military personnel, etc. etc. Such numbers might reveal that it’s an issue, or they might reveal that it isn’t. So whereas everyone (including, I suspect, Trump) has formed and stated their final opinion with utter conviction, I prefer to wait until some informative data is made available. As it is, I think most people have made their decision already, along party or religious lines.

Right with you, Puggo. I would need to see what extra costs transgenders would have as soldiers and if their mental condition (which it is) would cause any complications in the military environment.

CatBus said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

“In God We Trust” shouldn’t be on official currency anyway but don’t get me started.

I’d like to hear your argument on that. Not necessarily that I disagree. I’m just curious.

The text was added in the 50’s (along with “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance) as a way of distinguishing our nation from the godless Communist menace presented by the Soviet Union.

So first of all, it’s an anachronistic holdover from the Cold War–so even if you agree with the logic that put it on our currency, that foundational reason no longer exists. Secondly, it’s a poor descriptor of our nation, which our founders explicitly stated is not a Christian nation. And thirdly, even at the time, it was a bad way to distinguish us from the Soviets–belief in God was a much less distinguishing characteristic than the freedom to believe or not believe in God as you chose. Or democracy. Or other civil rights.

I know all the history behind it, I just don’t really care either way. I wouldn’t be too fazed if it went away, and I wouldn’t be too fazed if it didn’t go away.

darthrush said:

mental condition (which it is)

I wouldn’t call it that but ok.

yhwx said:

CatBus said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

“In God We Trust” shouldn’t be on official currency anyway but don’t get me started.

I’d like to hear your argument on that. Not necessarily that I disagree. I’m just curious.

The text was added in the 50’s (along with “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance) as a way of distinguishing our nation from the godless Communist menace presented by the Soviet Union.

So first of all, it’s an anachronistic holdover from the Cold War–so even if you agree with the logic that put it on our currency, that foundational reason no longer exists. Secondly, it’s a poor descriptor of our nation, which our founders explicitly stated is not a Christian nation. And thirdly, even at the time, it was a bad way to distinguish us from the Soviets–belief in God was a much less distinguishing characteristic than the freedom to believe or not believe in God as you chose. Or democracy. Or other civil rights.

I know all the history behind it, I just don’t really care either way. I wouldn’t be too phased if it went away, and I wouldn’t be too phased if it didn’t go away.

Must… not… gaa…

Fazed. It’s fazed.

But yeah, it’s small potatoes in the whole state establishment of religion problem we have in this country. There are much bigger fish to fry. I imagine this comes up a lot because everyone’s seen it, the history is so unambiguously unconstitutional, and nobody stands to gain financially from it being the way it is, so the number of people willing to spend billions on lawyers to keep things the way they are should be low. Contrast this with tax-exempt status for churches or the Hobby Lobby decision.

CatBus said:

yhwx said:

CatBus said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

“In God We Trust” shouldn’t be on official currency anyway but don’t get me started.

I’d like to hear your argument on that. Not necessarily that I disagree. I’m just curious.

The text was added in the 50’s (along with “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance) as a way of distinguishing our nation from the godless Communist menace presented by the Soviet Union.

So first of all, it’s an anachronistic holdover from the Cold War–so even if you agree with the logic that put it on our currency, that foundational reason no longer exists. Secondly, it’s a poor descriptor of our nation, which our founders explicitly stated is not a Christian nation. And thirdly, even at the time, it was a bad way to distinguish us from the Soviets–belief in God was a much less distinguishing characteristic than the freedom to believe or not believe in God as you chose. Or democracy. Or other civil rights.

I know all the history behind it, I just don’t really care either way. I wouldn’t be too phased if it went away, and I wouldn’t be too phased if it didn’t go away.

Must… not… gaa…

Fazed. It’s fazed.

Totally un-ironic and un-sarcastic thank you. Honest. 😉

darthrush said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Everyone has an opinion on this transgender/military issue, when I suspect that .01% of people actually know anything about it. I certainly don’t know anything about it. I’ve never known a transgender soldier. I don’t know how successful or unsuccessful they have been in the military compared to other enlistees. I don’t know how much they have cost the military compared to other soldiers. I don’t know how much they request medical care related to their status. I don’t know their rate of mental stability compared with other military personnel, etc. etc. Such numbers might reveal that it’s an issue, or they might reveal that it isn’t. So whereas everyone (including, I suspect, Trump) has formed and stated their final opinion with utter conviction, I prefer to wait until some informative data is made available. As it is, I think most people have made their decision already, along party or religious lines.

Right with you, Puggo. I would need to see what extra costs transgenders would have as soldiers and if their mental condition (which it is) would cause any complications in the military environment.

I phrased my post carefully. It’s not just what costs transgenders would have, it is how those costs compare with other soldiers. There are probably many other classes of people in the military that have associated costs, that we don’t bat an eye at. If the added cost for transgenders is comparable, then it shouldn’t be an issue just because some people think it’s icky.

Already I’m hearing pundits decry the millions of dollars spent on this or that for transgender soldiers. What I’m not hearing is how that compares with other soldiers that are atypical in various ways. For example, should the military kick out all nearsighted soldiers? I would guess that the military spends more on eyeglasses than it does on gender hormones, even for one soldier. Or, should the military kick out someone who stutters? A quick Google search shows that stutterers are sometimes teased and have trouble fitting in.

yhwx said:

CatBus said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

“In God We Trust” shouldn’t be on official currency anyway but don’t get me started.

I’d like to hear your argument on that. Not necessarily that I disagree. I’m just curious.

The text was added in the 50’s (along with “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance) as a way of distinguishing our nation from the godless Communist menace presented by the Soviet Union.

So first of all, it’s an anachronistic holdover from the Cold War–so even if you agree with the logic that put it on our currency, that foundational reason no longer exists. Secondly, it’s a poor descriptor of our nation, which our founders explicitly stated is not a Christian nation. And thirdly, even at the time, it was a bad way to distinguish us from the Soviets–belief in God was a much less distinguishing characteristic than the freedom to believe or not believe in God as you chose. Or democracy. Or other civil rights.

I know all the history behind it, I just don’t really care either way. I wouldn’t be too fazed if it went away, and I wouldn’t be too fazed if it didn’t go away.

Except that it sets a precedent for including God in other government functions. In fact, wasn’t it just used that way here?

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

yhwx said:

CatBus said:

yhwx said:

TV’s Frink said:

“In God We Trust” shouldn’t be on official currency anyway but don’t get me started.

I’d like to hear your argument on that. Not necessarily that I disagree. I’m just curious.

The text was added in the 50’s (along with “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance) as a way of distinguishing our nation from the godless Communist menace presented by the Soviet Union.

So first of all, it’s an anachronistic holdover from the Cold War–so even if you agree with the logic that put it on our currency, that foundational reason no longer exists. Secondly, it’s a poor descriptor of our nation, which our founders explicitly stated is not a Christian nation. And thirdly, even at the time, it was a bad way to distinguish us from the Soviets–belief in God was a much less distinguishing characteristic than the freedom to believe or not believe in God as you chose. Or democracy. Or other civil rights.

I know all the history behind it, I just don’t really care either way. I wouldn’t be too fazed if it went away, and I wouldn’t be too fazed if it didn’t go away.

Except that it sets a precedent for including God in other government functions. In fact, wasn’t it just used that way here?

If you’re referring to the post where I posted pictures of “In God We Trust” on various official government printings, that was more to just reference the extent that the motto has had. I didn’t actually mean that it was a good thing.

I can argue for both sides. That’s why I’m not fazed either way.

This is going to be talked about for hundreds of years as one of the most embarrassing eras of American history ever.

SilverWook said:

I didn’t think I’d see somebody with worse handwriting than me.

Admittedly, he is nine.