Why Dem's are struggling...

[This_person]

I used to think they just sucked at it. It think it is simply a matter of practical politics. They know they can get elected, since 2010, by promising to repeal something, the ACA, that drove right wingers to something they hardly ever do; active public protest.
Since then, they've ridden it to the House in '10, (not enough powah!) and state Houses in '12 (not enough powah!) and then the Senate in '14 )not enough powah!) and now the WH (Still not enough powah!) all the while having a favorable court; "Not enough powah!"

So, it doesn't appear to be message. I think it's as simple as being able to use voters and also protect the real power behind them; the medical/industrial complex. It LOVES the ACA. :shrug:

By "favorable court", you mean one that patently disagreed with the arguments made in favor of the ACA so the court could find a way to KEEP the ACA? THAT favorable court?





Yes, they could change the Senate rules to have a simple majority rule the day. Let's ask Harry Reid how that worked out for Democrats in terms of cabinet members, eh?

 

[Larry Gude]

By "favorable court", you mean one that patently disagreed with the arguments made in favor of the ACA so the court could find a way to KEEP the ACA? THAT favorable court?

Yes, they could change the Senate rules to have a simple majority rule the day. Let's ask Harry Reid how that worked out for Democrats in terms of cabinet members, eh?

Yes, the court the begged them to take it back and fix it if they wanted to clarify it. The court that said 'we're not writing it for you'.

Believe what you want. Maybe when Republican's hold every seat of power in the nation and STILL don't repeal it you'll start to get a little suspicious.

 

[GURPS]

... the medical/industrial complex. It LOVES the ACA. :shrug:

Permanent Funding for Healthcare Act

 

[This_person]

Yes, the court the begged them to take it back and fix it if they wanted to clarify it. The court that said 'we're not writing it for you'.

Believe what you want. Maybe when Republican's hold every seat of power in the nation and STILL don't repeal it you'll start to get a little suspicious.

If they got 60 in the Senate and didn't repeal it, I would be suspicious. If they didn't do something now, within the ability of the reconciliation process, I would be suspicious. Currently, I'm not very concerned.

 

[Larry Gude]

Permanent Funding for Healthcare Act

Permanent privatizing of gain, permanent socializing of loss.

 

[Larry Gude]

If they got 60 in the Senate and didn't repeal it, I would be suspicious. If they didn't do something now, within the ability of the reconciliation process, I would be suspicious. Currently, I'm not very concerned.

But you're not concerned when Trump himself said "Go do it, Mitch!" and....:crickets:

 

[This_person]

But you're not concerned when Trump himself said "Go do it, Mitch!" and....:crickets:

Not really. Trump has been in favor of socialized medicine in the past, and ran on being good with socialized medicine, all while saying he wants to repeal the ACA.

Ryan doing what he can is what I hoped for (no more), and it seems he is trying to do things in a realistic manner.

 

[Merlin99]

You could almost say the problem with the Democrat Party is - they have the wrong platform. They aren't trying to offer things the American People seem to want, in ways We want it.

Trump didn't either, but he was closer, and is NOT establishment* (note, comment only good during the campaign, not before or since).

Trump essentially ran as a third party, but co-opted the R's name.

 

[Larry Gude]

Not really. Trump has been in favor of socialized medicine in the past, and ran on being good with socialized medicine, all while saying he wants to repeal the ACA.

Ryan doing what he can is what I hoped for (no more), and it seems he is trying to do things in a realistic manner.

You're missing the point. Whatever Trump is for or not for, he did very publicly support repeal of the ACA. He urged McConnell to end the philibuster, the ONE obstacle in the path of repeal. It is a TOTAL cop out to say Ryan is doing what he can and doing it in in a realistic manner. He has ONE primary job to do FIRST. Repeal the ACA. End the mandate. Then, they can make up the most socialist thing you can come up with. Socialism is the control of the means of production. Not control of the people. The mandate has to go.

You're just excusing them. And that is GREAT for them.

 

[Larry Gude]

Trump essentially ran as a third party, but co-opted the R's name.

What party would that be? The totalitarian party? He's not a libertarian or not much of one. He's a YUGE gummint fan so he could be a D or R. He's not green. He's absolutely not any sort of constitutionalist.

Yeah, he co-opted the GOP. But he ran as Trump, not any third party. He's a cult. Not a party.

 

[This_person]

You're missing the point. Whatever Trump is for or not for, he did very publicly support repeal of the ACA. He urged McConnell to end the philibuster, the ONE obstacle in the path of repeal. It is a TOTAL cop out to say Ryan is doing what he can and doing it in in a realistic manner. He has ONE primary job to do FIRST. Repeal the ACA. End the mandate. Then, they can make up the most socialist thing you can come up with. Socialism is the control of the means of production. Not control of the people. The mandate has to go.

You're just excusing them. And that is GREAT for them.

I'm not a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" kind of guy. I'm not in favor of ending the 60-vote super-majority to pass bills through the Senate. So, I am a realist - in the environment we are in, what parliamentary tools exist to get done what you need to get done. Not "change the environment", but "in the environment that exists".

I don't see that as a cop-out :shrug:

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm not a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" kind of guy. I'm not in favor of ending the 60-vote super-majority to pass bills through the Senate. So, I am a realist - in the environment we are in, what parliamentary tools exist to get done what you need to get done. Not "change the environment", but "in the environment that exists".

I don't see that as a cop-out :shrug:

The ACA was passed via EXTRAORDINARY means because there was so much resistance to it. As I illustrated, the GOP ONLY has power because of the mandate to KILL the mandate. All you're doing is making excuses. I know they don't wanna kill it and so does everyone else. Point is they could and 60 votes has NOTHING to do with it. If they had 62 votes they'd want 63.

The ACA changed the environment. It opened a new Pandora's box.

 

[Larry Gude]

And this isn't baby/bathwater. This is bathwater/baby turd. They're free to build a nice new bill, no mandate.

 

[Merlin99]

What party would that be? The totalitarian party? He's not a libertarian or not much of one. He's a YUGE gummint fan so he could be a D or R. He's not green. He's absolutely not any sort of constitutionalist.

Yeah, he co-opted the GOP. But he ran as Trump, not any third party. He's a cult. Not a party.

So the Trump party. A cult, really? In your mind he's developed a religious following? His brand was more an anti-political, pro-business platform that resonated with a lot of people. That he also addressed a lot of people's fears over the importation of every unwanted Arab around the globe did nothing but help his chances.

 

[Larry Gude]

So the Trump party. A cult, really? In your mind he's developed a religious following? His brand was more an anti-political, pro-business platform that resonated with a lot of people. That he also addressed a lot of people's fears over the importation of every unwanted Arab around the globe did nothing but help his chances.

cult
[kəlt]

NOUN
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object:
"the cult of St. Olaf"

a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister:
"a network of Satan-worshiping cults"

synonyms: sect · denomination · group · movement · church · persuasion · [more]
a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing:
"a cult of personality surrounding the leaders"

synonyms: obsession with · fixation on · mania for · passion for · [more]
a person or thing that is popular or fashionable, especially among a particular section of society:
"a cult film"

 

[Larry Gude]

So the Trump party. A cult, really? In your mind he's developed a religious following? His brand was more an anti-political, pro-business platform that resonated with a lot of people. That he also addressed a lot of people's fears over the importation of every unwanted Arab around the globe did nothing but help his chances.

You made an accurate statement;

Trump essentially ran as a third party, but co-opted the R's name.

He's not any of the third parties we know, not green, not remotely libertarian. He's not a D, not an R.

He is a big gummint fan, through and through and has devout support from people who see themselves as small gummint conservatives. He's a social liberal who is attacking weed and abortion. He's a businessman gleefully using the enormity of the office of potus to cajoled business to do what it otherwise would not.

I mean, we could just call him a sales guy telling people whatever they wanna hear but, usually, when a sales guy starts spouting most people get the gag. They don't start buying into it. "Wow! You really get me! I DO want a car only driven to church on Sundays by a little old non Mexican, non Muslim lady!!"

 

[This_person]

If they had 62 votes they'd want 63.

If they had 62 but said they wanted 63, I would be concerned, because it doesn't work like that.