Trump, June 2017: From [Covfefe] with Love

See obama used backchannels too #jerkoff #eyeroll #dies

And he talked to Russians! Case closed!

time to open hearings into how Obama used backchannels to asks Russians to help Hillary throw the election #throwgate

ctrl-f ITT

Russia: 123 hits
health care: 31 hits
AHCA: 9 hits

"Congressional Democrats found themselves under considerable pressure to hold hearings on Nixon's Trump's alleged abuse of presidential powers."

xpost Seems to me a general consensus that Senate and House fucking around with ACA is just wheel spinning, so perhaps that explains why protest has been put on the protest back burner. I mean, no one likes anything they have heard about it at all, and no one has even seen the Senate one, correct?

Donnie Two-Scoops is such an ace Mafia nickname.

Xpost

Graham said that he hasn't seen it and doesn't want to see it

Meaning ... he won't support it? Or he'll vote for whatever is put in front of him?

The latter. We're talking about Republicans.

Top Senate D aide emails to say not going nuclear on AHCA also allows them to hammer out bipartisan Russian sanctions deal. So there's that

— Jeff Stein (@JStein_Vox) June 13, 2017

russiarussirussia

I love the weird logic at work. GOP: I don't want to see it, but I will vote for it. Dems: I want to see it, but I won't vote for it.

xpost That is so dumb. So the Dems would sign on the potentially shitty ACHA, thus receiving the GOP of its onerous burden. But then it gets Russia sanctions, which not only weakens their argument that the GOP is doing nothing on Russian, but provides the GOP cover. "See, we voted for sanctions!" Yeah, this all seems like a good idea. 1D chess.

Relieving, not receiving.

i don't think the dems would vote for it regardless - i think the point was more that dems are not gonna turn the dial up to 11 on obstructionist tactics they could do, which i understand would push back the vote by a week or two at most

q week or two is a massive amount of time if used correctly imo

no Dems are going to vote for the ACHA

Top Senate D aide emails to say not going nuclear on AHCA also allows them to hammer out bipartisan Russian sanctions deal. So there's that
— Jeff Stein (@JStein_Vox) June 13, 2017

What

The

Fuck

No D is going to vote for it, sheesh. It's just a question of what procedural stuff they can do to show they are Doing Something. Never mind whether the something is pointless or even counterproductive.

IIRC we already had that conversation on the Gorsuch filibuster. Insert your stock pro/con arguments again here, I guess.

BTW Gorsuch is on the Court anyway, and good ILX leftists still think the Dems are spineless pussies anyway.

i do think a week or two would be crucial yeah, given that there is a very hard deadline to get the AHCA passed under budget reconciliation rules

Stopping this murderous bill should be a first priority. They should stall as much as possible, whip up as much public anger as possible, do anything they can.

YMP otm

Imo we should see if Russia hacked Senate ballots next

They should stall as much as possible, whip up as much public anger as possible, do anything they can.

Exactly. That seems neither pointless nor counter-productive to me.

but who says collegiality is dead amirite

counterpoint: https://newrepublic.com/minutes/143300/senate-democrats-need-go-nuclear-trumpcare-right-now

someone call a scientist

Duh.

They would go nuclear if it was called the Murder Sick Americans Act I hope. That's what the bill does.

Part of me thinks the GOP is going to punt the AHCA when it appears passing it will defang it and go back to Let ACA fail mode.

The GOP is interested only in optics, not governing. And if they fail to pass it, they can assign blame outward.

Xpost "living is a privilege, not a right. Nothing in the Bill of Rights protects you from murder "

There seem to be a good number of congressional Republicans who really believe voters directed them to dismantle Obamacare. I think that's a misreading -- their voters were anti-Obama, not anti-health-care.

first of all, there is no "nuclear option" over the AHCA. The GOP doesn't need their votes to pass AHCA, everything is already set up for it to be passed along 51-seat majority vote, there's no need to break a filibuster, etc.

The tactics referred to in that tweet are all *unrelated* to the AHCA bill, and more like the Senate Democrats just refusing to do any work at all: denying quorums on committee proceedings, boycotting hearings, etc. The upshot of this is that the Democrats stop governing or having any voice in Senate proceedings. Who thinks this would be a good thing and why? What would happen is that the GOP would get pissed and just pass everything they want anyway, only slightly slower. Bizarre that anyone thinks McConnell would not see through this tactic, exploit it, and get what he wants. The Dems should fight AHCA tooth and nail, but these are stupid, ineffective tactics you guys are arguing for.

xp

Who cares what they think.

If Democrats fail to make a big show of blocking this sneaky, evil bill in order to keep a spotlight on Russia, they are imbeciles with backwards priorities.

outic & ymp otm

yeah the dems tried to boycott committee hearings over some of the cabinet noms, but the GOP just went ahead and modified the rules so they could pass the noms through without a quorum

no reason why the GOP wouldn't just convene a 52-person senate and vote the bill into law.

The Republicans are going to be pissed and pass what they want anyway. Slowing it down creates opportunities for their plans to be thrown off course.

activists should be focusing on pressuring "moderate" GOP votes *and* (if we want to get into ratfucking) encouraging people like Lee and Cruz and Paul to also vote against it cuz it "doesn't go far enough". McConnell can only lose two votes here, and the odds of him holding his caucus together on it - including Collins and Murkowski and others - is still pretty slim. That's where the wedge is, that's where pressure should be applied. Getting an inconsequential delay while also pushing GOP votes *towards* the bill to spite Dem intransigence is a dumb idea.

x;p

The upshot of this is that the Democrats stop governing or having any voice in Senate proceedings.

WTF have any of them been doing at all the last few months? Sure, the GOP has not passed legislation, but related to that, neither have the Dems. Those not actively sitting on investigative panels have been up to ... what?

They would go nuclear if it was called the Murder Sick Americans Act I hope. That's what the bill does.

hey, let's be fair. is it murder if you watch someone desperately in need of medical care die, even though you could have helped them? there's no legal obligation, at least not in the US and that's why this act should be called the Anti-Samaritans Shitting Hellfire On Lonely Enemies Act

Even if the Senate passes it it still has to go back to the House. Via a CBO review. Right?

If Democrats fail to make a big show of blocking this sneaky, evil bill in order to keep a spotlight on Russia, they are imbeciles with backwards priorities.

it's not about making "a big show" it's about stopping a fucking bill!! these things are sometimes different!

if the Senate passes it yes it goes back to the House and the two bills have to be reconciled in "conference", but there will be massive pressure on the House GOP to capitulate and accept the Senate's (presumably) less draconian vision. Who knows what would happen there, if the Freedom Caucus would go for it, etc. but it would be better to just stop the bill in the Senate in the first place.

The most fruitful advice, I think, is to get friends in Maine to call Collins, Murkowski in Alaska, and Capito in West Virginia. If McConnell loses even two, it's over.

Those not actively sitting on investigative panels have been up to ... what?

https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/d_three_sections_with_teasers/congrecord.htm have fun

They need to do something to put the AHCA back in the headlines and whip up public fury again.

thank u shakey

no reason why the GOP wouldn't just convene a 52-person senate and vote the bill into law.

I know this is a joke (or I hope it is) but no, they can't do that. It would be unconstitutional.

https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/d_three_sections_with_teasers/congrecord.htm have fun

US Government=TL;DR

It would be unconstitutional.

Join the club.