I'm not sure of that at all. Most will, sure, but those against it are pretty damn against it (even if it's because they want to wreak more carnage); Heritage Action, FreedomWorks, and Club for Growth are all in opposition. And leadership might very well blink and pull it at the last minute, since losing the House vote would be pretty humiliating, and same for losing the Senate which is even more likely; McConnell isn't himself promising victory, just a vote.
I'm rather pleased in retrospect with the tactical thinking of the various assembled interest groups and activists who united a month ago around the message "no repeal without [adequate] replace", because it put the GOP in this exact position.
We're in great danger regardless - if it's not this it'll be something else - but on this particular item I think their faltering is real.
Yeah, Minivet gets it right. The suspense about this is chiefly over the egg on Paul Ryan's face if he decides he needs to pull the House vote altogether.
I had thought pro-AHCA advocates would push hard on the notion that Trump and legislators simply would not, at all, pursue tax reform or anything else until AHCA passed. It sounds like they tried that, and it isn't working.
We'll see by tomorrow, obviously.
I just don't think the individual stooges have the courage to balk.
But maybe I'm wrong!
I think that coming out vocally against it is dangerous for Rs in the house especially, but christ the AARP is vocally against the thing, as are hospital organizations and the AMA, I believe insurance organizations as well.
I'd lay 8:3 that the house vote gets delayed, indefinitely, and 4:1 that the Senate stops in in the event that it passes the house. The current form nukes healthcare unequally, worst hit are a bunch or R states, AK first, and Murkowski has already shown willingness to join the reality-based community.
As I've said before, it really would be better to leave them a graceful out: let them say, "Y'know, we want to get this right for the American people, and healthcare is really complicated. In the meantime, the American people have spoken loud and clear about their concern for boosting the economy and creating jobs, so rather than get hung up on this indefinitely, we think it's important to press on to the kind of tax reform and economy-building measures President Trump has promised. We have draft legislation on board for that even as we speak."
(Yes, I'm attempting to channel Paul Ryan.)
At any rate, I do believe this is better than jeering at them for their -- hopeful -- failure here. GOP legislators, and Trump, and Trump supporters, tend to dig in when you do that.
5.last: Trump supporters, tend to dig in when you do that.
Fuck 'em. Accommodating half-wits is what got us here in the first place. As the wise man once said, "The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!"
My bet is the House passes, Senate balks.
But this really is a winnable fight right now. Anyone in the right constituency, please do call your reps, even if you're sick of it. Now is the time.
And just imagine the optics / emotional picture if it fails or is withdrawn. Trump can't do anything! He doesn't have muscle! His first hundred days amount to nothing! And possibly major enough infighting that they really can't do anything for the rest of the session (LePage territory).
In the long run, I think it is good either way. If it doesn't pass, bigly loss for Ryan and Cheeto. If it does pass, it is so bad it may usher in single payer in a few years. Unfortunately, there will be collateral damage for those needing coverage over the next couple of years.
Also, for intellectual hygiene purposes, I'll observe Trump was in fact not throwing Ryan under the bus - he's now buttonholing and threatening representatives on the bill almost as if he gave a shit. Has pretty much hitched his wagon.
10: Making the future arguments easier doesn't make it a good outcome. The human toll would be enormous - not worth it. (And we all know how reliable heightening the contradictions is.)
If it does pass, it is so bad it may usher in single payer in a few years.
I admire your optimism but don't share it.
I think if it passes and the Republicans do well in the midterms everybody will take as a sign that the public does not like Democratic health care reform. If it passes and the Republicans do poorly in the midterms the conventional wisdom will be that health care reform is unpopular from either party and there really won't be much appetite for an ambitious program.
I have to maintain a little shoot of optimism, it is all I have.
Have you seen the premium cost estimates from this site?
http://kff.org/interactive/tax-credits-under-the-affordable-care-act-vs-replacement-proposal-interactive-map/
Take a look at the premiums as a percent of income for 60 year olds at the lower income levels.
Kochs pledge a seven-figure campaign fund for Republicans threatened electorally based on voting against AHCA. Which, a of all, wow, could cut down on craven switches, but b, is that not somehow an illegal quid pro quo?
A seven-figure fund to legalize quid pro quo. Wait, that's basically what opposition to campaign finance regulation already is.
I agree with the consensus that it's not going to pass. It's telling that they're having so much trouble getting Republicans onboard even in the House, with its much stronger traditions of party unity than the Senate.
No consensus! Likelihood, perhaps. But we don't know shit.
What are we calling Russia truthers? Pravdas? Pravdniks? Sputniks?
Apparently they decided today to strip essential benefit requirements, which may make it more likely to pass the House but will definitely make it harder to pass the Senate.
This specific bill is pretty unpopular, even in Republican districts, without whatever additional concessions they might be planning on giving the Freedom Caucus: "https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gop-health-care-bill-is-unpopular-even-in-republican-districts/. I don't think it's going to get more popular once people start to see the impact on their own coverage.
I jest. "Pravdnik" is excellent.
18 good start, good idea.
правдивыйник pravdivoinik, one who is truthful, maybe the diminutive for sarcasm, pravdivoinichek
What's the actual Russian for 'useful idiot'?
I mean now, not what it'll be under the third generation of the Putinovs.
||
Barry, does this sound plausible?
adoption by Berbers of Sufism in contrast to Arab Sunni orthodoxy. They acknowledge, as it were, participation in the overarching Islamic culture, with its emphasis on brotherhood and equality, while dissenting from the Arab state and its hierarchy.|>
27 Is that Scott? Situation is pretty complicated, Sufism generally should not be thought of as something outside of "Arab Sunni orthodoxy" even if some of its expressions pushed those boundries to extremes as often did happen with some of its Berber manifestations.
More later when I'm not on my phone. Also I was just threatened with "sanctions" (at which I scoffed) by the unethical manager for my section who I've alluded to previously for not producing unrealistic level of output. No thought given to detailing someone to assist me, just piling more and more on my shoulders. I almost left for the day. Instead I calmly wrote a very measured and even cheerful letter of resignation.
It shall sit on my computer to be opened and fiddled with any time shit like that happens until I hear from that other thing. This is making it much easier to leave without regrets.
Not sure what thread to post this in, but I'm interested in people's thoughts on Brexit and Scexit (Scoxit?)
Will May really push the big red button March 30?
Will Scotland leave the UK? Would they be allowed in the EU if they did?
(Also I'm trying to be optimistic like 10, but then I remember I live in a country where the people whose votes matter chose Trump.)
28.2 was vicariously terrifying before 29. Good luck!
28.1 Thanks. Yes, Scott, I think citing Gellner (?), Saints of the Atlas.
2nd 30. I know nothing.
I'd thought the reference might be to Gellner who was very good indeed.
Good to know. Scott apparently is in the habit of cherry-picking sources, so one has to wonder.
30.1 - almost certainly. May committed to doing it by "the spring" which got revised to "by the end of March"; nothing seems to be more characteristic of her than super-literalness, so here we go. 29th March is the last day that's in March.
30:1. yes. IT is far beyond idiotic that she has no choice now. Think divorce -- first things happen slowly, then fast, then you get the twenty years spent trying to reconstruct the trade deals we already have.
30:2 No one knows, but I think disgust with the Tories might just swing it this time, especially if the EU gets its act together. But hard land borders in Ireland and with Scotland really will be catastrophic
Will Scotland leave the UK? Would they be allowed in the EU if they did?
On the first one, I don't know. It's still a long way out, remember; the vote wouldn't be before 2019 at the earliest.
My forecast would be that the No vote (i.e. "stay in the UK") will be smaller if there's another referendum, for these reasons:
1. The last time around, the Labour party was a big part of the No campaign. Now they're led by an incompetent who will probably not bother to campaign, or will do it badly. Scottish Labour has been almost annihilated in Westminster and is badly demoralised at constituency level by this and the Corbyn/sanity split.
2. The Brexit business; by 2019 it may well become clear to a lot of Scots how much damage Brexit will do, and that may be enough to swing them behind the Yes campaign in order to get back into the EU. Also the English will have their worst side on display during the Brexit process, which won't help the No cause.
3. Sturgeon is personally amazingly popular in Scotland, much more so than Salmond, and that will help too.
On the second, fairly confident yes: the EC has been making very positive noises about it. The process of rejoining would still take some time of course.
Piece in the FT this morning about fisheries; fishing is disproportionately a Scottish industry, fishing in Scottish waters, and most of our fish is exported to the EU - most of what we consume is imported. (It's different species. Brits don't like shellfish and hake and crab and whiting, they like cod and haddock and tuna.) And post Brexit that could be hammered with tariffs. A lot of east-coast fishing ports voted Leave because they wanted an end to competition with the EU fleets (this is also why the idiot Gove was a Leaver), but it's not much good having the fish to yourselves if you can't export it and no one at home wants to eat it. So a lot of them may now swing back to voting Yes because they want to Remain...
Also, the Spanish practically live on hake, so there's a perfectly good market down the shitter.
You don't buy fish, you just rent it.
Saw this talk (long, shitty audio) some time ago, and things that stuck with me were:
(1) the Leave vote was a vote against London as much as against the EU or the establishment;
(2) since the 1970s the Tories have been split between pro- and anti-Europe factions, and in this respect all Tory governments were accidents waiting to happen, brought on at last by the sheer incompetence of the Cameron government;
(3) Adam Tooze going Old Testament, suggesting Britain be 'targeted for dissolution', by generous EU reentry offers to Remainer regions. The analogy he used was the US Civil War.
28.1: Partly thanks to al-Ghazali, right? I got the impression from In Our Time that his writings elegantly and persuasively placed Sufism and orthodox Sunni thought in a larger frame such that they were mutually compatible.
I'm curious why support for Scottish independence actually seemed to drop following the Brexit vote.
Also I second that Gellner is really great.
43.3: "If the Spanish are a difficulty [on bringing Scotland into the EU] you offer them Gibraltar." Woah, dude's pulling out the big guns. I like the cut of his jib.
I thought support for independence rose briefly immediately post-Brexit before quickly falling back to the status quo of around the same as the last referendum.
44 Partly yes, al-Ghazzali was certainly important in reconciling Sufism and the Sunni orthodox Ashari school of theology but I think there were two other things that were more important. The first was the impact of of ibn al-Arabi and his school of thought the so-called "unity of being" school, and especially his cosmology and cosmic typology of sainthood. This became such a common touchstone in Islamic popular thought, it's as if Heidegger became popularized so that everyone was familiar with Heideggerian concepts and used them to describe everyday life (have I just compared Ibn al-Arabi to Werner Erhard?). And the other thing is that the Sufi orders themselves became so widespread and such a part of everyday Islamic life all over the Islamic world from Africa (North and West) to Indonesia, and from Central Asia to the Maldives. Almost everyone was a member of a Sufi order, and especially anyone who was an intellectual of any stripe. The only exception seemed to be the backward Nejd region in Arabia from whence Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab hailed from. The time frame for this seems to be from around the 10th and 11th centuries when the orders begin to become institutionalized and the late 19th century. Practically a millennium.
48: Oh yeah, I was misreading the timeline of the Wikipedia tracking - whose presentation strongly implies the elevation of May was coincident with the fallback?
49: Thanks. I take it from that that there's no systematic correlation (of either sign) of Sufism with state-backed orthodoxy, and the Berber thing was just local politics?
51 With over a millennium of history and spanning the entire Islamic world you have to be careful about generalizations. In some cases Sufism was almost synonymous with the state and state-backed orthodoxy; Osman Dan Fodio in 18th-19th century Nigeria, the Sanusis in Libya and Sudan in the 9th century, etc, in others opposed or mostly just a part of the social fabric people lived and breathed throughout.
Osman Dan Fodio, instigator of the Fulani jihad. Not systematic at all. Thanks again Barry.
Sanusis in the 19th century of course, not the 9th.
Some of us don't even Sanusis.
I'm on my 6 beer now, I don't think I'll be fielding any more Sufism questions tonight.
Worried sick about a number of things. One thing that weighs heavily is how much I do not want to go back to NY this summer when I have leave (if I can get it, and if I haven't already moved on to other opportunities in the region, which I hope, Inshallah). I stay at my parents place and I know they are Trump supporters and there's no way I'm going to put up with their constant fucking Fox news watching all the time without saying how I think the President is a narcissistic moronic shallow dangerous man-baby and how could they support him....OTOH hand I can't see not going back for 4 years, my father just turned 76, he's very healthy and keeps fit but still.
6th beer. I can still do my ordinal numbers...
I just told my sister with as much politeness and cheer as I could muster that no I won't be taking an 18 hour flight to her wedding (which, FFS, she's holding at a venue about 4 hours outside the city, such that attendance is nigh-impossible without an overnight stay). She's fallen mercifully silent, but I know I'll be paying for this one till my grave.
Show her you care. Let her know you'll be there for the divorce.
Sorry Mossy, that's the beer talking.
29th March is the last day that's in March.
Wait, what? Is this a metric thing?
Appreciation here for the interesting discussion.
+++ would read again +++
After 7 beers it would probably be a mistake to switch to bourbon, no?
Oh, come on, surely a video series entitled "Drunk History of Islam" wouldn't get you in THAT much trouble, Barry. Cosign lw's spam: you can give lectures here whenever, on no pretext at all.
It would be churlish not to use the Friday weekend the Prophet bequeathed you.
I cracked the 7th one open just as the call to prayer started.
And now that I've made light of your unwise drinking: yeah, you should be kind to yourself and call it a night (I hope). If you can consider following up eight-on-preview beers with bourbon, you can handle the pain of refusing to visit your family, at least the specific scenario you dread.
Think I will though it's still before 8 pm here. Time to wind down and watch some TV.
63, 66 Really do wish I could have finished that PhD.
||
I'm at a conference on financial technology right now. One of the bitcoin people is at the microphone, flipping out. Among other things, he's mad that somebody somewhere compared bitcoin to "unicorn poop." Misinformation!
|>
Is bitcoin mining haram?
Also, is there a reliable overview of the current state of Bitcoin mining monopoly politics/ exchange viabilities/ cloned alternates? Blockchains are a really neat idea, and it would be nice to keep track of the actual shambles.
Has the blockchain reached "it hasn't failed, it's just never been tried" territory yet? I guess no, because Bitcoin exists and I guess hasn't failed, but I'm having a hard time keeping track of what "true" blockchain technology is and what non-bitcoin uses there are. It seems like whenever I read an explainer it talks about things claiming to use a (the?) blockchain that, the explainer says, aren't really true implementations.
Keeping track of the shambles is actually part of my job. The best resource is the Buttcoin reddit. But its such a fast moving clusterfuck (and there are even some neat things going on!), its difficult to keep up. There is no single good overview I know of - I'm considering writing one myself, once I quit this gig in June.
One thing to keep an eye on this week, though, is the emerging bitcoin civil war between the programmers who manage the original code, and the miners who now run the blockchain from their giant centralized electricity burning facilities in China. There is a good chance that the bitcoin blockchain will split in two. Or possibly three.
It seems like whenever I read an explainer it talks about things claiming to use a (the?) blockchain that, the explainer says, aren't really true implementations.
Microsoft is dropping some serious investment on the Ethereum blockchain, and promoting "blockchain as a service" on its infrastructure. They don't seem that interested in the coin aspect of it, which is good, because "reinventing money" is the dumbest aspect of the technology. There is some speculation that Microsoft is going to integrate this tech into their recent acquisition of LinkedIn, such that they could use a blockchain to keep track of credentials..... Like, you can claim on LinkedIn that you went to Harvard, but at some point thats not going to be worth anything unless Harvard provides a digital signature for you diploma, stored on the chain. But that's all still vapor, so who knows.
I do know of a couple projects going on with regard to "identity management" via the blockchain, particularly with regard to refugees who don't have government issued identity. But those are small, pilot projects.
So when someone gains majority control of the blockchain, instead of stealing everyone's money, they'll be able to give everyone fake degrees?
Hmmm... Maybe I can steal that PhD I've always wanted.
House vote postponed to tomorrow at the earliest, some sources saying Monday.
They have no idea how to move forward. The concessions they're trying to offer HFC are even pushing away GOP representatives closer to the center, to say nothing of the Senate.
Trump should hold a triumphant press conference proclaiming that he was the only one that was able to make Obamacare popular.
He's too busy pretending to drive a truck.
And now the revised CBO score is out. Manager's amendments cut the bill's deficit reduction in half while changing nothing to the number of people decovered.
Re: the bitcoin civil war:
Someone stuck an image of the Tiananmen tank incident in the blockchain yesterday. They'd be better off detailing the Xi family's financial misdeeds.
I'm glad to be wrong!! I really thought they would fall in line when push came to shove.
Apparently Trump is now insisting on a vote tomorrow.
I think it passes the House tomorrow.
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow
Petty creeps postpone their bill from day to day
To the last calendar of roll call votes,
And all their 'repeal, replace' have guided fools the way to nothing else.
Pout, pout, damned caucus!
Trump's but an empty grifter, a poor negotiator who struts and tweets for hours upon the screen and does no more,
He is a fail, advised by a fascist, full of blunt and fury,
legislating nothing.
Charley, what makes you say that? Just a general (and well-earned) sense of pessimism? Or something more specific?
Someone stuck an image of the Tiananmen tank incident in the blockchain yesterday.
I did think that was cute. One thing you can say for the blockchain is that it ain't the web.... once something is on there, it can't be removed.
If they're just pretending to be on the verge of the effort collapsing... well, they're doing an excellent job.
If you can embed arbitrary content in the blockchain you could troll it to death in days with things like "girls don't suck at math" or "the new Ghostbusters is great".
I think the Right objectors come around, and the Left objectors aren't numerous enough.
It'll be interesting to see what happens in any case.
They'd better not make a liar out of my doggerel. Postpone the vote!
I'm not sure, if you were a wavering congressperson, that having Kellyanne Conway or Steve Bannon sicced on you would be persuasive.
Ryan got down on a knee to plead with Rep. Don Young, an 83-year-old from Alaska who is the longest-serving Republican in Congress and remains undecided.
Young is no friend of the GOP House leadership, btw, and it's far from clear if he'll actually vote for this bill.
I hope Don Young goes full mink.
He's an Alaskan, dude. We wear all kinds of dead animal skins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9k9_K8Tea0
This is more like the Health Care legislation though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NReUd2_0u0&list=PLZbXA4lyCtqpE2eNWwwFq-ePXEQbiLrzU&index=4
That's such a great film. One of my all time favorites.
Eliminating essential health benefits.
If you can embed arbitrary content in the blockchain you could troll it to death
"Milton Friedman sucks donkey balls"
One of them was telling me how the poor are too ignorant to be trusted to vote and only the business class has the knowledge and the expertise to run society, so control over the democratic process should go to those who can afford to pay for mining capacity on the blockchain.
the poor are too ignorant to be trusted to vote and only the business class has the knowledge and the expertise to run society, so control over the democratic process should go to those who can afford to pay for mining capacity on the blockchain.
...so, the Chinese?
Well, yeah, but that was the least problematic thing about his statement.
91: I think this is unfortunately right; a combination of the bill getting incrementally worse (see 111 link), and the framing of the thing as a vote of confidence on Trumpism. And I think on the latter point, the objective awfulness* of the thing (independent of whetheror not even one bit of it ever makes it into law) will turn out to be a feature not a bug for the Reuplico-Trumpist destruction of US democracy along the lines of "I could shoot someone on 5th Ave. and still get voter support." "I got these pricks to vote for a potentially career-ending** piece of shit with nothing more than Trust Me/Fear Me; I am the Lizard King, I can do anything, I made the blue cars go away."
So for me, a more consequential vote than just healthcare this afternoon, but another rathchet downward in the losing battle for the Enlightenment.
*And per a Mike Pence tweet last night it really is just a tax cut accomplished via health policy.
*A structural reason why the "moderates" are less willing to bolt is that they generally do not have as strong of an independent fund-raising mechanism. ( I have not really followed who the Kochs were trying to lure with their offerr. Nor whether the thing has gotten sucky enough for them to like it yet.)
If Trump understands anything, he understands how to motivate other venal fucking fuckheads.
Trump tweet: The irony is that the Freedom Caucus, which is very pro-life and against Planned Parenthood, allows P.P. to continue if they stop this plan!
Trump tweet: The irony is that the Freedom Caucus, which is very pro-life and against Planned Parenthood, allows P.P. to continue if they stop this plan!
Um, is this not giving the game away on the bill of attainder, a la the Muslim ban?
Alternate (but I am thinking unlikely) outcome. If it is still looking very shaky by early afternoon. WH goes into blame Ryan retreat and relies on keeping and sabotaging O'care mode. If you don't actually give a fuck about anything other than "winning" you hold pretty powerful cards.
119: They definitely seem to be setting that up as their fallback: https://twitter.com/DylanByers/status/845263194092322816
91, 115-117:
Those one- or two-vote margins happen when you've got control of your caucus. The Republicans clearly don't. Trump's "Take it or leave it" isn't a negotiating tactic, it's an admission that the Republican leadership has nothing left in its bag of tricks.
I think JPS captures something important in 115, but I disagree his read of the implications:
another ratchet downward in the losing battle for the Enlightenment
The rest of 115 is about the Rs rationally recognizing their own despicable self-interest, but I think this bit captures the real motivation of the Freedom Caucus, which is similar to Trump's: They are waging war on rationality. They want to win and they want to deliver a big ol' Fuck You to everybody who isn't them.
They really do want to repeal the Enlightenment. The concept of a policy agenda is too rational for them. The concept of compromise is alien to them.
They are the permanent opposition. They know that if they disassociate themselves from governance, they have infinite ability to criticize the people who are actually accomplishing things.
Do they really want to own the consequences of this bill? And on a purely practical level, why should they care whether the bill fails in the House rather than the Senate?
Sure, yeah, there are a mix of motives and incentives and some of the caucus will cross over. But if I had to bet, I'd bet on failure today. My work's net nanny keeps us from looking at betting sites, but I wonder how they read the situation.
Either way, we're going to learn something today about how the Republican Congress works -- or doesn't work.
For those who never click link says: WH set to offload loss on Ryan: SAO* tells me "not Ryan's finest hour." Asked if loss blame goes to Ryan, win credit to Trump, SAO says "Yes"
Also Mnuchin on Trump: "He's got perfect genes. He has incredible energy and he's unbelievably healthy."
Our brave new order
Who could have predicted that the craven could be so craven?
*Senior Administration official (puzzled me for a bit).
118: It's cutting funding for PP (for non-abortion procedures), not punishing them outright, so not a bill of attainder.
OFT EVIL WILL SHALL EVIL MAR
This reminds me a bit - actually a hell of a lot - of Brexit. After 27 years of whining, conspiring, filibustering, and editorialising, when the day came it turned out they had literally no ideas, literally none, about how to implement it or what they intended to implement or really whether they wanted to implement anything. They hadn't spent 27 years developing a policy; they'd spent them carefully eradicating everything they knew about the European Union from their brains.
It shows up both the possibilities - never taking responsibility for anything! immunity to criticism! - and the limitations - errr....I'm prez whadda I doo - of ignorance as a strategy.
121 I teeter back and forth on it. I guess I just think the FC guys are cowards deep down -- they're happy to play Chaos Revolutionary, but when it comes to it, I just don't think they've got the balls to kneecap Trump over a point of principle that no constituent will reward them for.
Who could have predicted that the craven could be so craven?
Yeats?
126: "no constituent" -- as I understand it, these people are mostly in wholly gerrymandered seats and the only constituents they need worry about are the crazies in their primary elections, some of whom might well feel that a few of our guys dying is worth it if it kills enough of the enemy (for so I understand the underlying purpose of republican health care)
128: Yes, they only need worry about the primary electorate, provided that things tick along status quo. They all have reason to fear if AHCA harms enough people for a combination of alienated base, pissed-off independents, and activated Dems to sweep them out in a wave election. I sometimes wonder if they're deliberately taking a bullet, so that the Republican party can avoid that scenario as a whole while only having to blame their devout faithful for being too pure.
Ezra Klein is fairly pointed today.
Sixty days into his presidency, Trump has lashed himself to a Paul Ryan passion project that's polling at 56-17 percent against. As political scientist Ryan Enos drolly observed, "in a hyper-partisan political climate, it's actually an accomplishment to write legislation this unpopular."...
This is the problem with not knowing or caring much about the details of policy -- it's easy to get spun by people who do know and care, and it's easy to get trapped in processes that people are building for their benefit rather than yours. And that seems to be what happened to Trump. For instance, the New York Times reports that Trump barely paid attention when he agreed to put health reform first:
...
In an interview, Ryan amped up both the flattery and the pressure. "I've never seen, since I've been in Congress -- and this is the fourth president I've served with -- I've never seen a president as deep and involved and engaged on passing the signature legislation as this one," he said.
And that's how a bill that Trump didn't campaign on and didn't write and doesn't understand become his "signature legislation," and that's how its possible failure could be recast as proof that Trump isn't the closer he promised to be, even when he's maximally involved in the effort.
49: Is there a good clueless-white-person primer to al-Arabi's philosophy?
129: but do they really believe that might happen?
Surely no Republican in the House thinks the Senate is going to pass this thing. Voting yes today let's them have it both ways: another meaningless O-care repeal effort, no constituent actually harmed. And they can blame 'Democrat obstruction' for the failure. It's not crazy to claim that sending the bill on to the Senate where the real negotiations are going to take place excuses voting for a bad bill.
Failure means they're ineffective, and Trump is ineffective.
My twitter feed whip counts look like defeat, so maybe that's where this is going to go. I can't believe I'm underestimating the shallowness of Republican congressmen.
And Trump really is the Chaos Revolutionary. God knows what sort of stupid petty shit he's going to do to punish people he now decides are against "him." They might not have to worry about a no vote on this thing being held against them, but there's miles to go before they sleep, and they're locked in a cage with a crazed weasel.
Frelinghuysen (NJ), who equivocated positively on AHCA in a statement Tuesday, just came out as a no. Since he's identified as moderate (I know, by GOP standards only) and is Appropriations Chair, hopefully this provides cover for a moderate exodus.
132: I think enough of them are not in fact high on their own supply - or can justify it philosophically to themselves as "it's good in principle but ripping people off the gov't teat is certainly going to be painful in the short term".
Mark Meadows won his last general by a margin of about 100,000 votes. 76,900 could lose coverage under the AHCA in his district, 2,600 elderly, 2,000 nonelderly disabled, 9,800 children. He might be able to tough it out but I bet he, and people like him, can correctly calculate it as a true risk.
131 Keeping in mind I haven't exactly been keeping up with the literature for a dozen years. Unfortunately not really.
William Chit/tick* is one of the foremost authorities. He wrote the article for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which is a very good start if technical.
His "Imaginal Worlds" takes on Ibn al-Arabi's thought vis-a-vis the issue of religious diversity. IIRC it's made up of a bunch of essays and some are fairly accessible. Chit/tick wrote two of the best books on Ibn al-Arabi "The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn al-'Arabî's Metaphysics of Imagination" and "The Self-Disclosure of God: Principles of Ibn al-'Arabî's Cosmology" both of which contain a lot of translations of Ibn al-Arabi's work with explanation. They're very good (I found them mind-blowing when I read them, especially the Sufi Path of Knowledge, that's when I knew I wanted to study this stuff.) And I see he's written a book in 2005 called " Ibn 'Arabi: Heir to the Prophets" and published by Oneworld, that's likely to be more accessible but I've not read it.
The thing about Ibn al-Arabi is he can be very difficult to understand but the thing about Chit/tick is he's very accessible and tries to keep his own academic writing understandable and jargon-free.
If you're familiar with Taoism or even if you're not Toshihiko Izutsu's Sufism and Taoism is excellent.
There's also a really good biography by Claude Addas, called The Quest for the Red Sulfur.
(BTW keep the "Ibn" part. Usually it's either Ibn al-Arabi or just Ibn Arabi, I'm also dropping a ` there in for the `ayn but it's ok)
*I was a student of his way back in the day. I read some Ibn al-Arabi in Arabic and some Rumi in Persian with him.
Don't know what happened with the tag there. Definitely read the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for a start.
And I can't type "foremost authorities" without thinking of the recently late Professor Irwin Corey. RIP.
they're locked in a cage with a crazed weasel.
But so is Trump. In a crazed weasel-off, who will win? Let's ask Eric Cantor.
And now it's really looking like failure.
Crazy weasel-off here we come.
OK. Right now it seems to heading "no" with Ryan apparently huddling with Trump. I have not been following closely but apparently Comstock on the heels of Frelinghuysen was a pretty unambiguous signal to the savvy. Of course, exit polls.
And I assume if goes to vote clearly short there would be many more defections.
Also exit polls.
And now it's really looking like failure.
I, for one, am glued to the screen. It's very rare, these days, to see these sorts of political fights play out in real-time.
Does Paul Ryan have any self-repect left at all?
Spicer behaving as if WH gets to make the call. "You guys are so negative! ... We are proceeding with a 3:30 vote as scheduled."
Also Trump "left it all out on the field," "no one can say he did not do everything he could"
"You cant give me a D; I read all the material the night before the final!"
Spicer: [Trump used] "every minute of every day" to sell this bill. (If you leave out the truck thing.)
"At the end of the day, this isn't a dictatorship."
There is -- I propose -- a systematic error that people make that stems from the GOPs seemingly inexplicable political success.
People think Republicans are more competent than they are. What Republicans are is wealthy and without any scruples related to reason and factuality.
But we favor reason because it works. For sure, other things work too, and Trump's bag of tricks is full of those things. But the guy is fundamentally incompetent, as is his party.
Trump was selected by a Darwinian political/media process that is increasingly designed to weed out the competent and honest. But having a basis in reality actually helps when you are dealing with reality. That's what Trump is finding out.
I don't know how much of an insider Rick Wilson really is - but this is an entertaining tweetstorm, albeit partly probably because of confirmation-seeking on my part.
New frontiers in emotional-limning acronyms: "House Republicans who privately loathe him (and there are a LOT) play the DC game of "My good friend Donald!" and know how to fluff him. They're exhausted and nervous after only a few weeks, and the sense we're moving from FOMT to FHMT is growing. (FOMT: Fear of Mean Tweets; FHMT: Fuck His Mean Tweets)"
Is it too soon to take a victory lap for this analysis?
Is it too soon to take a victory lap for this analysis?
Was it you (or Minivet?) who made the point that the most important strategic decision in this process was the activists and Democrats who pressed hard on the idea that they shouldn't pass a repeal bill without revealing their replacement plan.
I've been thinking about that comment recently because I do think that was (hopefully) decisive.
I knew I'd seen that somewhere . . .
I do think that's a good assessment.
This might be why the White House is so insistent on having a vote: they want an enemies list.
Trump calls reporter Robert Costa. Says "We just pulled it" and "I don't blame Paul" as Costa livetweets conversation.
The Daily Beast article is the most transparent bit of message-planting I've ever seen. Bannon or someone says "Let's remind everyone Trump holds grudges. How do we get it in the headlines without potentially getting him angry that we noted a trait everyone knows and he admits? Obviously, we tell them it's my advice to him."
115/116: Glad to be wrong.
..for the time being.
So yup, they pulled the bill.
Basically they're in kind of an awkward spot where what the GOP backers want is way to the right of what Trump's voters want, especially the ones who actually believed he'd be delivering the perfect package he blithely promised them.
151: Eh, for the record I predicted that they'd pass some health care bill had has pretty much all of what they want, not necessarily this bill, and that they'd pay no significant price for it in the next election or two. Neither part of that is falsified yet. But, sure, today's news is good news.
I think the analysis linked in 151 is pretty spot on and explains a lot of what we've seen on this story.
A bit interesting that DJT reached out to WaPo and NYT (Costa and Haberman) immediately.
136: I belong to a local group that has been putting the pressure on Frelinghuysen for weeks: calling and faxing his offices every day; visiting his offices every Friday; holding town halls which Frelinghuysen refuses to attend, and then inviting the media to report on the congressman's absence...and in this case, the pressure worked.
Thank you JPJ!
On another note, I hadn't seen this story about Pelosi's ability to wrangle Congressional votes:
Nancy Pelosi is famously hard to interview, and was never a favorite among reporters the way Ryan is. But she was a far more effective speaker.
The example that always comes to mind to me is one that Tom Perriello, a Democrat who served one term in the House from a very red district in Virginia from 2009 to 2011 (and is now running for governor) told Ezra Klein back in December 2010. Perriello was weighing whether to vote for the DREAM Act, which would legalize the status of undocumented immigrants who arrived as children. "There was the whole question of whether the Senate would support it," he told Klein. "And I didn't want to do this if it was just going to die in the Senate."
Then the lobbying started. "I got a call from [Education Secretary] Arne Duncan, and he began telling me about the individual anecdotes of guys that he worked with in Chicago who needed this legislation," Perriello recalled. "There were strong Latino organizing networks that began moving, and someone I went to second grade with called and was like, 'Tom, you might not vote for the DREAM Act? I know we haven't talked in 32 years, but...' A few of my friends from college started to call. Several people contacted colleagues I'd had in past jobs, so now they're writing me. 'Dude, I haven't been following this, but I've heard from six people today that I have to call you about the DREAM Act. ...'"
This is how Pelosi whipped votes. She got the administration involved, she got outside groups involved, she got random figures from Congress members' pasts involved. She was really, really good at it. And it all happened quietly, without anyone watching or applauding.
That's impressive!
A bit interesting that DJT reached out to WaPo and NYT (Costa and Haberman) immediately.
Personally, too, rather than through a spokesperson or other intermediary. He called Costa on his cell phone from the Oval Office.
Bwahahaha!
I've been locked in a metal box all day taking data so I didn't get to see this play out. This morning I was expecting to have my insurance reduced to something barely better than crap and this evening I get to hear that not only do I not get screwed, but a bunch of people I hate look like putzes. Obamacare has problems that need addressing, but not this way and not by these people. In the mean time, schadenfreudeliciousness!
Which is next? Tax reform or North Korea?
He can't turn us into North Korea because his sons are too fucked up for even hereditary dictatorships.
173: Taxes. They just made themselves look like absolute clowns to their base and everyone else. They need a solid win on a solidly conservative issue so they will go big. A lot of rich people will make out like bandits. The freedom caucus will totally cave on any deficit reduction measures.
Those deepest in the Fox News bubble must be super confused right now.
Last I read, Ryan's tax plan has a bunch of money coming in from border taxation. I'm pretty confident we can beat that. They'll just be left with giving away a bunch of money that they've spent a decade saying we don't have.
WOO-HOOOO!
This is the best news I've heard since, since ... since Trump was elected, I guess. For several hours, I've found myself smiling for, oh, no particular reason, donchaknow.
Earlier this afternoon, I was opining that Trump was setting Ryan up for the kind of narrative that plays out on The Apprentice*: Well, Paul, we're here to make deals, and I put you in charge of that on this one. You said you were on top of it. You said you had it covered. It's not looking so good. [Trump shakes head ruefully, purses lips.] Paul, you know what happens now ....
This would play so well with Trump's base, and I still suspect it's the one we'll hear on Fox News this weekend. Ryan fucked up. Trump himself, for some reason, is so far blaming the Democrats (?) rather than Ryan, perhaps because he meanwhile has Ryan types Reince Priebus and Pence whispering in his ear that they still need Ryan.
* Note, I've never watched The Apprentice.
They just made themselves look like absolute clowns to their base and everyone else.
Just to indulge for a moment more: god, I am loving this. A faceplant in front of the entire nation.
More soberly, I wish it had been the case that this failed due to recalcitrance on the part of moderate Republicans like Frelinghuysen. Instead it failed due to the House Freedom Caucus, the Heritage Foundation, the Club for Growth, the Koch brothers. I have absolutely no idea how the GOP is going to deal with this branch of their party on future legislation. Or, well, perhaps the leadership is much more likely to go with that branch's prescriptions on such matters than it was on this one.
178: Very possibly he's making the "bigger man" plan now - says publicly and ostentatiously he doesn't blame Ryan (he said virtually the same sentence, "I don't blame Paul", three times in a row in his call to the WaPo reporter) has his people leak about how Ryan choked and Trump's such a great guy for forgiving him, etc. Then either there's a revolt he approves after the fact or the next time he can blame something on Ryan he goes all out.
Has there ever been a more craven and disgraceful display by an Administration in US history after losing a legislative vote? I know, I know, it all sui generis.)
And the timing now makes the truck cab stuff will now be immortal.
How many hours straight has John Boehner been drinking today?
I'm drinking and watching Murder She Wrote.
I bet he's smiling more than usual, though.
184: Apparently some demographic researchers tallied up Cabot Cove's murder rate and found the town was more lethal than Honduras, the real world's record-holder.
My theory is that Jessica Fletcher was a serial killer who was very talented at shifting suspicion on to others.
A contract killer with a wicked sense of humor.
182: For instance. This AM.
ObamaCare will explode and we will all get together and piece together a great healthcare plan for THE PEOPLE. Do not worry!
I know we're all inured to it, but in addition to being totally fucked up a stance like this on something the Administration manages is surely unprecedented
I do think the Dems need to get on the front foot with proposals to shore up areas that are most likely to explode. (Even if they arguably do not need to be shored up.) . I also think pressure on all non-expanded Medicaid states to expand. And a background refrain of how single-payer would actually be better for everyone.
I see from another place that Minivet has thoughts. And they're informed.
193: is it The Other Place or somewhere else? I'd love to read them.
Or more directly (apologies if I have presumptuously violated the sanctity of something):
Here are a bunch of things Congress could do to help fix the ACA, short of single payer.
Increase subsidies to lower premiums and deductibles for all - and cut down insurer profits further via MLR.
Require plans either have decent range of provider options, or be prominently labeled NARROW NETWORK.
Federalize Medicaid: everyone who would have gotten Medicaid now gets Medicare, full stop. No gaps by state.
Nationally negotiated drug prices, benefiting anyone on any public or private insurance, or with none.
Let govt, purchasers, and providers come together to negotiate payment rates/schedules applicable to all, at either state or fed level.
No-fault compensation scheme for medical harms caused. No malpractice suits, easier payments to all, identification of systemic problems
Oh, is that what you meant? No, no sanctity, same handle after all. Thanks.
I messed up the threading so you'll find a couple more here.
I was just at another townhall, and while it's great that reps are pushing single payer, I'd love if they would simultaneously do the coalition-building to have ready for January 2019 a package of true ACA fixes that the entire House Democratic caucus can unite around, and maybe shame whoever's president then into approving.
PSA: I'm about to emote all over this thread.
A really upsetting thing just happened, and I'm still shaking with adrenaline.
Everything's OK now, but a young man with a baby was LYING DOWN ON THE TRAIN TRACKS while his wife/girlfriend tried to take a photo.
The guy who was waiting next me noticed what was happening before I did and he said "What on earth is he doing?" in a really strange tone.
I stood up to look and saw what was happening, and then took a few steps over and yelled at them.
I'm pretty sure this is the first time I have yelled at a total stranger in my entire life.
I could not believe how casually and lackadaisically the parents (?!) were behaving, even after I started yelling.
The train came literally NINETY SECONDS after the guy got off the tracks.
I was so upset I was shaking. The guy stayed calm throughout and was responding very nonconfrontationally to me. The woman said nothing at all.
He was a reasonably ordinary white guy with a baby of approximately 6 to 8 months of age strapped to his chest in a baby carrier.
This was on a street-level set of train tracks for heavy rail. The tracks are used by commuter rail that travels at 30-55mph and long-distance rail that goes at least 70mph.
The tracks have a high metal fence to prevent anyone from crossing the entire set of tracks, but a person can step into the rail bed fairly easily, since you nearly have to do so to be able to board the train when it arrives.
The trains are electrified by overhead wire, so the tracks themselves don't carry electricity the way a subway would.
I'm torn between equal parts fury, impotence, and bafflement. The parents didn't seem to be drunk or high (although the man's affect was flat/low-key enough that he could have been on some kind of downers).
I just feel so sorry for that baby. What awful judgement the parents have.
I cannot fathom the frame of mind that makes this seem like an acceptable thing to do.
I guess pictures with tigers is passe? That sounds baffling and awful.
I have been riding these trains for 29 years, and I have seen my fair share of drunk or teenage peer-pressure stupid judgments about leaning over/being near train tracks.
I have NEVER seen anything as ludicrously, insanely dangerous as this.
Anyway, sorry to vent all over you, but my sister didn't pick up when I called and I needed to get this out.
I'm feeling teary from the adrenaline aftermath. On my way to see my sobrinos. Going to hug them REALLY TIGHTLY and then lecture them about train safety.
Thanks for listening, guys.
Yikes. Glad to hear no one got hurt, but what a terrifying thing to witness.
How absolutely moronic. I won't even cross in front of a bus I'm getting off. I can't imagine the thought process that would make someone say "yes, this is what I want to do." I applaud your public yelling.
Jesus, Witt. I'd be shaking, too. Instagram headpats totally worth it! #soblessed
Thanks, everybody. I guess this is a good argument for bystander intervention practice. I've never imagined a situation like this, but I've done plenty of practice in getting over the social inhibitions against speaking up.
It was probably either drugs or a guy trying to illustrate some business management concept in a stock photo they wanted to list with one of those services.
I'm not saying I'd do it, but if I'm understanding correctly that the tracks weren't sunken, what's the actual chance of harm? 90 seconds to get up and walk away is a pretty long time. It's even enough time to toss the baby if you get stuck somehow.
Anybody can toss a baby, but the Bjorn has some tricky buckles.
A girl in Omaha defenestrated her newborn baby. She got probation.
I was wondering who would be the first to say 'hold my beer.'
I would merely hold someone else's beer.
"I'll keep your beer safe, but you hold on to the baby."
Sounds like the baby was essential to the photo.
Notes on Superman I: it's actually a good movie, and Christopher Reeve was a stunningly good-looking man. This has been your ten-second movie review.
You don't even know that the baby was a boy.
Yup. DC comics has failed (at least artistically) in the movies because it has failed to honor the spirit of the source material. Superman II was also very good.
If the couple drove in to Philly on the Schuylkill Expressway, they might have lost all fear of death by collision after not dying there.
231 is true. 234.2 is not true, though SII was still at least 3 orders of magnitude better than Man of Steel.
Even Superman Returns, a lame nonsensical remake of Superman, is orders of magnitude better than MoS.
I liked the one in black and white that only took a half hour and had the fat guy playing the title role.
That's almost MoS, except for the half-hour part.
I just don't go to comic book movies anymore.
237: All right, time to put the pipe down. MOS wasn't perfect but jesus christ it's loads better than that pile of shit they called Superman Returns.
Come the fuck on. Baby Supes kills a dude with a piano. Doesn't get better than that.
What did the dude with the piano ever do to him?
Don't care. Baby. Piano. Hilarious.
Messed up, Witt. Damn.
192: Michael Moore is right on this one, I think. Next step for GOP figures--the ones for whom the AHCA wasn't cruel enough--is to escalate the sabotage tactics that were meant to support the "explode" narrative in the first place. It will probably continue to kind of limp along because of the same fissures that killed the AHCA bill. Ideally the Dems should start hammering actually constructive alternatives to the ACA -- like single-payer healthcare, say.
As for Superman movies:
MoS is far from perfect but better than Superman Returns at a walk. (Never make the final act of your Superman movie about Kryptonite and then resolve it by having Supes lift an island made of Kryptonite.) Its super-powered throwdown makes Superman 2 look like a Dogme film trying to do action. The Reeves original will always have a nostalgic place in my heart but I don't expect Supes films to keep doing the same thing, which expectation is what usually makes the character such a bore.
Weaknesses in the writing notwithstanding, Henry Cavill does something actually interesting with the character and is a better and more convincingly rounded Superman than Reeves (of whom Brandon Routh's take was just an imitation).
I didn't get into Gerrymander Math Camp. I'm sorely disappointed but not surprised. Teaching careers make for shitty CVs.
All the cool kids are doing GIMP charcoal effects camp.
But really, kudos for trying.
This is scarily good: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/24/guided-by-the-beauty-of-our-weapons/
Further to 182, the Trump attack on Ryan (via tweet urging folks to watch "Judge Jean Pirro who opened with a 6 minute "Pauk Ryan must go" rant was an interesting application of reality TV show promotion to politics.
Whilst having your office lie about playing golf.
This is scarily good: http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/24/guided-by-the-beauty-of-our-weapons/
Two other question. First, I'm curious what you think of the endorsement of Clinton which is linked from that article; since it seems fairly different from your perspective.
Second, reading the comments to that endorsement post, makes me think about this Maddow segment about online info-wars, makes me think that his idea of debate is vulnerable to signal-jamming. He writes:
Am I about to No True Scotsman the hell out of the word "debate"? Maybe. But I feel like in using the exaggerated phrase "Purely Logical Debate, Robinson has given me leave to define the term as strictly as I like. So here's what I think are minimum standards to deserve the capital letters:
1. Debate where two people with opposing views are talking to each other (or writing, or IMing, or some form of bilateral communication). Not a pundit putting an article on Huffington Post and demanding Trump supporters read it. Not even a Trump supporter who comments on the article with a counterargument that the author will never read. Two people who have chosen to engage and to listen to one another.
2. Debate where both people want to be there, and have chosen to enter into the debate in the hopes of getting something productive out of it. So not something where someone posts a "HILLARY IS A CROOK" meme on Facebook, someone gets really angry and lists all the reasons Trump is an even bigger crook, and then the original poster gets angry and has to tell them why they're wrong. Two people who have made it their business to come together at a certain time in order to compare opinions.
3. Debate conducted in the spirit of mutual respect and collaborative truth-seeking. Both people reject personal attacks or 'gotcha' style digs. Both people understand that the other person is around the same level of intelligence as they are and may have some useful things to say. Both people understand that they themselves might have some false beliefs that the other person will be able to correct for them. Both people go into the debate with the hope of convincing their opponent, but not completely rejecting the possibility that their opponent might convince them also.
4. Debate conducted outside of a high-pressure point-scoring environment. No audience cheering on both participants to respond as quickly and bitingly as possible. If it can't be done online, at least do it with a smartphone around so you can open Wikipedia to resolve simple matters of fact.
Here's Maddow:
You can see how people could, relatively easily, program bots not just to make jokes but to latch onto and respond to, for example, any twitter converation that mentioned Hillary Clinton. Recognize a pro-Hillary Clinton message or hashtag or even just the name Hillary or event just the name Clinton, and then just deluge that mention with fake news stories, with crude remarks, with porn, with lots and lots of pro-Donald Trump commentary. Just flood the zone with enough of that stuff and pretty soon nobody can have a conversation online about Hillary Clinton at all. If you do that enough, if you have enough bots working that beat you end up drowning out what would otherwise be normal communication, normal commentary, or even normal political organizing. You end up drowning it out in misinformation and noise and insults and just the sheer amount of traffic . . .
It's a cliche to say this, but that idea of reasonable debate unless people care about and are prepared to defend those conversations, and one of negative impacts of political polarization and (inmo) political discussions on social media is that they reduce the incentives to actually debate.* Do I have a solution, no, except, again using a cliche, that everybody has a stake in the existence of a healthy civic culture -- and, at the moment, our civic culture feels both quite healthy in some ways, and badly unhealthy in other ways.
* Social media also allows for those debates, of course, it doesn't just cut one way.
Reading a little bit farther in the comments I see that Steve Sailer shows up and, separately, there's a conversation about whether people interested in Social Justice are actively ostracized from conversation at that site or if they just chose not to participate.
That said, it was interesting reading the comments, and I only feel slightly put off, but advance warning for anybody else following those links.
252: the Trump attack on Ryan (via tweet urging folks to watch "Judge Jean Pirro who opened with a 6 minute "Pauk Ryan must go"
For what it's worth, I saw commentary on this this morning which pointed out that at the time Trump tweeted that, Fox was showing a count-down box in the lower corner of its current program saying something like "9 p.m. Judge Jeannine with breaking info on Trump wiretapping claim against Obama" -- quite possibly Trump was promoting that, not her opening anti-Ryan rant.
Doesn't change your point, of course.
257 Bannon playing 11th dimensional chess, then?
What, you mean Bannon knew what Pirro was going to say against Ryan? I don't know whether people knew what she was going to say in her opening or not. I suppose it's possible the Fox people got advance word to Bannon (or he checks with them regularly, which is quite possible), and, um, caused him to whisper in Trump's ear about that count-down Fox was showing regarding the wiretapping ... in order to snooker Trump into tweeting about it .... Uh, I don't know, maybe. I don't even know what she said about the wiretapping allegation; I will say that she's an astonishing piece of work.
I'm not sure it matters, at any rate. The Dump Ryan brigade is pretty vocal regardless, and I have trouble believing Trump supporters need help hearing it (on Judge Jeanine's show).
I'm ever curious to know what Trump supporters think.
This piece is one of the first things I've seen giving an overview.
251,5-6: This is the dude who wrote a long and very thoughtful post arguing that neither Trump nor his campaign were racist. Not that that detracts from the quality of the linked post, but it might help you understand where he and his commenters are coming from.
Once Trump tweeted, Bannon (and others) knew they had a free shot. They could waste it on some stupid overwrought leak spin, that wouldn't move the needle on anything, or make an actual chess move.
On whether they successfully baited Trump into tweeting in the first place: it's possible, but that's a step beyond what I think these guys can pull off.
Trump's supporters are bending over backwards to avoid blaming him, but in fact it was his various campaign promises about what Trumpcare would be like that made simple repeal impossible. Or any Republican plan ever proposed.
Well, there's now also speculation that Trump didn't write that tweet. (Buncha stuff about the Android account vs. the iPhone account, I didn't read the details. Also that the syntax is very non-Trumpian, no exclamation points, etc.) There's something to be said for that possibility.
Again, I'm not sure it matters. It's only a day or two after the AHCA bill failed, and they're presumably testing out which messages resonate best with their base. The point is to avoid all blame redounding to Trump himself. If Reince Priebus, Pence, and the other more mainstream voices in the administration have any sway, they're arguing that Ryan is their best bet to bridge the divide between various GOP factions going forward. Trump himself is obviously a loose cannon, but I suspect he's hearing that message.
At the moment, I believe they're spinning in circles.
Note that there are also "sources" heavily implying the other potential scapegoat is Reince Priebus.
Yeah, I heard that.
A few more points I'll make before I move on: the House's schedule is really tight at this point. They have to pass a continuing resolution to fund the government by the end of April, and they're off from April 7-25. They have 12 more days in session. Ryan pushed such a quick schedule on Obamacare repeal because he wanted to get it out of the way before Republican members had to go home for Easter break and suffer through townhall meetings. Pressure at those townhalls should be unrelenting. It had better be.
Secondly, the Senate's form of Freedom Caucus -- in the form of Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee -- has been looming over this. Rand Paul has been somewhat excitedly talking about putting forward a Senate version of Obamacare repeal. Fox News has been talking this up. But look, there's no time. Unless these people cancel parts of their time off, they just have no time to do anything for much of the rest of the year, at least if they intend to pursue tax reform as well. Plus raising the debt ceiling.
My view: we're counting down to the 2018 midterm elections. We need to hold out until then.
I just found out last week that I work with a guy who is related to the original politician the gerrymander is named after. He's quite apologetic about it.
255- I am puzzled. I don't know why you would think his "endorsement" of Clinton is fairly different from my perspective. I mean I prefer Stein to Johnson, but that doesn't seem like a big difference to me. Maybe you don't realize I told all my friends to vote for Clinton, but I said so here more than once.
Signal jamming- I was thinking about this more this morning. Basically I think the internet in incompatible with the kinds of debates he wants to (we need to) have. We need to value the other person as an individual and trust that they are operating in good faith and neither of those works well on the internet.
261- I'd forgotten that one. I didn't think much of his argument there, but I still think he might have a point this time. I don't talk to people as much in person as I used to, but it hadn't occurred to me that that might be widespread.
267.1: It doesn't matter at this point, because I realize that you and he are likely to disagree on many things. But I was thinking of his preference for a "low-variance" candidate and thinking that, from that perspective, Clinton's establishment ties were positive.
Well as far as preference for "low-variance" goes I think just about everyone prefers to minimize randomness just as everyone will accept some risks for sufficient upside. I never thought there was any upside with Trump. I would have been glad to take a chance with Bernie.
262: Right. Whatever led to the tweet once it was out there it allowed a free shot for "somehting." I am not well-versed on where Pirro fits exactly in the Shit-talkers Brigade but apparently she is fairly close to Trump himself.
All signs point to some level of Trump approval of the message. And it included a fair bit of "poor baby innocent businessman Trump helpless amongst the savage beasts of Washington" bullpucky in addition to the savaging of Ryan. And even if so it does not indicate Trump really would want him to go, Trump seeks to maximize the insecurity all who are not Trump; the better to keep the dignity wraiths in line.
Tailor Industries http://www.Tailorind.com Manufacturer of Mens Motorcycle Leather Jackets Womens Motorcycle Leather Jackets Men's Leather Motorcycle Vests Women's Leather Motorcycle Vests Motorcycle Leather Pants/Chaps Motorcycle Leather Racing Suits Motorcycle Bags Motorcycle Gloves Motorcycle Boots Motorcycle Textile Mens Textile Jackets Ladies Textile Jackets Textile Pants Off Road Gloves Winter Gloves Rain Suits Mens Motorcycle Jackets Ladies Motorcycle Jackets Motorcycle Vests Motorcycle Pants Motorcycle Gloves Motorcycle Rain Suits MotorBike Ware Fashion Garments Men Leather Jackets Men Leather Coats Men Leather Vest Men Leather Pants Women Leather Jackets Women Leather Coats Women Leather Vest Women Leather Pants Leather Vests Leather Jackets Trachten Garments Men Bavarian Garments Women Bavarian Garments Children Bavarian Garments Men Bavarian Garments Lederhosen Kniebundhosen Trachten Shirts Trachten Jackets Trachten Vests Trachten Socks Trachten Shoes Women Bavarian Garments Short Lederhosen Kniebund lederhosen Mini Dirndl Midi Dirndl Long Dirndl Dirndl Aprons Trachten Shirts Trachten Blouses Dirndl Blouses Trachten Bag Trachten Shoes Children Bavarian Garments Kinder Lederhosen Kinder Dirndl Trachten Shirts Trachten Socks Trachten Shoes Western Wears Garments Cowboy Jackets Cowboy Vests Cowgirl Jackets Cowgirl Vests Cowgirl Poncho Cowgirl Skirts Cowgirl Coats Cowgirl Bags Cowgirl Belts Western Hats . All Products are Made of Premier Quality Materials By Tailor Industries Sialkot Pakistan.
Tailor Industries
Haji Pura Bun Road,
Sialkot-51310 Pakistan.
http://www.Tailorind.com
WhatsApp: +92-311-7857727
Email: industriestailor@gmail.com
https://www.twitter.com/_TailorIND
https://www.facebook.com/TailorIndustries
https://www.pinterest.com/TailorIndustries
https://www.plus.google.com/+TailorIndustries
https://www.linkedin.com/company/Tailor_Industries
