Republican Tax Plan (a nothingburger with cheese)

[BringBackOrton]

13 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

That's funny, since that was the same complaint Republicans had about the ACA.  Which was dismissed with Pelosi's "We have to pass it to see what's in it."

 

The next issue you bring up should be that the Senate's bill didn't originate in the House, so now Congress has two separate bills that have to be reconciled in the Senate.  Because that was ALSO a complaint of the ACA.  

 

Is it wrong?  Yes.  But Democrats set the precedent, and shouldn't be surprised when it's suddenly used against them.  (See also: nuclear option, legislation by executive action.)

How could they know this would happen?

[Koko78]

Just now, jmc12290 said:

How could they know this would happen?

 

You're right, it would have taken foresight and intelligence - two things the left lacks.

[Taro T]

52 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

How could they know this would happen?

 

Clearly, they couldn't know that would happen because they knew Clinton woukd win the WH & her coattails would bring along at least 1 chamber.

 

This was clearly unforeseeable.

[Logic]

I guess I missed the part where dems had lobbyists writing last minute, hand written amendments to the ACA in the wee hours of the morning. I also must have misremembered the fact that the ACA was subject to a near-record 25 consecutive days of debate on the floor.

The democrats ABSOLUTELY employed some underhanded tactics with regard to the ACA, but nowhere NEAR the level of what the GOP pulled last night. Furthermore, an endless chorus of Whataboutism and insistence on a False Equivalency does not equal a legitimate defense. I still have yet to hear a valid reason why anyone should be okay with this scam of a process.  

Edited December 2, 2017 by Logic

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, Logic said:

I guess I missed the part where dems had lobbyists writing last minute, hand written amendments to the ACA in the wee hours of the morning.

 

Then you missed a lot. Obama sold out to the health insurance lobby which is a major reason why the ACA is broken. They had their hands all over the bill. To imply lobbyists weren't overly involved in the ACA as a way of dismissing whataboutism is not going to work out for you. 

 

Try a different tactic. Argue the merits of the bill itself. Have you read it? 

[ALF]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Snopes is not impartial and shouldn't be relied upon as some sort of arbiter of truth. Be better than outsourcing your own fact checking ability to a faceless website.

 

What website is a better fact checker, honest question. 

[meazza]

2 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

What website is a better fact checker, honest question. 

Google

 

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, ALF said:

 

What website is a better fact checker, honest question. 

 

I know this isn't going to be a popular answer but honestly, they're all problematic if you don't check their work. Which, of course, is time consuming and why most won't like that answer. (I get that, it's annoying).
 

I just argue for everyone to be their own expert, their own trusted source. Obviously we can't be experts in every field, we need to rely on other sources, I would argue for finding the sources on those topics where you're not an expert who you can trust rather than relying on any sort of truth clearing house. That comes down to your own personal discernment and interests (imo). 

 

We are in an information war that's being waged against us by multiple parties (our own country, individual political parties and movements, as well as foreign nations and hostile actors), and as such there are lots of falsehoods being spread as truth before people do their due diligence (look at the ABC report that tanked the Dow yesterday).  

 

1 minute ago, meazza said:

Google

 

 

Google can work... if you understand the search results are manipulated  and you go beyond the first three pages of search results for any given query. 

 

duckduckgo is better imo. 

[Logic]

18 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Then you missed a lot. Obama sold out to the health insurance lobby which is a major reason why the ACA is broken. They had their hands all over the bill. To imply lobbyists weren't overly involved in the ACA as a way of dismissing whataboutism is not going to work out for you. 

 

Try a different tactic. Argue the merits of the bill itself. Have you read it? 

Funny, that's exactly what I asked for in my original post in this thread. That someone defend the tax bill and the process that went into passing it. Has yet to happen, other than "but what about the other guys?!"

[Nanker]

It’s somewhat amusing but sad really how much attention to detail the legislative processes garner when the shoe is on the other foot and it’s their ox that’s getting gored. 

 

The left deserves a severe ass pounding for the **** they drove through during the B O regime. And they’re squealing like Ned Beatty in anticipation. 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Logic said:

Funny, that's exactly what I asked for in my original post in this thread. That someone defend the tax bill and the process that went into passing it. Has yet to happen, other than "but what about the other guys?!"

 

That's all good, but I'm not asking about the other people. I'm asking about you. Have you read the bill? What about the content of the bill specifically upsets you. I don't ask this to debate you (I'm still reading it myself), I ask this to get you to reshape your argument into something that will lead to a more constructive conversation rather than just political sniping. If you raised specific points about the bill, rather than the optics and talking points the pundits are pushing, you'll get the conversation you're looking for. 

 

[Logic]

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

That's all good, but I'm not asking about the other people. I'm asking about you. Have you read the bill? What about the content of the bill specifically upsets you. I don't ask this to debate you (I'm still reading it myself), I ask this to get you to reshape your argument into something that will lead to a more constructive conversation rather than just political sniping. If you raised specific points about the bill, rather than the optics and talking points the pundits are pushing, you'll get the conversation you're looking for. 

 

Fair enough, Rhino. I will do just that. I am still wading through it myself, but will happily post some talking points that upset me. First, though, with regard to the other portion of my question: Do you feel the process that took place last night was reasonable, defensible, "regular order"?

[DC Tom]

13 minutes ago, Logic said:

Funny, that's exactly what I asked for in my original post in this thread. That someone defend the tax bill and the process that went into passing it. Has yet to happen, other than "but what about the other guys?!"

 

I haven't read the bill, no will I bother, nor will I opine on it.

 

I will merely continue to laugh at partisan dolts who complain "That's unfair!  They can't do to us what we did to them!"

[Logic]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

I haven't read the bill, no will I bother, nor will I opine on it.

 

I will merely continue to laugh at partisan dolts who complain "That's unfair!  They can't do to us what we did to them!"

Just as I will continue to laugh at the use of False Equivalence and Whataboutism to justify corrupt governmental chicanery.

[ALF]

34 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

Google can work... if you understand the search results are manipulated  and you go beyond the first three pages of search results for any given query. 

 

duckduckgo is better imo. 

 

Very good answer thanks , I will use it

 

12 Things DuckDuckGo Can Do That Google Can't 

 

https://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/features/12-things-duckduckgo-can-do-that-google-cant-596526

[DC Tom]

Just now, Logic said:

Just as I will continue to laugh at the use of False Equivalence and Whataboutism to justify corrupt governmental chicanery.

 

Like it or not, precedence is a justification.  Many of the practices of Congress are "unwritten rules" or tradition...break those, and you break them for ever.  

 

I'll laugh just as hard when Democrats hold up a judicial nominee at the end of Trump's term, because "It should be up to the next President," and Republicans start whining about the unconstituionality and unfairness of it.  If you don't want to be held to proper governance standards, don't complain when it bites you in the ass.

[B-Man]

At least some on the Left aren't overreacting to last nights vote................

 

 

As Stephen Miller tweets, “Millenials, Kurt is right. Please follow his advice.” 

 

 

 

.

[Logic]

So far, some of the things in the bill that seem, Oh, I don't know, what's the word? Ridiculous (I saw this posted elsewhere and had to dig through the herculean bill itself to find them, but alas). The tax bill:

has an abortion law reclassifying life at conception, has a clause to drill oil in Alaska’s arctic wildlife preserve, and pulled the mandate for the ACA.

So, yeah...Not sure what place any of that has in a TAX BILL.

[Taro T]

54 minutes ago, Logic said:

So far, some of the things in this bill that seem, Oh, I don't know, what's the word? Ridiculous (I saw this posted elsewhere and had to dig through the herculean bill itself to find them, but alas). The tax bill:

has an abortion law reclassifying life at conception, has a clause to drill oil in Alaska’s arctic wildlife preserve, and pulled the mandate for the ACA.

So, yeah...Not sure what place any of that has in a TAX BILL.

Won't speak to the other 2, but the mandate IS A TAX.  That's why the mandate gets addressed there.

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, ALF said:

 

Very good answer thanks , I will use it

 

12 Things DuckDuckGo Can Do That Google Can't 

 

https://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/features/12-things-duckduckgo-can-do-that-google-cant-596526