Author Topic: US Politics Thread |OT| SAD TRUMP  (Read 6945893 times)

0 Members and 20 Guests are viewing this topic.

Trurl

  • Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| FAILED OBAMACARE REPLACEMENT
« Reply #7680 on: July 25, 2017, 03:20:58 PM »
Is this the first time that the Senate Republicans have passed a motion to proceed?

Mandark

  • Icon
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| FAILED OBAMACARE REPLACEMENT
« Reply #7681 on: July 25, 2017, 03:25:07 PM »
McCain apparently giving a speech in favor of "regular order" after casting the deciding vote to proceed without it.

And today they're floating the idea of "skinny repeal" which gets rid of the mandate and the medical equipment tax but keeps just about everything else, which would be wild.

TVC15

  • Laugh when you can, it’s cheap medicine -LB
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| FAILED OBAMACARE REPLACEMENT
« Reply #7682 on: July 25, 2017, 03:33:49 PM »
The 'motion to proceed' went through. Proceed with..debating a bill that hasn't even been written yet apparently. So they're just going to debate stuff and sort something out, maybe. This seems like an empty gesture for the time being. ???

We won't be laughing in two weeks, when we all lose our medical insurance and can't get treatment for that new mega-gonorrhea we all got from eating chili out of Mupepe's butthole.
serge

Brehvolution

  • Until at last, I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin upon the mountainside.
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| FAILED OBAMACARE REPLACEMENT
« Reply #7683 on: July 25, 2017, 03:36:47 PM »
 :lol Of course"medical equipment tax" is first against the wall.

Quote
1) Medical device manufacturers have lobbied aggressively against it — Pretty much since Obamacare passed, the device industry has been pushing Congress to repeal the assessment. Companies have argued that the new fee will make medical devices unaffordable for patients and force them to cut jobs. One 2011 letter from more than 400 medical device company chief executives argued that the tax would reduce "adversely impact patient access to new and innovative medical technologies." potentially reduce CEO bonuses.

2.3 percent
 ::)

I couldn't get that pacemaker because that 2.3% put it out of my price range. Guess I'll just die instead.  ::)
©ZH

Mupepe

  • Icon
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| FAILED OBAMACARE REPLACEMENT
« Reply #7684 on: July 25, 2017, 03:42:08 PM »
The 'motion to proceed' went through. Proceed with..debating a bill that hasn't even been written yet apparently. So they're just going to debate stuff and sort something out, maybe. This seems like an empty gesture for the time being. ???

We won't be laughing in two weeks, when we all lose our medical insurance and can't get treatment for that new mega-gonorrhea we all got from eating chili out of Mupepe's butthole.
Only the best chili passes through my body.

Great Rumbler

  • Dab on the sinners
  • Global Moderator
McCain apparently giving a speech in favor of "regular order" after casting the deciding vote to proceed without it.

Of course he did.
dog

Nola

  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| FAILED OBAMACARE REPLACEMENT
« Reply #7686 on: July 25, 2017, 04:45:31 PM »
:lol Of course"medical equipment tax" is first against the wall.

Quote
1) Medical device manufacturers have lobbied aggressively against it — Pretty much since Obamacare passed, the device industry has been pushing Congress to repeal the assessment. Companies have argued that the new fee will make medical devices unaffordable for patients and force them to cut jobs. One 2011 letter from more than 400 medical device company chief executives argued that the tax would reduce "adversely impact patient access to new and innovative medical technologies." potentially reduce CEO bonuses.

2.3 percent
 ::)

I couldn't get that pacemaker because that 2.3% put it out of my price range. Guess I'll just die instead.  ::)

The real irony imo is I suspect the reason industry hates it is because it is a tax they can't fully pass onto consumers because of one specific thing: government's superior pricing power. Demand for most medical devices is pretty inelastic, you need a pacemaker then you need a pacemaker. So in theory they could just pass the cost right onto the consumer without missing a beat. Except, the government isn't a bunch of pussys or weak when it comes to reimbursements like private industry continues to be(well at least relatively speaking).

So in that sense they can't pass off the costs because the government isn't going to bend that much, and Medicare and such are a huge chunk of their business, and as you say, that means the company does end up eating part of the tax I suspect.

It's frankly not a great tax on the merits imho, but I also don't think it is all that bad either. I'd be open to alternatives, my issue is the Republicans alternative is to just gut the funding and subsidies that tax revenue goes to to make up that loss. So fuck em for that.

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
McCain apparently giving a speech in favor of "regular order" after casting the deciding vote to proceed without it.

What a maverick.
©@©™

Tasty

  • Senior Member
McCain apparently giving a speech in favor of "regular order" after casting the deciding vote to proceed without it.

What a maverick.

Sounds like we could use a... maverick hunter.

spoiler (click to show/hide)
[close]

Great Rumbler

  • Dab on the sinners
  • Global Moderator
Republicans brought their first plan up for a vote late Tuesday night, only to watch it fail 43 to 57 in a procedural vote.

Whoops! Oh well, guess they'll just throw up another bill tomorrow and see how that goes! :trumps
dog


I'm a Puppy!

  • Knows the muffin man.
  • Senior Member
Re: U.S. Politics Discussion Thread |OT| FAILED OBAMACARE REPLACEMENT
« Reply #7691 on: July 26, 2017, 01:12:39 AM »
McCain apparently giving a speech in favor of "regular order" after casting the deciding vote to proceed without it.

And today they're floating the idea of "skinny repeal" which gets rid of the mandate and the medical equipment tax but keeps just about everything else, which would be wild.
I was talking to a friend that is an actuary for a large insurance company and I asked what would happen if the individual mandate was repealed but the rest stayed. When he stopped laughing he said prices would be much much higher as soon as the insurance companies could make it happen, which depending on your contract could be right away.
que

curly

  • cultural maoist
  • Senior Member


nothing fascist going on here

Trent Dole

  • the sharpest tool in the shed
  • Senior Member
Meanwhile the man saying that shit is himself a career criminal. :pacspit
Hi

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
Quote
The U.S. military will no longer allow transgender individuals to serve "in any capacity," President Donald Trump announced on Twitter Wednesday morning.

"After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military," Trump wrote online, breaking his message up into multiple posts. "Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you."
finally, we're safe again

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
I feel like this and the immigrant speech last night are to incite violence to draw attention away from the whole Sessions/Russia thing.

It also explains why he announced via Twitter and why Spicer quit.

fistfulofmetal

  • RAPTOR
  • Senior Member
If I was a member of a marginalized group, like fuck I would serve the country in any capacity especially when they do shit like this.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2017, 11:27:28 AM by fistfulofmetal »
nat

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
Quote
The U.S. military will no longer allow transgender individuals to serve "in any capacity," President Donald Trump announced on Twitter Wednesday morning.

"After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military," Trump wrote online, breaking his message up into multiple posts. "Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you."
finally, we're safe again

I came here to ask about this.

How is it that it doesn't have to pass the courts? Wouldn't they find this illegal?

Is this some portion of his power as Commander-in-Chief?

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
Quote
The U.S. military will no longer allow transgender individuals to serve "in any capacity," President Donald Trump announced on Twitter Wednesday morning.

"After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military," Trump wrote online, breaking his message up into multiple posts. "Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you."
finally, we're safe again

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/742771576039460864
©@©™

Let's Cyber

  • Banned (duration pending)
  • Senior Member
I came here to ask about this.

How is it that it doesn't have to pass the courts? Wouldn't they find this illegal?

Is this some portion of his power as Commander-in-Chief?
It sounds like the changes Obama proposed last year in regard to transgender soldiers haven't actually been cemented yet so Trump didn't need to reverse anything, just allow Obama's proposal to die (with the help of Mattis).

Great Rumbler

  • Dab on the sinners
  • Global Moderator
I'm reading that he did it to force 2018 Dems to campaign on it.

2998345298712398723rd degree chess
dog

Nabbis

  • oops
  • Member
It's really interesting to see the cultural dynamics in US regarding this issue. Over here, due to compulsory military service for men, quite many are whining about women and transgender people not being forced into service(But they are allowed voluntary service). Even those that could otherwise fit into the US republican ideological mold think that way. :lol At the same time, quite obviously, feminists and minority advocate groups are keeping quiet about this inequality.  :doge

I wonder if US had an active draft, opinions would do a 180?

Great Rumbler

  • Dab on the sinners
  • Global Moderator
I wonder if US had an active draft, opinions would do a 180?

Oh, absolutely it would. "So some limp-wristed California liberal can get out of being drafted just by claiming to be a woman?!" or something to that effect.
dog

Great Rumbler

  • Dab on the sinners
  • Global Moderator
Quote from: Trump
We’re doing it rough. Our guys are rougher than their guys. I asked one of our great generals, “How tough are our people? How tough are they?” He said, “Sir, you don’t want to know about it.” Then I saw one guy come out, a customs officer who is a monster. I said, “So general, you think I could take that guy in a fight?” He said, “Mr. President, sir I don’t even want to think about it.” I said, “You’re right, actually.” We have tough people. Our people are tougher than their people. Our people are tougher and stronger and meaner and smarter than the gangs.

 :confused
dog

zomgee

  • We've *all*
  • Senior Member
I'm reading that he did it to force 2018 Dems to campaign on it.

Gotta admit it's a great way to split the democratic base.


spoiler (click to show/hide)
Again.
[close]



/rides away on motorcycle/
rub

etiolate

  • Senior Member
Even for Trump, that is an odd thing to announce over twitter.

When was the last time that Trump gave out a segmented three-tweet message?

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
©@©™

VomKriege

  • Do the moron
  • Senior Member
I know benji will have a postcard of some wacko president in the 19th century with a similar statement, but he does sound more and more unhinged.
ὕβρις

Human Snorenado

  • Stay out of Malibu, Lebowski
  • Icon
I wonder if US had an active draft, opinions would do a 180?

Oh, absolutely it would. "So some limp-wristed California liberal can get out of being drafted just by claiming to be a woman?!" or something to that effect.

yar

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
Don't worry about the 19th Century. Losing the popular vote, having a sub-40% approval rate, but continuing to pander only to your base after 6 months in office is just how Modern Day Presidenting works.
©@©™

TakingBackSunday

  • Banana Grabber
  • Senior Member
motherfucker did this just to get meager funding for the goddamned wall
püp

agrajag

  • Senior Member
I know benji will have a postcard of some wacko president in the 19th century with a similar statement, but he does sound more and more unhinged.

Pay attention to benji posts brehs

Great Rumbler

  • Dab on the sinners
  • Global Moderator
Second Obamacare repeal bill went up for vote, let's see how it did:

That vote similarly failed, 45 to 55. Seven Republicans joined with every single Democrat to defeat the bill: Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Susan Collins (R-ME), John McCain (R-AZ), Dean Heller (R-NV), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Rob Portman (R-OH) all voted no.

Okay.
dog

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member
I wonder if US had an active draft, opinions would do a 180?

Oh, absolutely it would. "So some limp-wristed California liberal can get out of being drafted just by claiming to be a woman?!" or something to that effect.

(Image removed from quote.)

:applause



benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
I know benji will have a postcard of some wacko president in the 19th century with a similar statement, but he does sound more and more unhinged.

Pay attention to benji posts brehs
Some like to live dangerously. :trumps

bluemax

  • Senior Member
I know benji will have a postcard of some wacko president in the 19th century with a similar statement, but he does sound more and more unhinged.

Pay attention to benji posts brehs

If you ignored benji posts and etoilet posts this thread would be deader than the Democrats chances of regaining control of the government.
NO

zomgee

  • We've *all*
  • Senior Member
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-transgender-military-trump-ban-1.4222787


I am going to ask a dumb insensitve question. From what I understand, Obama signed legislation allowing a ban on openly transgender service members in June of 2016. So openly transexual citizens have had about a year to enlist in the military.

Has there really been enough time to accurately rate the healthcare costs that transexual military members have totaled? I've seen a lot of numbers thrown around but I don't understand how they can be seen as accurate, unless the government is suddenly efficient in reporting these types of numbers.

And to add to that (and this is where I'm going to come off as insensitive or at least ignorant) does the military have an obligation to a service member if they wish to transition while enlisted? I have a feeling that many on the right in their quest to deny healthcare felt that transgendred individuals were just going to join up in today's "easy military" and bill the government for gender reassignment surgery or other transition. Do the miliatry's obligations only go as far as health maintenance?
rub

Mandark

  • Icon
People with gender dysphoria have been enlisting for years, just as gay/lesbian/bisexual people enlisted for years before the policy was changed in 2010 (and before even Don't Ask Don't Tell). There are about fifteen thousand transgender troops, counting both active duty and reservists, according to a study last year.

The numbers (at least the ones I've seen cited today) on the cost of transgender-specific health care come from a Rand Corporation study commissioned by the DoD, so they're not being pulled out of a hat.

Anyways, the medical costs are a fig leaf. Trump's announcement wasn't that transition costs for troops wouldn't be covered by the government, he's saying transgender people are banned from serving. With no explanation of what this means for a transgender member of the service who's currently serving overseas.

This is about making sure a particular group of people remains stigmatized and treated as less than the rest of the population. The groups lobbying for this policy aren't deficit hawks who are looking for ways to cut waste from the DoD budget, they're largely Christian conservatives who resent the growing acceptance of transgender persons in the US. Sometimes it really is that simple.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2017, 02:28:25 AM by Mandark »

zomgee

  • We've *all*
  • Senior Member
Right, I agree this is some dummy whispering in his ear and telling him what to do, but he cited healthcare costs as one of the reasons, didn't he? That's going to be the fiscal conservative rallying cry for this action, isn't it?

This is heartless and disrespectful. "Hey weirdos! Here's a college fund for people that are not you. Normal people can defend our country, not you."

This is a moral mistake, and I hope a political one as well.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2017, 12:01:22 AM by zomgee »
rub

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
This is a group that loves our troops so much they're afraid that gays or females anywhere nearby will lead to endless uncontrollable orgies by our patriotic men in uniform that allow the Russians to just march right in and conquer us.

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
The only legitimate "opposition" to women or people who are transgender serving is regarding their fitness to perform the duties required. Which may mean that nearly all women or transitioning members can't perform combat duties of most types or so on simply because they can't meet standards, same as like 80+% of the men in the military probably. In the case of someone transitioning (or say, pregnant women) there may be further medical reasons to consider in what duties they are barred from for their own safety. But often a lot of people use that generally just as cover that if you pick at it will reveal further issues in general underneath. (The pregnant one reminds me of a personal favorite about how every woman in the service amazingly gets pregnant as soon as deployment is ordered. It's amazing they get anything done in the military based on these stories I've read from true patriots.)

I, obviously as a true principled opponent of state spending, would clearly oppose paying for someone to transition on the taxpayers dime but like the people I mentioned earlier who actually fall into that hole on health insurance, it's not a priority and arguably more offensive to care about than other military costs. Much like me being on the divisive side of the libertarian-anarchist divide about same-sex marriage recognition or protections for the gays/transgender in civil rights laws, since we're not going to be eliminating those state intrusions anytime soon, an equal playing field is the quicker path to potentially eliminating them rather than just demanding we stop because less than 0.1% of the affected population is even going to bother going down these routes in a harmful manner.

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
Is Mike Pence allowed to be near a gay man without his wife? Just wondering how that works.
©@©™

Mandark

  • Icon
Yeah, my take is "Letting gay people get married undermines the effort to get the government out of marriage entirely!" ~= "Negotiating with the Iranian regime legitimizes them."


benji, in your particular libertopia, what does the health insurance market look like?

seagrams hotsauce

  • Senior Member
I, obviously as a true principled opponent of state spending, would clearly oppose paying for someone to transition on the taxpayers dime but like the people I mentioned earlier who actually fall into that hole on health insurance, it's not a priority and arguably more offensive to care about than other military costs. Much like me being on the divisive side of the libertarian-anarchist divide about same-sex marriage recognition or protections for the gays/transgender in civil rights laws, since we're not going to be eliminating those state intrusions anytime soon, an equal playing field is the quicker path to potentially eliminating them rather than just demanding we stop because less than 0.1% of the affected population is even going to bother going down these routes in a harmful manner.

god bless you benji, ya goof

chronovore

  • relapsed dev
  • Senior Member

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member

Quote
When my name was thrown out there for US Senate I decided to launch kidrockforsenate.com. I was beyond overwhelmed with the response I received from community leaders, D.C. pundits, and blue-collar folks that are just simply tired of the extreme left and right bullshit. As part of the excitement surrounding this possible campaign, I decided to take a hard look to see if there was real support for me as a candidate and my message or if it was just because it was a fresh new news story. The one thing I've seen over and over is that although people are unhappy with the government, too few are even registered to vote or do anything about it. We have over a year left until an actual election, so my first order of business is to get people engaged and registered to vote while continuing to put out my ideas on ways to help working class people in Michigan and America all while still calling out these jackass lawyers who call themselves politicians.

During this time while exploring my candidacy for US Senate, I am creating a 501(c)(4) - a non-profit organization for the promotion of voter registration. Not only can I raise money for this critical cause, but I can help get people registered to vote at my shows. Since the announcement, the media has speculated this was a ploy to sell shirts or promote something. I can tell you, I have no problem selling Kid Rock shirts and yes, I absolutely will use this media circus to sell/promote whatever I damn well please (many other politicians are doing the same thing, they just feed you a bunch of bullshit about it). But either way, money raised at this time through the sale of merchandise associated with this very possible campaign will go towards our 'register to vote' efforts.

One thing is for sure though…The democrats are 'shattin’ in their pantaloons' right now…and rightfully so!

We will be scheduling a press conference in the next 6 weeks or so to address this issue amongst others, and if I decide to throw my hat in the ring for US Senate, believe me… it’s game on mthrfkers. -- Kid Rock

benjipwns

  • your bright ideas always burn me
  • Senior Member
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/26/trump-transgender-military-ban-behind-the-scenes-240990
Quote
House Republicans were planning to pass a spending bill stacked with his campaign promises, including money to build his border wall with Mexico.

But an internal House Republican fight over transgender troops was threatening to blow up the bill. And House GOP insiders feared they might not have the votes to pass the legislation because defense hawks wanted a ban on Pentagon-funded sex reassignment operations — something GOP leaders wouldn’t give them.

They turned to Trump, who didn’t hesitate.
In the flash of a tweet, he announced that transgender troops would be banned altogether.

Trump’s sudden decision was, in part, a last-ditch attempt to save a House proposal full of his campaign promises that was on the verge of defeat, numerous congressional and White House sources said.

The president had always planned to scale back policies put in place during the administration of President Barack Obama welcoming such individuals in combat and greenlighting the military to pay for their medical treatment plans. But a behind-the-scenes GOP brawl threatening to tank a Pentagon funding increase and wall construction hastened Trump’s decision.

Numerous House conservatives and defense hawks this week had threatened to derail their own legislation if it did not include a prohibition on Pentagon funding for gender reassignment surgeries, which they deem a waste of taxpayer money. But GOP leaders were caught in a pinch between those demands and those of moderate Republicans who considered the proposal blatantly discriminatory.
Quote
That’s why House lawmakers took the matter to the Trump administration. And when Defense Secretary James Mattis refused to immediately upend the policy, they went straight to the White House. Trump — never one for political correctness — was all too happy to oblige.
what could go wrong
Quote
The president’s directive, of course, took the House issue a step beyond paying for gender reassignment surgery and other medical treatment. House Republicans were never debating expelling all transgender troops from the military.

“This is like someone told the White House to light a candle on the table and the WH set the whole table on fire,” a senior House Republican aide said in an email. The source said that although GOP leaders asked the White House for help on the taxpayer matter specifically, they weren’t expecting — and got no heads up on — Trump’s far-reaching directive.

While Democrats and centrist Republicans are already blasting the move, one White House official said the decision would be “seen as common-sense” by millions
Quote
“It’s not the worst thing in the world to have this fight,” the administration official said.

The announcement, multiple sources said, did not sit well with Mattis, who appeared to be trying to avoid the matter in recent weeks. An extensive Defense Department review of the policy was already underway, but a decision wasn’t expected for months.

Insiders said Mattis felt there was no need to rush upending the policy, arguing the Pentagon needed time to study the issue.
...
Lawmakers, including Hartzler, went around Mattis to engage the White House. Mattis knew the ban was being considered and was consulted before the announcement, according to several White House officials. But the decision ultimately came down from Trump and was “White House-driven,” Trump aides said.
Quote
“It’s not so much the transgender surgery issue as much as we continue to let the defense bill be the mule for all of these social experiments that the left wants to try to [foist] on government,” Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), a conservative supporter of the Hartzler proposal, said last week.

He added: “It seems to me, and all due respect to everyone, that if someone wants to come to the military, potentially risk their life to save the country, that they should probably decide whether they’re a man or woman before they do that.”

Supporters of Hartzler’s proposal were determined to try again. Last week, they began pushing GOP leadership to use a procedural trick to automatically include the controversial proposal in a Pentagon spending package set for a floor vote this week. The idea was to tuck the provision into a rules package governing the legislation, sidestepping a second potentially unsuccessful amendment vote and adding it to the bill without a floor fight.

Under intense pressure from moderates in the Tuesday Group to reject the idea, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and his team shied away from the strategy, worried that it would make them look hypocritical for circumventing regular order.
Quote
That’s when lawmakers turned to the White House for help. They figured the administration could speed up a decision and settle the dispute once and for all.

“Conservatives were telling [the] White House they didn’t want money in a spending bill to go to transgender health services,” said one senior administration official, noting that it accelerated Trump’s decision.

Their argument fell on sympathetic ears, White House sources said. Chief strategist Steve Bannon encouraged Trump to deal with the matter now.
Quote
Franks, the Hartzler amendment supporter, told POLITICO that his push was more narrowly tailored to the medical procedures issue — not an all-out ban on transgender people. He wasn't sure what he thought about the broader prohibition, saying he needed to look into it further.

Still, some, like Hartzler, were elated.

"This was the right call by our commander in chief, to make sure every defense dollar goes toward meeting the threats that we are facing in the world," she said in an interview. "The entire [Obama-era transgender] policy… is a detriment to our readiness."

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/27/politics/anthony-scaramucci-reince-priebus/index.html

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/890529654163083264

New Comm Director is accusing the Chief of Staff of treason now for "leaking" info that is in his financial disclosure forms. That information is publicly available....

He's completely, seriously stupid.

TakingBackSunday

  • Banana Grabber
  • Senior Member
imitating his godlord leader
püp

agrajag

  • Senior Member
The Mooch screwed the pooch.

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
©@©™

Great Rumbler

  • Dab on the sinners
  • Global Moderator
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has issued a threat to both of Alaska’s senators, warning them that opposing efforts to repeal Obamacare could prompt the Trump administration to retaliate against their state in some way, according to Alaska’s junior senator.

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) told the Alaska Dispatch News that Zinke had called him with a “troubling message.”

“I’m not going to go into the details, but I fear that the strong economic growth, pro-energy, pro-mining, pro-jobs and personnel from Alaska who are part of those policies are going to stop,” Sullivan said.

“I tried to push back on behalf of all Alaskans,” he added. “We’re facing some difficult times and there’s a lot of enthusiasm for the policies that Secretary Zinke and the President have been talking about with regard to our economy. But the message was pretty clear.”

Sullivan told the Dispatch News that Zinke also called Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who has opposed the Senate’s replacement plan and who voted against proceeding to debate on Obamacare repeal. Murkowski also chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee for Interior and Environment, which plays a large role in determining funding levels for the Interior Department. Sullivan told the newspaper that he believes Zinke’s threat was in response to Murkowski’s vote against the motion to proceed.

So Trump literally got his Interior Secretary to call up Alaska's legislatures and say "Nice state you got there, be a shame if something happened to it" over Murkowski's "No" votes on Obamacare repeal.
dog

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
If she changes her vote to Yes, there may be an "Ambassador-at-Large of Something We Didn't Just Make Up"-ship in it for her.
©@©™

zomgee

  • We've *all*
  • Senior Member
It's either an excellent way to swing people to your cause, or an excellent way to get people to want to get rid of you.
rub

HyperZoneWasAwesome

  • HastilyChosenUsername
  • Senior Member
its worth noting that Sullivan is the one blowing the whistle on this. He's been a reliable Trump-care vote and Trump-everything else. And Murkowski is not exactly a RINO by any means, and Alaska is absolutely a solid red state. Also, the secretary of the interior's business is like 60% issues pertaining to Alaska, Zinke might be issuing a threat to Alaska's economy (how crazy is that), but he's also essentially undermining his own position when he does that, making himself and the federal government less important.

Its all just so friggin nuts.

Great Rumbler

  • Dab on the sinners
  • Global Moderator
In completely unrelated news that has nothing to do with what the Secretary of the Interior said:

The committee [Murkowski] leads announced it was postponing indefinitely a meeting to consider nominees to the Department of Energy and Zinke’s Interior Department. A spokeswoman cited “the uncertainty of the Senate schedule,” according to NBC News.

:heh
dog

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
Four senators are refusing to vote for the Skinny Repeal™ unless the the House promises not to pass it. #Winning #SoMuchWinning
©@©™

Great Rumbler

  • Dab on the sinners
  • Global Moderator
“Is it an assistant to the President?” he asked. I again told him I couldn’t say. “O.K., I’m going to fire every one of them, and then you haven’t protected anybody, so the entire place will be fired over the next two weeks.”

I asked him why it was so important for the dinner to be kept a secret. Surely, I said, it would become public at some point. “I’ve asked people not to leak things for a period of time and give me a honeymoon period,” he said. “They won’t do it.” He was getting more and more worked up, and he eventually convinced himself that Priebus was my source.

“They’ll all be fired by me,” he said. “I fired one guy the other day. I have three to four people I’ll fire tomorrow. I’ll get to the person who leaked that to you. Reince Priebus—if you want to leak something—he’ll be asked to resign very shortly.” The issue, he said, was that he believed Priebus had been worried about the dinner because he hadn’t been invited. “Reince is a fucking paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac,” Scaramucci said. He channelled Priebus as he spoke: “ ‘Oh, Bill Shine is coming in. Let me leak the fucking thing and see if I can cock-block these people the way I cock-blocked Scaramucci for six months.’ ” (Priebus did not respond to a request for comment.)

Quote
Scaramucci also told me that, unlike other senior officials, he had no interest in media attention. “I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to suck my own cock,” he said, speaking of Trump’s chief strategist. “I’m not trying to build my own brand off the fucking strength of the President. I’m here to serve the country.” (Bannon declined to comment.)

Sounds like a real great guy!
dog