Trump MAGAthread II: Donald and Mike go to the White House

[Thermodolia]

And Democrats. Who are only three seats away from controlling the Senate

That's a generous way of putting it I suppose... does it hurt you to say that Republicans have control of the Senate?

But, yes, a reasonable amount of moderate Dems will have to support the replacement/reform.... but if they can't get all or even most of the Republicans to support it no way in hell they'll get Democrats on it.

Why would it hurt me? I'm not crazy

[Patridam]

Could do what we do. Leave the oven on and open the door a bit, and use a kerosene heater for the back of the house. It's funny during the mornings because everyone's huddled around the oven xD

It just means that, you and me, when the apocalypse happens, we're set. We've lived this, we know how to get by. Everyone else is screwed.

Also, I only edited the post that way because the spoilers broke shiz and I couldn't be arsed to tangle with code today.

Kerosene's too damn expensive to run in addition to the wood stove, and it's been a long time since the electric baseboard heaters have worked. No, it's just that the living room is where the wood stove is, our sole heating source. The living room is warm, at least 70 degrees. The kitchen and my parents bedroom are on either side of the living room, then beyond their bedroom is the bathroom, then my room. At the edge of the universe, farthest from the stove, with three outside walls each with a window.

Anyway, enough whining. Soon I'll be back in my big dorm room with central air.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And Democrats. Who are only three seats away from controlling the Senate

That's a generous way of putting it I suppose... does it hurt you to say that Republicans have control of the Senate?

But, yes, a reasonable amount of moderate Dems will have to support the replacement/reform.... but if they can't get all or even most of the Republicans to support it no way in hell they'll get Democrats on it.

Which is why I find McConnell's gamble that he can get a framework rolling in a few weeks extremely odd for someone who dissed the ACA on poor planning since the time it was conceived.

[Gauthier]

That's a generous way of putting it I suppose... does it hurt you to say that Republicans have control of the Senate?

But, yes, a reasonable amount of moderate Dems will have to support the replacement/reform.... but if they can't get all or even most of the Republicans to support it no way in hell they'll get Democrats on it.

Which is why I find McConnell's gamble that he can get a framework rolling in a few weeks extremely odd for someone who dissed the ACA on poor planning since the time it was conceived.

He's following the leader and being a fucking hypocrite.

[Thermodolia]

That's a generous way of putting it I suppose... does it hurt you to say that Republicans have control of the Senate?

But, yes, a reasonable amount of moderate Dems will have to support the replacement/reform.... but if they can't get all or even most of the Republicans to support it no way in hell they'll get Democrats on it.

Which is why I find McConnell's gamble that he can get a framework rolling in a few weeks extremely odd for someone who dissed the ACA on poor planning since the time it was conceived.

Well the House isn't faring much better as the Freedom Caucus and the moderates have joined together to oppose any repeal with an concurrent replacement.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Which is why I find McConnell's gamble that he can get a framework rolling in a few weeks extremely odd for someone who dissed the ACA on poor planning since the time it was conceived.

He's following the leader and being a fucking hypocrite.

Oh there's no doubt he's a hypocrite, but it's still odd and somewhat amusing to see how he's going to pull that one off.

[Novus America]

Repeal and replace actually means reform. And post codification you do not really "repeal laws". Laws just edit or add to the code. In theory you could edit it back to the way it was before but the ways laws are written makes this unlikely.
You cannot simply write a law saying "repeal Obamacare". You would have remove every word it added and restore every word it deleted.

For example many sections of our current immigration law go back to 1950 or before. The 1950 law was changed greatly. Never repealed entirely.

They have already said several provisions will remain, the question is what form the reform will take.

It's called Amending. They can Amend the ACA law.

Well when the law is codified, you ammend the code yes. The thing is the law changes the code, and becomes the code. So you do not ammend the ACA itself. You amend the parts of the code it amended. Think of it like Google docs sort of.

So "repeal and replace Obamacare" actually means "ammend parts of the code it ammended".

[Lady Scylla]

Repeal and replace actually means reform. And post codification you do not really "repeal laws". Laws just edit or add to the code. In theory you could edit it back to the way it was before but the ways laws are written makes this unlikely.
You cannot simply write a law saying "repeal Obamacare". You would have remove every word it added and restore every word it deleted.

For example many sections of our current immigration law go back to 1950 or before. The 1950 law was changed greatly. Never repealed entirely.

They have already said several provisions will remain, the question is what form the reform will take.

When I mean reform I mean working within the original framework of the law instead of doing a hard reset.

The "hard reset" comment is of my comments from a week or so ago (don't trust me on time, I couldn't tell you what I had for dinner yesterday) about the US government needing a "hard reset". I.E tearing the whole system down and rebuilding it from a new foundation so that it fits better with the times.

[Thermodolia]

It's called Amending. They can Amend the ACA law.

Well when the law is codified, you ammend the code yes. The thing is the law changes the code, and becomes the code. So you do not ammend the ACA itself. You amend the parts of the code it amended. Think of it like Google docs sort of.

So "repeal and replace Obamacare" actually means "ammend parts of the code it ammended".

Technically this means that we aren't repealing or making any law but just add or subtracting from the code

[Patridam]

The "hard reset" comment is of my comments from a week or so ago (don't trust me on time, I couldn't tell you what I had for dinner yesterday) about the US government needing a "hard reset". I.E tearing the whole system down and rebuilding it from a new foundation so that it fits better with the times.

2 days ago.

"Pardon me sir, what time is it?
"Time for you to get a watch!"

[Lady Scylla]

The "hard reset" comment is of my comments from a week or so ago (don't trust me on time, I couldn't tell you what I had for dinner yesterday) about the US government needing a "hard reset". I.E tearing the whole system down and rebuilding it from a new foundation so that it fits better with the times.

2 days ago.

*Stamps you with 'Scylla's Clock' on forehead*

[Gauthier]

He's following the leader and being a fucking hypocrite.

Oh there's no doubt he's a hypocrite, but it's still odd and somewhat amusing to see how he's going to pull that one off.

Getting away with cockblocking Garland made him full of himself. The fallout is going to be fun to watch.

[Lady Scylla]

The "hard reset" comment is of my comments from a week or so ago (don't trust me on time, I couldn't tell you what I had for dinner yesterday) about the US government needing a "hard reset". I.E tearing the whole system down and rebuilding it from a new foundation so that it fits better with the times.

2 days ago.

"Pardon me sir, what time is it?
"Time for you to get a watch!"

Being unemployed for so long means your conception of time just sort of poofs. I forgot Christmas was coming up on Dec 24th. Or maybe I'm just getting Early Onset Old Peopleness.

[Novus America]

Repeal and replace actually means reform. And post codification you do not really "repeal laws". Laws just edit or add to the code. In theory you could edit it back to the way it was before but the ways laws are written makes this unlikely.
You cannot simply write a law saying "repeal Obamacare". You would have remove every word it added and restore every word it deleted.

For example many sections of our current immigration law go back to 1950 or before. The 1950 law was changed greatly. Never repealed entirely.

They have already said several provisions will remain, the question is what form the reform will take.

When I mean reform I mean working within the original framework of the law instead of doing a hard reset.

Well again it is reform within the framework of the existing US code rather than the law itself. Think of it like Google Docs. If we work on a joint project, and I make edits and additions to a paper that was already written, while you could track changes, and go back and undo everything I did, that is unlikely. Instead you simply add your changes, which may change changes I made, but it is not undoing everything I did.

[Novus America]

Well when the law is codified, you ammend the code yes. The thing is the law changes the code, and becomes the code. So you do not ammend the ACA itself. You amend the parts of the code it amended. Think of it like Google docs sort of.

So "repeal and replace Obamacare" actually means "ammend parts of the code it ammended".

Technically this means that we aren't repealing or making any law but just add or subtracting from the code

Well the code is the law. But yes, exactly. You are changing the code itself, not the past individual laws that changed the code.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

2 days ago.

"Pardon me sir, what time is it?
"Time for you to get a watch!"

Being unemployed for so long means your conception of time just sort of poofs. I forgot Christmas was coming up on Dec 24th. Or maybe I'm just getting Early Onset Old Peopleness.

No, that's normal when you have nothing to do for so long.

I've also have had that happen to me when I spend days or weeks just doing nothing, I forget what day it is.

Right now that I am more mentally stimulated I know which date and time it is.

[Novus America]

It's called Amending. They can Amend the ACA law.

That would entail some kind of implied approval of it and that's not allowed. I sometimes think they hate it as much as they do because they didn't get to pass it in the first place.

Which is why the say "repeal and replace". It fits there narrative better, but is misleading, if you know how laws are written. Most people do not though.

[Farnhamia]

That would entail some kind of implied approval of it and that's not allowed. I sometimes think they hate it as much as they do because they didn't get to pass it in the first place.

Which is why the say "repeal and replace". It fits there narrative better, but is misleading, if you know how laws are written. Most people do not though.

Have we gotten any details on the "replace" part?

[Gauthier]

Which is why the say "repeal and replace". It fits there narrative better, but is misleading, if you know how laws are written. Most people do not though.

Have we gotten any details on the "replace" part?

"Don't get sick, and if you do die quickly."

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Which is why the say "repeal and replace". It fits there narrative better, but is misleading, if you know how laws are written. Most people do not though.

Have we gotten any details on the "replace" part?

None, except Trump saying he'd like to see some of the parts remain of the ACA.

[Arlenton]

Senate approved the waiver for General Mattis 81-17.

Here are the 17 Democrats who disapproved.
Baldwin WI
Duckworth IL
Leahy VT
Murphy CT
Tester MT
Warren MA
Blumenthal CT
Durbin IL
Markey MA
Murray WA
Udall NM
Wyden OR
Booker NJ
Gillibrand NY
Merkley OR
Sanders VT
Van Hollan MD


Hint to fellow Republicans, come 2018, be sure to let Montana's conservative voters know how Tester feels about General Mattis being Secretary of Defense.

[Farnhamia]

Have we gotten any details on the "replace" part?

"Don't get sick, and if you do die quickly."

You've said that more than once. It's not funny or constructive.

[Novus America]

Which is why the say "repeal and replace". It fits there narrative better, but is misleading, if you know how laws are written. Most people do not though.

Have we gotten any details on the "replace" part?

Not really.
Though again "replace" is a misleading term. You do not change the ACA itself, you change the code.

The ACA made changes to the code. But did not rewrite the whole thing.
As to what changes to the code they might make, that is still unclear. They GOP in congress is not a hive mind, and party discipline in the US is weak. So they need to first decide amongst themselves.

[Gauthier]

"Don't get sick, and if you do die quickly."

You've said that more than once. It's not funny or constructive.

Was never meant to be funny, rather an observation on how the GOP wants healthcare to go apparently.

[Lady Scylla]

Senate approved the waiver for General Mattis 81-17.

Here are the 17 Democrats who disapproved.
Baldwin WI
Duckworth IL
Leahy VT
Murphy CT
Tester MT
Warren MA
Blumenthal CT
Durbin IL
Markey MA
Murray WA
Udall NM
Wyden OR
Booker NJ
Gillibrand NY
Merkley OR
Sanders VT
Van Hollan MD


Hint to fellow Republicans, come 2018, be sure to let Montana's conservative voters know how Tester feels about General Mattis being Secretary of Defense.

So I'm guessing this means Mattis will get it. Great.

Given, I watched the hearing, I was glad about his answer over women and LGBT in the military. I'll give him some points. In fact, I like Mattis more than I like Trump. Still don't want him as SecDef though.