Senate Republicans trim tax bill to secure needed votes - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52942936] No, it doesn't. It never has. It never will. It never could be made to. You couldn't [B]make it[/B] stand on its own if you were King of America. Fire whoever taught your civics course.[/QUOTE] What are you asserting? He's just saying that if you look at a piece of legislation and you think that the actual changes are good, then you should support it regardless of who proposed it or voted on it. I don't think he's asserting that this particular piece of legislation is good.

[quote=sgman91]a lot of vague statements[/quote] [quote]No, it doesn't. It never has. It never will. It never could be made to. You couldn't make it stand on its own if you were King of America. Fire whoever taught your civics course.[/quote] [quote][B][U]vague[/U][/B][/quote] [quote=sgman91] Are you saying democrats don't raise the deficit?[/quote] Are you whatabout-whatabout-whatabout? [quote=sgman91]Can you clarify what move is being preempted by this $1 trillion raising of the deficit?[/quote] [I]Further[/I] raising of the deficit, more tax cuts, more programs being cut, more social policy being snuck into things such as [I]tax bills[/I]. They did it once. What makes you believe this doesn't pre-empt them attempting to do it again while they can? [quote=Harbie]What are you asserting? He's just saying that if you look at a piece of legislation and you think that the actual changes are good, then you should support it regardless of who proposed it or voted on it.[/quote] He's asserting that legislation stands on its own. It doesn't. That's like saying 'case verdicts stand on their own'; they don't, can't, never could, never will, and you couldn't make them if you had unilateral control over the United States without shredding literally our entire legal code down to its foundations. Stop putting words in his mouth.

What are you even talking about? My whole point was about the complaints about the $1 trillion additional deficit. I'm not even attempting to defend the bill, itself. I'm simply saying that a person who makes a big deal about $1 trillion in more deficit, while having zero issue with democrats doing the same thing, and doing nothing to stop the ~$83 trillion coming down the pipe is being dishonest in their critique. That's it. [editline]3rd December 2017[/editline] If you only care about increasing the deficit when republicans do it, then you're an ideologue. (and if you only care when democrats do it, then you're just as bad)

[QUOTE=sgman91;52942957]What are you even talking about? My whole point was about the complaints about the $1 trillion additional deficit. I'm not even attempting to defend the bill, itself. I'm simply saying that a person who makes a big deal about $1 trillion in more deficit, while having zero issue with democrats doing the same thing, and doing nothing to stop the ~$83 trillion coming down the pipe is being dishonest in their critique. That's it.[/QUOTE] Your whole point which you then proceeded to split off into multiple other points which you then proceeded to debate but what am I talking about because you never wrote those things? You brought those points up; I answered/rebutted those points; that's what I'm talking about. You're 'simply saying' that context doesn't matter. Let's bring this back to your original post again. [quote]They're hypocrites, I agree completely, but that's a reason to critique the Republicans, not a reason to critique the bill. People seem to be getting those two confused.[/quote] That was your whole point: that people seem to think that 'the aims of the Republicans have nothing to do with the bill they unilaterally passed in a rushed session' that the bill 'is an isolated entity that stands alone' (if I'm to characterize it in a way you didn't state but which 'is more in line' with what you're stating now that you meant). The Democrats have 'not done the same thing'. The Democrats have nothing to do with this bill. Stop bringing them up. Bring them up when they do this and I'll happily talk about that then - this is now. Your issue is that Democrats 'did it' and so therefore we must complain about them in this bill exclusively fathered and whose onus wholly rests on the Republican party, else we're being dishonest - or we're simply not allowed to criticize the bill from its origins because 'we don't do that with Democrats'. (Even ignoring that yes, we do that with Democrats and yes, we would also complain about Democrats were they to do this but I imagine you'll state 'nuh uh' on that too). If the Democrats passed a unilateral bill which did nothing but exclusively what the Democratic party has on its bullet list while adding massive deficits and refusing to even acknowledge the republicans, that's what would be in the title of this thread right now. That's it.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52942962]Your whole point which you then proceeded to split off into multiple other points which you then proceeded to debate but what am I talking about because you never wrote those things? You brought those points up; I answered/rebutted those points; that's what I'm talking about. You're 'simply saying' that context doesn't matter. Let's bring this back to your original post again. That was your whole point: that people seem to think that 'the aims of the Republicans have nothing to do with the bill they unilaterally passed in a rushed session'. The Democrats have 'not done the same thing'. The Democrats have nothing to do with this bill. Your issue is that Democrats 'did it' and so therefore we must complain about them in this bill exclusively fathered and whose onus wholly rests on the Republican party, else we're being dishonest - or we're simply not allowed to criticize the bill from its origins because 'we don't do that with Democrats'. That's it.[/QUOTE] Did you see the post before that started the conversation chain? It was about the $1 trillion, specifically. It said: [QUOTE=Sgman91]t seems that they aren't going to be paid for. The plan will almost certainly raise deficits, though I do think the whole focus on that $1 trillion is a little stupid when we're looking at ~$84 trillion in deficits from just social security and medicare in the next 30 years, according to the CBO.[/QUOTE] Every response since then has been a direct reply to something someone else said to me. [editline]3rd December 2017[/editline] Don't take a post from the middle of a conversation, put it out of context, and then call it the point of my argument.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52942964]Did you see the post before that started the conversation chain? It was about the $1 trillion, specifically.[/quote] And how does that change what you meant by 'so what if they're hypocrites, that has nothing to do with the bill'? I fail to see how that has any relevance at all - your statement here adds no useful context. [quote]Don't take a post from the middle of a conversation, put it out of context, and then call it the point of my argument.[/QUOTE] Don't make a post about an entirely other topic in the middle of a conversation and state that it's part of the conversation. (e.g. but what about the Democrats)

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52942967]And how does that change what you meant by 'so what if they're hypocrites, that has nothing to do with the bill'? I fail to see how that has any relevance at all - your statement here adds no useful context. Don't take a post from the middle of a conversation, put it out of context, and then call it the point of my argument.[/QUOTE] By "the bill" I'm specifically referring to the part of the bill that the conversation was about: the deficit increase. I didn't suddenly switch my attention from that one, very specific thing, to the entirety of the bill for no reason.

[quote=sgman91]By "the bill" I'm specifically referring to the part of the bill that the conversation was about: the deficit increase. I didn't suddenly switch my attention from that one, very specific thing, to the entirety of the bill for no reason.[/quote] Yet again, that adds no context that - again - would change anything about what you or I have talked about here.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52942973]Yet again, that adds no context that - again - would change anything about what you or I have talked about here.[/QUOTE] OK, whatever. I think people get it. This will be my last response in this conversation chain. We're not getting anywhere.

-snip-

[QUOTE=sgman91;52942932]What do you mean? The democrats do it. The republicans do it. Everyone does it. Personally, I oppose it whenever anyone does it, but it seems you only oppose it when the republicans do it.[/QUOTE] Lets look at a graph of where the US deficit has been: [img]https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/usgs_chart4p04.png[/img] If you pay attention to the graph, the deficit gradually shrank and turned into a surplus while Democrats were in office, continued that way while Bill Clinton remained as president, then once Republicans got full control over the government with Bush Jr, it [i]practically immediately[/i] turned around back into deficit territory. Overall, the Democrats seem to have made a better effort to balance the budget than the so called "fiscally responsible" Republicans.

[QUOTE=Jcw87;52943047]Lets look at a graph of where the US deficit has been: [img]https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/usgs_chart4p04.png[/img] If you pay attention to the graph, the deficit gradually shrank and turned into a surplus while Democrats were in office, continued that way while Bill Clinton remained as president, then once Republicans got full control over the government with Bush Jr, it [i]practically immediately[/i] turned around back into deficit territory. Overall, the Democrats seem to have made a better effort to balance the budget than the so called "fiscally responsible" Republicans.[/QUOTE] The sudden spike during the Bush Jr. Presidency is from 9/11 and the war on terror/war in Afghanistan. Considering how bipartisan support was for the war on terror at the time, doubt it'd be different under a Democrat.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52942856]It seems that they aren't going to be paid for. The plan will almost certainly raise deficits, though I do think the whole focus on that $1 trillion is a little stupid when we're looking at ~$84 trillion in deficits from just social security and medicare in the next 30 years, according to the CBO.[/QUOTE] Can't find any source for 84 trillion number. Just saying "according to cbo" isn't sourcing.

[QUOTE=nagachief;52942933]I try not to think like this anymore, but sometimes I just slip back into 'fuck the world' mode. I still hold some hope things get better and a blue wave does happen an bring us back to sanity. I regret not voting Democrat now. I voted anything but rep/dem, because my convictions were too strong. I regret it all. Completely. I'm not going to make the same mistake again.[/QUOTE] I don't want to tell you how to live your life, but for the sake of debate, I would strongly advise against that blue wave. If you were a third party voter before, then the current situation with the Republicans is a long-term win for people like you and me. Dissatisfaction with establishment politics is at an all-time high, and the left is growing more and more segmented and disorganized by the day, while the right is annihilating every ounce of public goodwill they could have ever had. If a truly progressive third party were able to cut through the rigged candidacy system in 2020 and capture the attention of all those disenfranchised former democrats, the Reps wouldn't have any counter to it; especially if we could get progressive third parties into the House and Senate, or even your own state legislature (keep in mind: your state's electoral college members is itself an elected position!). If you've really reconsidered your stances and want to vote Dem because it's what you believe in, that's nobody's business but your own and nobody has any right to stop you. But for the love of God, don't make a sudden knee-jerk flip on your beliefs just because you got caught up in public hysteria. This kind of reactionary controversy voting is what got us where we are in the first place. If your convictions are really as strong as you say they are, stick to your guns and put in the leg work to try to get representatives elected that'll make actual positive change.

[QUOTE=TWKUK;52943136]I don't want to tell you how to live your life, but for the sake of debate, I would strongly advise against that blue wave. If you were a third party voter before, then the current situation with the Republicans is a long-term win for people like you and me. Dissatisfaction with establishment politics is at an all-time high, and the left is growing more and more segmented and disorganized by the day, while the right is annihilating every ounce of public goodwill they could have ever had. If a truly progressive third party were able to cut through the rigged candidacy system in 2020 and capture the attention of all those disenfranchised former democrats, the Reps wouldn't have any counter to it; especially if we could get progressive third parties into the House and Senate, or even your own state legislature (keep in mind: your state's electoral college members is itself an elected position!). If you've really reconsidered your stances and want to vote Dem because it's what you believe in, that's nobody's business but your own and nobody has any right to stop you. But for the love of God, don't make a sudden knee-jerk flip on your beliefs just because you got caught up in public hysteria. This kind of reactionary controversy voting is what got us where we are in the first place. If your convictions are really as strong as you say they are, stick to your guns and put in the leg work to try to get representatives elected that'll make actual positive change.[/QUOTE] There is very little chance of third-parties making it even in the current political climate because of the way elections work.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52942932]What do you mean? The democrats do it. The republicans do it. Everyone does it. Personally, I oppose it whenever anyone does it, but it seems you only oppose it when the republicans do it.[/QUOTE] Yo sgman if you're thinking of Obamacare, that had months and months of open dialogue and Republicans had plenty of opportunities to add to the final law. This tax law was written in secret and given to their fellow congressmen hours before they were expected to vote on. Both sides don't fucking do it, one side is being more shit here.

[QUOTE=TWKUK;52943136]I don't want to tell you how to live your life, but for the sake of debate, I would strongly advise against that blue wave. If you were a third party voter before, then the current situation with the Republicans is a long-term win for people like you and me. Dissatisfaction with establishment politics is at an all-time high, and the left is growing more and more segmented and disorganized by the day, while the right is annihilating every ounce of public goodwill they could have ever had. If a truly progressive third party were able to cut through the rigged candidacy system in 2020 and capture the attention of all those disenfranchised former democrats, the Reps wouldn't have any counter to it; especially if we could get progressive third parties into the House and Senate, or even your own state legislature (keep in mind: your state's electoral college members is itself an elected position!). If you've really reconsidered your stances and want to vote Dem because it's what you believe in, that's nobody's business but your own and nobody has any right to stop you. But for the love of God, don't make a sudden knee-jerk flip on your beliefs just because you got caught up in public hysteria. This kind of reactionary controversy voting is what got us where we are in the first place. If your convictions are really as strong as you say they are, stick to your guns and put in the leg work to try to get representatives elected that'll make actual positive change.[/QUOTE] I've always hated the Republicans though. And I was totally going for Bernie. And I got disgusted by everything surrounding the DNC to the point where I stuck with what I thought was the next best thing and went lib. Of course, I realize that their views don't quite work in the real world. But it was better than the GOP clusterfuck. I feel like I might of been played looking back at it.

[QUOTE=TWKUK;52943136]I don't want to tell you how to live your life, but for the sake of debate, I would strongly advise against that blue wave. If you were a third party voter before, then the current situation with the Republicans is a long-term win for people like you and me. Dissatisfaction with establishment politics is at an all-time high, and the left is growing more and more segmented and disorganized by the day, while the right is annihilating every ounce of public goodwill they could have ever had. If a truly progressive third party were able to cut through the rigged candidacy system in 2020 and capture the attention of all those disenfranchised former democrats, the Reps wouldn't have any counter to it; especially if we could get progressive third parties into the House and Senate, or even your own state legislature (keep in mind: your state's electoral college members is itself an elected position!). If you've really reconsidered your stances and want to vote Dem because it's what you believe in, that's nobody's business but your own and nobody has any right to stop you. But for the love of God, don't make a sudden knee-jerk flip on your beliefs just because you got caught up in public hysteria. This kind of reactionary controversy voting is what got us where we are in the first place. If your convictions are really as strong as you say they are, stick to your guns and put in the leg work to try to get representatives elected that'll make actual positive change.[/QUOTE] I vote third party anytime I can, however we have to minimize the damage each party can do. Vote blue in the 2018 elections to delay the shitfest that is congress. Afterwards see who is running in 2020 and make your decisions from there. Even though both sides are bought and won over I'd honestly believe in the democrats being more willing to negotiate and work with a third party in congress compared to republicans. I'd also argue that it wasn't knee-jerk reactionary voting that got us in this situation, people who were gonna vote republican were gonna vote republican no matter who won their primary as all the choices were similar in one way or another and then one orange wildcard, nothing majorly dissuading to that voter-base. Democrats own shit flinging that was the primaries is what dug them their own grave. A lot of voters on that side felt straight up ignored or worthless in the result that Clinton basically just paid her way to be the candidate and had it planned out ahead of time with the party leadership. Either way, you can be independent/vote third party, and still vote of the two big parties into positions that you have no other choice otherwise or if it strategically reduces the other parties effectiveness till you can vote more third parties members in. You wont be throwing away any values or beliefs as long as you vote close to your values, or vote in a way that ensures the opposite of your thoughts don't gain more strength temporarily.

[QUOTE=ForcedDj;52942729]That's why I told someone that he can't be the Antichrist. He is only charismatic to the cult, while the rest of the country is wondering what the fuck is wrong with this person. Not with a cactus. Something more painful for what they are doing. Hopefully 2018 and 2020 causes a massive blue hurricane and the Democrats gets power again.[/QUOTE] How about a red-hot iron cactus?

[QUOTE=archangel125;52940265]I'm not disagreeing with you. Just warning you to prepare for the Dems and Repubs being virtually indistinguishable a few years from now.[/QUOTE] [url=https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6pc5qu/democrats_propose_rules_to_break_up_broadband/dkon8t4/?context=3]I'm so sick of hearing shit like this.[/url] "virtually indistinguishable" what the fuck ever man. They are two parties literally on the opposite sides of every issue with the Reps going deeper and fucking deeper into ruining this country for their fucking selves. Not the Rep constituents but the Rep representatives. For people to just walk around and go "THEY'RE BASICALLY THE SAME THOUGH" is [B][I]insanity[/I][/B]. The fact that you're saying they will eventually be "virtually indistinguishable" is [B][I]ludicrious[/I][/B].