PPACA came straight out of Heritage Foundation. It had substantial bipartisan support in committee, markup, and amendments. Republicans voted against it to use as a political fundraising foil, which they did extremely effectively for a decade.
Is quite cynical.
As for the five year racist lie of birtherism told by Trump. 51% of Republicans believed it in 2017. There are more QAnon believers in the upcoming Republican caucus than Black members.
51% of republicans dumb enough to answer a poll in 2017 about where Obama was born believed it. How wrong do political polls need to get before we start laughing at them?
Yeah, QAnon is a real shame.
But that's an interesting thing for you to say. I agree, it's a shame the black republicans that were running for congress didn't win. But they didn't lose to... white republicans. They lost to democrats. Some of them were probably even white! And I doubt that republicans didn't vote for them because of their skin color. So that was a real interesting thing for you to say.
The president is the face of leadership for the country. The way they address the country and the things they say is unquestionably a huge part of the presidency.
They can say "not my president" all they want, just as Trump can say he won the election, when he clearly didn't.
One of those is far more impact, though. One of those is a person who runs the executive branch of the strongest government in the world. The other is someone making a post on twitter. To compare the two is wrong - period.
No. the other side is millions of emotional people with incorrect data posting on twitter getting everything wrong but then getting retweeted thousands of times based on a headline.
bless you that you think that doesn't do anything and is beyond analysis.
The thing is, bipartisan support was impossible to achieve at the time. Obama crafted a conservative health bill, attempted to reach across the aisle and got stonewalled - it was noted at the time that the Republicans adopted an unusually obstructive approach during the Obama era. Bipartisan support was (by design) more or less impossible to achieve.
More or less, yes. Take a look at the ACA. This is a piece of legislation that was essentially conservative in nature. It pleased very few on the democratic side, and bore plenty of similarities to some republican plans from the 90s. The Republicans reacted as if communism was coming to America.
> As opposed to the excellent state and not "unusually obstructive " form that democrats left the nation with after 4 years of never trump?
During the Trump administration, the Republicans had 2 years of controlling the house, the senate, AND the presidency. Not sure how much you think the Democrats could obstruct in that situation. In the following two years there's been just a democratic house, from which the Republican senate majority leader has been more or less unwilling to review legislation. And not just democratic-lead legislation - plenty of bipartisan legislation has been ignore too.
Really not sure why you're giving Pelosi sole blame for the failure to come to an agreement on stimulus. McConnell seems to be the clearest blocker here: seems there was hope for the White House and the House to come to an agreement, which McConnell scuppered: https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahhansen/2020/10/15/mcconnel... .
You just said that democrats couldn't interfere with the republicans during theirs, so how on earth did the democrats pass a bill that they didn't like?
Not a single republican voted for the bill. I think that probably removes any intelligent reference you could make to Romneycare, which was bipartisan and for a single state.
It was Pelosi. Her position was my bill or nothing. No small immediate relief for renters getting the boot with a 1 trillion price tag that they could immediately add to. Your own article said McConnell wanted relief. It was her 2.2 trillion or nothing and she chose nothing. She did it knowing it would hurt trump. If she cared she'd do what she could to help and pass the trillion no?
> Not a single republican voted for the bill. I think that probably removes any intelligent reference you could make to Romneycare, which was bipartisan and for a single state.
McConnell threatened to filibuster due to the inclusion of the individual mandate which was in Romneycare (and still exists today in the form of a tax[0]). This was part of McConnell's strategy to prevent any democrat from doing anything, even things that have republican or popular support, even among republicans.
For example, while holding the majority, he prevents bills, which would pass on a floor vote, from getting that vote.
> It was Pelosi. Her position was my bill or nothing.
IDK, it sounds like she found a deal with the President, and McConnell refused it. I'd also expect that, like I mentioned above, the relief bill the house passed would pass a floor vote in the senate, which is why McConnell would refuse to bring it to a vote. If anything, it sounds like he's the one saying its his bill or nothing. Notably, you ignore the important point that McConnell also doesn't want relief to take effect until next year. Yes McConnell claims to want relief, he also claims to want to repeal the ACA. He claims a lot of things for political reasons that he doesn't actually want.
I've edited this post to address the (incorrect) response below.
the individual mandate has been ruled illegal btw.
I'm sorry, but you're not denying that her point was my bill or nothing. you just seem to think that trumps desperation to pass a bill gives you legitimacy.
which is, lets be clear, rich with irony.
WOAH: "Notably, you ignore the important point that McConnell also doesn't want relief to take effect until next year."
what is your source for that lol. why on earth would that ever make sense. and I mean that kind of loses effect if dems have refused to pass anything for the previous 3 months just so they could pass something when trump loses
He's stated as much. His goal was to start the new term by passing an aid bill. Pelosi wanted one sooner.
> and I mean that kind of loses effect if dems have refused to pass anything for the previous 3 months just so they could pass something when trump loses
Right, this is your invention and justification. We've moved into inappropriate for hn territory, so I'll stop now.
> I'm sorry, but you seem to absolutely refuse to keep the concept that Pelosi only wanted nothing less than her 2.2 trillion dollar bill.
Sure. And McConnell wants nothing more than his 1T bill. Why is it solely Pelosi's fault that an accord has not been reached?
> You can't complain about McConnell delaying it without complaining about Pelosi.
I wasn't? It's common during a negotiation for both sides to be at fault. I do think McConnell is more at fault given that the white house came to agreement, but it's obvious that Pelosi bears responsibility also.
I would also argue that if republicans hadn't spent the last 20 years playing hardball to a ridiculous extent, they wouldn't have inspired similar behavior in their democratic opposition.
Nope. Lieberman was an independent and broke with the democrats on many issues, including the ACA: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/16/joe-lieberman-... . Funnily enough, this kind of makes my point for me. Even during a near-supermajority, the Dems could barely pass some conservative healthcare reform, because the republicans threatened to filibuster almost everything. Historical report here: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna35643530 . The filibuster has since been watered down to reduce that kind of abuse - and honestly I think the Democrats have learned that they need to play hardball, because Republicans sure as hell aren't interested in compromise.
In fairness to you, I did under-consider the effects of the use of the filibuster during Trump's term - appears that while the power of the filibuster has in general been watered down, the Democrats have been using it aggressively to block Trump's nominations. I wonder if the republicans regret kicking off this trend.
> Not a single republican voted for the bill
Sadly, we've reached a world where politicians largely vote as a block, not on their personal beliefs. I'd take this as indications of precisely nothing other than strategy. If you look at the bill itself, it's conservative, and a clear compromise from what the majority of Democrats want.
> It was Pelosi. Her position was my bill or nothing.
Patently untrue - she's already come down from an initial position of 3T.
So unless Pelosi caves to the Republicans' exact demands it's all on her? Let's imagine McConnell says that he'll approve a relief bill containing a trillion for the rich and a buck or two for the poor, is Pelosi solely responsible for delaying relief?
Pelosi is trying to get a level of relief that she views as appropriate. Of course the threat of walking away has to be there - otherwise the other side is free to offer something completely inadequate. If Pelosi and Trump of all people can get close to agreeing, it's worth considering pointing the blame at McConnell.
My point is, why is it that if Pelosi doesn't bend the knee, she bears sole responsibility for an agreement being reached? If she and the white house can agree, why can't McConnell be blamed? Your position seems to be that she should just take what she can get, but why shouldn't McConnell take what he can get? This is a negotiation. The idea that either side bears sole responsibility is crazy to me.
That’s just one of the many impossible pills in that bill that make it a non-starter. Knowingly including garbage like that in what is framed as a COVID stimulus bill is deliberate sabotage.
I agree that this sort of stuff is awful, and I don't support it one bit. But the reality is that provisions like this aren't going to make it into the final bill, and there's no indication that this is some kind of red line - just a negotiating position. Similarly the republicans are also setting their demands up in a way they know democrats will never accept: a low relief figure, excessive corporate protection from liability towards employees.
I don't like it one bit (and I've always favored targeted bills), but there's also no real indication that this provision is what is holding things up - right now, all the talk is about the dollar amount. Senate republicans can't even pass the 1T amount for the HEALS act right now, and are facing severe internal division over the proposed amount.
it was more like, "liberal president who wants to do more, pushes through mass healthcare and finance reform without bipartisan support bad"
the narrative that all republicans are racist is way more convenient though, go for that.