Did Roy Moore get this Tax reform passed?

Before Moore lost, I heard lots of vague hope with qualification and reservation that repubs would be able to get tax reform by their several weak links in the Senate.  I took those qualifications to mean that it was very possible that Senators who wanted to show what independent free thinkers they are were going to show it yet again by voting with dems.  Then Moore loses and looks as if no one has the luxury of a consequence free contrarian vote; people fall into line.
«1345

Comments

  • edited December 2017
    I tend to go with the simpler answer; the GOP was about to close out an entire year of being in total control without a single legislative win, and with the risk of another government shutdown, for which they *always* take it in the pants.
  • Matt's notion is equally simple.

    In fact, I think I said the same thing two weeks ago....
  • edited December 2017
    It assumes that the establishment repubs accept responsibility (even tacitly) for Moore's loss. That's what I think is a stretch.
  • Seabird said:

    It assumes that the establishment repubs accept responsibility (even tacitly) for Moore's loss. That's what I think is a stretch.

    Really, it doesn't.

    It just means that knowing they will be a vote shorter in January may have slapped a few Senators out of their love affairs with their own public images.

    It's one thing for the repub party to go a year without a big bill.  That's not such a huge deal.  If you are Flake, Collins or McCain, the consequences of your routine just became more dire with the loss of Moore's seat.
  • Seabird said:

    It assumes that the establishment repubs accept responsibility (even tacitly) for Moore's loss. That's what I think is a stretch.

    Oh, they know. They did it intentionally and they came within a hair's breadth of failing.

    Getting them to ADMIT it is another issue entirely.
  • edited December 2017
    Ah, okay - I see where zuk is coming from and that makes sense to me now. Now or never. I didn't get that in the initial post.

    MCE - I don't agree. I think that they think that Moore was his own worst enemy. I think that they also blame Bannon for sticking his dick in the mashed potatoes.
  • Oh, I KNOW that they blame Bannon for a whole raft of shit, all of which falls under the heading of "Upsetting the Apple Cart".


    But don't kid yourself...
    The moves the establishment made against Moore were entirely intentional, with the goal of making him lose the election.
  • I don't disagree that they were passively and actively complicit in his loss, just that they likely believe the hit was justifiable.
  • Assholes like that think that everything they do is justifiable.
  • Maybe the goal was the long-term viability of a party on the wrong side of every demographic trend?
  • Did you ever consider that the demographic trends are actually the symptoms of our real problems?
  • edited December 2017
    vwtool said:

    Maybe the goal was the long-term viability of a party on the wrong side of every demographic trend?

    Assumes facts not in evidence.


    It's also a pretty big display of "Oblivious Racism".
  • dgm said:

    Did you ever consider that the demographic trends are actually the symptoms of our real problems?




    Can u flesh that out a bit?
  • Well, let's baseline on something first, to make sure we're even talking about the same thing.

    Which demographic trends are you identifying the GOP as being "on the wrong side of"?
  • dgm said:

    ...Which demographic trends are you identifying the GOP as being "on the wrong side of"?
    The GOP increasingly appeals mostly to white people in a country whose demographics increasingly aren't that. And Trump actually holding office seems to have energized females and black voters, neither of which tend to vote GOP. 
  • MC Escher said:

    vwtool said:

    ...Assumes facts not in evidence

    It's also a pretty big display of "Oblivious Racism".
    The evidence of the elections held recently isn't a disturbing sign for the GOP?  

    And please explain how voting against the party that pursues policies that directly harm minority voters is "oblivious racism." 
  • 'And please explain how voting against the party that pursues policies that directly harm minority voters is "oblivious racism."'

    Democrat policies are incredibly destructive to minorities. So yes, excellent question; why DO they keep voting for Democrats?
  • vwtool said:

    dgm said:

    ...Which demographic trends are you identifying the GOP as being "on the wrong side of"?
    The GOP increasingly appeals mostly to white people in a country whose demographics increasingly aren't that. And Trump actually holding office seems to have energized females and black voters, neither of which tend to vote GOP. 
    A lot of conservative policy is not anti-minority, as you assert.

    The Democrat policy of removing incentives to contribute to society by providing robust benefits for non-contributors is horrible for the progress of minorities. A prime example of this is the total destruction of the black family as a social structure.

    The Democrat policy of normalizing abortion and making them easy and trivial has created a literal black genocide.
  • vwtool said:



    And please explain how voting against the party that pursues policies that directly harm minority voters is "oblivious racism." 
    I was referring to YOU being oblivious to YOUR racism.
  • edited December 2017
    vwtool said:

    dgm said:

    ...A lot of conservative policy is not anti-minority, as you assert.

    The Democrat policy of removing incentives to contribute to society by providing robust benefits for non-contributors is horrible for the progress of minorities. A prime example of this is the total destruction of the black family as a social structure.

    The Democrat policy of normalizing abortion and making them easy and trivial has created a literal black genocide.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________

    I'd say that the systematic efforts by the GOP to keep black citizens from voting through sophisticated gerrymandering and needless "voter-fraud" laws counts as "anti-minority."

    And if you're referring to what Reagan called the "Soft bigotry of low expectations" side-effect of well-intentioned but failed Dem policies, then I agree. But nothing destroys black families like Nixon's "War On Drugs" which had fuck-all to do with drugs, and everything to do with keeping Nixon in power:

    "...I was writing a book about the politics of drug prohibition. I started to ask Ehrlichman a series of earnest, wonky questions that he impatiently waved away. “You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” 



  • edited December 2017
    MC Escher said:

    vwtool said:

    I was referring to YOU being oblivious to YOUR racism.

    Are "demographics" racist now, too?  I mean, those ARE the tools the GOP used to micro-engineer voting districts last census cycle.  Or are you using some of the new inverse thinking of the right, in which the equation gets flipped and the victim of a policy magically becomes its instigator simply by pointing out the original offense? That's a neat parlor trick, but it doesn't work in broad daylight. 

    We've exchanged but a few sentences here and you've already labeled me a "marxist" and a "racist," neither one of which is accurate, and neither of which you've bothered to explain, anyway. If you don't want any new blood here, then stay the course; if you do, then try a bit harder to actually communicate. 

  • No, dumdum...

    YOU are racist. And oblivious to it.


    Also, GOP voter suppression is a myth. Just like the parties switching or fascism/nazism being a right wing movement.


    In the aftermath of the civil war both the democrat and republican parties birthed an organized movement.

    In the case of the GOP it was the national rifle Association; the oldest civil rights organization in the United States and dedicated to arming and teaching marksmanship to freed slaves.

    The Democrats gave us the KKK.


    The only thing that’s changed is that the Democrat party has gotten much, much better at public relations then the GOP.
  • Also, we would like to have new blood here… You’re just flunking the entrance exam.

    Commie
  • edited December 2017
    MC Escher said:

    No, dumdum...

    YOU are racist. And oblivious to it...





    1) Drop the name-calling. 
    2) Explain why you think that's the case.

     
    MC Escher said:

    ... The Democrats gave us the KKK...


    Correction: Southern Democrats. The players are the same, they just switched parties.


  • MC Escher said:

    Also, we would like to have new blood here… You’re just flunking the entrance exam.

    Commie

    MC Escher said:

    Also, we would like to have new blood here… You’re just flunking the entrance exam.

    Commie


  • 1) It’s not name calling. You ARE a Marxist and you ARE a racist.

    2) Why? Probably because you are insufficiently self aware.

    3) Democrats. And the party switch is a myth, created by Democrats to explain why they lost to such a terrible guy.
  • MC Escher said:

    1) It’s not name calling. You ARE a Marxist and you ARE a racist.

    2) Why? Probably because you are insufficiently self aware.

    3) Democrats. And the party switch is a myth, created by Democrats to explain why they lost to such a terrible guy.

    For the sake of discussion, let's say you're correct with your labeling. Even if it were true, it keeps the "new blood" you want here from participating, so it's self-defeating. I doubt you talk to people like this in person, so why do it online, from behind your monitor?

    As to the "insufficiently self-aware" crap, give the amateur internet psychology a rest, as it's even less accurate than the labeling. 

    Southern Democrats, who were most decidedly never the "party of Lincoln" for obvious reasons, gravitated over a relatively short period of time to the GOP, and the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, was LBJ getting the Voting Rights Act passed, as they (rightly) saw it as the federal government meddling in their affairs. You can (as Zuk does) argue that there were "other" causes and be technically correct, but that's much the same as arguing that the Civil War was about any and everything other than slavery - it misses the elephant in the room intentionally. 
  • No, we’re not just SAYING I’m correct, I am correct in fact.

    The labels you choose to apply to yourself are immaterial.

    If you advocate for Marxist precepts, you’re a Marxist.

    If you think and/or act in a racist manner, you’re a racist.


    There’s no mystery here.
  • edited December 2017
    vwtool said:



    For the sake of discussion, let's say you're correct with your labeling. Even if it were true, it keeps the "new blood" you want here from participating, so it's self-defeating. I doubt you talk to people like this in person, so why do it online, from behind your monitor?




    You assume he wants new blood. New blood who gripe about name calling won't make it anyway. You habitually doubt that people who are direct with you online are not direct in person. This will be the second person for whom your doubts are misplaced.
    vwtool said:

    As to the "insufficiently self-aware" crap, give the amateur internet psychology a rest, as it's even less accurate than the labeling.




    Didn't you just engage in your own incompetent diagnosis of keyboard bravery?

    A person more aware of the construction of his thoughts would not have incorporated the racial assumptions into his thesis as you have. That doesn't take psychological expertise to see.
    vwtool said:

    Southern Democrats, who were most decidedly never the "party of Lincoln" for obvious reasons, gravitated over a relatively short period of time to the GOP, and the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak, was LBJ getting the Voting Rights Act passed, as they (rightly) saw it as the federal government meddling in their affairs. You can (as Zuk does) argue that there were "other" causes and be technically correct, but that's much the same as arguing that the Civil War was about any and everything other than slavery - it misses the elephant in the room intentionally. 




    That's essentially where you dropped the matter in August, lodging the accusation that your thesis was being ignored because I showed you its problems. You aren't very new blood where you just repeat your faith ad nauseam while dismissing contrary information as flukes and accusing people of ignoring your thesis because they explain the problems with it.


    You could demonstrate an awareness of the racism in your demographic observation by describing it. My guess is that you won't.
  • He can't change his paradigm, or even set it aside temporarily, because he doesn't know that he has one.
Sign In or Register to comment.