Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Right, but the Senate will continue to screw us all.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"He's actually answering questions this time, at least.
Mind you, he's being pretty evasive and whining about negative coverage.
But he's answering questions.
edited 23rd Jan '17 11:57:04 AM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!"The default narrative is always negative"
There's nothing to be positive about unless you're a white supremacist.
Hugging a Vanillite will give you frostbite.... OK, I wanted to ask this the first time I read about it here, but kept getting distracted by the rest of the discussion every time. What is this "ACA was originally a Mitt Romney idea during that Obama co-opted when he became POTUS"? What exactly is the history behind the ACA? And why the hell would the GOP want to tear it down instead of exploiting the fact that it was originally concocted by a staunch GOP politician to discredit Obama?
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.They want to tear it down because the billionaires who bankrolls them are the ones who have to pay for it. Which is why they so throughly linked it to Obama, and demonized 'Obamacare' so much that their voters don't even realize that it's the same thing as ACA- which they like, because a lot of them have friends or family who's lives were saved by it.
1) The ACA was based on a health care plan originally created by Mitt Romney back when he was governor of Massachusetts.
2) The Republicans on the national level are a) greedy, b) practically a death cult, and c) defined by their opposition to anything a Democrat does.
EDIT:
'd
edited 23rd Jan '17 12:10:58 PM by rmctagg09
Hugging a Vanillite will give you frostbite.The original idea behind PPACA was implemented in Massachusetts under governor Mitt Romney. It predated President Obama's term in office; "Romneycare"
was originally implemented in 2006. The idea for it, as I recall, came from the Heritage Foundation think tank, as conservative an institution as exists in that world.
It had the same basic template that Obama adopted for PPACA, under the idea that Republicans would eagerly vote for a program created by one of their own and one that heavily involved the free market pricing system, as opposed to a single-payer system that would essentially dismantle private insurers.
Obama was surprised when it turned out that Republicans were not, in fact, fiscal conservatives, but rather violent reactionaries opposed to any legislative success for a Democratic President.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"When Romney was a governor, he helped develop a way of expanding access to health insurance that bears a strong resemblance to the ACA. The reps want to gut this because a) It gives the Dems too much political credit and b) Its funded with tax dollars to help poor people afford it, which means its the kind of wealth redistribution they oppose in principle.
!
edited 23rd Jan '17 12:13:12 PM by DeMarquis
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.{Mother Jones} I asked my student why he voted for Trump. The answer was thoughtful, smart, and terrifying
, an insight into the mind of a Trump voter in Oklahoma.
My limited understanding on ACA is that the ideas were first proposed by Republicans in the '90's as an Alternative to Public Healthcare that Hillary Clinton tried to implement but failed. It never took off, except in 2006 when then-Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, passed an ACA bill passed in that state.
Fighteer answered the question better then me.
edited 23rd Jan '17 12:13:50 PM by DingoWalley1
![]()
Yeah, I think I'll pass.
I'd like to thank whoever posted that Tom Lehrer song because I was browsing through his playlist and I am finding some Harsher in Hindsight songs.
If Trump and Co. keep their promises to get rid of the environmental protection policies and keep denying Climate Change, we can all plays this for the next years:
That look through the eyes of a Trump Supporter is indeed frightening, for different reasons than she states. "I don't see racism, therefore it must not exist or be something to worry about." Things are bad for me and people I know, so there must be no harm in trashing a system that does not benefit me, personally."
SMDH.
Reading that article in its entirety made me realize one possible flaw in the Democrats' strategy to solving all those social issues (racism, gay marriage, etc.): Their entire approach seems mainly based on a top-down model (i.e. pass federal/state laws and expect people to obey them, happily or grudgingly), while marginalizing the aspect of working on spreading the culture on a grassroots level.
Seriously, how could they not expect such a huge backlash to eventually erupt? Imposing laws on people who reject them on principle isn't going to make the problem magically disappear. So long as those people have a chance to keep "educating" their part of the next generation(s) with their beliefs, the problem will never go away and in fact will keep simmering under the surface, until the appropiate spark ignites the entire underbrush into a massive wildfire.
@Matues: As repulsive as that part sounds, I strongly advise you to keep reading the article. The guy comes across as rather pitiable in how out of touch he is with reality on some things, because it's largely out of his control. Like the writer says, it's hard to blame him for being factually wrong when the only "facts" he has actual access to are the totally wrong/twisted ones.
edited 23rd Jan '17 12:51:28 PM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.So you're saying that the article is not saying anything new to you?
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.

Huh. Well, I'm hardly an expert on healthcare...
Anyway, Spicer's now claiming that he when he said that the inauguration audience was the largest audience "in person and around the globe", that he meant that it was the largest total audience, not that it was the largest in person audience.
Oh God! Natural light!