Trump admin admits it is deliberately sabotaging the ACA

[Moonbeam]

If I knew this to be true then I wouldn't do it. My own personal experience and the experience of those that have had an "awakening" says that nothing anyone on the "other side" does has led to any changes in beliefs.

In the first place I believe we are on the same side and my post was addressed to you. Secondly I didn't see it either until somebody told me, somebody awake in the real sense. It might be nice to think one is at the end of the road instead of on the path, metaphorically speaking but in my opinion I'm an evolutionary nobody. The only advantage to that being, I know I don't know a lot of things including a lot of people think they do know.

 

[Moonbeam]

I do still blame the majority of voters because in a rational society Trump would have been laughed out of the general election even if one party was so irrational as to not laugh him out of their primary.

I would call that a completely irrational stance to take given that people are irrational for mechanical reasons. How can we blame ourselves for being irrational if we are asleep.

 

[kage69]

With Americans like republicans, who needs enemies?

Oaths of office don't mean anything to banana republicans, just like the Constitution. The only thing they respect and worship is money. A gutted ACA is going to produce suffering and probably deaths? Oh well. Probably Obama's fault.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

The dems received the majority of votes last year both for POTUS and for Congress. The main reason the dems didn't retake either house of Congress was that the GOP has rigged the system with gerrymandering. As for Trump, his election turned on a dime. Any of 10 factors going the other way could have flipped the result. I get that you're pissed at the outcome, but you certainly shouldn't blame the majority of voters in this country because the outcome didn't reflect their collective will.

Bullshit, in many ways the Democrats are at fault since they gerrymandered themselves into ultra safe seats, now you want to turn around and blame Republicans for the US Constitution and House seats the Democrats fucked up on their own.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/22/democrats-think-twice-seeking-end-gerrymandering/

 

[trenchfoot]

I could've used a baffle when I farted earlier.😱 The sound echoed off the walls with a tumultuous fervor.😀

Tell me about it. I squeezed out this weird sounding fart once that sent one of my dogs scurrying out of the room while the other one started growling at me as he backed his way out. I tried to grunt my way into coaxing outward another ripper like that but I was laughing really hard at the time and I also ran out of gas. I tried it again because I was curious what that mutt would do if I did that again but obviously, I just didn't have it in me. <----(embellished bloviating for effect) 😉

 

[woolfe9998]

Bullshit, in many ways the Democrats are at fault since they gerrymandered themselves into ultra safe seats, now you want to turn around and blame Republicans for the US Constitution and House seats the Democrats fucked up on their own.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/22/democrats-think-twice-seeking-end-gerrymandering/

There is no doubt that historically, both parties have engaged in partisan re-districting. It just so happens that the GOP is the main beneficiary of it right now, and your article actually doesn't argue otherwise. It only says that ending it may decrease the representation of African Americans in Congress even if it increases the total number of dem seats.

Either way, regardless of who is benefitting, the practice should be limited as much as possible by the courts.

 

[Moonbeam]

There is no doubt that historically, both parties have engaged in partisan re-districting. It just so happens that the GOP is the main beneficiary of it right now, and your article actually doesn't argue otherwise. It only says that ending it may decrease the representation of African Americans in Congress even if it increases the total number of dem seats.

Either way, regardless of who is benefitting, the practice should be limited as much as possible by the courts.

It should be limited by states as California did.

 

[Moonbeam]

Bullshit, in many ways the Democrats are at fault since they gerrymandered themselves into ultra safe seats, now you want to turn around and blame Republicans for the US Constitution and House seats the Democrats fucked up on their own.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/22/democrats-think-twice-seeking-end-gerrymandering/

This is that “moral values ok two evils making a right” thingi. In order to be consistently moral you have to me so even if it confers a disadvantage. The road down excusing wrong for wrong leads to the ability to excuse anything. You know this.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Tell me about it. I squeezed out this weird sounding fart once that sent one of my dogs scurrying out of the room while the other one started growling at me as he backed his way out. I tried to grunt my way into coaxing outward another ripper like that but I was laughing really hard at the time and I also ran out of gas. I tried it again because I was curious what that mutt would do if I did that again but obviously, I just didn't have it in me. <----(embellished bloviating for effect) 😉

I've not been brave enough to attempt these antics in front of a lit candle, however, I have watched various YouTube videos of people doing so that turned out badly.

 

[ivwshane]

Shitty law got passed, blame the shitty politicians that passed it.

I'll blame both the shitty politicians and the shitty people who voted for them.

 

[kage69]

There is no doubt that historically, both parties have engaged in partisan re-districting. It just so happens that the GOP is the main beneficiary of it right now, and your article actually doesn't argue otherwise. It only says that ending it may decrease the representation of African Americans in Congress even if it increases the total number of dem seats.

Either way, regardless of who is benefitting, the practice should be limited as much as possible by the courts.

Absolutely. I'm as against it in Maryland as I am in North Carolina.

Moon beat me to the California nod. Seems like a model the rest of the states should aim for.

How does it make all the these upright Sutherners feel I wonder, that their dirty Hollywood liberals are so much more in line with democracy and American ideals than they are? Quite the contrast. California does the right thing, even if it may not work out for the majority in the future. And then there is North Carolina, where they gerrymander heavily according to race and where the majority tried to neuter a governorship they just lost, in addition to other permanent power grabs.

The South reeks of white fear.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It should be limited by states as California did.

Of course.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/californias-no-republican-senate-race/article/2004578

California's No-Republican Senate Race
That way the Republicans won't even get a chance to VOTE for a Republican. It only sounds fair if you're a partisan Democrat.

 

[Indus]

Don't like it. Let the blue states secede.

 

[Jhhnn]

Bullshit, in many ways the Democrats are at fault since they gerrymandered themselves into ultra safe seats, now you want to turn around and blame Republicans for the US Constitution and House seats the Democrats fucked up on their own.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/22/democrats-think-twice-seeking-end-gerrymandering/

Your concerns are duly noted.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Your concerns are duly noted.

You are one of the partisans that laughed when the Republicans got screwed out of a choice on who they could vote for in their Senate race in California, that laughed because partisan Democrats fucked up the system so badly that Republicans lost all hope of a fair election. Don't expect an easy path to screwing over fair elections in the future.

 

[Jhhnn]

Of course.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/californias-no-republican-senate-race/article/2004578

California's No-Republican Senate Race
That way the Republicans won't even get a chance to VOTE for a Republican. It only sounds fair if you're a partisan Democrat.

They had their chance in the primary but split their votes among too many contenders. It's not like any of them set out to win, anyway, but rather to gain publicity, kinda like the Repub preisdential primary.

It doesn't have anything to do with the spiteful glee you've exhibited wrt the Trump Admin's spite, either. FYGM rules the conservative mind.

 

[Jhhnn]

You are one of the partisans that laughed when the Republicans got screwed out of a choice on who they could vote for in their Senate race in California, that laughed because partisan Democrats fucked up the system so badly that Republicans lost all hope of a fair election. Don't expect an easy path to screwing over fair elections in the future.

Quote me or it didn't happen.

 

[woolfe9998]

Of course.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/californias-no-republican-senate-race/article/2004578

California's No-Republican Senate Race
That way the Republicans won't even get a chance to VOTE for a Republican. It only sounds fair if you're a partisan Democrat.

Faux outrage at best. Do you actually believe that the person who got the third most votes in an open primary had any chance to win the general election? The republican candidate won only 8% of the vote in an open primary, while the two top dems got 60%. Get real.

In fact, it's exactly the same as the special election procedure they had in Georgia 6 that you guys won a few months back. A first round where everyone could run, then a second round for the top 2 vote getters. I think the only difference is that in the Georgia procedure, there wouldn't have been a second round had any candidate gotten 50% of the vote. Otherwise, it's exactly the same thing. In CA they just call the first round an "open primary" instead of calling it the first round of the election. A difference in terminology only.

 

[Jhhnn]

Faux outrage at best. Do you actually believe that the person who got the third most votes in an open primary had any chance to win the general election? The republican candidate won only 8% of the vote in an open primary, while the two top dems got 60%. Get real.

He's just duh-verting away from the topic at hand. The ACA is like everything else for Repubs- if they can't have it the way they want it, they'll just break it. It's akin to killing your ex because she divorced you.

 

[Moonbeam]

Of course.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/californias-no-republican-senate-race/article/2004578

California's No-Republican Senate Race
That way the Republicans won't even get a chance to VOTE for a Republican. It only sounds fair if you're a partisan Democrat.

This is about Prop 14, I,m talking about 2prop 11, 2008. A nd why should a party that can’t finish second be on tha ballot. How does that serve most voters. Your morality is again being affected by your political interests.

 

[woolfe9998]

I really believe it's the tax cuts they are after, not healthcare directly. They are just mercenaries, no? Collateral damage for a buck........?

That's what their rich donors want, but so far as GOP rank and file, the explanation is a lot simpler. Why would they oppose legislation which seems reasonably in line with their beliefs as stated by opinion polls? Because it was sponsored by a dem POTUS. Had this been backed by a republican POTUS, I have little to no doubt it would have been supported by the bulk of republican voters. This is the mentality of the age we live in. Issues simply don't matter as much as they should.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Faux outrage at best. Do you actually believe that the person who got the third most votes in an open primary had any chance to win the general election? The republican candidate won only 8% of the vote in an open primary, while the two top dems got 60%. Get real.

In fact, it's exactly the same as the special election procedure they had in Georgia 6 that you guys won a few months back. A first round where everyone could run, then a second round for the top 2 vote getters. I think the only difference is that in the Georgia procedure, there wouldn't have been a second round had any candidate gotten 50% of the vote. Otherwise, it's exactly the same thing. In CA they just call the first round an "open primary" instead of calling it the first round of the election. A difference in terminology only.

I'm laughing at the open hypocrisy that you only want to change the law to be "fair" when i'ts obvious you want to change the law so it tilts in your favor and excludes Republicans and conservatives.

 

[Moonbeam]

He's just duh-verting away from the topic at hand. The ACA is like everything else for Repubs- if they can't have it the way they want it, they'll just break it. It's akin to killing your ex because she divorced you.

But you have to be fucked up to behave like that and being fucked up is a sad thing with not the lease reason being that it makes you easily hated.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm laughing at the open hypocrisy that you only want to change the law to be "fair" when i'ts obvious you want to change the law so it tilts in your favor and excludes Republicans and conservatives.

Did the Repub candidates in CA not have the same chances as the Dems in the Primary?

What does that have to do with the ACA, anyway? Well, other than you feeling the need to divert & whine piteously about something, anything that might seem plausible to fellow delusionists...

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Did the Repub candidates in CA not have the same chances as the Dems in the Primary?

What does that have to do with the ACA, anyway? Well, other than you feeling the need to divert & whine piteously about something, anything that might seem plausible to fellow delusionists...

It shows beyond any doubt that this attempted manipulation of the Electoral College and House redistricting is just a typical and cynical way for the Democrats to capture political power.