|
Fried Chicken posted:If bush wins I'm going to end up in a rubber room drawing with crayons held between my toes, coo-ing softly to myself. I will be drawing pictures of a happy world, one where people are able to learn from their god damned mistakes. Are you saying the third time isn't the charm?
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 17:54 |
|
|
Lemming posted:no pre existing conditions, and no lifetime maximums. These aren't going anywhere no matter what happens, and there is zero chance the Republican hold the Senate in the 2016 elections if they are the majority following this fall's elections. Also PPACA itself isn't going away. It may be tweaked and improved, but that's it. "Obamacare" is a pretty misleading label. It's a conservative think-tank idea through and through. When Obama is no longer POTUS, very few are going to spend their time decrying it. Republicans aren't going to reverse course and stop funneling barrels of cash to insurance corporations if they get power, and they don't need the "OBAMACARE" rallying cry anymore if they take power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Now, I hope you understand that I'm saying this as a gun owning democrat (that loves the poo poo out of trap shooting), but really shut the gently caress up about the god drat second amendment. I'm sorry but clearly this hunk of metal that propels smaller hunks of metal at high speed is more important than economic prosperity or sane government in general 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Eh, Christie's just one of about twenty or thirty up-and-coming Republican pseudostars who have managed to poo poo their own beds one way or another, ranging from Sanford to Rubio to Cruz to Cain. Out of all those only Christie was a potential establishment pick for 2016, and therefore actually stood a chance at becoming president. Which was my point- Jeb's Plan B because the one guy they'd pinned their hopes on done hosed up. e: If you really want a hearty laugh and/or develop an ulcer guess who else they're floating? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/05/romney-returns-to-public-life-stoke-speculation-about-potential-2016-run/ Alec Bald Snatch fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Apr 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:These aren't going anywhere no matter what happens, and there is zero chance the Republican hold the Senate in the 2016 elections if they are the majority following this fall's elections. Those same thoughtful Republicans that shut down our government and got our credit rating downgraded because...(?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:
What if it turns out he is now or later becomes a convicted felon and his guns have to legally be taken?  I hope this doesn't mean you get banned because you're a good poster in my book.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 20:43
|
|
No one is going to take your loving guns while Hillary is in office if she wins in 2016.
|
Zenzirouj posted:That's really pretty unlikely. Dismantling the ACA at this point would be a massive undertaking, since all the funding and programs are already in place. It'd be way, way harder than passing it in the first place, even if they had near-complete control of all the branches. I'm not saying it wouldn't happen, but it would be really unpopular and would require dozens of individual bills, at the very least. Something that big gets entrenched almost immediately, which was why they put so much effort into blocking it in the first place. No, it would be difficult to repeal it responsibly. Just taking an axe to it, ignoring the fallout and chaos and letting the chips fall where they may is easy. You are quite right that if they want to unwind it to restore the status quo it would be incredibly difficult. Ending it and saying "suck it up" is easy
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:If bush wins I'm going to end up in a rubber room drawing with crayons held between my toes, coo-ing softly to myself. I will be drawing pictures of a happy world, one where people are able to learn from their god damned mistakes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
Maybe they'll make some minor changes to the ACA that actually improve it in some way, and then claim that while it was broken Demoncrap LIEberal garbage before the Republicans have swooped in to save the day and now it's basically a Republican plan like has been since the very beginning, which they totally never denied. That is probably exactly what they'll do if they win. Also speaking of guns, do you guys remember the howling about how gun rights were vanishing on like day 1 of Obama taking office, even though he didn't even really talk about guns for a very long time? Also, on a Federal level, what are some of the gun control measures that have been put in place since the last few massacres?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:What if it turns out he is now or later becomes a convicted felon and his guns have to legally be taken? I just added the felony clause. But yeah, unless you want to own military grade weaponry like fully automatic rifles or explosives or something you're 100% free from getting really restrictive gun laws passed where you live because the NRA will stop at nothing to keep the gun manufacturers making money... provided like 1000 kids do get shot up in a school on a single day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:These aren't going anywhere no matter what happens, and there is zero chance the Republican hold the Senate in the 2016 elections if they are the majority following this fall's elections. I disagree; "banning obamacare" has its own logic and internal momentum now and will continue to be a Republican rallying cry regardless of who holds the white house. It's the Republican substitute for a sane health care policy, and health care is a big enough national issue that Republicans have to have some stated policy. "Repeal and Replace" is that statement and will continue to be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Zenzirouj posted:That's really pretty unlikely. Dismantling the ACA at this point would be a massive undertaking, since all the funding and programs are already in place. It'd be way, way harder than passing it in the first place, even if they had near-complete control of all the branches. I'm not saying it wouldn't happen, but it would be really unpopular and would require dozens of individual bills, at the very least. Something that big gets entrenched almost immediately, which was why they put so much effort into blocking it in the first place. Anything that can be done with one bill can also be undone relatively simply as well. Yes, states have passed laws, money has been allocated for the budget, but turn off the money spigot and most of the bill will wither and die. Without the subsidies coverage is not affordable in the least. It would be really unpopular politically, but that didn't stop Republicans from making an attempt to kill Social Security in '06, and Obamacare's a lot more demonized than Social Security. It would also cause a lot of the "lose-your-plan" type turmoil Republicans have spent the last year decrying, but Republicans don't give a poo poo about intellectual consistency.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Mineaiki posted:Maybe they'll make some minor changes to the ACA that actually improve it in some way, and then claim that while it was broken Demoncrap LIEberal garbage before the Republicans have swooped in to save the day and now it's basically a Republican plan like has been since the very beginning, which they totally never denied. That is probably exactly what they'll do if they win.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:These aren't going anywhere no matter what happens, and there is zero chance the Republican hold the Senate in the 2016 elections if they are the majority following this fall's elections. I wish I could be as optimistic as you are. I can totally envision a scenario where such complete control is used to repeal all these horrible market-destroying features of the ACA that are making insurance worse for the common man while leaving in all the stuff that gives invisible-hand jobs to insurance companies. I can very easily imagine the Fox News talking points memos that would be distributed to the entire GOP machine to make this happen. It might actually end up with a point or two drop in popularity for a week while everyone catches a good, deep dicking on their 'market approved' insurance but one good tragedy splashed on the media for a week or so and everyone will go back to thinking it's their fault they are in such a lovely situation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:the NRA will stop at nothing to keep the gun manufacturers making money
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:They have had multiple chances to do that and haven't been able to. Cantor had a plan back in 12 that would have rolled over all the rollout money into high risk pools, crippling the law and making the GOP look like good guys for increasing funding for spinal bifida and the like, and he still couldn't get it through the house. There is no appetite for anything but complete rejection of anything and everything Obama has done. I'm talking about if they get a Republican in the White House, because if they did that now it'd still be an Obama action. The biggest reason to block/repeal/whine about the PPACA is that it makes Obama look somewhat competent, and even good to some people. If they could have destroyed it early, Obama would be remembered as a worthless president forever. That's also why they want to cripple it, and why they pushed so hard to do so just before some of its beneficial effects were going to roll out early on. It's not just that they don't like the law by itself, it's that they need to it to fail so it will be remembered for all of history as a terrible idea by a terrible Democrat. If they get into office it's different. Slight improvements can be sold as much-needed repairs to a lovely Democrat agenda piece, and then the Republicans can bring healthcare to their ignorant, poor constituency while also showing the Democrats to be incompetent. They can already claim that they came up with the idea and the Democrats just ruined it with "fiscal irresponsibility" and "big government." I can hear the loving soundbites already. The biggest problem then would be the True Believers, who are already giving them hell, and who wouldn't get that their "principles" (lol) need to be subordinate to the success of the party, and would make noise to their idiot constituency about Washington Insiders.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Anything that can be done with one bill can also be undone relatively simply as well. Yes, states have passed laws, money has been allocated for the budget, but turn off the money spigot and most of the bill will wither and die. Without the subsidies coverage is not affordable in the least. The narrative would become "we're working on repealing Obamacare but it's so complicated we have to keep working at it,' and they'd just keep hacking away at health care generally, using "repeal Obamacare" as a mantra to justify all changes and cuts. Any problems would be blamed on 'lingering effects of Obamacare" and used to justify further cuts. It would be the inverse of "conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed" -- "Repealing Obamacare" cannot ever be completed, it can only be pursued, and problems with that repeal process would only justify further more drastic cuts. Keep in mind this is the party that wants to functionally eliminate Medicaid and Medicare.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
I suppose I am still persisting in attempting to apply logical motivations to the actions of republicans, but I like to think that in this specific case, the money pouring into their coffers from private insurance companies will lead them to turn off the crocodile tears as soon as they have somebody in the oval office.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Now, I hope you understand that I'm saying this as a gun owning democrat (that loves the poo poo out of trap shooting), but really shut the gently caress up about the god drat second amendment. It's important for you, Democrats and Tom Tomorrow to understand that me not being able to buy an AK in the parking lot of Denny's is the same as "taking my guns." And we were positive Obama wouldn't say boo about it, or I was at least, and I was wrong, he jumped onto that third rail for a minute. So I'll never put it past a Democrat to sabotage themselves in this way again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Ted Cruz and Chuck Schumer found something they agree on and a bill to ban Iran's UN ambassador from entering the US will get a floor vote tonight. The wonders of bipartisanship never cease.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The narrative would become "we're working on repealing Obamacare but it's so complicated we have to keep working at it,' and they'd just keep hacking away at health care generally, using "repeal Obamacare" as a mantra to justify all changes and cuts. Any problems would be blamed on 'lingering effects of Obamacare" and used to justify further cuts. It would be the inverse of "conservatism cannot fail, it can only be failed" -- "Repealing Obamacare" cannot ever be completed, it can only be pursued, and problems with that repeal process would only justify further more drastic cuts. The problem there is that the threats the Republicans face at this point aren't Democrats for the senate and house, it's the Tea Party. They hosed up and created a monster and anyone saying anything but "repeal obamacare" you can guarantee is going to get primaried by a Tea Partier who's going to call them every variant of RINO that exists, and it'll work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Lemming posted:The problem there is that the threats the Republicans face at this point aren't Democrats for the senate and house, it's the Tea Party. They hosed up and created a monster and anyone saying anything but "repeal obamacare" you can guarantee is going to get primaried by a Tea Partier who's going to call them every variant of RINO that exists, and it'll work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
I wonder if that's even possible. I mean yeah, there's US territory between the airport and the UN building, but aren't there safeguards against poo poo like this being played?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
TheOneAndOnlyT posted:Except Hieronymous Alloy's scenario presumes a legislature and presidency controlled by the Republicans. There's no doubt that the less-crazy Republicans will make all kinds of noises about repealing Obamacare on the campaign trail, but if they actually manage to get elected and take full control of the government, there's no way they're going to repeal the whole thing outright. For starters, it would deprive the insurance companies of all that sweet handout money Obamacare gave them. My working presumption is that they'll instantly repeal all the consumer protections under the guise of "repealing Obamacare" and then each time someone makes noise about repealing the handout money and insurance industry payoffs, they'll respond by repealing or privatizing some part of Medicare or Medicaid, all under the guise of "Repealing Obamacare." The argument will be that "Obamacare" has tainted and insinuated itself into Medicare and Medicaid and the only way to "repeal Obamacare" is to burn down the whole works.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:My working presumption is that they'll instantly repeal all the consumer protections under the guise of "repealing Obamacare" and then each time someone makes noise about repealing the handout money and insurance industry payoffs, they'll respond by repealing or privatizing some part of Medicare or Medicaid, all under the guise of "Repealing Obamacare." Ah, fair enough. You're saying that in addition to every problem being caused by too much government/too much regulation/too much taxes, it'll also be caused by too much Obamacare, even after repealing most of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Ah, fair enough. You're saying that in addition to every problem being caused by too much government/too much regulation/too much taxes, it'll also be caused by too much Obamacare, even after repealing most of it. Right. It'll be a general one-word Republican response to any conceivable health care issue. Much like cutting taxes is always the answer to any fiscal problem, repealing Obamacare will always be the answer to any health care issue, up to and including the point when all taxes of any kind are abolished and both Medicare and Medicaid are eliminated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:If bush wins I'm going to end up in a rubber room drawing with crayons held between my toes, coo-ing softly to myself. I will be drawing pictures of a happy world, one where people are able to learn from their god damned mistakes. Is there room for two in that rubber room?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Would Democrats even lose votes if they came out and said "We don't give a gently caress about your guns"? Because I'm pretty sure there's no combination of Dems you could elect that would result in any substantial restrictions on gun ownership. Why not just say it out loud and pick up some idiot single-issue votes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Ted Cruz and Chuck Schumer found something they agree on and a bill to ban Iran's UN ambassador from entering the US will get a floor vote tonight. Doesn't that effectively ban Iran from the UN, or would they just appoint a new ambassador?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:These aren't going anywhere no matter what happens, and there is zero chance the Republican hold the Senate in the 2016 elections if they are the majority following this fall's elections. The GOP has run on turning Medicare into a voucher system and they tried privatizing social security. Nothing is safe at this point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Zombie Samurai posted:Would Democrats even lose votes if they came out and said "We don't give a gently caress about your guns"? Because I'm pretty sure there's no combination of Dems you could elect that would result in any substantial restrictions on gun ownership. Why not just say it out loud and pick up some idiot single-issue votes? I've always wondered if the supporters of increased gun control wouldn't be better served by using reverse psychology to get what it wants. Start loudly advocating for minorities and the poor to arm themselves for their own protection, and a signifigant chunk of the conservative gun crowd would be crying for controls.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I've always wondered if the supporters of increased gun control wouldn't be better served by using reverse psychology to get what it wants. Start loudly advocating for minorities and the poor to arm themselves for their own protection, and a signifigant chunk of the conservative gun crowd would be crying for controls. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsY_XXCg3bk
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Zombie Samurai posted:Would Democrats even lose votes if they came out and said "We don't give a gently caress about your guns"? Because I'm pretty sure there's no combination of Dems you could elect that would result in any substantial restrictions on gun ownership. Why not just say it out loud and pick up some idiot single-issue votes? Because you can fundraise on it. Not as much as you can fundraise on oooga-booga about gun-grabbers, but there is a bump in visibility and money for the first out the gate with a 'Protect Our Children From The Gun Loophole' legislation when we have the annual spree shooting. Claiming to be an avid sportsman isn't going to get you any money out of the dog whistle urban ferals self protection crew.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
This is fantastic. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:Ugh these freaking people are impossible to reason with. Thanks to Herring winning, Virigina is no longer defending its same-sex marriage ban, and said ban was struck down shortly after, with a stay pending appeal. (No Utah moment, unfortunately, they wised up after that happened.) I'm not being sarcastic when I say this, please join the Democratic party and vote however you want on the Presidency and gun issues; it's the down-ticket races that are really important, not just the second round of Clinton v Bush. Voting for 70% Democratic/30% Republican is a hell of a lot better than voting 100% Republican. fade5 fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Apr 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I've always wondered if the supporters of increased gun control wouldn't be better served by using reverse psychology to get what it wants. Start loudly advocating for minorities and the poor to arm themselves for their own protection, and a signifigant chunk of the conservative gun crowd would be crying for controls. FYI California's law against carrying loaded guns in public was signed into law by Saint Reagan himself among scenes like this: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:These aren't going anywhere no matter what happens, and there is zero chance the Republican hold the Senate in the 2016 elections if they are the majority following this fall's elections. They're going to repeal the tax penalty for the mandate (that might never be enforced anyway) thus removing the stain of "Obamacare" and government forced healthcare and package it with a bunch of pro-insurance company garbage and tort reform then declare healthcare fixed and America free.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I wonder if that's even possible. I mean yeah, there's US territory between the airport and the UN building, but aren't there safeguards against poo poo like this being played? I'm sure the good old Palace of Nations in Geneva can clear their schedule if the UN needs to meet somewhere without host country politicos scoring brownie points by interfering with them. Edit: Apparently this has already happened at least once, in 1988, when the US refused to admit Yasser Arafat into the country. The General Assembly met in Geneva instead. (source) Sulphagnist fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Apr 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
So Vance McAllister, congressman from Lousiana's 5th district who won on a platform of "faith, family, and country" was found on video making out with one of his staffers(who is not his wife). I love how the video feed shows him cutting the lights, then making out with her in the dark. Apparently he doesn't understand how his own office's security cameras work. He released this statement after the leak broke: quote:"There's no doubt I've fallen short and I'm asking for forgiveness. I'm asking for forgiveness from God, my wife, my kids, my staff, and my constituents who elected me to serve. http://www.hannapub.com/video_d3fe87f8-be59-11e3-bf97-0017a43b2370.html EDIT: note, this was the same guy who was endorsed by Duck Dynasty. esto es malo fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Apr 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 17:54 |
|
|
Hell, "Black Panthers" remains a boogeyman for rightwing racists to this day. Why? Because they are terrified of an educated and armed black man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 22:39
|
|