What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2018 Midterms 2: I Need A Drink!

Re: 2018 Midterms 2: I Need A Drink!

Handyman said:
Interesting. I guess I dont get how that violated the Civil Rights Act but I also dont get why the ballots were rejected if the identities could be confirmed by other means.

While I dont think Abrams is going to catch Kemp (though she has cut into the lead) this could flip the GA-7 which is super close.
Click to expand...

She doesn't need to catch Kemp, she just needs to knock him below 50% so there'd be a runoff.
 
Re: 2018 Midterms 2: I Need A Drink!

Handyman said:
Interesting. I guess I dont get how that violated the Civil Rights Act but I also dont get why the ballots were rejected if the identities could be confirmed by other means.

While I dont think Abrams is going to catch Kemp (though she has cut into the lead) this could flip the GA-7 which is super close.
Click to expand...

either voting is a civil right.
or white folks (as well as every other race and creed) is now covered.
 
unofan said:
She doesn't need to catch Kemp, she just needs to knock him below 50% so there'd be a runoff.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know and that is what I am talking about. She needs to cut about 17k to force a runoff. That is going to be very hard with the amount of votes left.
 
Re: 2018 Midterms 2: I Need A Drink!

Handyman said:
Another California GOPer lost in the House as Harder beat Denham. Two more seats are projected to flip to the Dems as well. California GOP seems to be blaming Trump :eek:
Click to expand...

Given that the tax cut was designed to **** blue states...
 
Re: 2018 Midterms 2: I Need A Drink!

Still very sad to me how many people will continue to vote for blatant outright racism and against their economic interests at the same time. Seems that combination should have killed off much larger chunks of Red in the country.
 
Re: 2018 Midterms 2: I Need A Drink!

Handyman said:
Another California GOPer lost in the House as Harder beat Denham. Two more seats are projected to flip to the Dems as well. California GOP seems to be blaming Trump :eek:
Click to expand...

Its likely that the GOP is down to 8 House seats in CA out of 53! I'd also say that one or two others are on borrowed time. A 45/8 advantage is huge. By comparison, Texas I believe will be 23/13 for the GOP once the new Congress is sworn in and one of those Goopers (Hurd) barely hung on this time.
 
Re: 2018 Midterms 2: I Need A Drink!

ScoobyDoo said:
Still very sad to me how many people will continue to vote for blatant outright racism and against their economic interests at the same time. Seems that combination should have killed off much larger chunks of Red in the country.
Click to expand...

how special for you that you know what everyone's economic interest is :D
 
Re: 2018 Midterms 2: I Need A Drink!

Rover said:
Its likely that the GOP is down to 8 House seats in CA out of 53! I'd also say that one or two others are on borrowed time. A 45/8 advantage is huge..
Click to expand...

exactly why popular vote elections for pres will never come to be!!!
 
Re: 2018 Midterms 2: I Need A Drink!

Rover said:
Its likely that the GOP is down to 8 House seats in CA out of 53! I'd also say that one or two others are on borrowed time. A 45/8 advantage is huge. By comparison, Texas I believe will be 23/13 for the GOP once the new Congress is sworn in and one of those Goopers (Hurd) barely hung on this time.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Nunes is dead next time around.
 
Re: 2018 Midterms 2: I Need A Drink!

ScoobyDoo said:
So context isn't important? No context, no discussion.
Click to expand...

context is you implied everyone who doesn't support your political choices is going against their economic benefit.

mookie asked if is was burdensome for you to carry around that knowledge.

trixie implied that lost benefit included 99% of the population.

mookie countered with his implication that no single person had their premiums increase with 0-care.

then you came and changed the field.
why would anyone (increase or decrease notwithstanding) who declared bk for health bills matter to the xx% of the population who had their premiums increase. paying more wouldn't benefit them economically. not in the least. it may (did) benefit others as the risk was spread, but not to them. they had insurance to cover their risk. that cost increase to no added benefit to them.

ergo, you were wrong (even with the special skill to know everyone's economic benefit :), even if they don't )
 
Re: 2018 Midterms 2: I Need A Drink!

mookie1995 said:
context is you implied everyone who doesn't support your political choices is going against their economic benefit.

mookie asked if is was burdensome for you to carry around that knowledge.

trixie implied that lost benefit included 99% of the population.

mookie countered with his implication that no single person had their premiums increase with 0-care.

then you came and changed the field.
why would anyone (increase or decrease notwithstanding) who declared bk for health bills matter to the xx% of the population who had their premiums increase. paying more wouldn't benefit them economically. not in the least. it may (did) benefit others as the risk was spread, but not to them. they had insurance to cover their risk. that cost increase to no added benefit to them.

ergo, you were wrong (even with the special skill to know everyone's economic benefit :), even if they don't )
Click to expand...

You realize that Health Care costs were going up for everyone before Obamacare, right? Obamacare may have increased the increases but they were already there. And you also realize that the Republicans answer to that problem is to just go back to the way things were before Obamcare.

Case in point. You can save a lot of money by buying a **** insurance plan. But, you're gambling. And once you get sick and the insurance doesn't cover it you're ****ed. So, Obamacare made everyone buy good plans that covered them. That automatically increased prices. What Obamacare did not do is it didn't increase the inflation that already existed which is what Republicans and you here are trying to do.

Again. Context.
 
Re: 2018 Midterms 2: I Need A Drink!

mookie1995 said:
nostratrixie :p or do you have evidence (the scooby card :) )
Click to expand...
The burden of proof is on you here to support the claim that health care premiums wouldn't have kept rising as they were before Obamacare.

Scooby went into more detail above but the other thing to consider is if people don't have insurance or have a terrible plan with a lesser premium and wind up in medical bankruptcy, the taxpayer ends up paying for that anyhow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top