What's new
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.

SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Status
Not open for further replies.
People like to ignore that fact. I served on the board of directors for a critical access hospital beginning a couple of years before ACA. A conservative bunch, and the seminars I attended nation wide were attended by conservative people--mostly trustees and management. The clear consensus was that change in health care delivery and insurance was coming, whether providers and insurers wanted it or not. Health care (and, consequently, insurance) expenses were increasing at a yearly rate that patents simply could not keep up with. Increasing numbers were without insurance, and more and more people were taking very high deductibles in order to afford what they did have. Out of country options for major surgery were giving our providers competition because of high costs (and the care was provided by Drs. educated in our best schools and in facilities that were well equipped). These discussions of change were among people who would have benefited financially from the status quo, but they knew change was not optional.

Republicans never lifted a finger to address this need on a national scale, choosing instead to either use scare tactics (death squads) or pretend the status quo was just fine. And for the 1%ers the party serves, it was.
Yup. It was proven that the ACA helped slow the rising costs. A lot of people choose to ignore that little fact.

And again, I don’t think the aca should have been the answer. It didn’t fix the actual issues
 
That’s why I said the GOP is lost forever. The intelligentsia should abandon them.

Atlantic has a good piece today. The derp base may not waver, but others may be.

“"Susan Collins's speech on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh convinced me that the Republican Party now exists for one reason, and one reason only: for the exercise of raw political power, and not even for ends I would otherwise applaud or even support."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/tom-nichols-why-im-leaving-republican-party/572419/
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Yup. It was proven that the ACA helped slow the rising costs. A lot of people choose to ignore that little fact.

And again, I don’t think the aca should have been the answer. It didn’t fix the actual issues

The ACA was the best Obama could get through with the Blue Dog Democrats. Who then ran away from him as fast as possible and got crushed in 2010 anyway.
 
The ACA was the best Obama could get through with the Blue Dog Democrats. Who then ran away from him as fast as possible and got crushed in 2010 anyway.

Agreed. It was better than doing nothing
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Turtle Boy in two interviews this morning clarified Garland.

When the President is one party, and the Senate is controlled by the other, you cannot nominate anyone until after the election. That's the thread he has needled. And he's obstinate about it. I'm not sure he's wrong that it hasn't happened since the late 1880's but it's probably because it is so rare that he found himself a nice loophole. I bet he did study the issue and I bet he's not lying about what he believes.

Dr. Ford, however, is lying about what she believes. Oh, something happened to her but it wasn't Kavanaugh who did it.

bsabsvr.

Wait so if the election also results in a split POTUS/Senate, you still can't nominate anyone? So we will just never fill seats in that case? (Honest question I didn't see the interview.)
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Wait so if the election also results in a split POTUS/Senate, you still can't nominate anyone? So we will just never fill seats in that case? (Honest question I didn't see the interview.)

Has to be an election year for the stall to start.
 
The party has said this for like forty years and we ended up with Trump, the SC, and all houses turning red. Sorry but this isn't the 90's anymore.

Manchin is what we can get in WV. I’d rather have him than any republican.

We ended up with Trump because too many idiots had a fit because they didn’t like Hillary.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Yup. It was proven that the ACA helped slow the rising costs. A lot of people choose to ignore that little fact.

And again, I don’t think the aca should have been the answer. It didn’t fix the actual issues

The ACA caused the prices to skyrocket. Because they recognized it was now artificially inelastic.
 
Wait so if the election also results in a split POTUS/Senate, you still can't nominate anyone? So we will just never fill seats in that case? (Honest question I didn't see the interview.)

I’m not sure anyone will ever get confirmed again if the senate is not controlled by the same party as the whitehouse.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Manchin is what we can get in WV. I’d rather have him than any republican.

We ended up with Trump because too many idiots had a fit because they didn’t like Hillary.
Yeah and her voter enthusiasm had nothing to do with her policies or past actions as a politician.

As for Manchin when your only choice is him or expansion of the opioid crisis (Morrissey) then yeah of course you should vote for him in the general. But in the primary the party might want to consider funding and running someone who isn't a republican with a D next to their name.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

You just don’t get it. This isn’t New York City where that might work. The only reason we have a Democrat there who votes with us 60% of the time is because those dumb hicks are too stupid to realize the Democrats aren’t the racists anymore.

Manchin goes away and you get Utah.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

Ok Brent tell us what’s wrong with the Democrats. Enlighten us.

I'll help you out with this one. Democrats haven't consistently figured out how to get elected. When you figure that out, "problems" like Kavanaugh become meaningless. The Supreme Court only gets involved when issues are presented to it. Here's an idea. How about you figure out how to stop Congress and state legislatures from passing laws that fark people. When you do that, the Supremes won't have anything to decide.

I'll give you a hint about how to do that.

Get elected.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

I'll help you out with this one. Democrats haven't consistently figured out how to get elected. When you figure that out, "problems" like Kavanaugh become meaningless. The Supreme Court only gets involved when issues are presented to it. Here's an idea. How about you figure out how to stop Congress and state legislatures from passing laws that fark people. When you do that, the Supremes won't have anything to decide.

I'll give you a hint about how to do that.

Get elected.

Pretty tough. The default backup position of the voter class is bsabsvr. It's never bsadsvd. If it were, Hillary and Gore would have been President.
 
Re: SCOTUS 14: Confirming a Rabid Partisan to Own the Libs

I'll help you out with this one. Democrats haven't consistently figured out how to get elected. When you figure that out, "problems" like Kavanaugh become meaningless. The Supreme Court only gets involved when issues are presented to it. Here's an idea. How about you figure out how to stop Congress and state legislatures from passing laws that fark people. When you do that, the Supremes won't have anything to decide.

I'll give you a hint about how to do that.

Get elected.

That didn’t really answer the question. The question is where are Democrats wrong, not what are the doing wrong.

Brent is saying both sides are bad; I’ll leave out the last half. I want to know what’s bad. The Democrats losing these elections makes them incompetent, not bad.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top