The PPACA Thread Part VI: Tax Cuts Are More Important Than Your Health Care!

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part VI: Tax Cuts Are More Important Than Your Health Care!

Soooo....you want a situation where Ryan-Itch-Chump have even less roadblocks on implementing their agenda that they do already?


Okay then!

Yeah, I think he's insane. And the ping pong effect on law would be sickening after a while.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part VI: Tax Cuts Are More Important Than Your Health Care!

Soooo....you want a situation where Ryan-Itch-Chump have even less roadblocks on implementing their agenda that they do already?


Okay then!

We've talked about this many times before. Under the current system the right is able to push through radical policies while the left must nibble.

If you can figure out how to deny the right an opportunity to use major dislocations like wars to ram their agenda down our throats I would prefer that (after one big jump to the left to re-center American politics back to about 1975).

I do take the criticism of the ping pong effect to heart. It's not optimal. But it sure beats the last fifty year of "2 steps forward, 6 steps back."

 

[Kepler]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part VI: Tax Cuts Are More Important Than Your Health Care!

Yeah, I think he's insane. And the ping pong effect on law would be sickening after a while.

I think this is a legitimate fear, though it might also force legislators to legislate compromises, and more importantly not to train their followers to be rabid animals.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part VI: Tax Cuts Are More Important Than Your Health Care!

If you don't have the votes, you can't include something. Why trix doesn't understand that is sorta beyond me. Should Obama have threated Lieberman with jail time?

He was pretty wishy washy about the public option to begin with though and could've definitely made a better effort to keep it.

https://thinkprogress.org/flashback...-push-for-it-in-the-final-hours-380cbf31b6e0/

 

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part VI: Tax Cuts Are More Important Than Your Health Care!

We've talked about this many times before. Under the current system the right is able to push through radical policies while the left must nibble.

If you can figure out how to deny the right an opportunity to use major dislocations like wars to ram their agenda down our throats I would prefer that (after one big jump to the left to re-center American politics back to about 1975).

I do take the criticism of the ping pong effect to heart. It's not optimal. But it sure beats the last fifty year of "2 steps forward, 6 steps back."

Kep, while I won't deny I enjoy having fun at your expense on occasion I do understand your advocacy for drastic action in the face of what you perceive to be a decline in progressive government over the last 40? years. However for me, and maybe Scoobs, the solution is simpler and less radical. Voters need to stop taking it in the shorts with a smile on their face. Or not and I have no sympathy for them while they suffer the consequences. You admirably want to save people who can't be bothered to save themselves as they keep voting Republican over nonsensical issues. I don't. Maybe I'll join you if their idiotic policies start affecting me but for right now the people getting d!cked are the people who worship Chump and his peeps. I don't have a problem with that.

 

[bronconick]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part VI: Tax Cuts Are More Important Than Your Health Care!

I think this is a legitimate fear, though it might also force legislators to legislate compromises, and more importantly not to train their followers to be rabid animals.

That's an incredibly naive opinion given that AM radio has been around for decades and the internet now exists.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part VI: Tax Cuts Are More Important Than Your Health Care!

That's an incredibly naive opinion given that AM radio has been around for decades and the internet now exists.

I'll admit I haven't entirely convinced myself.

Still, though, the states are vestigial and a pure national system where the states essentially cease to exist is in my opinion a better way to run a modern state. At least ditch the Senate and the ridiculous EC.

 

[joecct]

I'll admit I haven't entirely convinced myself.

Still, though, the states are vestigial and a pure national system where the states essentially cease to exist is in my opinion a better way to run a modern state. At least ditch the Senate and the ridiculous EC.

If the States go, what do you call this country? Federated Republic of North America? Democratic Peoples Republic of North America? New France?

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part VI: Tax Cuts Are More Important Than Your Health Care!

So what happened to all those nice Lutherans? Did they suddenly just get stupid? Did black people move in and give them the a-scurreds?

Seriously, I thought both those states were supposed to be smart, and they had much less of a fundy derp problem than the prairies. The f-ck?

"Minnesota Nice" is fallacy.

There have been books written showing as much.
http://www.startribune.com/review-a...-minnesota-edited-by-sun-yung-shin/374045241/

They're "Minnesota nice" as long as you conform.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part VI: Tax Cuts Are More Important Than Your Health Care!

I'll admit I haven't entirely convinced myself.

Still, though, the states are vestigial and a pure national system where the states essentially cease to exist is in my opinion a better way to run a modern state. At least ditch the Senate and the ridiculous EC.

I believe there's a supreme court case IRT the whole winner takes all approach that states have (might be the same case as the gerrymandering one, not sure).

 

[unofan]

I believe there's a supreme court case IRT the whole winner takes all approach that states have (might be the same case as the gerrymandering one, not sure).

If there is, that's an easy one. States can apportion their EVs however they want. They could draw lots, if they wanted to. Constitution is pretty clear on that point.

 

[trixR4kids]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part VI: Tax Cuts Are More Important Than Your Health Care!

Yeah they can obviously but it doesn't make sense to do it that way when every other state is doing winner take all. Especially when those states are gerrymandered to the core and your vote is basically being thrown away every time due to which state you live in.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part VI: Tax Cuts Are More Important Than Your Health Care!

They could draw lots, if they wanted to.

Well... it has to fit the "republican" standard. I think the Court would insist the state's EV be apportioned at least remotely defensible as the popular will.

 

[unofan]

Well... it has to fit the "republican" standard. I think the Court would insist the state's EV be apportioned at least remotely defensible as the popular will.

Article II, Section 1: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..."

The "Republican" form of government applies to the makeup of the state government. It doesn't apply to the choosing of electors for the electoral college.

This is also how the national popular vote compact works at the constitutional level. Because the states can apportion their EVs however the Legislature thereof chooses.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part VI: Tax Cuts Are More Important Than Your Health Care!

The "Republican" form of government applies to the makeup of the state government. It doesn't apply to the choosing of electors for the electoral college.

So you're telling me Texas can pass a law giving all its electoral votes in perpetuity to the Republican Party?

 

[unofan]

So you're telling me Texas can pass a law giving all its electoral votes in perpetuity to the Republican Party?

Well, it's a method of choosing electors, not the votes themselves directly, but yeah, they could probably find a way to rig it that way if they wanted to.

In theory, they'd then get voted out the following election and the law would be changed, but there's nothing constitutionally prohibiting them from doing that.

 

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part VI: Tax Cuts Are More Important Than Your Health Care!

Well, it's a method of choosing electors, not the votes themselves directly, but yeah, they could probably find a way to rig it that way if they wanted to.

In theory, they'd then get voted out the following election and the law would be changed, but there's nothing constitutionally prohibiting them from doing that.

I can't see that getting past any voter disenfranchisement laws and statutes.

 

[unofan]

I can't see that getting past any voter disenfranchisement laws and statutes.

The Constitution trumps all, and it explicitly gives states the right to appoint electors in the manner directed by the legislature.

No law or statute can trump the Constitution.

Again, this is how the National Popular Vote Compact is constitutional (or would be, if enough states signed on to it).

 

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part VI: Tax Cuts Are More Important Than Your Health Care!

The Constitution trumps all, and it explicitly gives states the right to appoint electors in the manner directed by the legislature.

No law or statute can trump the Constitution.

Again, this is how the National Popular Vote Compact is constitutional (or would be, if enough states signed on to it).

In the real world, I can't see Kennedy + the 4 Libs seeing it that way. Hell, they might even have trouble with Roberts and Thomas.

National Voter Compact hasn't gone to court yet I don't believe, and besides that has a rational basis (whoever wins the popular vote nationally) that's not purely partisan.

 

[unofan]

In the real world, I can't see Kennedy + the 4 Libs seeing it that way. Hell, they might even have trouble with Roberts and Thomas.

National Voter Compact hasn't gone to court yet I don't believe, and besides that has a rational basis (whoever wins the popular vote nationally) that's not purely partisan.

And I'm saying you don't need to be Scalia or Gorsuch and attempt to divine the founders original intent to read it as I do. You just have to read it as written in plain English.

I think you'd be surprised how much of a landslide it'd be. A clearly written, explicit Constitutional directive is one of the easiest calls for any judge to make. You'd have to really stretch the 14th Amendment to even have a cognizable argument the other way.