rolling back of such social gains as have been made the past twenty-five years Really? name a few

Post #409,846 by boxley 5/5/16 5:26:27 PM 5/5/16 5:26:27 PM Reply	rolling back of such social gains as have been made the past twenty-five years Really? name a few obama vs shrub The current prez has spent more, killed more americans sans juidiciary, destroyed libya in the name of hubris and is still getting american soldiers shot in battle 12 years later (although not to the high body counts of shrub) spied more, ah hell why bother, he is still the lesser evil. Give greater evil a chance already can't fuck it up any worse than the dems already have. Look at the bright side, if trump wins you get the senate and the house back during the midterms. As for me I am out of it. The greasy rat is gone, and he WAS the greater evil. always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #409,851 by Another Scott 5/5/16 5:41:03 PM 5/5/16 5:41:03 PM Reply	Re: rolling back of such social gains as have been made the past twenty-five years Really? name a fe spent more - What does that mean? W fought a war off-budget. Obama put it on the budget. And how is "spending more" not a social gain? The US federal government doesn't spend enough. killed more americans sans judiciary - What does that mean? Are you referring to al Awlaki and so forth? There was a court process. You may not like the outcome, but the courts were involved. destroyed Libya - Libya was a complicated mess. France and the UK did most of the breaking there. From the beginning of the intervention, the initial coalition of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, UK and US[27][28][29][30][31] expanded to nineteen states, with newer states mostly enforcing the no-fly zone and naval blockade or providing military logistical assistance. The effort was initially largely led by France and the United Kingdom, with command shared with the United States. NATO took control of the arms embargo on 23 March, named Operation Unified Protector. An attempt to unify the military command of the air campaign (whilst keeping political and strategic control with a small group), first failed over objections by the French, German, and Turkish governments.[32][33] On 24 March, NATO agreed to take control of the no-fly zone, while command of targeting ground units remains with coalition forces.[34][35][36] The handover occurred on 31 March 2011 at 06:00 UTC (08:00 local time). NATO flew 26,500 sorties since it took charge of the Libya mission on 31 March 2011. Fighting in Libya ended in late October following the death of Muammar Gaddafi, and NATO stated it would end operations over Libya on 31 October 2011. Libya's new government requested that its mission be extended to the end of the year,[37] but on 27 October, the Security Council voted to end NATO's mandate for military action on 31 October.[38] and is still getting american soldiers shot in battle 12 years later - Yeah, funny how invading a country isn't as neat and clean and easy to exit as it used to be. :-/ And it's funny how so many who oppose Obama do so from the perspective that he needs to have more Americans over there. As for me I am out of it. The greasy rat is gone, and he WAS the greater evil. - I'd be interested in hearing your reasons why you think Cruz would be worse than Trump. Cheers, Scott.
Post #409,861 by jake123 5/6/16 8:23:27 AM 5/6/16 8:23:27 AM Reply	Why Cruz is worse than Trump "He sold us out!"(TM) ;) He's worse because he's a true believer in Christian Dominionism. Trump has all the usual levers that can be pushed to modify his behaviour; he's not interested in dying, or really in being discomforted, plus rewards are also able to move him (in fact, his problem is he's probably way too biddable; a summit with Putin and an evening with a bunch of Russian teens would probably move mountains). Cruz otoh is a believer. Those mechanisms (up to and perhaps even including continuing to live) are not so motivating. Cruz strikes me as a person who would be willing to accept martyrdom and a hero's memory for turning the US into a theocracy. They are both sociopaths, but sociopaths that are driven by the comforts of the flesh are far easier to manage than ones driven by a neo-Calvinist religious ideology. I disagree with Bill; if I were to be a US citizen I'd be pulling the lever for Clinton and down ticket this November and sleep the sleep of the just. But when it comes to his assessment of which of Cruz and Trump are more dangerous the US as a going concern... he's absolutely right. Trump is scary in a 'mob enforcer who has a job to break your legs' kind of way... the mob enforcer can be bought. Cruz is scary in a 'I'll crucify your children to get your religious compliance, and I'll only believe I've got it after they're crucified' kind of way.
Post #409,869 by Another Scott 5/6/16 8:40:08 AM 5/6/16 8:40:08 AM Reply	Good points, but... They advocate many of the same policies - huge tax cuts, packing the courts with Teabaggers, gutting the budget, gutting reproduction rights, etc. Trump mumbles a bunch of platitudes when it suits him ("everyone loves me and I love everyone"), but then contradicts them 5 minutes later. He's a coward and a narcissist. Cruz is reviled by his colleagues. While he would love to turn the US into a theocracy (one where he wouldn't have to live by those rules - rules are for little people after all), he would have more opposition than Trump. Trump would simply roll over when presented with bills from the Teabagger legislature. Each of them would be a disaster, just in slightly different ways. Fortunately, we won't have to live in the futures they advocate. :-) My $0.02. Cheers, Scott. ("... shot or being poisoned.")
Post #409,874 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 9:15:40 AM 5/6/16 9:15:40 AM Reply	The SCOTUS issue is a non-starter after pro-Super Pac Merrick Garland.
Post #409,877 by Another Scott 5/6/16 9:38:50 AM 5/6/16 9:38:50 AM Reply	SCOTUS decides hundreds of cases a year. Purity kills.
Post #409,879 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 9:50:29 AM 5/6/16 9:50:29 AM Reply	Point: Merrick IS the kind of Justice we're supposed to fear.
Post #409,884 by Another Scott 5/6/16 10:41:19 AM 5/6/16 10:41:19 AM Reply	Re: Point: Merrick IS the kind of Justice we're supposed to fear. AFL-CIO's Trumka: Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit brings impeccable credentials and deep experience to this nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Garland’s career shows a deep commitment to public service and to the rule of law. These qualities are why he was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit 18 years ago by a bipartisan majority and with the strong support of then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch. Judge Garland is a superbly qualified nominee who deserves prompt consideration and confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Working people deserve and expect no less. Oh, but holding out for Judge Roy Moore is the better course. The contradictions won't heighten themselves, amirite? "Purity" forever!!!1 :-/ Cheers, Scott.
Post #409,895 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 12:14:55 PM 5/6/16 12:14:55 PM Reply	He had Orrin Hatch's support? Well, that makes him less onerous. NOT.
Post #409,897 by Another Scott 5/6/16 12:17:04 PM 5/6/16 12:17:04 PM Reply	Keep flailing. That'll get Roy Moore on the SCOTUS faster!!1
Post #409,910 by malraux 5/6/16 1:30:32 PM 5/6/16 1:30:32 PM Reply	Significantly better than Scalia and progress in the right direction I'd gladly take further left, but he'll do in a pinch. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #409,913 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 1:38:08 PM 5/6/16 1:38:08 PM Reply	Goering over Adolph then.
Post #409,914 by malraux 5/6/16 1:39:46 PM 5/6/16 1:39:46 PM Reply	roll Purity kills. I'll take incremental change over backsliding any day. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #409,853 by rcareaga 5/5/16 6:30:34 PM 5/5/16 6:30:34 PM Reply	Re: rolling back of such social gains...? Well, there's the repeal of DADT and the general loosening—obvious pockets of resistance apart—of legal discrimination against same-sex liaisons, to say nothing of the legalization of same-sex marriage nationally. There's the "Fair Pay Act" back in 2009, the Affordable Care Act in 2010. The administration has scarcely been out front in the drive to scale back our lunatic "war on drugs," but at least it has stood largely aside from impeding reform. It has played defense on the Supreme Court. Diplomatic relations have been established with Cuba (you'll recall that your greasy rat and that other Cuban, the bag of feathers, each swore that these would be severed again within moments after his hand* came off the Bible). Libya destroyed? That would be the Jeffersonian democracy with all the Mediterranean real estate, the Switzerland of North Africa, that oasis of peace and freedom for forty years under the enlightened triumvirate of Colonels Gaddafi, Qadhafi and Khaddafi? Yes, that is too bad, but you forget that the three colonels had to be sacrificed as a necessary precondition for the assassination of Ambassador Stevens by Secretary of State Dread Butch Clinton. Stevens, you see, was blackmailing her about Vince Foster and the Mena Airport—but why go dredging up these old scandals? This is supposed to be a 'appy occasion. That the Kenyan Usurper has not fully extricated us from the foreign quagmires into which the Cheney Shogunate enmired us is, I admit, completely inexplicable, given that there were absolutely no political obstacles at any point to his doing so. Presidents McCain or Romney would have had the Taliban leadership signing the instruments of surrender on the decks of the USS Missouri in short order, I think we can all agree. Give greater evil a chance already can't fuck it up any worse than the dems already have. Obama's seven years in office have not gratified me in every particular (and a couple of his decisions have cost me money in noticeable sums), but I am more satisfied with his performance than I have been with that of any US president who has held the office since I was first old enough to vote. I expect that he'll look even better against any likely successor. I worry about the president who will someday soften my contempt for Bush the Younger, though. cordially, If Trump does* somehow take it, won't they need to acquire a special miniaturized Bible for the swearing-in? Maybe one of the ones inscribed on the head of a pin?
Post #409,860 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 8:19:36 AM 5/6/16 8:19:36 AM Reply	Wow. The ACA was a "social gain"? Of all the many things we have agreed on, and those non-trivially numbered things we have disagreed upon, that is the most stunningly inane thing I've ever heard you put forward. That's perhaps too harsh. If by "social gain" you mean accelerating our pace toward neo-fascist oligarchy, then yes, the passage of the ACA was a "social gain." But, your recent tacit support of Hillary Clinton notwithstanding, I don't believe you really think that a complete corporate takeover of the federal government is a good idea. Still, to suggest that the passage of a law dictating that all Americans must pay the shareholder of some private company a profit for the "original sin" of being born is hardly what I'd call a "social gain."
Post #409,862 by jake123 5/6/16 8:26:39 AM 5/6/16 8:26:39 AM Reply	This is just stupid How many millions of Americans have access to doctors that didn't before? That's a social gain, esp. for the people that have it now that didn't ten years ago. You know, the burger flippers part of the population, and ESPECIALLY their children. The mechanism may suck, but politics is often the art of the possible. Even if it takes another forty years to move the needle forward, that's many millions of people who are going to experience a very large social gain over those decades.
Post #409,880 by boxley 5/6/16 9:53:49 AM 5/6/16 9:53:49 AM Reply	what is even more stupid is that medicare for all could have been passed with adding a 5% increase in the medicare tax we already pay. Even if you earned 100k the 5k tax will be a savings of 15k you would not have to pay in premiums and co-pays. Corporations would still get their nut processing claims. No nother and the light of his life claim this is unworkable, we need to pay the 20k so the private corporation can make better bank. always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #409,883 by drook 5/6/16 10:23:51 AM 5/6/16 10:23:51 AM Reply	It would only work if you could get the law passed Is the current system better than what we had before, where millions more people had no insurance? I say yes, this is better. Would Medicare for all be even better than that? Absolutely, but plenty of lawmakers made it clear they wouldn't vote for that. Might it have passed if it came up for a vote? Maybe, and maybe someone should give that a shot. Here's the key point IMO: Of all the Republicans talking about repealing Obamacare, I haven't heard a single one of them propose replacing it with Medicare for all. So if your argument is that Obamacare is bad because it's not as good as Medicare for all, that doesn't seem to be on the menu. -- Drew
Post #409,887 by Another Scott 5/6/16 10:48:02 AM 5/6/16 10:48:02 AM Reply	Conyers gave it a shot in 2009. It died in committee (as it always does).
Post #409,888 by drook 5/6/16 11:39:19 AM 5/6/16 11:39:19 AM Reply	Liar That would have worked, not like Obamacare, so if anyone had proposed it clearly Republicans would have voted for it. -- Drew
Post #409,890 by Another Scott 5/6/16 11:49:54 AM 5/6/16 11:49:54 AM Reply	Ack! You have cut me to the bone!!11
Post #409,893 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 12:12:17 PM 5/6/16 12:12:18 PM Reply	33 million still have no insurance. HTH.
Post #409,900 by Another Scott 5/6/16 12:23:56 PM 5/6/16 12:23:56 PM Reply	Re: 33 million still have no insurance. HTH. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #409,894 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 12:13:34 PM 5/6/16 12:13:34 PM Reply	Um, Bernie Sanders? Oh, but right, we aren't supposed to elect him. We're supposed to fall in line behind Hillary.
Post #409,919 by drook 5/6/16 2:46:12 PM 5/6/16 2:46:12 PM Reply	Presidents don't pass laws -- Drew
Post #409,921 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 3:27:16 PM 5/6/16 3:27:16 PM Reply	Right. NASA, New Deal, Great Society, none of those were Presidential ideas. Er, ..., wait...
Post #409,885 by Another Scott 5/6/16 10:44:20 AM 5/6/16 10:44:20 AM Reply	Re: what is even more stupid is that medicare for all could have been passed with adding a 5% 1) Medicare doesn't cover everything. People would still need supplemental insurance. 2) There weren't the votes for it. Conyers's bill died in committee. Counter-factuals are fun, but reality is what matters. Cheers, Scott.
Post #409,867 by Another Scott 5/6/16 8:32:58 AM 5/6/16 8:32:58 AM Reply	Re: Wow. The ACA was a "social gain"? https://www.facebook.com/ObamacareSavedMyLife/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/03/03/brents-letter-president-you-saved-my-life http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-another-benefit-of-obamacare-20150804-column.html https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/02/09/esi-stability-and-cost/ Oh, but MM hates the insurance and medical care industries, so only burning them down will satisfy him... ;-p Cheers, Scott.
Post #409,873 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 9:09:02 AM 5/6/16 9:09:02 AM Reply	Um, no. Yes, I do dislike an industry that collects money from people that they spend in order to get healthcare and then profits by withholding that care. That is, I am opposed to people making money from our healthcare delivery system who do not contribute in any way, shape or form to the delivery of health care. If it weren't for Wall Street's influence in our government, this wouldn't be happening. 33 million people don't have health insurance, mostly because they cannot afford it. With guaranteed margins of 20% for private health insurers, who can blame them? We pay more and have worse outcomes than anyone and that's what I'm opposed to. Getting 1 in 10 regular access to our broken system is hardly cause for celebration. But I don't "hate" our medical care industry - if by that you mean the clinicians and support staff. I've no issue with them at all. It's these blood sucking fascists like Wellpoint, UnitedHealthcare, Aetna, etc. need to go away. The ACA was nothing more than YAN gift to the shareholder class. Several million previously uninsured Americans now have coverage because of Obamacare, but it could be argued that the people who have benefited most from the law—at least financially—are the top executives and shareholders of the country’s health insurance companies. Among those who apparently have not yet benefited much at all, at least so far, are owners of small businesses who would like to keep offering coverage to their employees but can no longer afford it. They can’t afford it because insurers keep jacking their rates up so high every year that more and more of them are dropping employee health benefits altogether. And let’s be clear, these insurers aren’t suffering. UnitedHealth Group, the largest health insurer, reported last week that it made $10.3 billion in profits in 2014 on revenues of $130.5 billion. Both profits and revenues grew seven percent from 2013. United impressed Wall Street so much that investors pushed its share price to an all-time high. When the New York Stock Exchange closed last Thursday, United’s share price stood at $113.85, a record. To put that in perspective, United’s share price was $30.40 on March 23, 2010, the day President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law. Since then, the company’s price per share has increased an astonishing 375 percent. That’s way more than either the Dow Jones or Standard & Poors averages has grown during the same period. https://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/01/26/16658/health-insurers-watch-profits-soar-they-dump-small-business-customers Care to defend this chart?
Post #409,889 by Another Scott 5/6/16 11:49:27 AM 5/6/16 11:49:27 AM Reply	Re: Um, no. https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/10/06/15867/obamacare-helps-millions-falls-short-many-ways (also by Wendell Potter): Although there is no shortage of critics of the Affordable Care Act — on the far left as well as the right — it’s hard to dispute that the law has benefited millions of Americans. And not just those who have become newly insured over the past year. President Barack Obama cited some of the impressive statistics last Thursday, the day after the one-year anniversary of the turbulent debut of the Obamacare-created online health insurance exchanges. "In just the last year, we’ve reduced the share of uninsured Americans by 26 percent," he said. "That means one in four uninsured Americans — about 10 million people — have gained the financial security of health insurance in less than one year." Approximately 8 million people were finally able to sign up for coverage on the exchanges after the many technical problems were fixed. Many others were able to enroll in health plans on private exchanges or by working directly with an insurance company or agent. As a consequence, the rate of uninsured Americans dropped from 21 percent in September 2013 to 16.3 percent this past April. Even though open enrollment for the Obamacare exchanges ended in April, people have still been joining the ranks of the insured since then. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the number of newly insured Americans will grow to 12 million by the end of this year. A significant percentage of those folks were not able to find affordable coverage in the past, and many were not able to buy health insurance at any price because of insurance industry business practices that were outlawed by the ACA. Before Obamacare, insurance companies were able to declare you “uninsurable” if you had a preexisting condition, even conditions you might have been born with. During the months that health care reform was being debated in Washington, I met many young people who told me they had not been able to buy an insurance policy because of congenital heart defects and other conditions they had had since birth. Now they can. That provision and other parts of Obamacare that force insurance companies to be more consumer-friendly benefit all of us, but those sections of the law are rarely mentioned these days, probably because many of them went into effect long before the exchanges were up and running. Here’s a partial list: [...] FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #409,875 by rcareaga 5/6/16 9:31:40 AM 5/6/16 9:31:40 AM Reply	odd way of putting it Of all the many things we have agreed on, and those non-trivially numbered things we have disagreed upon, that is the most stunningly inane thing I've ever heard you put forward. So what's the most stunningly inane thing I've put forward on an issue we have agreed upon? It must trouble you each time you fire up the trusty old flivver, incidentally, that the neo-fascist oligarchy that passes for your state government dictates that you must pay the shareholder of some private company a profit for the secondary sin of driving. Listen mate. I’m beginning to have my doubts about you. I’m telling you straight, mate. I don’t think you're Luchino Visconti/a real Marxist at all. I think you’re a secret libertarian. cordially,
Post #409,878 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 9:49:24 AM 5/6/16 11:57:04 AM Reply	I predicted on this very board that Obama would raise that false equivalence... several months before he said it, I predicted that he would claim being forced to purchase "health insurance" from a private entity is just like being forced to purchase "car insurance" from a private entity. That is absurd on its face. I am NOT required to purchase automobile insurance. I can avoid it by opting for public transportation, or living close enough to work so that I can bicycle or walk (which I did for a number of years). Avoiding the purchase health insurance, under his law, is something I can NOT do if I wish to continue breathing. Edit: Thanks for pointing out the error, Rand. Edited by mmoffitt May 6, 2016, 11:57:04 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #409,882 by rcareaga 5/6/16 10:02:25 AM 5/6/16 10:02:25 AM Reply	speaking of inanity Being forced to purchase health insurance, under his law, is something I can NOT do if I wish to continue breathing. Read that carefully. I think you probably meant to craft that sentence differently. But let's assume that what you aimed to convey was: "Refusing to purchase health insurance, under his law, is something I can NOT do if I wish to continue breathing." Is that a fair re-statement of your intended meaning? Because I must have missed the statutory language in the ACA that calls for capital punishment of the non-compliant. There is a penalty at tax-time, which you and, I daresay, many other good burghers in the Hoosier State may bitterly resent, but there is no blood-debt to be paid. So either you have been grotesquely misinformed as to the provisions of the Act or you are exaggerating so preposterously for effect that imputations of inanity to others must hereafter fall rather implausibly from your lips. cordially,
Post #409,891 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 11:58:24 AM 5/6/16 11:58:24 AM Reply	Show me the equivalent Federal Penalty for not buying a car. And, thank you for pointing out my mangling of my point. ;0)
Post #409,896 by Another Scott 5/6/16 12:16:27 PM 5/6/16 12:16:27 PM Reply	Roberts addressed this in 2012 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf (b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penal- ties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that pay- ment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is un- lawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language— stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”— does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insur- ance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40. Congress has the power to tax. End of story. Cheers, Scott.
Post #409,898 by boxley 5/6/16 12:19:03 PM 5/6/16 12:19:03 PM Reply	but they swore it was not a tax on the american people? So the tax is on top of current medicare tax but still no benefit offered? Whats up with that? payola to lobbyists always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #409,901 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 12:25:48 PM 5/6/16 12:25:48 PM Reply	Man, you're agreeing with some interesting folks these days. Roberts? Really?
Post #409,904 by Another Scott 5/6/16 12:33:04 PM 5/6/16 12:33:04 PM Reply	Recognizing reality is a helpful way to get through life. ;-) Of course Roberts is a monster, but the law is the law. Or do you think that Congress doesn't have the power to tax now? :-/ Cheers, Scott.
Post #409,906 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 12:38:23 PM 5/6/16 12:39:04 PM Reply	Heh. I think a "tax" you pay ONLY when you don't do something is a fine. ;0) Edit: temporary brain freeze today. Edited by mmoffitt May 6, 2016, 12:39:04 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #409,886 by Another Scott 5/6/16 10:47:08 AM 5/6/16 10:47:08 AM Reply	Nobody's "forced to purchase health insurance". If you don't want to buy it, then pay the fine. If you can't afford it (under the rules), then you don't have to buy it. Quit making stuff up. Cheers, Scott.
Post #409,892 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 12:09:31 PM 5/6/16 12:09:31 PM Reply	Ah. I see. A federal fine is no injury at all. That is not the worst part of that Give-A-Way to big insurance companies that is the ACA. The worst part is that it is now federal law that a very small subset of the US population is entitled to profit from others healthcare whilst doing absolutely nothing to deliver that healthcare. It is the law. If you get sick and need medical care, the law of the land says, "Shove some money into the pocket of a person who is going to do nothing for you." That's the worst part. Private Health insurance companies have by federal law become the exclusive means of receiving healthcare in this banana republic. Even if you can pay for your healthcare yourself, if you don't add directly to Wall Street pockets, the federal government will slap you with a fine for not directly supporting the federal government's Wall Street masters.
Post #409,899 by Another Scott 5/6/16 12:21:51 PM 5/6/16 12:21:51 PM Reply	It used to be a federal law... written into every contract with the government, that if the item purchased had a "jewelled movement" (like old-timey mechanical watches) then those "jewels" had to be purchased from a very specific particular company in South Dakota (IIRC). The Republic survived. There are compelling benefits to having the population covered by health insurance, as you know. The penalty is an encouragement for those able to to get coverage. Your railing against the health care and insurance industry isn't going to change the reality of the fact that those are the systems we have and there weren't (and still aren't) the votes to make the system more single-payer-like and even more universal) no matter how much you (and I) might wish that to be the case. Voting against Hillary isn't going to change that situation for the better. Cheers, Scott.
Post #409,902 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 12:27:37 PM 5/6/16 12:27:37 PM Reply	I'm not voting against her, I'm voting for someone committed to universal healthcare.
Post #409,903 by Another Scott 5/6/16 12:31:06 PM 5/6/16 12:31:06 PM Reply	That's fine in the primary. Vote the party in the general...
Post #409,905 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 12:36:05 PM 5/6/16 12:36:19 PM Reply	Here's your sign. :0) Edited by mmoffitt May 6, 2016, 12:36:19 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #409,908 by Another Scott 5/6/16 12:44:42 PM 5/6/16 12:44:42 PM Reply	I don't have a problem with that. Do you think real change is easy? ;-p Cheers, Scott.
Post #409,912 by mmoffitt 5/6/16 1:37:32 PM 5/6/16 1:37:32 PM Reply	No. But it's not as unpossible as you've suggested either. ;-)
Post #409,916 by Another Scott 5/6/16 1:46:43 PM 5/6/16 1:46:43 PM Reply	I think we've been through this before. History tells us, on multiple occasions, that the PPACA was the most that could get through the Congress of the time. Bernie gave it a good shot, but he showed that there aren't enough votes for him to start his Revolution™. At some point, one has to recognize that votes matter, and if you don't have the votes to get what you want, then you work to get as much as you can that gets you toward the end you desire. Compromise, half-a-loaf, etc., is a good result. Sure, it's not "impossible", but reality keeps getting in the way. Cheers, Scott.
Post #409,929 by rcareaga 5/7/16 2:30:34 PM 5/7/16 2:30:34 PM Reply	I suspect this thread will wind down ...with no one having persuaded the other side. Cheers back to Scott, who has been patient, and to mmoffitt as well, whose tenacity in the defense of his obsessions has something admirable about it even when his arguments become preposterous, and whose tone, while occasionally strident, has never exceeded the boundaries of civil discourse. Mind you, we're a pub brawl here compared to the gentlemen's club over at Crooked Timber, but I like the tone overall. I do wish that ol' CRC would drop by more frequently to lob a grenade. I fear that fatherhood has dulled his edge. cordially,
Post #409,930 by Another Scott 5/7/16 2:58:33 PM 5/7/16 2:58:33 PM Reply	We do well here. I miss many of our old compatriots. :-( I've learned a lot from you folks and greatly appreciate that. Balloon-Juice is fun, but there's a lot of noise and lots of people just post snark. Snark is great, but ... The trolling would be too much there without cleek's pie filter. Let's keep it up! :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #409,932 by mmoffitt 5/7/16 6:30:56 PM 5/7/16 6:30:56 PM Reply	Hats off to you both. I know I've strayed from being civil on occasion, and for that I do apologize. I appreciate greatly being able to cross swords with the two of you because, despite my legion of posts indicating otherwise, I actually do value your opinions and very much look forward to reading your retorts.
Post #409,934 by rcareaga 5/7/16 6:42:03 PM 5/7/16 6:42:03 PM Reply	obviously I haven't read all your posts ...but I don't recall your ever going (cough!) off the reservation, and as I've observed before, you win points for keeping it together even when you, a lone man, are parrying a dozen swordthrusts at once from a group of us on this or that point(!) of politics or culture. cordially,
Post #409,935 by mmoffitt 5/7/16 6:43:47 PM 5/7/16 6:43:47 PM Reply	Thank you. Awfully kind of you.
Post #409,939 by Another Scott 5/7/16 9:03:15 PM 5/7/16 9:03:15 PM Reply	Well said.
Post #409,881 by boxley 5/6/16 9:57:45 AM 5/6/16 9:57:45 AM Reply	nope, you can do what million s of poor americans and illegals do. Drive without it. Many years ago I drove for 2 years without insurance. Made me an extremely careful driver. always look out for number one and don't step in number two

Welcome to IWETHEY!