Aside from a few people talking about how the “murder of millions of babies” can now be averted, the majority reaction from the right is “we owned the libs” on this one. Makes you feel great about the future of our country and our economy.
Are you really going to try and say that liberals don't do the same thing when things go their way? I still remember both Obama victories along with the ramming of ACA down everyone's throats. You guys were beyond giddy and rubbing it in conservatives faces every chance you had. I'm sure that if Trump loses that pattern will continue.
I'm sure you can point to the people who are arguing for that. Do you truly believe that there is no middle ground between "a system so weighted that a minority gets to hold power even when the people vote against them over and over" and "every single decision has to go to a popular referendum," or are you just being intentionally dishonest?
You're right, we should have been more considerate of the devastation you felt when ... a bunch of people got health care.
There really isn't. Representative democracy has meant that "the people" occasionally get frustrated, and we've people right here on Wordforge (hi @Nova!) who want to go to "pure" democracy to "fix" that. Under the wonderful assumption that "the people" will always do what they want them to, of course.
Dems lost the Senate in 2010. Given the mind breaking hypocrisy McConnell exhibited around the Merrick Garland nomination, there's no reason to believe a Ginsburg replacement was going to be viable after Kagan was confirmed.
Why are you proposing a choice between the current gerrymandered shitshow and "pure, direct democracy"? An actual representative democracy is what is being asked for.
Really? You can't imagine any middle ground between our current system and a nationwide referendum every time the Air Force wants to order a new fighter? (Hint: Ever since Reynolds v. Sims, it's the system every state government in the country operates under.)
It will be interesting to watch all the originalists and strick constructionists suddenly express nothing but support for judicial activism.
It's only judicial activism if liberals do it. The Founders expressed such clear thoughts on abortion, campaign finance, voters' rights, anti-discrimination laws, the personhood of corporations, etc. that it is merely calling balls and strikes when SCOTUS rules the way it has on these things. Federalist Papers 86-200 deal exclusively with these and other topics, all of which show that the modern Republican party is right about everything.
When Tuttle, T.R. and Federal Farmer are engaged in a three-way circle jerk, you can be pretty sure that the opposite of whatever they're spewing is close to the truth.
And a bunch of people who were happy with their plan lost theirs. Considering the fact that you lost the house because of it, I'd say it was a pretty unpopular decision.
Wrong. Democrats had the Senate from 2007 to 2015. She had plenty of time to step down and be replaced by both the president she wanted as well as the Senate she wanted.
So obtuse.... So the guy who got mad and yelled N*GGER was completely pleasant to work for prior to the employee fucking up. Ok... Sure.
Obviously not, but legally speaking you can't use something that happened AFTER the suit was filed as evidence of something that happened BEFORE the suit was filed. It's an ugly technicality, but that's what lawyers do.
The majority of this country wants gay rights, abortion rights, legal weed, etc. Social conservative fascist oppressive bullshit is the minority position. I love how rightforgers think shoving the minority position on the majority feels like "being the good guys", to these idiots. What, are we supposed to just hang our heads and go "oh, okay, we'll let ourselves turn into black and white 50's sitcom characters, we were just being naughty"? Didn't work in "Pleasantville". Did none of these dingbats learn anything from "Pleasantville"?
Anyone who's happy with private insurance is either stupid, brainwashed, or rich. Insurance companies are out to fuck you, and make no secret of it. Anyone who knows that, and loves it, needs to find a better outlet for their masochism, like having a dom stomp on their balls.
. Untrue on a couple of grounds. First, the plaintiff was still working at the place when that n-word was dropped. It was at a time between when the plaintiff was seeking clearance from the EEOC to sue or had gotten it but before his dismissal. The issue, as explained in ACB's opinion, seems to be that there was not proof that the use of the N-word at that point did not show that the person's work environment had gotten worse than it was before. In other words, it was super stressful and bad at that point he heard the N-word, and so there needed to be a showing that the N-word use made it worse than that. Which is again, technically true, but it is a ruling with blinders on to try to hold that no reasonable jury could find that the use of the N-word made an already horrible situation even worse. Second, even assuming for argument's sake the n-word was used completely after the lawsuit was filed and even after termination, it potentially could come into evidence on a couple of different groounds, including to attack the credibility of the boss (assuming he says no I'm not racist and never used he n word while plaintiff was there) and to argue that he was working for someone who calls him the N-word and that you could infer from that the work environment was probably not a bed of roses and that the job actions taken were influenced or caused by the racism.
Not entirely. I have a good plan -- it helps that Blue Cross is a nonprofit, and therefore somewhat less likely to engage in bloodsucking behavior -- but: 1) Although I'm fine now, I have a pre-existing condition. Were I to become self-employed, or end up working for an organization too small to offer health plans like I was doing several years ago, I would be uninsurable without Obamacare's regulations. 2) I'm not narcissistic enough to think that the success of our health care system should be judged by how it works for me, and me alone.
Same team. My insurance is (at least relatively) fantastic. We pay like $250 a month for family coverage and pretty good coverage (never paid a hospital bill for the birth of my children). That is insane when looking at other plans. Just because I got it good doesn't mean most people shouldn't have it just as good.
As a govvie I have a limited number of plans to choose from, and I've been generally satisfied with Aetna. Sure, I've had to dispute them a couple times when they didn't want to authorize medically necessary stuff, but by and large they've been good. Delta Dental for dental stuff, tho like every other dental insurance in America, they think anything other than extraction and routine cleaning is "cosmetic" and don't want to pay for it, even when the dentist says it's necessary. Holly has Kaiser and they've been really good to her. Since as a real estate agent she pays for her stuff out of pocket, it's worked out pretty well all told. That said, my experience is that no health insurance provider operating in America actually has their shit together. They don't know how to generate coherent, rational billing; doctors don't talk to each other; things are "out of network" which is a ludicrous concept when you're talking about medical treatment . . . we're going to wind up with government-managed single payer universal healthcare (Medicare for all) at some point due to the sheer idiocy of how insurance companies operate. They're gonna bring it on themselves just by being stupid about things. And then once everyone is trapped in VA-level care, then we'll be happy.
Constantly employed for longer than I care to remember... Prior to Obamacare, I was paying a little over $500/month for family coverage and would still be subject to copays and deductibles. Now I have the same employer and I pay half that.
