Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   If the GOP rush to get ACB on the court to kill Obamacare, they will only usher in a Democratic Majority that will pass Medicare for All in record time. Much like their Confederate heroes they will win the battle but lose the war   (washingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Spiffy, President of the United States, Immune system, President Trump, Republican Party, Bill Clinton, White House, Facebook video, Michael Caputo  
•       •       •

1068 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Sep 2020 at 9:54 AM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



123 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-09-28 9:25:00 AM  
2.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2020-09-28 9:32:34 AM  
"Win the battle, lose the war.
Choice of evils lie before your feet!
Retreat!  Retreat!  Retreat!"

"If you win, then you will lose"
"Retreat!  Retreat! Retreat!"
 
2020-09-28 9:34:20 AM  
To lose is to win, and he who wins shall lose.
This is the game of Rassilon.
 
2020-09-28 9:38:56 AM  
Or, more likely, ACB gets seated, the GOP destroys the ACA, and we spend the next 30 years on incrementalism again just to get back to another Republican health care plan similar to the ACA.
 
2020-09-28 9:40:45 AM  
Do not need Medicare for all, just a public option for all that want Medicare coverage. Let private for profit insurance compete with no cost to insured health coverage. Eliminate medicaid and repurpose spending.
 
2020-09-28 9:46:36 AM  
The North won the war, and then lost the peace.

/i blame john wilkes booth
 
2020-09-28 9:50:45 AM  
And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.
 
2020-09-28 9:52:12 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Or, more likely, ACB gets seated, the GOP destroys the ACA, and we spend the next 30 years on incrementalism again just to get back to another Republican health care plan similar to the ACA.


How did that 2016 protest vote work out?
 
2020-09-28 9:55:32 AM  
You know we don't have to call her ACB. Ginsburg earned that moniker.
 
2020-09-28 9:56:22 AM  

GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.


SCOTUS goes 7-6 for ACA.
 
2020-09-28 9:57:04 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Or, more likely, ACB gets seated, the GOP destroys the ACA, and we spend the next 30 years on incrementalism again just to get back to another Republican health care plan similar to the ACA.


well your fatalism is, as always, noted and ignored.
 
2020-09-28 9:57:08 AM  

eurotrader: Do not need Medicare for all, just a public option for all that want Medicare coverage. Let private for profit insurance compete with no cost to insured health coverage. Eliminate medicaid and repurpose spending.


We also need all payer price controls (healthcare providers charge the same for a service to all payers).
 
2020-09-28 9:57:34 AM  
Umm, them appointing a new SC justice is the war. That shiat lasts for much longer, like a generation.  The house/senate is the short term battle in this case.

This site is delusional sometimes.
 
2020-09-28 9:58:02 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: The North won the war, and then lost the peace.

/i blame john wilkes booth


I blame Andrew Johnson
 
2020-09-28 9:58:21 AM  
Democrats are on record rejecting making Medicare For All part of their platform. Biden is on record saying he'd veto it if it made it to his desk.

Let's not rewrite shiatty history just because people are getting adrenaline highs over SCOTUS.
 
2020-09-28 10:00:14 AM  
The establishment democrats will NEVER pass MedicareForAll... they are centrist republicans after all.
 
2020-09-28 10:00:48 AM  

TonySoprano: The establishment democrats will NEVER pass MedicareForAll... they are centrist republicans after all.


They think it's still the late 80's/early90s
 
2020-09-28 10:01:44 AM  
Democrats passing Medicare For All? LOL, I laughed so much this morning. Thanks for that.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-28 10:02:05 AM  
If the GOP rush to get ACB on the court to kill Obamacare, they will only usher in a Democratic Majority that will pass Medicare for All in record time. Much like their Confederate heroes they will win the battle but lose the war

Subby, you're apparently new to the (D) party.  At some point in the near future, yes a (D) Majority will hit the government including WH and Congress.  But if there is one time tested truth about the (D)'s it's that they have no f*cking spine.  They will absolutely squander the opportunity.  The (R)'s will make some shiat up that's incredibly transparent and stupid that everyone knows is bullshiat like "you can't do that in an election year!" and the (D)'s will eat it up and agree and move on.
 
2020-09-28 10:02:24 AM  
only fools ignore the pendulum of time

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-28 10:02:50 AM  

GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.


Which is the whole point of packing the court and filibustering every judge a Democrat nominated. Republicans don't have to do anything knowing they have politicized the courts to do their bidding. Even if they are a minority.
 
2020-09-28 10:03:28 AM  
Medicare for all will then be shot down in the courts.....


Gotta get those seats first, pass voting laws, undo gerrymandering, then it might work.
 
2020-09-28 10:03:32 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Or, more likely, ACB gets seated, the GOP destroys the ACA, and we spend the next 30 years on incrementalism again just to get back to another Republican health care plan similar to the ACA.


bluejeansonfire: Democrats are on record rejecting making Medicare For All part of their platform. Biden is on record saying he'd veto it if it made it to his desk.

Let's not rewrite shiatty history just because people are getting adrenaline highs over SCOTUS.


TonySoprano: The establishment democrats will NEVER pass MedicareForAll... they are centrist republicans after all.


I see that team stupid is here in force this morning.
 
2020-09-28 10:04:07 AM  

bdub77: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

SCOTUS goes 7-6 for ACA.


There is no guarantee we expand the court, esp day 1.

1) We have to win the Senate, or it's a moot point. If we don't take it back now, we have to wait at least until 2023.
2) Even if we do win, a complete judicial reform bill must be passed expanding the court and realigning the districts. That will require ending the filibuster which,in turn, will end the Senate as we knew it. Whether or not you believe that is the correct course, it is a MONUMENTAL change, and Senators are not going to take it lightly.
 
2020-09-28 10:04:54 AM  

American Decency Association: only fools ignore the pendulum of time

[Fark user image 381x263] [View Full Size image _x_]


media.giphy.comView Full Size
 
2020-09-28 10:05:47 AM  

NuclearPenguins: AdmirableSnackbar: Or, more likely, ACB gets seated, the GOP destroys the ACA, and we spend the next 30 years on incrementalism again just to get back to another Republican health care plan similar to the ACA.

bluejeansonfire: Democrats are on record rejecting making Medicare For All part of their platform. Biden is on record saying he'd veto it if it made it to his desk.

Let's not rewrite shiatty history just because people are getting adrenaline highs over SCOTUS.

TonySoprano: The establishment democrats will NEVER pass MedicareForAll... they are centrist republicans after all.

I see that team stupid is here in force this morning.


Can't defend your party's opposition to M4A, so you pretend criticism is illegitimate.
 
2020-09-28 10:06:32 AM  
Bryer is in 80s i think.  Thomas and Alito are in early 70s.   And  any of them could get cancer, stroke out or have a heart attack, although im sure they are checked all the time by doctors.

All Im saying is that the make up of the court could change in the next term of the presidency just as much as it did under Trump.  Hence, elections are important.
 
2020-09-28 10:06:34 AM  
Regarding the Noxious ACB, and every other politician or appointee at every level working in behalf of the public trust:  I think it's time Americans demand every one of them undergo a physical and mental evaluation before they can even think of doing their job.  That is one thing the Trump presidency has made plain.
 
2020-09-28 10:06:45 AM  

GardenWeasel: AdmirableSnackbar: Or, more likely, ACB gets seated, the GOP destroys the ACA, and we spend the next 30 years on incrementalism again just to get back to another Republican health care plan similar to the ACA.

How did that 2016 protest vote work out?


Attempted change of subject noted.
 
2020-09-28 10:06:58 AM  
How about we kick Trump out this November first. Then we'll talk about other stuff.
 
2020-09-28 10:07:44 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: The North won the war, and then lost the peace.

/i blame john wilkes booth


It's Andrew Johnson you should blame.

And Rutherford B. Hayes.
 
2020-09-28 10:08:26 AM  
They either grow a spine and fight back like the country depends on it, or I'll be looking for another country to live In. Let my employer hire a plucky Indian lad or las to take my place, since we don't educate our population cause "SooOsHUliSm!". They do good work, and it'll make this country more diverse and hopefully save it one day. Win win
 
2020-09-28 10:09:09 AM  

bdub77: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

SCOTUS goes 7-6 for ACA.


As of right now there are not 50 confirmed Democratic Senator votes to get rid of the filibuster, let alone add justices. 52+ needed since Feinstein and Manchin are confirmed nos.
 
2020-09-28 10:10:00 AM  

A Cave Geek: "Win the battle, lose the war.
Choice of evils lie before your feet!
Retreat!  Retreat!  Retreat!"

"If you win, then you will lose"
"Retreat!  Retreat! Retreat!"


"Where there's a whip
***whip crack***
There's a way! Where there's a whip,
***whip crack***
There's a way! Where there's a whip,
***whip crack***
We don't want to go to War today, but the Lord of the Lash says, "Nay, nay, nay"!
We're gonna march all day, all day, all day!
For where there's a whip, there's a way!"
 
2020-09-28 10:10:53 AM  

GardenWeasel: bdub77: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

SCOTUS goes 7-6 for ACA.

There is no guarantee we expand the court, esp day 1.

1) We have to win the Senate, or it's a moot point. If we don't take it back now, we have to wait at least until 2023.
2) Even if we do win, a complete judicial reform bill must be passed expanding the court and realigning the districts. That will require ending the filibuster which,in turn, will end the Senate as we knew it. Whether or not you believe that is the correct course, it is a MONUMENTAL change, and Senators are not going to take it lightly.


The filibuster is basically already dead. If the minority party can't use it to block a Supreme Court nomination that they find too extreme, then what is it good for? Just trash the whole thing already.
 
2020-09-28 10:10:54 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Or, more likely, ACB gets seated, the GOP destroys the ACA, and we spend the next 30 years on incrementalism again just to get back to another Republican health care plan similar to the ACA.


Yeah, this, Keep dreaming, subby.  And it's still possible that Trump will remain president.
 
2020-09-28 10:13:42 AM  
Just wait for Thomas to retire right after the election and Trump get's a 4th pick. Let us hope that Bryer survives through Jan or he might get 5.
 
2020-09-28 10:15:52 AM  

Mad_Radhu: GardenWeasel: bdub77: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

SCOTUS goes 7-6 for ACA.

There is no guarantee we expand the court, esp day 1.

1) We have to win the Senate, or it's a moot point. If we don't take it back now, we have to wait at least until 2023.
2) Even if we do win, a complete judicial reform bill must be passed expanding the court and realigning the districts. That will require ending the filibuster which,in turn, will end the Senate as we knew it. Whether or not you believe that is the correct course, it is a MONUMENTAL change, and Senators are not going to take it lightly.

The filibuster is basically already dead. If the minority party can't use it to block a Supreme Court nomination that they find too extreme, then what is it good for? Just trash the whole thing already.


Consider what the GOP could have done w/o a filibuster in 2017/2018 when they held all branches of the government.
 
2020-09-28 10:16:28 AM  

Sophont: NuclearPenguins: AdmirableSnackbar: Or, more likely, ACB gets seated, the GOP destroys the ACA, and we spend the next 30 years on incrementalism again just to get back to another Republican health care plan similar to the ACA.

bluejeansonfire: Democrats are on record rejecting making Medicare For All part of their platform. Biden is on record saying he'd veto it if it made it to his desk.

Let's not rewrite shiatty history just because people are getting adrenaline highs over SCOTUS.

TonySoprano: The establishment democrats will NEVER pass MedicareForAll... they are centrist republicans after all.

I see that team stupid is here in force this morning.

Can't defend your party's opposition to M4A, so you pretend criticism is illegitimate.


See this:

Hector_Lemans: How about we kick Trump out this November first. Then we'll talk about other stuff.

 
2020-09-28 10:16:48 AM  

Sophont: NuclearPenguins: AdmirableSnackbar: Or, more likely, ACB gets seated, the GOP destroys the ACA, and we spend the next 30 years on incrementalism again just to get back to another Republican health care plan similar to the ACA.

bluejeansonfire: Democrats are on record rejecting making Medicare For All part of their platform. Biden is on record saying he'd veto it if it made it to his desk.

Let's not rewrite shiatty history just because people are getting adrenaline highs over SCOTUS.

TonySoprano: The establishment democrats will NEVER pass MedicareForAll... they are centrist republicans after all.

I see that team stupid is here in force this morning.

Can't defend your party's opposition to M4A, so you pretend criticism is illegitimate.


LOL, Sophont totally nailed the Non-Nuclear Non-Flight bird with truth slap.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-28 10:17:05 AM  

Busta Clown Shoes: Umm, them appointing a new SC justice is the war. That shiat lasts for much longer, like a generation.  The house/senate is the short term battle in this case.

This site is delusional sometimes.


Appointing Barrett is just another battle.  If Dems sweep in November, Biden can add 2 or 4 new justices to flip it back to progressive.

/Make it 21 justices
//Appoint 12 young, black women to SCOTUS
///Watch MAGAt heads explode
 
2020-09-28 10:17:15 AM  
Medicare for all will be struck down by this Supreme Court. In fact, Medicare itself is more likely to be struck down than any kind of healthcare reform passed by Democrats will be allowed to stand. The only semi-realistic chance for healthcare reform at this point is at the state level (and I'm not optimistic about that, either).
 
2020-09-28 10:18:55 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-28 10:20:29 AM  

GardenWeasel: Mad_Radhu: GardenWeasel: bdub77: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

SCOTUS goes 7-6 for ACA.

There is no guarantee we expand the court, esp day 1.

1) We have to win the Senate, or it's a moot point. If we don't take it back now, we have to wait at least until 2023.
2) Even if we do win, a complete judicial reform bill must be passed expanding the court and realigning the districts. That will require ending the filibuster which,in turn, will end the Senate as we knew it. Whether or not you believe that is the correct course, it is a MONUMENTAL change, and Senators are not going to take it lightly.

The filibuster is basically already dead. If the minority party can't use it to block a Supreme Court nomination that they find too extreme, then what is it good for? Just trash the whole thing already.

Consider what the GOP could have done w/o a filibuster in 2017/2018 when they held all branches of the government.


Are you suggesting a party which controls the government shouldn't be able to pursue it's agenda?
 
2020-09-28 10:20:51 AM  
Well the end state of the ACA was always a messy collapse and a replacement with universal healthcare.  The GOP is just pulling off the band-aid much quicker than would have happened naturally.

Although this is a really rough time to be ripping off that band-aid.
 
2020-09-28 10:21:55 AM  
Win the senate.
Kick out the filibuster or reform it to what it was - stand your ass up on the floor and talk.
Redo the rules for a simple majority vote.
Pass any goddamn thing you want, and have President Biden sign it.
Deal with the supremes later.

You want to fark around, republicans? Bet. Let's do this.
 
2020-09-28 10:23:38 AM  

American Decency Association: only fools ignore the pendulum of time

[Fark user image 381x263] [View Full Size image _x_]


You make a compelling argument.
 
2020-09-28 10:24:06 AM  
So, maybe Biden wins the white house, democrats keep the house... That probably means the GOP will hold the senate for whatever reason. ACA will get scrapped, Dems won't be able to fix it because the voters let them down, again, the voters will blame the Dems, again, because that's just what we do. Republicans win midterms again because "democrats didnt do nuffin for me, they're just gop-lite!", and we go back to having nothing.

Oh well, at least having nothing is better than getting something, if that something was achieved incrementally. We can all agree on that I'm sure. Sorry about your preexisting conditions, but Hillary just wasn't going to make things better fast enough. Same with Joe, he won't usher in M4A day one, so I'll just stay home and trust the republicans to make my Healthcare choices for me. Goddamn I'm smart.
 
2020-09-28 10:24:36 AM  

BMFPitt: The GOP is just pulling off the band-aid


And then shooting the nation in the wound.
 
2020-09-28 10:25:36 AM  

g.fro: GardenWeasel: Mad_Radhu: GardenWeasel: bdub77: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

SCOTUS goes 7-6 for ACA.

There is no guarantee we expand the court, esp day 1.

1) We have to win the Senate, or it's a moot point. If we don't take it back now, we have to wait at least until 2023.
2) Even if we do win, a complete judicial reform bill must be passed expanding the court and realigning the districts. That will require ending the filibuster which,in turn, will end the Senate as we knew it. Whether or not you believe that is the correct course, it is a MONUMENTAL change, and Senators are not going to take it lightly.

The filibuster is basically already dead. If the minority party can't use it to block a Supreme Court nomination that they find too extreme, then what is it good for? Just trash the whole thing already.

Consider what the GOP could have done w/o a filibuster in 2017/2018 when they held all branches of the government.

Are you suggesting a party which controls the government shouldn't be able to pursue it's agenda?


When said government was illegitimately put in place by a foreign power, yes.
 
2020-09-28 10:26:43 AM  
Remember everyone, there is no clause in the constitution that says SCOTUS judges get grandfathered into their seat until they resign or die if the size of the court is reduced.

On Jan 20, the Democrats just have to present a bill to the newly sworn in President that reduces the size of the Supreme court to 6, or 5 or even just one judge.  Make it tied to seniority - newest judges are off first.  I think size of 2 is about right.  Make Breyer the chief.  So sorry Roberts, you're fired.

Then on the 21st of January another bill shows up - this time expanding the court to 13 justices, and all 11 "new ones" are "pre-approved".  Just load 'em up there Joe.  Those justices that the Democrats wanted to keep, well they just get re-appointed again.

I so want to see that happen.  The tears... oh boy the tears.

BTW, this only requires a bare majority in each chamber to pass.  No super-majority required.  And yes, the wheezing corpse of the Filibuster will finally be declared dead next year.
 
2020-09-28 10:27:01 AM  

bainsguy: AdmirableSnackbar: Or, more likely, ACB gets seated, the GOP destroys the ACA, and we spend the next 30 years on incrementalism again just to get back to another Republican health care plan similar to the ACA.

well your fatalism is, as always, noted and ignored.


It's like somebody wrote a Blake's 7 chat bot for Vila, and then forgot to make it witty.
 
2020-09-28 10:27:18 AM  

NuclearPenguins: Sophont: NuclearPenguins: AdmirableSnackbar: Or, more likely, ACB gets seated, the GOP destroys the ACA, and we spend the next 30 years on incrementalism again just to get back to another Republican health care plan similar to the ACA.

bluejeansonfire: Democrats are on record rejecting making Medicare For All part of their platform. Biden is on record saying he'd veto it if it made it to his desk.

Let's not rewrite shiatty history just because people are getting adrenaline highs over SCOTUS.

TonySoprano: The establishment democrats will NEVER pass MedicareForAll... they are centrist republicans after all.

I see that team stupid is here in force this morning.

Can't defend your party's opposition to M4A, so you pretend criticism is illegitimate.

See this:

Hector_Lemans: How about we kick Trump out this November first. Then we'll talk about other stuff.


See this:

Sophont: Can't defend your party's opposition to M4A, so you pretend criticism is illegitimate.

 
2020-09-28 10:29:30 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-28 10:30:28 AM  

mdemon81: You know we don't have to call her ACB. Ginsburg earned that moniker.


ABC fixed that for you (yes, I'm CDO)
 
2020-09-28 10:30:29 AM  
If you think that the corporate wing of the DNC will ever allow Medicare for All to get out of committee then I have a bridge to sell you.
 
2020-09-28 10:30:49 AM  
Conservatives have lost every important battle in American history - but they will still persist, and keep murdering and oppressing their fellow Americans, in their futile pursuit of a past that never existed.
And they will lose again - but do lot's of damage in the process.
I think that's what they are in it for - they know they can't win, but they can inflict pain.
 
2020-09-28 10:34:45 AM  

GardenWeasel: ...
g.fro: Are you suggesting a party which controls the government shouldn't be able to pursue it's agenda?

When said government was illegitimately put in place by a foreign power, yes.


And then you just change the rules back when the other party wins?

I would think this whole experience would have taught people that anything you do to the other guy, he can do to you, and anything you can stop him from doing, he can stop you from doing.
 
2020-09-28 10:35:37 AM  
I respect her deeply held religious beliefs.  So on that note, if she wasn't a virgin when she got married, we must kill her.  For Jesus.
 
2020-09-28 10:38:34 AM  

MadHatter500: Remember everyone, there is no clause in the constitution that says SCOTUS judges get grandfathered into their seat until they resign or die if the size of the court is reduced.

...


Yes, there is.

Article III, section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
 
2020-09-28 10:40:14 AM  

A Cave Geek: "Win the battle, lose the war.
Choice of evils lie before your feet!
Retreat!  Retreat!  Retreat!"

"If you win, then you will lose"
"Retreat!  Retreat! Retreat!"


A horse, a horse, My Kingdom for a horse
 
2020-09-28 10:40:58 AM  

mdemon81: You know we don't have to call her ACB. Ginsburg earned that moniker.


To be fair, I think ACB earned her moniker by going after ACA.
 
2020-09-28 10:44:46 AM  

indy_kid: Busta Clown Shoes: Umm, them appointing a new SC justice is the war. That shiat lasts for much longer, like a generation.  The house/senate is the short term battle in this case.

This site is delusional sometimes.

Appointing Barrett is just another battle.  If Dems sweep in November, Biden can add 2 or 4 new justices to flip it back to progressive.

/Make it 21 justices
//Appoint 12 young, black women to SCOTUS
///Watch MAGAt heads explode


Democrats will not get rid of the filibuster nor add justices to the supreme court.  Unlike republicans, democrats are giant pussies.

They'll pretend to try and pass stuff, it'll all get blocked via filibuster, and then they'll throw up their hands going 'well, we tried!'
 
2020-09-28 10:45:34 AM  

Mad_Radhu: GardenWeasel: bdub77: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

SCOTUS goes 7-6 for ACA.

There is no guarantee we expand the court, esp day 1.

1) We have to win the Senate, or it's a moot point. If we don't take it back now, we have to wait at least until 2023.
2) Even if we do win, a complete judicial reform bill must be passed expanding the court and realigning the districts. That will require ending the filibuster which,in turn, will end the Senate as we knew it. Whether or not you believe that is the correct course, it is a MONUMENTAL change, and Senators are not going to take it lightly.

The filibuster is basically already dead. If the minority party can't use it to block a Supreme Court nomination that they find too extreme, then what is it good for? Just trash the whole thing already.


It was rewritten to prevent it from being used on Supreme Court nominees, but it certainly does apply to (most) legislation.

Imagine the crap that would have passed between early 2017 and early 2019, when the Republicans had control of both houses of Congress (but not a filibuster proof majority) and the Presidency.  Instead, they passed nothing of significance, other than the tax bill (which was written in a way it couldn't be filibustered under the rules).

So that's the dilemma-Do you make it so good stuff doesn't pass now to prevent horrible stuff from not passing some time in the future, or do you take the gamble that the type of full Republican controls as in 2017/18 never happens again (or not care about such now)?
 
2020-09-28 10:48:08 AM  

LurkLongAndProsper: So, maybe Biden wins the white house, democrats keep the house... That probably means the GOP will hold the senate for whatever reason.



I'm not following you here.

But as we know, the only way this gets fixed is if the dems take the senate.
 
2020-09-28 10:49:10 AM  

g.fro: GardenWeasel: ...
g.fro: Are you suggesting a party which controls the government shouldn't be able to pursue it's agenda?

When said government was illegitimately put in place by a foreign power, yes.

And then you just change the rules back when the other party wins?

I would think this whole experience would have taught people that anything you do to the other guy, he can do to you, and anything you can stop him from doing, he can stop you from doing.


Dems just want to govern. The GOP is consumed with spite, revenge, and retribution. Governing is not their concern. I don't know how to fix the rules to allow the former and not the latter.
 
2020-09-28 10:51:45 AM  

g.fro: GardenWeasel: Mad_Radhu: GardenWeasel: bdub77: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

SCOTUS goes 7-6 for ACA.

There is no guarantee we expand the court, esp day 1.

1) We have to win the Senate, or it's a moot point. If we don't take it back now, we have to wait at least until 2023.
2) Even if we do win, a complete judicial reform bill must be passed expanding the court and realigning the districts. That will require ending the filibuster which,in turn, will end the Senate as we knew it. Whether or not you believe that is the correct course, it is a MONUMENTAL change, and Senators are not going to take it lightly.

The filibuster is basically already dead. If the minority party can't use it to block a Supreme Court nomination that they find too extreme, then what is it good for? Just trash the whole thing already.

Consider what the GOP could have done w/o a filibuster in 2017/2018 when they held all branches of the government.

Are you suggesting a party which controls the government shouldn't be able to pursue it's agenda?


Your party's agenda stands an excellent chance of causing real, lasting physical harm both to me and to people I care about.
 
2020-09-28 10:51:45 AM  

FlashHarry: LurkLongAndProsper: So, maybe Biden wins the white house, democrats keep the house... That probably means the GOP will hold the senate for whatever reason.


I'm not following you here.


BSAB voters who think "gridlock" is a good thing and split their vote.
 
2020-09-28 10:53:32 AM  

Smirky the Wonder Chimp: ...

Your party's agenda stands an excellent chance of causing real, lasting physical harm both to me and to people I care about.


My party?

Quite the assumption there.
 
2020-09-28 10:56:56 AM  

GardenWeasel: FlashHarry: LurkLongAndProsper: So, maybe Biden wins the white house, democrats keep the house... That probably means the GOP will hold the senate for whatever reason.


I'm not following you here.

BSAB voters who think "gridlock" is a good thing and split their vote.


tse3.mm.bing.netView Full Size


I'm Joe and I can hold a gun. I've got your back.
 
2020-09-28 11:00:23 AM  

eurotrader: Do not need Medicare for all, just a public option for all that want Medicare coverage. Let private for profit insurance compete with no cost to insured health coverage. Eliminate medicaid and repurpose spending.


No, that thing that works out great in Germany could never work here because reasons.  Only the one true SandersPlan can provide health care, all those other countries that do it well without single payer are Fake News.
 
2020-09-28 11:02:15 AM  
Assumption: the Supreme Court upholds M4A.
 
2020-09-28 11:04:13 AM  

Smirky the Wonder Chimp: g.fro: GardenWeasel: Mad_Radhu: GardenWeasel: bdub77: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

SCOTUS goes 7-6 for ACA.

There is no guarantee we expand the court, esp day 1.

1) We have to win the Senate, or it's a moot point. If we don't take it back now, we have to wait at least until 2023.
2) Even if we do win, a complete judicial reform bill must be passed expanding the court and realigning the districts. That will require ending the filibuster which,in turn, will end the Senate as we knew it. Whether or not you believe that is the correct course, it is a MONUMENTAL change, and Senators are not going to take it lightly.

The filibuster is basically already dead. If the minority party can't use it to block a Supreme Court nomination that they find too extreme, then what is it good for? Just trash the whole thing already.

Consider what the GOP could have done w/o a filibuster in 2017/2018 when they held all branches of the government.

Are you suggesting a party which controls the government shouldn't be able to pursue it's agenda?

Your party's agenda stands an excellent chance of causing real, lasting physical harm both to me and to people I care about.


You funnied this.  Neat.  It's cool, I expected as much from you.

Anyway, you weren't actually interested in anyone's answer, and I understand that, believe me, because I don't actually care what you think either. But that's why I don't think your party should be allowed to carry out its agenda, and why I have come to want to see everything that you love bulldozed. Because your policies cause actual damage to other human beings, and not only do you understand that, you actively delight in it.
 
2020-09-28 11:05:30 AM  
If an extremist rightwing super-majority Supreme Court can strike down ObamaCare for [reasons], then they can find [reasons] to strike down ANY national healthcare plan enacted by Democrats.

And they're coming for Social Security and Medicare too.
 
2020-09-28 11:08:05 AM  

qorkfiend: Assumption: the Supreme Court upholds M4A.


Assumption: the SCOTUS upholds Medicare, period.
 
2020-09-28 11:08:42 AM  

MadHatter500: Remember everyone, there is no clause in the constitution that says SCOTUS judges get grandfathered into their seat until they resign or die if the size of the court is reduced.

On Jan 20, the Democrats just have to present a bill to the newly sworn in President that reduces the size of the Supreme court to 6, or 5 or even just one judge.  Make it tied to seniority - newest judges are off first.  I think size of 2 is about right.  Make Breyer the chief.  So sorry Roberts, you're fired.

Then on the 21st of January another bill shows up - this time expanding the court to 13 justices, and all 11 "new ones" are "pre-approved".  Just load 'em up there Joe.  Those justices that the Democrats wanted to keep, well they just get re-appointed again.

I so want to see that happen.  The tears... oh boy the tears.

BTW, this only requires a bare majority in each chamber to pass.  No super-majority required.  And yes, the wheezing corpse of the Filibuster will finally be declared dead next year.


Not going to happen. Biden isn't a French Revolution" type guy. It may be what the country needs, but it will never be signed by Biden.
 
2020-09-28 11:10:25 AM  

Smirky the Wonder Chimp: qorkfiend: Assumption: the Supreme Court upholds M4A.

Assumption: the SCOTUS upholds Medicare, period.


Indoor plumbing isn't in the Constitution. We're in for a world of sh*t.
 
2020-09-28 11:12:10 AM  

American Decency Association: only fools ignore the pendulum of time

[Fark user image image 381x263]


vignette.wikia.nocookie.netView Full Size
 
2020-09-28 11:13:28 AM  

GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.


They ate Mercury here and there as well.
 
2020-09-28 11:17:02 AM  
We need a federal Abortion Rights Act, also. We don't rely exclusively on the Constitution to protect voting and other civil rights, so why have we never given Roe v. Wade some legislative support? A federal bill could explicitly preempt state laws that try to pass more rigid requirements that have become the preferred method of disrupting abortion rights.
 
2020-09-28 11:20:32 AM  

Smirky the Wonder Chimp: qorkfiend: Assumption: the Supreme Court upholds M4A.

Assumption: the SCOTUS upholds Medicare, period.


Oh, that'll be fine. Republicans love their seniors.

It might be bankrupt, but the law will be intact.
 
2020-09-28 11:24:17 AM  
 
2020-09-28 11:30:29 AM  

Smirky the Wonder Chimp: Smirky the Wonder Chimp: g.fro: GardenWeasel: Mad_Radhu: GardenWeasel: bdub77: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

SCOTUS goes 7-6 for ACA.

There is no guarantee we expand the court, esp day 1.

1) We have to win the Senate, or it's a moot point. If we don't take it back now, we have to wait at least until 2023.
2) Even if we do win, a complete judicial reform bill must be passed expanding the court and realigning the districts. That will require ending the filibuster which,in turn, will end the Senate as we knew it. Whether or not you believe that is the correct course, it is a MONUMENTAL change, and Senators are not going to take it lightly.

The filibuster is basically already dead. If the minority party can't use it to block a Supreme Court nomination that they find too extreme, then what is it good for? Just trash the whole thing already.

Consider what the GOP could have done w/o a filibuster in 2017/2018 when they held all branches of the government.

Are you suggesting a party which controls the government shouldn't be able to pursue it's agenda?

Your party's agenda stands an excellent chance of causing real, lasting physical harm both to me and to people I care about.

You funnied this.  Neat.  It's cool, I expected as much from you.

Anyway, you weren't actually interested in anyone's answer, and I understand that, believe me, because I don't actually care what you think either. But that's why I don't think your party should be allowed to carry out its agenda, and why I have come to want to see everything that you love bulldozed. Because your policies cause actual damage to other human beings, and not only do you understand that, you actively delight in it.


Wow, you're just full of assumptions today. You assume I'm a Republican, you assume who funnied your post, you assume the reason they funnied your post, and you assume what kind of policies I support and my motivation.

Any other baseless assumptions you want to make?
 
2020-09-28 11:33:24 AM  

shut_it_down: We need a federal Abortion Rights Act, also. We don't rely exclusively on the Constitution to protect voting and other civil rights, so why have we never given Roe v. Wade some legislative support? A federal bill could explicitly preempt state laws that try to pass more rigid requirements that have become the preferred method of disrupting abortion rights.


There has never been a filibuster-proof majority for doing so, even before considering the cost in political capital and the impracticality of writing it well enough to serve a purpose.
 
2020-09-28 11:41:08 AM  
It occurs to me that with a little more intelligence and a little less ego, McConnell could have gotten everything he wanted while eliminating any meaningful Democratic retaliation.

If he had given Garland an up-or-down vote and the GOP had voted him down, the Dems would have screamed bloody murder but would have little actual recourse because the process would have been legitimate.  McConnell would still have gotten *, Ragebro and Serena Joy on the Court, but Dems would have no moral authority to pack the Court in the future.

McConnell can't do that though.  It's not enough for him to win, he has to rub his opponent's noses in it.  Specifically, he needed to send a message to the first black President that "You're dogshiat and I'm going to deny you even the most basic dignities of the office".  In order to do that though, he had to come up with some justification, the half-assed "Biden Rule".  But then he had to come up with a new justification for each of the following GOP appointments.  Now vulnerable GOP Senators are twisting themselves into knots trying to reconcile all of their past justifications, the Dems have a casus belli not just for reforming the Court but for neutering the Senate Majority Leader, and they have popular support to do it.

Of course, being Democrats, they'll falter.  Protecting a horrible status quo is always preferable than fighting a noble fight.
 
2020-09-28 11:44:39 AM  

GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.


Actually Medicare for all won't have constitutional issues,

All it really is is a change to the eligibility age (dropping from 65 to 0) and increasing the taxes to pay for it. However since we don't want to give rich people a free pass, all types of income will be part of the calculation not just payroll.
 
2020-09-28 11:46:07 AM  

BMFPitt: shut_it_down: We need a federal Abortion Rights Act, also. We don't rely exclusively on the Constitution to protect voting and other civil rights, so why have we never given Roe v. Wade some legislative support? A federal bill could explicitly preempt state laws that try to pass more rigid requirements that have become the preferred method of disrupting abortion rights.

There has never been a filibuster-proof majority for doing so, even before considering the cost in political capital and the impracticality of writing it well enough to serve a purpose.


Also, laws can be changed pretty easily. Rights don't.
 
2020-09-28 11:50:09 AM  

BMFPitt: shut_it_down: We need a federal Abortion Rights Act, also. We don't rely exclusively on the Constitution to protect voting and other civil rights, so why have we never given Roe v. Wade some legislative support? A federal bill could explicitly preempt state laws that try to pass more rigid requirements that have become the preferred method of disrupting abortion rights.

There has never been a filibuster-proof majority for doing so, even before considering the cost in political capital and the impracticality of writing it well enough to serve a purpose.


True, every time the Democrats do something good, they get politically punished for it. Therein lies the problem with our country. The Civil Rights Act cost them. The ACA cost them. Passing anything that would be good for this country costs them instead of lifting them up.
 
2020-09-28 11:52:17 AM  
Translation: We're losing, but we can still dream. Democrats have been going on like this for decades.
 
2020-09-28 11:56:21 AM  

eurotrader: Do not need Medicare for all, just a public option for all that want Medicare coverage. Let private for profit insurance compete with no cost to insured health coverage. Eliminate medicaid and repurpose spending.


Just a reminder that Medicare and Medicaid do different things.
 
2020-09-28 11:56:33 AM  

madgonad: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

Actually Medicare for all won't have constitutional issues,

All it really is is a change to the eligibility age (dropping from 65 to 0) and increasing the taxes to pay for it. However since we don't want to give rich people a free pass, all types of income will be part of the calculation not just payroll.


They will declare ALL of Medicare unconstitutional.
 
2020-09-28 11:57:03 AM  

GardenWeasel: madgonad: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

Actually Medicare for all won't have constitutional issues,

All it really is is a change to the eligibility age (dropping from 65 to 0) and increasing the taxes to pay for it. However since we don't want to give rich people a free pass, all types of income will be part of the calculation not just payroll.

They will declare ALL of Medicare unconstitutional.


Stop being a despair troll.
 
2020-09-28 12:00:23 PM  

shut_it_down: We need a federal Abortion Rights Act, also. We don't rely exclusively on the Constitution to protect voting and other civil rights, so why have we never given Roe v. Wade some legislative support? A federal bill could explicitly preempt state laws that try to pass more rigid requirements that have become the preferred method of disrupting abortion rights.


One of the failures of every time Dems have both houses and the presidency.  Force the Republicans to say no and remove it when they have control
 
2020-09-28 12:02:04 PM  

GardenWeasel: AdmirableSnackbar: Or, more likely, ACB gets seated, the GOP destroys the ACA, and we spend the next 30 years on incrementalism again just to get back to another Republican health care plan similar to the ACA.

How did that 2016 protest vote work out?


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-28 12:05:02 PM  

madgonad: Also, laws can be changed pretty easily. Rights don't.


Assuming the filibuster continues to exist, it would be as hard to repeal as it would be to pass.
 
2020-09-28 12:07:17 PM  

madgonad: BMFPitt: shut_it_down: We need a federal Abortion Rights Act, also. We don't rely exclusively on the Constitution to protect voting and other civil rights, so why have we never given Roe v. Wade some legislative support? A federal bill could explicitly preempt state laws that try to pass more rigid requirements that have become the preferred method of disrupting abortion rights.

There has never been a filibuster-proof majority for doing so, even before considering the cost in political capital and the impracticality of writing it well enough to serve a purpose.

Also, laws can be changed pretty easily. Rights don't.


The ACA is a decade old and they haven't managed to get rid of it yet. The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were passed in the 1960s and they are still here. The reality is that once a law is passed and people start relying on it, it is difficult to roll that law back. I'd also argue that rights that aren't codified, particularly abortion rights, have proven pretty easy to change. States have been creating new standards and limits for abortions, and it only takes approval of a few federal judges for those new rules to stick.
 
2020-09-28 12:09:54 PM  

shut_it_down: The ACA is a decade old and they haven't managed to get rid of it yet.


Because Roberts cared more about his legacy and didn't want to do massive change with a 5-4 majority.  Just watch and see how much restraint they have when they have 6-3 and his legacy isnt on the line.
 
2020-09-28 12:09:57 PM  

shut_it_down: madgonad: BMFPitt: shut_it_down: We need a federal Abortion Rights Act, also. We don't rely exclusively on the Constitution to protect voting and other civil rights, so why have we never given Roe v. Wade some legislative support? A federal bill could explicitly preempt state laws that try to pass more rigid requirements that have become the preferred method of disrupting abortion rights.

There has never been a filibuster-proof majority for doing so, even before considering the cost in political capital and the impracticality of writing it well enough to serve a purpose.

Also, laws can be changed pretty easily. Rights don't.

The ACA is a decade old and they haven't managed to get rid of it yet. The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were passed in the 1960s and they are still here. The reality is that once a law is passed and people start relying on it, it is difficult to roll that law back. I'd also argue that rights that aren't codified, particularly abortion rights, have proven pretty easy to change. States have been creating new standards and limits for abortions, and it only takes approval of a few federal judges for those new rules to stick.


It also goes to show that if you're going to sacrifice your career to do something decent, why not do something great like Medicare For All instead of half-assing it like the ACA or public option?
 
2020-09-28 12:10:07 PM  

Podna: GardenWeasel: AdmirableSnackbar: Or, more likely, ACB gets seated, the GOP destroys the ACA, and we spend the next 30 years on incrementalism again just to get back to another Republican health care plan similar to the ACA.

How did that 2016 protest vote work out?

[Fark user image image 420x417]


It turns out that the Trump campaign had data on millions of black voters and tried to deter them from voting in 2016. Isn't that interesting?
 
MFK
2020-09-28 12:13:52 PM  

eurotrader: Do not need Medicare for all, just a public option for all that want Medicare coverage. Let private for profit insurance compete with no cost to insured health coverage. Eliminate medicaid and repurpose spending.


this would be the cleanest, most efficient way of getting to M4A. If given the choice between a not-for-profit plan that covers everything and is cheaper vs a private plan that's more expensive and has deductibles while siphoning off billions for executives, people aren't going to stay on the private plans very long. I'd guess a 10 year transition barring any political interference tops. Medicare isn't the greatest program anyway and everyone on it needs supplemental private insurance anyway because it's limited in what is covered.
 
MFK
2020-09-28 12:15:50 PM  

shut_it_down: madgonad: BMFPitt: shut_it_down: We need a federal Abortion Rights Act, also. We don't rely exclusively on the Constitution to protect voting and other civil rights, so why have we never given Roe v. Wade some legislative support? A federal bill could explicitly preempt state laws that try to pass more rigid requirements that have become the preferred method of disrupting abortion rights.

There has never been a filibuster-proof majority for doing so, even before considering the cost in political capital and the impracticality of writing it well enough to serve a purpose.

Also, laws can be changed pretty easily. Rights don't.

The ACA is a decade old and they haven't managed to get rid of it yet. The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were passed in the 1960s and they are still here. The reality is that once a law is passed and people start relying on it, it is difficult to roll that law back. I'd also argue that rights that aren't codified, particularly abortion rights, have proven pretty easy to change. States have been creating new standards and limits for abortions, and it only takes approval of a few federal judges for those new rules to stick.


the full ACA is before the SCOTUS this november again. It's widely expected to be struck down if Barrett is confirmed but even if she isn't, a 4-4 split would mean the lower court's ruling would stand and the lower court struck the ACA down.  Ginsberg was the only thing keeping that law alive.
 
2020-09-28 12:22:31 PM  

MFK: shut_it_down: madgonad: BMFPitt: shut_it_down: We need a federal Abortion Rights Act, also. We don't rely exclusively on the Constitution to protect voting and other civil rights, so why have we never given Roe v. Wade some legislative support? A federal bill could explicitly preempt state laws that try to pass more rigid requirements that have become the preferred method of disrupting abortion rights.

There has never been a filibuster-proof majority for doing so, even before considering the cost in political capital and the impracticality of writing it well enough to serve a purpose.

Also, laws can be changed pretty easily. Rights don't.

The ACA is a decade old and they haven't managed to get rid of it yet. The Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were passed in the 1960s and they are still here. The reality is that once a law is passed and people start relying on it, it is difficult to roll that law back. I'd also argue that rights that aren't codified, particularly abortion rights, have proven pretty easy to change. States have been creating new standards and limits for abortions, and it only takes approval of a few federal judges for those new rules to stick.

the full ACA is before the SCOTUS this november again. It's widely expected to be struck down if Barrett is confirmed but even if she isn't, a 4-4 split would mean the lower court's ruling would stand and the lower court struck the ACA down.  Ginsberg was the only thing keeping that law alive.


I'm aware. And the justification for striking it down, in legal terms, is bullshiat. But I'm not willing to be fatalistic about legislation just because SCOTUS might strike the whole thing down on specious grounds.
 
2020-09-28 12:23:54 PM  

Podna: GardenWeasel: AdmirableSnackbar: Or, more likely, ACB gets seated, the GOP destroys the ACA, and we spend the next 30 years on incrementalism again just to get back to another Republican health care plan similar to the ACA.

How did that 2016 protest vote work out?

[Fark user image 420x417]


Disenfranchisement at work.
 
2020-09-28 12:28:21 PM  

madgonad: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

Actually Medicare for all won't have constitutional issues,

All it really is is a change to the eligibility age (dropping from 65 to 0) and increasing the taxes to pay for it. However since we don't want to give rich people a free pass, all types of income will be part of the calculation not just payroll.


You're describing an alternative plan that's been called Universal Medicare. The existing Sanders/Gillibrand/Warren/Harris etc Medicare for All proposals are more complex, including large expansions of the services provided by Medicare and the the percent of costs paid by Medicare.
 
2020-09-28 12:29:23 PM  

MFK: eurotrader: Do not need Medicare for all, just a public option for all that want Medicare coverage. Let private for profit insurance compete with no cost to insured health coverage. Eliminate medicaid and repurpose spending.

this would be the cleanest, most efficient way of getting to M4A. If given the choice between a not-for-profit plan that covers everything and is cheaper vs a private plan that's more expensive and has deductibles while siphoning off billions for executives, people aren't going to stay on the private plans very long. I'd guess a 10 year transition barring any political interference tops. Medicare isn't the greatest program anyway and everyone on it needs supplemental private insurance anyway because it's limited in what is covered.


The mere existence of the option to have a private option drives Fark "Progressives" into such a rage that they just have to pout and vote for Trump.
 
2020-09-28 12:29:51 PM  

Count Bakula: madgonad: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

Actually Medicare for all won't have constitutional issues,

All it really is is a change to the eligibility age (dropping from 65 to 0) and increasing the taxes to pay for it. However since we don't want to give rich people a free pass, all types of income will be part of the calculation not just payroll.

You're describing an alternative plan that's been called Universal Medicare. The existing Sanders/Gillibrand/Warren/Harris etc Medicare for All proposals are more complex, including large expansions of the services provided by Medicare and the the percent of costs paid by Medicare.


It can be done incrementally. First things first, stop making perfect the enemy of good and all those cliches conservatives love to use to describe their horrible ideas that are much worse than this.
 
2020-09-28 12:45:22 PM  

GardenWeasel: AdmirableSnackbar: Or, more likely, ACB gets seated, the GOP destroys the ACA, and we spend the next 30 years on incrementalism again just to get back to another Republican health care plan similar to the ACA.

How did that 2016 protest vote work out?


You mean Clinton could have had ~3million + 1 more votes than Trump rather than just ~3million more votes than Trump?

Or are you certain that the person you are snarking at lived in a place where their vote would have actually counted? Because every time people b*tch about protest votes and non-votes around here, they ignore the fact that over 3 million votes for Clinton did not f*cking matter at all. Are you going to tell those people that their votes were wasted too, because they had the temerity to live in a place where their vote for Clinton didn't count, thanks to the electoral college system? 

F*ck off with that noise.
 
2020-09-28 1:05:28 PM  

Spartapuss: mdemon81: You know we don't have to call her ACB. Ginsburg earned that moniker.

To be fair, I think ACB earned her moniker by going after ACA.


acb + aca = ACAB

also:

acb

I'm calling her Coney the Timid Rabbit.

AKA Judge Bunny.
 
2020-09-28 1:08:19 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Count Bakula: madgonad: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

Actually Medicare for all won't have constitutional issues,

All it really is is a change to the eligibility age (dropping from 65 to 0) and increasing the taxes to pay for it. However since we don't want to give rich people a free pass, all types of income will be part of the calculation not just payroll.

You're describing an alternative plan that's been called Universal Medicare. The existing Sanders/Gillibrand/Warren/Harris etc Medicare for All proposals are more complex, including large expansions of the services provided by Medicare and the the percent of costs paid by Medicare.

It can be done incrementally. First things first, stop making perfect the enemy of good and all those cliches conservatives love to use to describe their horrible ideas that are much worse than this.


Did you get the sense I object to any of the proposals I'm referring to? I'm correcting a factual error and pointing out the wealth of options before us.

/you guys called Warren a traitor for having a transition period in her plan.
//you ran out of the Ilhan Omar thread when I pointed out your most obvious lie. You're arguing in bad faith, as usual.
 
2020-09-28 1:10:45 PM  

mamoru: GardenWeasel: AdmirableSnackbar: Or, more likely, ACB gets seated, the GOP destroys the ACA, and we spend the next 30 years on incrementalism again just to get back to another Republican health care plan similar to the ACA.

How did that 2016 protest vote work out?

You mean Clinton could have had ~3million + 1 more votes than Trump rather than just ~3million more votes than Trump?

Or are you certain that the person you are snarking at lived in a place where their vote would have actually counted? Because every time people b*tch about protest votes and non-votes around here, they ignore the fact that over 3 million votes for Clinton did not f*cking matter at all. Are you going to tell those people that their votes were wasted too, because they had the temerity to live in a place where their vote for Clinton didn't count, thanks to the electoral college system? 

F*ck off with that noise.


You f*ck off. The vocal butthurt left (I'm looking at you Susan Sarandon) did everything in their power to dissuade and discourage voters from choosing Clinton in the general. They didn't exist in a vacuum.
 
2020-09-28 1:22:54 PM  

Count Bakula: AdmirableSnackbar: Count Bakula: madgonad: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

Actually Medicare for all won't have constitutional issues,

All it really is is a change to the eligibility age (dropping from 65 to 0) and increasing the taxes to pay for it. However since we don't want to give rich people a free pass, all types of income will be part of the calculation not just payroll.

You're describing an alternative plan that's been called Universal Medicare. The existing Sanders/Gillibrand/Warren/Harris etc Medicare for All proposals are more complex, including large expansions of the services provided by Medicare and the the percent of costs paid by Medicare.

It can be done incrementally. First things first, stop making perfect the enemy of good and all those cliches conservatives love to use to describe their horrible ideas that are much worse than this.

Did you get the sense I object to any of the proposals I'm referring to? I'm correcting a factual error and pointing out the wealth of options before us.

/you guys called Warren a traitor for having a transition period in her plan.
//you ran out of the Ilhan Omar thread when I pointed out your most obvious lie. You're arguing in bad faith, as usual.


Yes, I get the sense that you're against universal health care, but that's only because you seem to hate everyone who wants universal health care.

And it's funny to see someone like you saying people are arguing in bad faith given, well, everything else you wrote in your post. Apparently I voted for Warren while calling her a traitor?
 
2020-09-28 1:37:26 PM  

GardenWeasel: You f*ck off. The vocal butthurt left (I'm looking at you Susan Sarandon) did everything in their power to dissuade and discourage voters from choosing Clinton in the general. They didn't exist in a vacuum.


And yet over 3 million MORE people chose Clinton over Trump in the general. Their votes didn't count. I should know, because I am one of them.

B*tching about a single voter here who probably doesn't live in an area where it mattered (and is under no obligation to disclose whether or not they do) about their vote does NOTHING to help. AdmirableSnackbar is not the reason why Trump won. Our bullsh*t voting system that pretends to be "democracy" is the reason why Trump won, combined with the Republican party getting away with every dirty trick in the book so suppress the vote. 

Unfortunately, we still have to try to work within that system (while the Republicans continue to get to get away with sabotaging it in their favor every way they can w/out consequence) to try to get the f*ckers out, so how about not alienating potential allies, hmm? Or is it more important for you to feel high and mighty over those you perceive to be the problem than to have a chance at fixing this sh*tstorm?
 
2020-09-28 1:53:50 PM  

BMFPitt: madgonad: Also, laws can be changed pretty easily. Rights don't.

Assuming the filibuster continues to exist, it would be as hard to repeal as it would be to pass.


The procedural filibuster is gone. We all know it. An actual filibuster may remain, but it is hard to talk continuously for a 2 year Congress.
 
2020-09-28 2:39:58 PM  

mamoru: GardenWeasel: You f*ck off. The vocal butthurt left (I'm looking at you Susan Sarandon) did everything in their power to dissuade and discourage voters from choosing Clinton in the general. They didn't exist in a vacuum.

And yet over 3 million MORE people chose Clinton over Trump in the general. Their votes didn't count. I should know, because I am one of them.

B*tching about a single voter here who probably doesn't live in an area where it mattered (and is under no obligation to disclose whether or not they do) about their vote does NOTHING to help. AdmirableSnackbar is not the reason why Trump won. Our bullsh*t voting system that pretends to be "democracy" is the reason why Trump won, combined with the Republican party getting away with every dirty trick in the book so suppress the vote. 

Unfortunately, we still have to try to work within that system (while the Republicans continue to get to get away with sabotaging it in their favor every way they can w/out consequence) to try to get the f*ckers out, so how about not alienating potential allies, hmm? Or is it more important for you to feel high and mighty over those you perceive to be the problem than to have a chance at fixing this sh*tstorm?


You don't think people in safe states who vocally trumpeted anti-Clinton rhetoric for months did not influence the 40K voters in Michigan who voted for Jill Stein instead? "Social media influencer" is a term for a reason. I'm not saying any single person caused all the votes to flip, but in aggregate they did.
 
2020-09-28 2:40:10 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Count Bakula: AdmirableSnackbar: Count Bakula: madgonad: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

Actually Medicare for all won't have constitutional issues,

All it really is is a change to the eligibility age (dropping from 65 to 0) and increasing the taxes to pay for it. However since we don't want to give rich people a free pass, all types of income will be part of the calculation not just payroll.

You're describing an alternative plan that's been called Universal Medicare. The existing Sanders/Gillibrand/Warren/Harris etc Medicare for All proposals are more complex, including large expansions of the services provided by Medicare and the the percent of costs paid by Medicare.

It can be done incrementally. First things first, stop making perfect the enemy of good and all those cliches conservatives love to use to describe their horrible ideas that are much worse than this.

Did you get the sense I object to any of the proposals I'm referring to? I'm correcting a factual error and pointing out the wealth of options before us.

/you guys called Warren a traitor for having a transition period in her plan.
//you ran out of the Ilhan Omar thread when I pointed out your most obvious lie. You're arguing in bad faith, as usual.

Yes, I get the sense that you're against universal health care, but that's only because you seem to hate everyone who wants universal health care.

And it's funny to see someone like you saying people are arguing in bad faith given, well, everything else you wrote in your post. Apparently I voted for Warren while calling her a traitor?


I'm a big fan of the people pushing universal healthcare, from Lee Carter through AOC and all the way up the ladder. I hate internet trolls who feel the need to advocate for the policies I like by lying and shiatposting. The association with people like you makes people like me look bad.

I don't believe you voted for Elizabeth Warren any more than you believe I do. You're a lying liar who lies. It's your whole schtick.
 
2020-09-28 3:05:04 PM  

GardenWeasel: You don't think people in safe states who vocally trumpeted anti-Clinton rhetoric for months did not influence the 40K voters in Michigan who voted for Jill Stein instead?


That those people seem to have had more influence over such voters than the Clinton campaign did should tell you something about the quality of her campaign and its ability to get much more than a "are you really gonna vote for someone like Trump?" message across to people everywhere. 

The 2016 election was a perfect storm of sh*t all around, from weak campaigning where it mattered from Clinton, the fact that "where it mattered" is even a thing due to the electoral college system meaning that not all votes matter equally, outside influences and online troll campaigns to influence votes where it mattered, what has sadly become standard voter suppression tactics by the GOP, etc etc. 

Sh*tting on people here and now does NOTHING to help fight that happening this time around. We're looking at an election where we are going to need every single bit of help, every single ally we can get, etc. in order to try to counter act not only huge amounts of voter suppression, who knows how much outside influence, huge amounts of ballot shenanigans like trying to keep mail-in ballots from being counted, etc. but on top of that the possibility that the sitting president may just wipe his ass with the constitution anyway and ignore the results of the election even if they are overwhelming and the Republican party and a far too significant portion of this country would go along with it just for stigginit. And everyone else going along with it so long as the news media can find some way to spin it as somehow still being within the system that America is supposed to be.

Even if we get an overwhelming majority everywhere to vote against Trump by giving Biden their vote and vote out every rat-f*ck Republican out of office that they can, there is actually a non-zero chance (and possibly a scarily high chance) all of that may not actually be enough. 

Such a fear should not even be in the realm of impossibility, but here we f*cking are.
 
2020-09-28 3:31:23 PM  

Count Bakula: AdmirableSnackbar: Count Bakula: AdmirableSnackbar: Count Bakula: madgonad: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

Actually Medicare for all won't have constitutional issues,

All it really is is a change to the eligibility age (dropping from 65 to 0) and increasing the taxes to pay for it. However since we don't want to give rich people a free pass, all types of income will be part of the calculation not just payroll.

You're describing an alternative plan that's been called Universal Medicare. The existing Sanders/Gillibrand/Warren/Harris etc Medicare for All proposals are more complex, including large expansions of the services provided by Medicare and the the percent of costs paid by Medicare.

It can be done incrementally. First things first, stop making perfect the enemy of good and all those cliches conservatives love to use to describe their horrible ideas that are much worse than this.

Did you get the sense I object to any of the proposals I'm referring to? I'm correcting a factual error and pointing out the wealth of options before us.

/you guys called Warren a traitor for having a transition period in her plan.
//you ran out of the Ilhan Omar thread when I pointed out your most obvious lie. You're arguing in bad faith, as usual.

Yes, I get the sense that you're against universal health care, but that's only because you seem to hate everyone who wants universal health care.

And it's funny to see someone like you saying people are arguing in bad faith given, well, everything else you wrote in your post. Apparently I voted for Warren while calling her a traitor?

I'm a big fan of the people pushing universal healthcare, from Lee Carter through AOC and all the way up the ladder. I hate internet trolls who feel the need to advocate for the policies I like by lying and shiatposting. The association with people like you makes ...


He's a liar?  What does he lie about?  All I see is you attacking him for making correct statements.

Maybe the problem is you.
 
2020-09-28 4:10:33 PM  

eurotrader: Do not need Medicare for all, just a public option for all that want Medicare coverage. Let private for profit insurance compete with no cost to insured health coverage. Eliminate medicaid and repurpose spending.


Medicare is not free, there are monthly premiums, treatment has copays, drugs and dental are not part of the basic Medicare.
 
2020-09-28 4:57:33 PM  

austerity101: Count Bakula: AdmirableSnackbar: Count Bakula: AdmirableSnackbar: Count Bakula: madgonad: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

Actually Medicare for all won't have constitutional issues,

All it really is is a change to the eligibility age (dropping from 65 to 0) and increasing the taxes to pay for it. However since we don't want to give rich people a free pass, all types of income will be part of the calculation not just payroll.

You're describing an alternative plan that's been called Universal Medicare. The existing Sanders/Gillibrand/Warren/Harris etc Medicare for All proposals are more complex, including large expansions of the services provided by Medicare and the the percent of costs paid by Medicare.

It can be done incrementally. First things first, stop making perfect the enemy of good and all those cliches conservatives love to use to describe their horrible ideas that are much worse than this.

Did you get the sense I object to any of the proposals I'm referring to? I'm correcting a factual error and pointing out the wealth of options before us.

/you guys called Warren a traitor for having a transition period in her plan.
//you ran out of the Ilhan Omar thread when I pointed out your most obvious lie. You're arguing in bad faith, as usual.

Yes, I get the sense that you're against universal health care, but that's only because you seem to hate everyone who wants universal health care.

And it's funny to see someone like you saying people are arguing in bad faith given, well, everything else you wrote in your post. Apparently I voted for Warren while calling her a traitor?

I'm a big fan of the people pushing universal healthcare, from Lee Carter through AOC and all the way up the ladder. I hate internet trolls who feel the need to advocate for the policies I like by lying and shiatposting. The association with people like you makes ...

He's a liar?  What does he lie about?  All I see is you attacking him for making correct statements.

Maybe the problem is you.


In this thread, he's only lied about me, which he is admittedly doing in ignorance due to this being an anonymous online forum. In the thread I'm referring to, he lied that Nancy Pelosi endorses the more right-wing Democrat in every primary, then responded to the fact that she endorsed Omar and AOC by saying it didn't make up for her support of some other people.

Then again, in yet another thread, you just declared that "Pete Buttigieg resigned before the end of his term as mayor" is nota lie, even though Pete Buttigieg didn't do that and the person who said he did that knows he didn't do that. You seem to have some problems with the truth as well.
 
2020-09-28 5:19:01 PM  

Podna: GardenWeasel: AdmirableSnackbar: Or, more likely, ACB gets seated, the GOP destroys the ACA, and we spend the next 30 years on incrementalism again just to get back to another Republican health care plan similar to the ACA.

How did that 2016 protest vote work out?

[Fark user image 420x417]


Meh.  Clinton's numbers look above average-for a white person.  Obviously, having an actual black guy at the top of ticket would boost African American turnout.
 
2020-09-28 5:22:02 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: GardenWeasel: madgonad: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

Actually Medicare for all won't have constitutional issues,

All it really is is a change to the eligibility age (dropping from 65 to 0) and increasing the taxes to pay for it. However since we don't want to give rich people a free pass, all types of income will be part of the calculation not just payroll.

They will declare ALL of Medicare unconstitutional.

Stop being a despair troll.


"Despair troll" = "accurate forecaster" of the coming years. Why wouldn't this 6-3 rightwing Supreme Court declare Medicare unconstitutional? It's not like they're burdened by principle, stare decisis, or fair play.

John Roberts might even join the liberals, but it would still be a 5-4 rightwing victory.
 
2020-09-28 5:25:39 PM  

Corn_Fed: AdmirableSnackbar: GardenWeasel: madgonad: GardenWeasel: And a 6-3 SCOTUS will immediately declare it unconstitutional. In fact, they will declare medicine unconstitutional as the only treatment in 1780 was leaches.

Actually Medicare for all won't have constitutional issues,

All it really is is a change to the eligibility age (dropping from 65 to 0) and increasing the taxes to pay for it. However since we don't want to give rich people a free pass, all types of income will be part of the calculation not just payroll.

They will declare ALL of Medicare unconstitutional.

Stop being a despair troll.

"Despair troll" = "accurate forecaster" of the coming years. Why wouldn't this 6-3 rightwing Supreme Court declare Medicare unconstitutional? It's not like they're burdened by principle, stare decisis, or fair play.

John Roberts might even join the liberals, but it would still be a 5-4 rightwing victory.


That's why you expand the court. You do what you need to do and don't make excuses and you say you did the right thing no matter what. Do what Mitch McConnell would do, if he were a Democrat instead of a Republican.

Throwing up your hands and saying "oh well, we might as well not even try" is despair. There's no hope of something if you refuse to try to do it, which is what so many conservatives here don't understand.
 
2020-09-28 7:36:53 PM  

AdmirableSnackbar: Or, more likely, ACB gets seated, the GOP destroys the ACA, and we spend the next 30 years on incrementalism again just to get back to another Republican health care plan similar to the ACA.


This is more likely.
 
Displayed 123 of 123 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.