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  
•       •       •

1071 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Sep 2020 at 9:54 AM (9 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

 
2020-09-28 9:40:45 AM  
14 votes:
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 9:52:12 AM  
9 votes:

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 10:00:14 AM  
8 votes:
The establishment democrats will NEVER pass MedicareForAll... they are centrist republicans after all.
 
2020-09-28 10:04:54 AM  
7 votes:

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 10:02:24 AM  
7 votes:
only fools ignore the pendulum of time

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-28 10:10:00 AM  
6 votes:

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 9:58:21 AM  
6 votes:
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 9:50:45 AM  
6 votes:
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 9:34:20 AM  
6 votes:
To lose is to win, and he who wins shall lose.
This is the game of Rassilon.
 
2020-09-28 9:38:56 AM  
5 votes:
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 2:39:58 PM  
4 votes:

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 10:29:30 AM  
4 votes:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-28 10:06:45 AM  
4 votes:

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 10:03:32 AM  
4 votes:

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 10:01:44 AM  
4 votes:
Democrats passing Medicare For All? LOL, I laughed so much this morning. Thanks for that.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-28 9:32:34 AM  
4 votes:
"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 5:22:02 PM  
3 votes:

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 2:40:10 PM  
3 votes:

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 1:10:45 PM  
3 votes:

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 11:04:13 AM  
3 votes:

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 10:30:28 AM  
3 votes:

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 10:27:01 AM  
3 votes:

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 10:26:43 AM  
3 votes:
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 10:17:05 AM  
3 votes:

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 10:15:52 AM  
3 votes:

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 9:57:34 AM  
3 votes:
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 9:56:22 AM  
3 votes:

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 5:25:39 PM  
2 votes:

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 4:57:33 PM  
2 votes:

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 3:31:23 PM  
2 votes:

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 1:22:54 PM  
2 votes:

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 1:08:19 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:29:51 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:57:03 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:50:09 AM  
2 votes:

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 11:17:02 AM  
2 votes:
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 11:12:10 AM  
2 votes:

American Decency Association: only fools ignore the pendulum of time

[Fark user image image 381x263]


vignette.wikia.nocookie.netView Full Size
 
2020-09-28 10:49:10 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:35:37 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:34:45 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:16:48 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:16:28 AM  
2 votes:

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 10:08:26 AM  
2 votes:
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 10:06:58 AM  
2 votes:
How about we kick Trump out this November first. Then we'll talk about other stuff.
 
2020-09-28 10:05:47 AM  
2 votes:

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 9:25:00 AM  
2 votes:
2.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2020-09-28 1:37:26 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:45:22 PM  
1 vote:

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.
 
MFK
2020-09-28 12:13:52 PM  
1 vote:

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.
 
2020-09-28 11:56:33 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:30:29 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:10:25 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:51:45 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:51:45 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:40:58 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:30:49 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:27:18 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:24:06 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:23:38 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:18:55 AM  
1 vote:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-28 10:04:07 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:02:50 AM  
1 vote:

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 9:57:04 AM  
1 vote:

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 9:55:32 AM  
1 vote:
You know we don't have to call her ACB. Ginsburg earned that moniker.
 
2020-09-28 9:46:36 AM  
1 vote:
The North won the war, and then lost the peace.

/i blame john wilkes booth
 
Displayed 65 of 65 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.