I suspect the Democrats back in 2009 - 2010, when they controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress, did not implement the ACA all on their own in the way they wanted because they were too afraid that they would have to accept all the blame if it failed disastrously. Similarly, Republicans now, controlling the White House and both Houses of Congress, do not want to repeal the ACA because they are too afraid that it will fail disastrously and they will have to accept all the responsibility for it.
Don't forget that many Republicans still don't like Trump. Yes, they may all have R behind their names but that doesn't mean they are on the same team.
Trump is actively trying to sabotage the healthcare market. He has admitted as much. The strategy is to turn around and blame Obama. Don't see how that works with anyone who doesn't believe that already:
25 years ago, federal watchdogs concluded that plans that Trump is implementing ripped off hundreds of thousands of Americans by refusing to pay their medical claims while violating state insurance laws and even criminal statutes.
Back in 1992, the Government Accountability Office issued a scathing report on these multiple employer welfare arrangements (known as MEWAs; they’re pronounced “mee-wahs”) in which small businesses could pool funds to get the lower-cost insurance typically available only to large employers.
These MEWAs, said the government, left at least 398,000 participants and their beneficiaries with more than $123 million in unpaid claims between January 1988 and June 1991.
Furthermore, states reported massive and widespread problems with MEWAs. More than 600 plans in nearly every U.S. state failed to comply with insurance laws. Thirty-three states said enrollees were sometimes left without health coverage when MEWAs disbanded.
I suppose being released from Taliban control after five years is a good thing...but...erm...I get that you were pregnant when you were captured but why would ever become pregnant again *while* you are still being held by the Taliban? That makes no sense whatsoever, which means that the story we are being told right now doesn't add up.
Then again, if you're stuck in a small room with your SO for five years, what else are you going to do? It may be stupid, but nothing I've read about either of these two would qualify them for MENSA.
You guys are missing the obvious answer. Rape is a thing especially if you are a woman held captive by the Taliban.
Isn't that what happened with Boko Haram, thousands of women and girls abducted. Very few have escaped. Many forced into "marriage" or just kept around for slavery.
The 1st Ammendment says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free press but hey it doesn't mention anything about individual states restricting those rights!
State run mediawhy hasn't anyone thought of that before! Why isn't that a thing!
What other rights can be curtailed with this ingenious loophole - maybe they can take away pesky things like women's right to vote and let's get some state religions going too.
Then again, if you're stuck in a small room with your SO for five years, what else are you going to do? It may be stupid, but nothing I've read about either of these two would qualify them for MENSA.
I have met people *in* MENSA who don't qualify for MENSA.
*************
Individual States have always been able to do things Congress cannot. Sometimes doing so is irrelevant, though, because neighboring States may have different laws.
The 1st Ammendment says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free press but hey it doesn't mention anything about individual states restricting those rights!
State run mediawhy hasn't anyone thought of that before! Why isn't that a thing!
What other rights can be curtailed with this ingenious loophole - maybe they can take away pesky things like women's right to vote and let's get some state religions going too.
The 14th Amendment extends the Bill of Rights to state governments. Several states did have state religions prior to its ratification.
We need to seriously ask ourselves what we do with a President who doesn't just lack empathy, but seems completely devoid of it in all capacities. Trump is willing (and trying) to sabotage the entire health insurance system to claim some sort of political victory. The ACA is law, but does that matter at this point?? He has no legal right to stop these payments. The Republicans did not repeal the Affordable Care Act. We've now reached the point (in less than 10 months) where Trump is just going to circumvent Congress completely. This isn't like the Executive Order from this morning, which is bad. This is just saying "f**k the law, we're destroying Obamacare whether we have the votes in Congress or not". In the words of Neil Young, we are moving out of the blue and into the black with this guy. We are dealing with a legitimately evil person:
For those who aren't interested in clicking, it shows the percentage of Clinton and Trump voters who have positive or negative views of the NFL, starting in March and going into October. The first thing to keep in mind is that Colin Kapernick started kneeling in protest LAST fall, before this started tracking. From March to October, both the Clinton and Trump voters are around 55-60% in favor of positive feelings for the league. No meaningful difference between the two camps. Then October comes, and NOTHING about the issue changes besides Trump speaking up about the issue. The Clinton voters number on their feelings about the league goes nowhere, staying as steady as it was since the beginning in March. The Trump voter positive view number plummets to 30%, while the disapproval shoots up to nearly 65%. Based on NO new information (indeed, Kapernick himself had been black-balled out of the league by this time). The massive movement of conservative voters and how they feel about the NFL was entirely based on the opinion Donald Trump TOLD them to have on it. If Donald Trump started attacking General Mills, half his voters would stop eating Cheerios.
The 1st Ammendment says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free press but hey it doesn't mention anything about individual states restricting those rights!
State run mediawhy hasn't anyone thought of that before! Why isn't that a thing!
What other rights can be curtailed with this ingenious loophole - maybe they can take away pesky things like women's right to vote and let's get some state religions going too.
California and New York could take away the right to bear arms...
The 1st Ammendment says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free press but hey it doesn't mention anything about individual states restricting those rights!
State run mediawhy hasn't anyone thought of that before! Why isn't that a thing!
What other rights can be curtailed with this ingenious loophole - maybe they can take away pesky things like women's right to vote and let's get some state religions going too.
California and New York could take away the right to bear arms...
About California and gun control....it was actually the patron saint of the right-wing, Ronald Reagan, who first implemented it. And, of course, it was in DIRECT response to black people (specifically the Black Panthers) attempting to exercise the same rights as white people to open carry in public:
Back in 1967, says Jacob Sullum at Reason, "the NRA supported the Mulford Act, which banned open carrying of loaded firearms in California. The law, a response to the Black Panthers' conspicuous exercise of the right to armed self-defense, also was supported by Gov. Ronald Reagan." As the bill's conservative sponsor, Don Mulford (R), argued in 1989, "openly carrying a gun is an 'act of violence or near violence,'" Sullum noted. "Apparently Reagan and the NRA agreed." The Mulford Act is still on the books in California, America's most populous state.
California and New York could take away the right to bear arms...
They could...but you know there would be exceptions for people like professional bodyguards, wealthy political donors who like to go sport shooting from time to time, or other wealthy individuals who can afford the "I am exempt from that law" license. Oh, and criminals--they will still have guns, too.
California and New York could take away the right to bear arms...
They could...but you know there would be exceptions for people like professional bodyguards, wealthy political donors who like to go sport shooting from time to time, or other wealthy individuals who can afford the "I am exempt from that law" license. Oh, and criminals--they will still have guns, too.
I feel like this "criminals will have guns no matter what the laws are" line of thinking is probably played-out by now. After all, you can say this about nearly anything that is restricted by law. Why have laws against speeding when speeders are just going to speed?? Why outlaw murder when murderers are just going to murder anyway?? If laws (which are essentially rules) weren't an influence on behavior, then we wouldn't have any of them. I don't drive exactly 70 mph on the interstate because it's the speed I would prefer to go at on long trips. I do it because the potential punishment of a speeding ticket isn't worth the 20-30 minutes I would save on a 4 hour trip. Some people still speed. But I am certainly not the only one who adheres to the rule (70 mph). It would be no different with gun laws. And in all the mass shooting of the past 10-20, almost none of them have involved a "good guy with a gun" saving the day. Not Columbine, not Virginia Tech, not the Pulse Nightclub, not Vegas. Indeed, in the nightclub, any good guy with a gun would have likely killed MORE people in a dark, crowded room. In Vegas, it would have had to have been a good guy with an RPG-launcher, firing up to a 31st floor hotel room window.
Now you are getting to the crux of the matter--nothing is actually illegal until you get caught.
That old adage about criminals and guns might be played out but it is still *true*. The point was, though, that California could pass a law today banning all private gun ownership and there would still be a handful of people shot in the Greater Los Angeles Metropolitan Area this weekend.
Before I forget--today is the 710th anniversary of King Philip IV of France rounding up the Knights Templar and putting them in prison (most of them will be tortured into confessing heresy). Incidentally, that date was *also* Friday 13 October, which makes today especially unique. If you wanted to know *why* Friday the 13th is considered "unlucky", well now you know.
Trump is going to forward with de-certification of the Iran deal. They are living up to their end of the deal, but yeah, who cares.....we are the US and we'll swing our dick wherever we want regardless of concepts like living up to your word and obligations.
Know this though: after the actions of the last two days, Trump now OWNS what happens in regards to healthcare and Iran lock, stock and barrel. Both issues are now 150% on him.
California and New York could take away the right to bear arms...
They could...but you know there would be exceptions for people like professional bodyguards, wealthy political donors who like to go sport shooting from time to time, or other wealthy individuals who can afford the "I am exempt from that law" license. Oh, and criminals--they will still have guns, too.
In Vegas, it would have had to have been a good guy with an RPG-launcher, firing up to a 31st floor hotel room window.
@jjstraka34 " almost none of them have involved a "good guy with a gun" saving the day. Not Columbine, not Virginia Tech, not the Pulse Nightclub, not Vegas. "
Because its preventative. Is a lone gunman really going to target a group of people that he knows at least some are armed? How many mass shootings have there been when any of the victims were similarly armed.
As for a heroic gunman, remember the Pearl Highschool Shooting? The assistant principle was able to at least prevent the gunman from getting away. At the time, there were reports that the shooter was planning on shooting up another school down the road. IMAGINE THE LIVES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED IF THE ASSISTANT PRINCIPLE HAD ACCESS TO HIS GUN THE MOMENT SHOOTING STARTED.
@jjstraka34 " almost none of them have involved a "good guy with a gun" saving the day. Not Columbine, not Virginia Tech, not the Pulse Nightclub, not Vegas. "
Because its preventative. Is a lone gunman really going to target a group of people that he knows at least some are armed? How many mass shootings have there been when any of the victims were similarly armed.
As for a heroic gunman, remember the Pearl Highschool Shooting? The assistant principle was able to at least prevent the gunman from getting away. At the time, there were reports that the shooter was planning on shooting up another school down the road. IMAGINE THE LIVES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED IF THE ASSISTANT PRINCIPLE HAD ACCESS TO HIS GUN THE MOMENT SHOOTING STARTED.
Imagine this incident not even happening because fire arms were not easy to access.
Yes organized criminals would still have access to guns, but distraught teenagers and gambling property mangers wouldn't even know where to start looking to obtain one let alone a bags full of them.
Virtually every time a shooter is taken down, it is the police who are able to get him, not a random citizen with no training and no preparation. The "good guy with a gun" is a police officer.
How many mass shootings have there been when any of the victims were similarly armed.
I don't recall any situation where a shooter targeted people who had guns. But I don't see the logical policy here--are we supposed to put guns in the hands of everyone, so there exist no unarmed populations to target in the first place?
This is exactly that "good guy either a gun" video that I posted a couple pages back.
Take your pick of a muslim, white supremacist, black guy, white guy, mysoginists, whoever it is if THEY are the ones carrying the gun, they feel they are the good guy with the gun. Everyone is the hero of their own story. Reagan didn't feel black panther carrying guns we're good guys with a gun, they felt they were good guys.
And if you have a gun like the Vegas shooter who cares if your target has a gun just empty the clip, there's nothing they can do. If a hundred bullets hit you, that gun on your hip will do nothing.
I seriously can't think of any longer running and more ridiculous nonsense story in this country than the annual "War on Christmas" that conservatives supposedly think is taking place. This has been going on for almost 15 years now, and it gets more ridiculous every year.
First of all, there isn't a single cultural event in this country that is more all-encompassing and inescapable than Christmas. From mid-October through the end of the year, it is plastered all over every store, dishes and drinks are implemented in every restaurant, and the music fills the radio (some stations even change their entire format for one or two months at a time). Even if you literally locked yourself in a closet for all of November and December, you STILL couldn't escape Christmas, because in all likelihood there would be leftover wrapping paper from years past sitting right next to you. You'd have to be in a coma or dead to avoid Christmas in America.
But more to the point, the issue of saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", and people taking offense to it.....I mean, look....I don't know how to tell people this if they are offended by this phrase, but people aren't saying "Happy Holidays" because they hate Jesus and don't like your holiday. They are saying "Happy Holidays" because, from November to January 1st, there are 4 major holidays that take place in a condensed period of time, and people have other shit to do in their lives rather than say "Happy Thanksgiving, Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year" in every goddamn conversation they have for 2 months.
He's just telling them what he thinks they want to hear. They are dumb if they believe anything he says. The guy can barely read and isn't Religious at all as evidenced by his unfamiliarity with the Bible.
the music fills the radio (some stations even change their entire format for one or two months at a time)
I *despise* Christmas music these days, with the exception of 4 or 5 songs. I won't listen to them and I won't sing them, except for the songs on my very short list. I tried to suggest once that we should skip the holidays one year and do nothing for them but that idea was quickly shot down by the wife.
Back on topic...there never was a "War on Christmas" unless you want to go back to times in England when Christmas was actually outlawed.
*************
As far as the Iran deal, though...if Trump decides to state that Iran is not complying with the terms of the agreement that doesn't actually nullify the deal. Instead, what happens is that Congress then gets a 60-day window during which to decide whether to impose new sanctions or continue under the current status quo. I strongly suspect that Congress will decide to stick with the current status quo--no one wants to be seen as destabilizing the region less than a year before running for reelection. No one else wants to renegotiate the deal, either, especially Iran. The thing to remember about Iran right now is that although its leaders may be slightly insane (they are essentially a theocracy, after all, and they do things like outlaw haircuts) but they aren't *stupid*--complying with the agreement will result in previously-frozen assets becoming available and everyone likes money, even theocrats.
*************
That story earlier where Illinois (Indiana? *shrug* one of those States) wanted to license journalists....that is a Very Bad Idea (tm) and results in State-run media as your only source of news. Historically, that path has an abysmal track record of success.
There's this pattern at mass shootings. People often think there are multiple shooters even though there almost never is. Probably because of the general confusion, chaos, echoes and, in Vegas, the sound systems picking up the shots. Events like these are just a chaotic mess where no one really knows what's happening.
So as a good guy with a gun, you are probably more likely to be mistaken for another shooter rather than a savior. And then the panic spreads, people run in the wrong direction, other good guys with guns start shooting at you, innocents get in the way. And if you survive the trampling, the actual shooter and the other good guys, you might just get shot by the police. And you might not even have realized where the actual shooter was. And that is if you are even able to pull out your gun at all during such a horrible and traumatic event.
I understand the thought behind the "good guy with gun" argument. But you'd need a whole lot of training and some really rare circumstances to be able to do anything good at all in that kind of situation. Most likely you are just going to make things worse.
Virtually every time a shooter is taken down, it is the police who are able to get him, not a random citizen with no training and no preparation. The "good guy with a gun" is a police officer.
How many mass shootings have there been when any of the victims were similarly armed.
I don't recall any situation where a shooter targeted people who had guns. But I don't see the logical policy here--are we supposed to put guns in the hands of everyone, so there exist no unarmed populations to target in the first place?
We can apparently fund the largest military industry on the planet by orders of magnitude, how some basic security for our schools?
Comments
Back in 1992, the Government Accountability Office issued a scathing report on these multiple employer welfare arrangements (known as MEWAs; they’re pronounced “mee-wahs”) in which small businesses could pool funds to get the lower-cost insurance typically available only to large employers.
These MEWAs, said the government, left at least 398,000 participants and their beneficiaries with more than $123 million in unpaid claims between January 1988 and June 1991.
Furthermore, states reported massive and widespread problems with MEWAs. More than 600 plans in nearly every U.S. state failed to comply with insurance laws. Thirty-three states said enrollees were sometimes left without health coverage when MEWAs disbanded.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-health-202/2017/10/12/the-health-202-trump-s-executive-order-has-a-history-and-the-government-says-its-not-all-great/59de6c4930fb0468cea81e8f/?utm_term=.ba24d525d22a
Isn't that what happened with Boko Haram, thousands of women and girls abducted. Very few have escaped. Many forced into "marriage" or just kept around for slavery.
State run media why hasn't anyone thought of that before! Why isn't that a thing!
What other rights can be curtailed with this ingenious loophole - maybe they can take away pesky things like women's right to vote and let's get some state religions going too.
*************
Individual States have always been able to do things Congress cannot. Sometimes doing so is irrelevant, though, because neighboring States may have different laws.
And if so and you voted for him you must really be scratching your head.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/11/upshot/trump-nfl-polarization.html?_r=0
For those who aren't interested in clicking, it shows the percentage of Clinton and Trump voters who have positive or negative views of the NFL, starting in March and going into October. The first thing to keep in mind is that Colin Kapernick started kneeling in protest LAST fall, before this started tracking. From March to October, both the Clinton and Trump voters are around 55-60% in favor of positive feelings for the league. No meaningful difference between the two camps. Then October comes, and NOTHING about the issue changes besides Trump speaking up about the issue. The Clinton voters number on their feelings about the league goes nowhere, staying as steady as it was since the beginning in March. The Trump voter positive view number plummets to 30%, while the disapproval shoots up to nearly 65%. Based on NO new information (indeed, Kapernick himself had been black-balled out of the league by this time). The massive movement of conservative voters and how they feel about the NFL was entirely based on the opinion Donald Trump TOLD them to have on it. If Donald Trump started attacking General Mills, half his voters would stop eating Cheerios.
Back in 1967, says Jacob Sullum at Reason, "the NRA supported the Mulford Act, which banned open carrying of loaded firearms in California. The law, a response to the Black Panthers' conspicuous exercise of the right to armed self-defense, also was supported by Gov. Ronald Reagan." As the bill's conservative sponsor, Don Mulford (R), argued in 1989, "openly carrying a gun is an 'act of violence or near violence,'" Sullum noted. "Apparently Reagan and the NRA agreed." The Mulford Act is still on the books in California, America's most populous state.
That old adage about criminals and guns might be played out but it is still *true*. The point was, though, that California could pass a law today banning all private gun ownership and there would still be a handful of people shot in the Greater Los Angeles Metropolitan Area this weekend.
Before I forget--today is the 710th anniversary of King Philip IV of France rounding up the Knights Templar and putting them in prison (most of them will be tortured into confessing heresy). Incidentally, that date was *also* Friday 13 October, which makes today especially unique. If you wanted to know *why* Friday the 13th is considered "unlucky", well now you know.
Know this though: after the actions of the last two days, Trump now OWNS what happens in regards to healthcare and Iran lock, stock and barrel. Both issues are now 150% on him.
Because its preventative. Is a lone gunman really going to target a group of people that he knows at least some are armed? How many mass shootings have there been when any of the victims were similarly armed.
As for a heroic gunman, remember the Pearl Highschool Shooting? The assistant principle was able to at least prevent the gunman from getting away. At the time, there were reports that the shooter was planning on shooting up another school down the road. IMAGINE THE LIVES THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED IF THE ASSISTANT PRINCIPLE HAD ACCESS TO HIS GUN THE MOMENT SHOOTING STARTED.
Yes organized criminals would still have access to guns, but distraught teenagers and gambling property mangers wouldn't even know where to start looking to obtain one let alone a bags full of them.
Take your pick of a muslim, white supremacist, black guy, white guy, mysoginists, whoever it is if THEY are the ones carrying the gun, they feel they are the good guy with the gun. Everyone is the hero of their own story. Reagan didn't feel black panther carrying guns we're good guys with a gun, they felt they were good guys.
And if you have a gun like the Vegas shooter who cares if your target has a gun just empty the clip, there's nothing they can do. If a hundred bullets hit you, that gun on your hip will do nothing.
I seriously can't think of any longer running and more ridiculous nonsense story in this country than the annual "War on Christmas" that conservatives supposedly think is taking place. This has been going on for almost 15 years now, and it gets more ridiculous every year.
First of all, there isn't a single cultural event in this country that is more all-encompassing and inescapable than Christmas. From mid-October through the end of the year, it is plastered all over every store, dishes and drinks are implemented in every restaurant, and the music fills the radio (some stations even change their entire format for one or two months at a time). Even if you literally locked yourself in a closet for all of November and December, you STILL couldn't escape Christmas, because in all likelihood there would be leftover wrapping paper from years past sitting right next to you. You'd have to be in a coma or dead to avoid Christmas in America.
But more to the point, the issue of saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", and people taking offense to it.....I mean, look....I don't know how to tell people this if they are offended by this phrase, but people aren't saying "Happy Holidays" because they hate Jesus and don't like your holiday. They are saying "Happy Holidays" because, from November to January 1st, there are 4 major holidays that take place in a condensed period of time, and people have other shit to do in their lives rather than say "Happy Thanksgiving, Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year" in every goddamn conversation they have for 2 months.
Back on topic...there never was a "War on Christmas" unless you want to go back to times in England when Christmas was actually outlawed.
*************
As far as the Iran deal, though...if Trump decides to state that Iran is not complying with the terms of the agreement that doesn't actually nullify the deal. Instead, what happens is that Congress then gets a 60-day window during which to decide whether to impose new sanctions or continue under the current status quo. I strongly suspect that Congress will decide to stick with the current status quo--no one wants to be seen as destabilizing the region less than a year before running for reelection. No one else wants to renegotiate the deal, either, especially Iran. The thing to remember about Iran right now is that although its leaders may be slightly insane (they are essentially a theocracy, after all, and they do things like outlaw haircuts) but they aren't *stupid*--complying with the agreement will result in previously-frozen assets becoming available and everyone likes money, even theocrats.
*************
That story earlier where Illinois (Indiana? *shrug* one of those States) wanted to license journalists....that is a Very Bad Idea (tm) and results in State-run media as your only source of news. Historically, that path has an abysmal track record of success.
So as a good guy with a gun, you are probably more likely to be mistaken for another shooter rather than a savior. And then the panic spreads, people run in the wrong direction, other good guys with guns start shooting at you, innocents get in the way. And if you survive the trampling, the actual shooter and the other good guys, you might just get shot by the police. And you might not even have realized where the actual shooter was. And that is if you are even able to pull out your gun at all during such a horrible and traumatic event.
I understand the thought behind the "good guy with gun" argument. But you'd need a whole lot of training and some really rare circumstances to be able to do anything good at all in that kind of situation. Most likely you are just going to make things worse.