Affordable Health Care Law under review by SCOTUS

[baldgriff]

Ah yes, the false equivalency argument. Good to see you've found new material.

I said we need to get the big money out of politics - to which you asked me:

You do realize who has blocked or overturned most of the efforts at campaign finance reform right?

You appear to be saying that because my party isnt in office, that I am making a false equivalency by saying that my party has not blocked campaign finance. You seem to forget that my guys want to get rid of big money in politics. So while it may to some extent be a false equivalency because my guys cant currently affect change - it is a consistent position as far as platform goes.

As far as my statement that neither party has clean hands related to taking money.... Seems a pretty fair assessment of the current situation.

Stay for the veal - and tip your waitress.

[DMT]

I said we need to get the big money out of politics - to which you asked me:


You appear to be saying that because my party isnt in office, that I am making a false equivalency by saying that my party has not blocked campaign finance. You seem to forget that my guys want to get rid of big money in politics. So while it may to some extent be a false equivalency because my guys cant currently affect change - it is a consistent position as far as platform goes.

As far as my statement that neither party has clean hands related to taking money.... Seems a pretty fair assessment of the current situation.

Stay for the veal - and tip your waitress.

Democrats have been much more consistent in trying to get the big money out of politics. It's a Republican-dominated SCOTUS that decided money equals free speech. Sure, Democrats (other than Bernie) are not going to refuse corporate donations if the Republicans are getting it because it would put them at a major disadvantage. Here's an article documenting how much money Senate Health Committee member Pat Toomey has received. Fucking over millions of people is apparently worth it because at least he got his. Pure scum, all of em.

http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/05/pat_toomey_health_care_bill_ca.html

[TranaGreg]

... You appear to be saying that because my party isnt in office, that I am making a false equivalency by saying that my party has not blocked campaign finance. ...

no, he was referring to your comment that neither party have clean hands ... the point being that they are not equally culpable, one side is a much worse offender.

[baldgriff]

Democrats have been much more consistent in trying to get the big money out of politics. It's a Republican-dominated SCOTUS that decided money equals free speech. Sure, Democrats (other than Bernie) are not going to refuse corporate donations if the Republicans are getting it because it would put them at a major disadvantage. Here's an article documenting how much money Senate Health Committee member Pat Toomey has received. Fucking over millions of people is apparently worth it because at least he got his. Pure scum, all of em.

http://www.pennlive.com/news/2017/05...e_bill_ca.html

Frequently the Dems tend to frame their arguments based on taking the moral high ground. Here is a great example where if you REALLY want to make an impression - then actually dont just give lip service to the issue, actually set the example. Unfortunately, the Dems most recent candidate was a great example of this problem. HRC's multiple sources of funding (or contributions to other "charities") makes this one a tough little chestnut to crack. At some point you have to stop giving lip service to the problem and actually do something to demonstrate how serious you are about it - even if it puts you at a disadvantage. You cant continuously claim the moral high ground without actually standing firm on it.

[DMT]

Frequently the Dems tend to frame their arguments based on taking the moral high ground. Here is a great example where if you REALLY want to make an impression - then actually dont just give lip service to the issue, actually set the example. Unfortunately, the Dems most recent candidate was a great example of this problem. HRC's multiple sources of funding (or contributions to other "charities") makes this one a tough little chestnut to crack. At some point you have to stop giving lip service to the problem and actually do something to demonstrate how serious you are about it - even if it puts you at a disadvantage. You cant continuously claim the moral high ground without actually standing firm on it.

And then when the Democrats lose and the Republicans take control and fuck everything up, you can continue blaming them both equally because the Democrats should have run better candidates, right?

[TranaGreg]

re: are both sides the same? I came across this today, it's obviously a very different topic but I thought it might be interesting nonetheless ...

[baldgriff]

DMT -
I hold both parties responsible for the pile of shit our political system has become. I also hold us (the citizenry) responsible for not holding these people to account.

I would prefer term limits as a way to help mitigate some of this. At least we would see new faces, with hopefully new ideas and a modicum of integrity.

[DMT]

re: are both sides the same? I came across this today, it's obviously a very different topic but I thought it might be interesting nonetheless ...

No, I'd say that's pretty much exactly how they operate, party over country. It's despicable and cowardly and is one of the main reason's our political system is in such dire shape.

[DMT]

DMT -
I hold both parties responsible for the pile of shit our political system has become. I also hold us (the citizenry) responsible for not holding these people to account.

I would prefer term limits as a way to help mitigate some of this. At least we would see new faces, with hopefully new ideas and a modicum of integrity.

I agree with this but the difference is that I think Republicans are responsible for about 80% of the shit-pie, whereas Democrats are at about 20%.

[baldgriff]

I agree with this but the difference is that I think Republicans are responsible for about 80% of the shit-pie, whereas Democrats are at about 20%.

As my party affiliation is neither of them I just lump it all together, I dont really need to split hairs at this point.

[DMT]

As my party affiliation is neither of them I just lump it all together, I dont really need to split hairs at this point.

Sorry, but 80/20 is not splitting hairs. But perhaps you disagree with my estimate.

[baldgriff]

Sorry, but 80/20 is not splitting hairs. But perhaps you disagree with my estimate.

I want to get rid of them all.

[onejayhawk]

Neither party have clean hands related to taking money.

Dat da fack, Jack.

Democrats have been much more consistent in trying to get the big money out of politics. It's a Republican-dominated SCOTUS that decided money equals free speech. Sure, Democrats (other than Bernie) are not going to refuse corporate donations if the Republicans are getting it because it would put them at a major disadvantage. Here's an article documenting how much money Senate Health Committee member Pat Toomey has received. Fucking over millions of people is apparently worth it because at least he got his. Pure scum, all of em.

The Democrats have been very willing to take the big money. Witness Hillary's campaign finances vs Sanders. Obama was the same and spent eight years in bed with Wall street. The Republicans are no shining example, but these days they are a lot closer to the grass roots.

J

[Fresno Bob]

Health Care is one of those things where you shouldn't get to be personally selfish, because when you are selfish, like not vaccinating your children, other people die. We need a national, dispersed health care system because the #1 national security threat to the US is a pandemic, either natural or man made. We can't have all our trained medical professionals sitting in single buildings, we need tripwires of neighborhood clinics staffed with nurse practitioners.

[Redbirds Fan]

Health Care is one of those things where you shouldn't get to be personally selfish, because when you are selfish, like not vaccinating your children, other people die. We need a national, dispersed health care system because the #1 national security threat to the US is a pandemic, either natural or man made. We can't have all our trained medical professionals sitting in single buildings, we need tripwires of neighborhood clinics staffed with nurse practitioners.

This is a point that merits thoughtful consideration and discussion.

My city has a clinic for employees staffed by a great nurse pracitioner. You get in and out. There is no charge. It cuts down on claims against the city's health insurance carrier enough to pay for itself many times over. And it keeps the city work force healthier and more productive.