White Republicans are revolting: They keep winning elections, and keep getting angrier

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So I take it that you will be just fine when the man takes all your funds.

Don't put words in my mouth.

Imposing illegal taxes knowing full well that they go against the constitution is illegal as murdering American citizens with rc helicopters. There is very much illegal activities that bush started and bama continued simply because they had political cover to perform illegal duties without being held accountable. Boner and his replacement have been the ones that directly covered for the crimes.

Then you need to go restudy American Government, namely impeachable offenses. Because you don't know what you are talking about. If you believe that Obamacare (if it were truly unconstitutional) being passed is an impeachable offense for Obama then you don't understand our political system.

Your other argument is against Obama being able to wage war, like that is something that NO other President has ever done before... If you think Obama's drone war is an impeachable offense, where are the impeachment proceedings against Bush?

Though, it's more likely you are just griping because you are angry and don't want to back down even though I've completely refuted your argument.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not really. Many people knew exactly what was going on with NAFTA. Remember Perot's comments on the giant sucking sound. All that happened is politicians compromised to undermine the American economy. To pretend no one knew how bad it would be is disingenuous. The same can be said of ACA. There were so many people speaking out against this bill. I am not going to point any fingers but I have noticed how quietly many pro-ACA posters here have back peddled and try to distance themselves from it now.

a reply to: nwtrucker

a majority of Republicans didn't vote on it. Either the AMA or the PTA. It got passed because there were more yea than Nay. that doesn't mean ALL or a majority of republicans voted for it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No one is putting anything in your mouth.

It is obvious that he was covered in his actions by all those liberals.

You are stating opinions as if they are facts.

It is possible to hold politicians accountable for their actions using the laws but you and your cronies would love for everyone to keep believing that they are helpless when it comes to domestic jihad inside our gov.

Only a fool would state otherwise.

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So why did you bring it up????

Because the Republicans had the Democrats compromise on the bill before it went to vote. By the time it got to vote, it was such a travesty that the Republicans didn't want anything to do with it, and the Democrats wanted to push it through for the sake of getting something through Congress.

You actually have the nerve to post this?? Really??

Yea... Why wouldn't I? Are you going to physically assault me for posting it or something?

Your own majority leader said 'pass it then we'll read it'. How can the Republican's 'compromise on something that no one has even read??

I'm an independent. I don't have a majority leader.

Your post is pure bull.

Uh Huh...

A healthcare history lesson for the GOP

Fundamentally — and infuriatingly for the Democratic base — Obamacare is inherently a compromise because it is a health insurance reform law rather than an overhaul of the structure of our nation's healthcare system. A significant contingent of Democratic voters and activists has always supported a single-payer healthcare system, in which the government, not private insurance companies, covers healthcare costs for all Americans (think Medicare for all).

This would have been a fundamental transition from our current system, in which most people receive healthcare insurance through their employers (which causes big problems for those who lose their jobs or don't qualify for employer-sponsored healthcare). It is also the approach taken by most other modern democracies around the world, including Canada and much of Western Europe, which have both lower mortality rates and lower costs. Instead of having a huge variety of individual companies, with each collecting a middleman's fee, a single-payer system reaps huge benefits in simplicity and quality control.

Yet the single-payer system had already been compromised away when the final 2009-10 healthcare negotiations began. The deep opposition of some Americans to expanding government presented an insurmountable obstacle to adopting this rational, efficient and humane approach to insuring the health of the people of the nation. Recognizing this political reality, many Democrats compromised, even those who considered the single-payer approach to be by far the best policy.

Instead of pushing for single payer, they rallied around another approach: the "public option." The public option would have preserved the current employer-based system of private health insurance coverage while providing a government-run healthcare insurance alternative as well as a safety net for the uninsured. Importantly, it would have also injected much-needed competition into an environment where private insurance plans are increasingly consolidated.

Still, this compromise of abandoning a single-payer system for a public option was not enough for Republicans and some conservative Democrats. Even though a public option was included in both the House and Senate versions of healthcare reform, politics prevailed and yet another huge concession was made. Instead of a single-payer system or even a public option for those who chose it, Democrats went along with the Obama compromise of adopting RomneyCare, the old Republican plan signed into law by Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts.

This plan builds on the existing system of insurers and insurance plans and was explicitly designed to mimic previous Republican plans in order to assure passage in Congress. Notably, it includes the "individual mandate," which 19 Republicans first proposed in 1993 as a legislative alternative to President Clinton's healthcare reform bill. Today, Republicans attack the individual mandate as unconstitutional.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not really. Many people knew exactly what was going on with NAFTA. Remember Perot's comments on the giant sucking sound. All that happened is politicians compromised to undermine the American economy. To pretend no one knew how bad it would be is disingenuous. The same can be said of ACA. There were so many people speaking out against this bill. I am not going to point any fingers but I have noticed how quietly many pro-ACA posters here have back peddled and try to distance themselves from it now.

Except no one knew about what was going to happen to Mexico. Mexico was really the TRUE casualty of NAFTA.

I am not going to point any fingers but I have noticed how quietly many pro-ACA posters here have back peddled and try to distance themselves from it now.

I REALLY hope you aren't talking about me with this post, because I have NEVER been in favor of this bill and I have the posting history to prove it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you going to physically assault me for posting it or something?

you should take a break

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: nwtrucker

a majority of Republicans didn't vote on it. Either the AMA or the PTA. It got passed because there were more yea than Nay. that doesn't mean ALL or a majority of republicans voted for it.

why were some not doing they're job and voting? not voting = supporting it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If your an independent, I'm hop-along-Cassidy.

You may not be registered, yet another bull post.

I'm too old to fool around physically, by the way.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Actually, that's exactly what the Republicans did. The Democrats worked with them to go from a single-payer plan to what the ACA is today, and the Republicans pulled the carpet out from underneath the Dems.

Pretty shady stuff.

a reply to: introvert

This is happening in both of the mainstream political parties. You have the far right and far left controlling party politics leaving the rest of us completely unrepresented somewhere in the middle. It is frustrating that we (as a country) have to choose from these polar opposites.

originally posted by: jimmyx
considering that the supreme court is controlled by a conservative majority, 31 state governors are controlled by republicans, 31 state legislative bodies are controlled entirely by republicans, the congress, both senate and the house are controlled by republicans, I would say that the problems in this country are caused by republicans...but....the right wing blames ALL THE PROBLEMS on the one democrat in high office, Obama.....
where is the daily bombardment of cynicism and anger, toward all these republican controlled institutions?????.......I hear crickets chirping...

First of all, the SCOTUS has voted left of center on some key decisions - 0bamacare, for example. Second, the "Republican party" is no longer unified as you on the like want to characterize it for your own political advantage. There are the RINOs in leadership positions in Congress (Ryan, Formerly Boehner, McConnell, et al) who fall in lock step with 0bama. The you have the Conservatives (Cruz, Lee, Sessions, et al) who represent the views of Conservative Americans, who comprise the majority of voters in the US regardless of race or even political affiliation (This is the "silent majority" Trump refers to).

Rather than try to discredit the movement, perhaps you should join it.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No one is putting anything in your mouth.

You are when you make assumptions about my arguments.

It is obvious that he was covered in his actions by all those liberals.

Yet somehow Republicans still find the time to hold 1000 committees to investigate Hillary Clinton or Planned Parenthood, yet SOMEHOW Obama has a liberal shield (never mind that many Democrats practically abandoned him in the 2014 elections because of Obamacare or anything). Your rhetoric is very transparent...

You are stating opinions as if they are facts.

Am I? I didn't realize the statement, "Passing or supporting an unconstitutional bill isn't an impeachable offense" was an opinion and not a fact. Glad you could clear that up for me. Oh wait, no. You are wrong and are throwing rhetoric buzzphrases at me to deflect.

It is possible to hold politicians accountable for their actions using the laws but you and your cronies would love for everyone to keep believing that they are helpless when it comes to domestic jihad inside our gov.

It certainly is, but you actually have to present a valid case for impeachment to say that a politician qualified for impeachment. Otherwise you look like any other angry internet troll who doesn't understand how our government works yelling because he is upset and impeachment sounds like a nasty word to use.

Only a fool would state otherwise.

I never stated otherwise. I just questioned your case against Obama for impeachment. You have yet to present a solid case for impeachment against him, instead opting to attack me, make up parts of my argument, and deflect with red herrings.

The simple fact is, present a valid reason to impeach Obama. Until you do so, your argument is just a bunch of noise.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you going to physically assault me for posting it or something?

you should take a break

so what would be your answer to those that can't afford health insurance, and the premiums that go with it?....I keep hearing about this "overturn and replace" "policy for healthcare....somehow the "replace" is absent.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If your an independent, I'm hop-along-Cassidy.

You may not be registered, yet another bull post.

I'm too old to fool around physically, by the way.

Well thank you for telling me my political disposition for me. I thought that was a decision I made for myself, but I guess you are the almighty purveyor of political opinions here.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: introvert

This is happening in both of the mainstream political parties. You have the far right and far left controlling party politics leaving the rest of us completely unrepresented somewhere in the middle. It is frustrating that we (as a country) have to choose from these polar opposites.

I disagree. The Dems, while not correct all of the time and do not represent our best interests all the time, are not eating themselves from within. They are much more reasonable and willing to work with others.

On the other hand, the Republicans are tearing themselves apart and if anyone among their ranks is willing to compromise, they are shunned.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm an independent. I don't have a majority leader.

Keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep better.

No one else here is being fooled.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well to be honest I don't think Americans really cared about the Mexican agriculture business. If you really look at it Mexico gave up agriculture to build car parts, cars, and a ton of other things. I can think of several major corporations who have moved their plants to Mexico. If the Mexicans don't like it they should take control of their Government.

As for the last statement no not specifically I was just commenting on how many people on ATS were pro ACA and accused people of not "caring" about others for being against it but those same people now say they don't support ACA.

ACA is a perfect example though. If the bill would have been a "good" bill in that it actually made healthcare available and affordable without pandering to the insurance companies I am positive there would have been ideological opposition just as in the example of the OSH act or the New Deal but in the long term people benefit from these programs and would not think of getting rid of them. I am not for big government but I wouldn't want my relatives to stop getting SS they paid into all of their lives. The repubs are opposed to systems like SS but it is a big issue for their constituents many of which rely on the service. ACA is just a government tax paid to the insurance companies which is why it is losing support from people who previously supported it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

you act as if some magic reason could be givin that would cause bama to be impeached.

only shows that you frequently miss the point and obscure the truth.

My stance all along is that impeachable actions have been done but there is a system of people that will continue to stand in the way of justice. So no one posting on a forum will be able to overcome that system that is protecting a man doing crimes in public. Boener was one of those that stood in the way of justice.

Fact is that bama could murder someone on live tv and get away with it without impeachment so why on earth would anything you or I say make a difference at this point

the same actions that bama has undertaken would have gotton many former presidents hung.

a reply to: HighDesertPatriot

actually, I want to grow government, but, in key areas...
1...the IRS...there should be wholesale hiring on the auditing side, billions are being lost every year to tax fraud, and mistakes, while at the same time republicans are bitching about the debt.
2...the SEC...we need an increase in good lawyers and CPA's for this government watchdog now more than ever, to make sure that corporations and companies are following the laws put in place by both republicans and democrats. maybe if we had tough pitbull oversight, the 2008 debacle wouldn't have happened.