The Trump Presidency – 2016

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Radii

+1, of course.

BillyMadison is an extreme ass though, this is his thing, sadly.

He's still pissed about that swan looking at him.

[QuikSand]

I'm not a serious stakeholder in the debate, but I always disliked the argument that being anti-abortion necessitates being anti-death-penalty or the like.

Seems to me there's intellectual consistency in saying that it's the purely innocent life of the unborn that's being protected, and that's different from the life of a person with agency who has committed acts worthy of retribution.

I basically disagree with both of those views, but I don't see them as inherently contradictory. The left tries to play a gotcha with this, I don't buy it.

[BillyMadison]

Originally Posted by Radii

+1, of course.

BillyMadison is an extreme ass though, this is his thing, sadly.

Right. Pointing out double standards and extreme hypocrisy but I’m the extreme ass. Fact is, the point stands and the religious zealots constantly imposing their morals into government are the problem, not the ones calling them out.

I’m sure Ben is an otherwise great guy. Unfortunately his post was the one that forced the point to be made. Nothing personal.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I'm not a serious stakeholder in the debate, but I always disliked the argument that being anti-abortion necessitates being anti-death-penalty or the like.

Seems to me there's intellectual consistency in saying that it's the purely innocent life of the unborn that's being protected, and that's different from the life of a person with agency who has committed acts worthy of retribution.

I basically disagree with both of those views, but I don't see them as inherently contradictory. The left tries to play a gotcha with this, I don't buy it.

It's more the phrase 'right to life' as sometimes the right likes to imply that the left doesn't care about life.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I'm not a serious stakeholder in the debate, but I always disliked the argument that being anti-abortion necessitates being anti-death-penalty or the like.

Seems to me there's intellectual consistency in saying that it's the purely innocent life of the unborn that's being protected, and that's different from the life of a person with agency who has committed acts worthy of retribution.

I basically disagree with both of those views, but I don't see them as inherently contradictory. The left tries to play a gotcha with this, I don't buy it.

The complicated factor, though, is that we know some percentage of those executed were innocent.

[cartman]

Do people really think that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, that some states won't stop there? It isn't a big leap to getting to the point of miscarriages being investigated for potential manslaughter charges. Before abortion became a hot political topic, miscarriages were called "spontaneous abortions".

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by cartman

Do people really think that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, that some states won't stop there? It isn't a big leap to getting to the point of miscarriages being investigated for potential manslaughter charges. Before abortion became a hot political topic, miscarriages were called "spontaneous abortions".

And birth control pills.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Butter

Am I the only one who thinks that we're looking at attempts at full-blown armed uprisings if the Dems pack the court?

I do. As Edward says, meanings matter. It matters whether something is racist, or just bigoted, or merely meanspirited/unkind/insensitive. Distinctions matter and things have degrees. With the new slanted version we're in Orwellian territory, and I guess while I still very much consider equality to be important, I don't need to be concerned about racism anymore since that definition shows it's not a concept to be treated seriously.

[albionmoonlight]

[edit--was talking about abortion on the internet. Deleted post.]

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Do you think people are answering polls stating their number one issue is making sure black people don't move next door to them? Come on.

Listen to his speech or read the ads he puts out. His entire campaign is based on race. The idea that if the Democrats win, you'll have a black or hispanic neighbor in the suburbs.

So your argument is that A) People lie to pollsters, but only about things we want to think they believe. When it's about issue important to us then they tell pollsters the truth. And B) You can't be anti-immigration etc. for any reason other than racism.

If that's the case then you truly have an irrefutable position - in the sense that it isn't tethered enough to sound logic to even be coherent, much less refutable.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Study: racism and sexism predict support for Trump much more than economic dissatisfaction - Vox

They are measuring something I wasn't talking about - economic dissatisfaction isn't the big issue. It's constantly being insulted and apologized for by their leaders, governing by focus group, a perceived lack of strength of leadership, etc. In other words, it's beyond policy to a brashness of approach or however you want to term it, which is why you constantly see things cropping up in the polling along the lines of people basically not liking what Trump said but liking how he said it, and responding to that part of it; the refusal to take any crap from anybody or whatever. It's more intangible than any of this.

But also, correlation does not equal causation. The fact that members of a specific group support candidate X or why does not necessarily tell us why they do so. I.e. the fact that the Democratic party is split on socialism while Republicans and Independents strongly oppose it does not mean that the Democratic party is a socialist party or that they are campaigning on socialism or that their supporters favor them because of that ... it's just one factor.

[thesloppy]

Seems fair to say the stimulus talks officially died with RGB too. Sure feels like Dems gonna fuck this chicken....like the Republicans appear to be going scorched earth under the assumption that Trump will lose, but the Dem response is somehow "We can scorch our earth too!!" Noooooo motherfuckers! What are you doing??

[JPhillips]

Remember when legal immigration was going to be expanded.

Nope.

With just weeks to go until the Nov. 3 election, the White House budget office is reviewing a fast-track regulation that would narrow the definition of a “specialty occupation” eligible for a skilled-worker visa under the H-1B program, according to the budget office website and administration officials.

A second fast-track regulation would raise the wages that employers must pay to demonstrate foreign workers will not displace Americans in the same occupation and geographic area.

[JPhillips]

Trump WH is rushing to take advantage of Ginsburg's death. They've asked for an October ruling asking that undocumented immigrants be excluding from congressional reapportionment.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I do. As Edward says, meanings matter. It matters whether something is racist, or just bigoted, or merely meanspirited/unkind/insensitive. Distinctions matter and things have degrees. With the new slanted version we're in Orwellian territory, and I guess while I still very much consider equality to be important, I don't need to be concerned about racism anymore since that definition shows it's not a concept to be treated seriously.

Just so we're clear, I did not say that. Ben said that. Not sure why the quote had my handle in there

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

So your argument is that A) People lie to pollsters, but only about things we want to think they believe. When it's about issue important to us then they tell pollsters the truth. And B) You can't be anti-immigration etc. for any reason other than racism.

If that's the case then you truly have an irrefutable position - in the sense that it isn't tethered enough to sound logic to even be coherent, much less refutable.

I think it's natural that people aren't honest in regards to labels they don't want. If you ran a poll and asked people if they were pedophiles, I imagine the response rate would be significantly lower than reality.

Racists also don't believe they are racist and come up with other justifications. Birthers didn't consider themselves racists, just strict adherents to truth and the constitution. Confederate supporters created the Lost Cause narrative to absolve them of supporting something unconscionable. And racists today latch on to a comically hypocritical "law and order" mantra to justify oppression and state-sponsored killings of political opponents and other races.

The best evidence for this is looking at his campaign. It is almost entirely centered around race. His speeches are mostly about race and his personal gripes. Little to no policy mentioned.

If you truly think people are not voting for him because of the race stuff, then tell me what they like about him? He has no real positions. Everything changes based on what somewhat said to him on Fox News that day. His campaign message can be described with 14 words.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BillyMadison

How about separation of church and state? Keep your so-called morals out of government when they don’t represent anything close to the majority. Or do you just pick and choose parts of the constitution to follow like you do with that little book of fantasy stories of yours?

In fairness to Ben, if you truly believe abortion is a form of murder, then anyone is justified in stopping it. Regardless of what your religion is, limiting abortions should be your goal if you believe life begins at conception (which many non-religious people believe too).

With that said, most (not all) of the pro-life movement doesn't care about abortion. It's a tool to control women. Which is why they don't support contraceptives, sex education, health care, or child care which would dramatically limit the number of abortions in this country.

I have no clue what Ben's stance is on the other stuff. But if he supports birth control and other measures that reduce abortions (or miscarriages), I would consider him sincere in his beliefs and not have an issue with it.

I am pro-choice but think we should do what we can to limit abortions.

[GrantDawg]

I really don't think people lie to pollsters as much as they lie to themselves.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I really don't think people lie to pollsters as much as they lie to themselves.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Yep. There's a lot of self-delusion going on. It's easier that way not to have to look hard at your beliefs and reactions to people and things, and realize some uncomfortable truths.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you truly think people are not voting for him because of the race stuff, then tell me what they like about him? He has no real positions. Everything changes based on what somewhat said to him on Fox News that day. His campaign message can be described with 14 words.

I have. The most recent post in which I did so is six posts previous to yours, the one you quoted a different part of. It's not a take unique to me by any means - it was either Time or Newsweek that was talking about this while the '16 primary was still being contested.

Your point about polling is true, but irrelevant - sort of strawmanish. When people do polls about white nationalism and racism, etc, they usually don't ask the questions in terms of 'are you a white nationalist/racist'. They're a lot more subtle than that. And yet you still only get 6-10% of respondents fitting the profile.

Look at Trump's convention speech. He talked about Biden some, about what he has done and intends to do vis a vis covid, about continuing his track on trade, about cutting taxes, about continuing work on immigration, about sanctuary cities, about charter schools and vouchers, etc. A lot of it was pure and unadulterated hogwash. But it's just not true to say he just talks about race and personal gripes. It just isn't.

[JPhillips]

100% sure this didn't happen.

"I go home all the time, 'First Lady, how'd you like the crowd? 'Sir, I didn't see it. I didn't see it. I didn't see it Donald, I didn't see it.' Sometimes she'll call me Mr President, but she's only kidding, believe me."

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Look at Trump's convention speech. He talked about Biden some, about what he has done and intends to do vis a vis covid, about continuing his track on trade, about cutting taxes, about continuing work on immigration, about sanctuary cities, about charter schools and vouchers, etc. A lot of it was pure and unadulterated hogwash. But it's just not true to say he just talks about race and personal gripes. It just isn't.

There is no consistent plan on trade. It changes every week. Covid has been an utter disaster and the rest of the world made us look like fools. The immigration stuff is so tied into the racist/bigot stuff that you can't separate that.

I suppose there are people willing to look past the white supremacist stuff because he is for school vouchers. And if you're rich, another tax cut sounds sweet. But the vast majority of his voters aren't rich and don't have kids attending private schools. Wonder why they are voting for him.

If you'd like to see what I'm talking about, sign up for his mailing list. You'll get about 3-4 e-mails a day talking about the minorities coming to the suburbs to get you. Not a lot of talk about taxes or other issues. They know their audience well.

[RainMaker]

The weird thing is that I don't think anyone in his campaign would deny what they're doing. It's a dogwhistle campaign and they have pushed it to the extreme. Not sure why you are so adamant to say it is not when they have been pretty open about what they are doing.

Reminds me of when Trump says something bad, people defend it by saying "that's not what he meant" and then he turns around and admits that is precisely what he meant.

[RainMaker]

B-b-but he mentioned taxes a few weeks ago in a speech he didn't write.

President Trump: "How about Omar of Minnesota? We're going to win the state Minnesota because of her, they say. She's telling us how to run our country. How did you do where you came from?" pic.twitter.com/yYb9c2I6S4

— The Hill (@thehill) September 23, 2020

[Brian Swartz]

When you think what's on his mailing list is more important than what he said at the convention, which is the most important and most-watched speech a candidate gives during the campaign, I don't know what to tell you. I think that's right in line really with not believing what people are saying during polls that you don't think reflect reality (similarly with the claim there are no undecideds when there are, etc). I don't disagree that Trump has been a disaster on COVID etc. but that isn't the point. The point is that he spent significant time talking about it and he has an approach to the virus that he's been touting, calling Biden's a surrender. The sheer idiocy of that is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Anyone can cherrypick, but I'm specifically and intentionally going to the most important evidence that's available when I talk about the polling, the convention speech, etc. And then this:

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The immigration stuff is so tied into the racist/bigot stuff that you can't separate that.

Yes, you absolutely can. But again, if one assumes there's only way to look at an issue you can convince yourself of pretty much anything. It's not a way to determine what reality actually is though.

I'm not saying Trump doesn't appeal to racists at all. I'm saying that's not where the majority of his support comes from.

[thesloppy]

The problem I have with repeatedly insisting all of these individual things don't meet someone's personal definition of racism is the underlying suggestion that it's entirely binary and if a particular piece of policy can not be judged absolutely & explicitly racist than that policy is absolutely not racist.

Instead of IF Trump's policies are racist, let's consider HOW racist are Trump's collective policies? Whatever scale you want to use, the answer certainly isn't zero.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I'm not saying Trump doesn't appeal to racists at all. I'm saying that's not where the majority of his support comes from.

It actually is.

65% of Trump supporters think Obama is a Muslim
59% of Trump supporters doesn't think Obama is an American

GOP Quickly Unifies Around Trump; Clinton Still Has Modest Lead | Public Policy Polling

[Radii]

Just catching up on the last few pages, we're still talking about trump, trump supporters, and racism/bigotry, and we haven't even gotten around to addressing the "good genes" in Minnesota.

That statement is so fucking terrifying it should have taken over the entirety of discussion for a week and should have swung polls by 10 points, but my bet is that instead, even among the much more intelligent than average folks here, we won't even be able to agree that those comments are even racist. 2020, man. (If we can all agree on the meaning of Trump's comments I'll be the happiest wrong person on the entire internet, by the way).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Radii

Just catching up on the last few pages, we're still talking about trump, trump supporters, and racism/bigotry, and we haven't even gotten around to addressing the "good genes" in Minnesota.

That statement is so fucking terrifying it should have taken over the entirety of discussion for a week and should have swung polls by 10 points, but my bet is that instead, even among the much more intelligent than average folks here, we won't even be able to agree that those comments are even racist. 2020, man. (If we can all agree on the meaning of Trump's comments I'll be the happiest wrong person on the entire internet, by the way).

I think everyone knows the intent, some won't admit it. It was obvious when he followed the line up by talking about how Biden is going to send a bunch of Somalis to their neighborhood. Atwater would be proud.

It's just eugenics speak for "don't let Biden infect your superior white genes with those inferior black genes".

Having been a Minnesotan at one time, I learned that the large Somali population is from Catholic missionaries that brought them in as refugees. Always found it ironic that Trump is blaming left-wing politicians for something a bunch of religious folks are doing.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It actually is.

65% of Trump supporters think Obama is a Muslim
59% of Trump supporters doesn't think Obama is an American

This is evidence of people being stupid. It is not evidence of them being racist. Muslim is not a race. American is not a race.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Radii

but my bet is that instead, even among the much more intelligent than average folks here, we won't even be able to agree that those comments are even racist. 2020, man.

On this one I agree with you. When you talk about an entire state having good genes, it's horrifying and it's pretty clear what you're saying.

Originally Posted by thesloppy

The problem I have with repeatedly insisting all of these individual things don't meet someone's personal definition of racism is the underlying suggestion that it's entirely binary and if a particular piece of policy can not be judged absolutely & explicitly racist than that policy is absolutely not racist.

FWIW this isn't what I'm saying. It's more that the amount of racism is unknowable. I said so earlier in the thread. I.e. if something can be supported for racist reasons, can be opposed for racist reasons, and can also be supported & opposed for reasons that aren't racist, then how much racism is involved is going to vary so widely as to defy being determined. Not being able to know how much racism is involved in the decision to support something is not the same as saying there isn't any of it; it does mean though that it's not correct to presume racism as the driving force.

[sterlingice]

Considering how 2020 has gone so far, I saw #DoomsdayDevice was trending on Twitter and extremely relieved to find out it was about wrestling (sadly, however, it was about the passing of one of the Road Warriors)

SI

[Lathum]

So most of you guys are smarter than me, especially when it comes to this stuff. Other than the fact it is Obamas magnum opus, why does the Trump admin and republicans want to eliminate ACA and why would the supreme court rule in their favor? Assuming of course there is no alternative, which despite Trumps claims we all know there isn't. Is it just the preexisting conditions?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This is evidence of people being stupid. It is not evidence of them being racist. Muslim is not a race. American is not a race.

I won't go as far as saying this post is evidence of you being stupid, but quit being obtuse. Obama is Black, and has a funny name, therefore he is Muslim and therefore not an American. Everyone should know full well where this "not American" thing stems from.

[ISiddiqui]

Right, when someone starts arguing that Birtherism isn't racist then they really aren't being serious about the matter at all.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This is evidence of people being stupid. It is not evidence of them being racist. Muslim is not a race. American is not a race.

you honestly think these people differentiate between the two?

[cuervo72]

/waits for the "well actually by the ADL definition of 'racism'" poppycock*


* for everyone's sensitive eyeballs

[ISiddiqui]

It kind of reminds me about the narrative around Nixon. Nixon used a TON of racially coded language and when he was called on it, his supporters would say that's BS, you just see racism in everything. The Silent Majority isn't about racism. He's not pushing policies because they are racist - it's because they are good policies.

Of course then the White House Tapes came out and showed that Nixon was a massive racist and were pursuing policies for racist reasons just like people on the left were saying.

Of course the difference is that Trump openly says he's doing things for racist reasons (he's not as bright as Nixon).

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

quit being obtuse. Obama is Black, and has a funny name, therefore he is Muslim and therefore not an American. Everyone should know full well where this "not American" thing stems from.

I'm not being obtuse at all. I personally know a number of people who fell for the birther thing who aren't racists in any way I can discern; they don't use racial slurs or treat minorities noticeably different than they treat others, etc. As with all such things the origins are complicated. There are racists who push such things, there are propagandists who could give a crap about the truth or falsehood of something as long as it suits their purposes, there are people who fall for the propaganda because anything negative about the opposition must be true, there are people who trust the wrong sources for information, and so on.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

when someone starts arguing that Birtherism isn't racist then they really aren't being serious about the matter at all.

Here we are again with the 'there's only one way to view the issue' nonsense. 'Anyone who thinks liberals really care about all Americans isn't being serious about the matter'. See how that works? There's no end of ways to play that game, and it's a counterproductive exercise (as well as just being unfair at a basic level).

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Here we are again with the 'there's only one way to view the issue' nonsense. 'Anyone who thinks liberals really care about all Americans isn't being serious about the matter'. See how that works? There's no end of ways to play that game, and it's a counterproductive exercise (as well as just being unfair at a basic level).

You are fully entitled to believe anything you want. I just don't treat people seriously who think Birtherism isn't racist. I think people who state that are either stupid or deliberately obtuse and do not believe them when they claim otherwise. Do with that what you feel like.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

The problem I have with repeatedly insisting all of these individual things don't meet someone's personal definition of racism is the underlying suggestion that it's entirely binary

Honestly, this sounds more applicable to the radical left here. It's binary - racist or not racist, I have not read anything that (I can remember) from the radical left that shows any grey.

and if a particular piece of policy can not be judged absolutely & explicitly racist than that policy is absolutely not racist.

There are policies that may seem racist to some but really are driven by other factors. When merit-based immigration came up, some said it was racist. Because Miller drove it, sure racism is a factor, but it's also IMO good policy and helps the US economically in the future (ask Canada). I'm definitely okay if the radical left see both in the argument but they don't, it's automatically a racist policy.

Instead of IF Trump's policies are racist, let's consider HOW racist are Trump's collective policies? Whatever scale you want to use, the answer certainly isn't zero.

FWIW, I think this is a very fair question and I'd like to continue the discussion if you are game. However, I think it needs to be broken out vs "collective policies". Come up with the list of policies for consideration and would want your "grading" also. If not interested, np.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Lathum

why does the Trump admin and republicans want to eliminate ACA and why would the supreme court rule in their favor? Assuming of course there is no alternative, which despite Trumps claims we all know there isn't. Is it just the preexisting conditions?

Some of the reasons are bad ones, such as the whole 'Obama did it' thing. Others are traditional conservatism; freedom is good, the government having more control of health care is bad, health care can't be a human right because goods and services aren't a human right, etc. Some of it is the impact it's had on small business, personal choice of health plans, etc. I think there's a lot of factors there.

It's hard for me to see what SCOTUS would find objectionable enough to rule against it at this point, but I'm not super well-versed in that area of the law.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Lathum

So most of you guys are smarter than me, especially when it comes to this stuff. Other than the fact it is Obamas magnum opus, why does the Trump admin and republicans want to eliminate ACA and why would the supreme court rule in their favor? Assuming of course there is no alternative, which despite Trumps claims we all know there isn't. Is it just the preexisting conditions?

Trump wants to get rid of it because of Obama. And I'm sure a bunch of Republicans feel similarly as they made Obama into a boogeyman. However, a number of Republicans don't like that the ACA increased regulations on insurance companies - group health plans have to cover preventive care procedures with no cost sharing (and there are questions as to what is preventive), they cannot assess annual or lifetime limits on coverage, and then, pre-existing coverage (which even if the GOP passes an anti-pre-existing coverage exclusion bill, there are the other regs).

The Supreme Court may rule to strike down the ACA for the same reason the 5th Circuit did - the idea that the individual mandate was unseverable from the ACA. I think it's a silly concept when the individual mandate was removed by legislation and not a court ruling (where severability is mostly applied) - because if one is looking at intent and concludes that the ACA Congress thought the mandate was essential, one should also look at the Congress which removed the mandate and explicitly did NOT intend to end the ACA. On the other hand, sometimes SCOTUS doesn't care about precedence when it wants to reverse - and with Barrett or Lagoa they don't need to worry about Roberts saving the ACA.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Edward64

FWIW, I think this is a very fair question and I'd like to continue the discussion if you are game. However, I think it needs to be broken out vs "collective policies". Come up with the list of policies for consideration and would want your "grading" also. If not interested, np.

That sounds like putting a bunch of effort into arguing against my own point.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

That sounds like putting a bunch of effort into arguing against my own point.

Sorry, didn't mean it that way.

I guess my point is after your come up with a "collective policies" grade, the next obvious question is "why" and to answer that you would need to know the policies that made up the "collective policies".

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Trump wants to get rid of it because of Obama. And I'm sure a bunch of Republicans feel similarly as they made Obama into a boogeyman. However, a number of Republicans don't like that the ACA increased regulations on insurance companies - group health plans have to cover preventive care procedures with no cost sharing (and there are questions as to what is preventive), they cannot assess annual or lifetime limits on coverage, and then, pre-existing coverage (which even if the GOP passes an anti-pre-existing coverage exclusion bill, there are the other regs).

The Supreme Court may rule to strike down the ACA for the same reason the 5th Circuit did - the idea that the individual mandate was unseverable from the ACA. I think it's a silly concept when the individual mandate was removed by legislation and not a court ruling (where severability is mostly applied) - because if one is looking at intent and concludes that the ACA Congress thought the mandate was essential, one should also look at the Congress which removed the mandate and explicitly did NOT intend to end the ACA. On the other hand, sometimes SCOTUS doesn't care about precedence when it wants to reverse - and with Barrett or Lagoa they don't need to worry about Roberts saving the ACA.

Contrary to what they said at the time of the ACA, plenty of conservatives don't believe should should have healthcare if they can't afford it. There are plenty like the staffer in Tillis' office that told a woman she can't have healthcare unless she can afford it.

I always get flack for this, but a lot of Republicans really do think, I've got mine, fuck you.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I won't go as far as saying this post is evidence of you being stupid, but quit being obtuse. Obama is Black, and has a funny name, therefore he is Muslim and therefore not an American. Everyone should know full well where this "not American" thing stems from.

And surprisingly, the same things are true for Ilhan Omar.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Trump wants to get rid of it because of Obama. And I'm sure a bunch of Republicans feel similarly as they made Obama into a boogeyman.

Yes, the tens of millions of Trump's constituents who had excellent health care plans prior to ACA who are livid for paying higher deductibles, co-pays and out of pocket maximums has nothing to do with it.

[Atocep]

How long were Republicans using Obama's middle name to scare people?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Yes, the tens of millions of Trump's constituents who had excellent health care plans prior to ACA who are livid for paying higher deductibles, co-pays and out of pocket maximums has nothing to do with it.

There's also a number of Trump's constituents that are perfectly happy with the ACA as long as they're not told its Oamacare.

[albionmoonlight]

Indiana just opted to fully reopen in a Stage 5 return to normalcy

Stage 5 dictates:

• Restaurants, bars, and nightclubs may operate
at FULL capacity
• Conventions, sports events, fairs, festivals and like events may resume

— Zack Guzman (@zGuz) September 23, 2020

Indiana just quit.

Fucking quitters.

Americans used to actually be willing to sacrifice. Or, at least, that was the story we told ourselves.

Now we aren't even telling the story anymore. We're a nation of weak-ass quitters and don't even care who knows about it.