Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?
Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination.
Until we pass a constitutional amendment limiting campaign spending, this is our system.
democrats can either play this game or watch from the sidelines.
The majority of New York is low crime. High crime does exist but is centered in very specific neighborhoods. You need to put the cops where the crime occurs. Unfortunately Bloomberg made disparaging comments about alleged criminals and focused his comments towards race instead of location. But in no way did I support stop and frisk. It went too far.
You're definitely preaching to the choir on campaign spending. He's not doing anything illegal but it's obnoxious to watch and one more reason for me to not like the guy.
Stop and frisk is a big part of it for me. And his deference to China and wrangling a third term. If you look at his record, it's easy to see how he was a Republican. I'm surprised how much he's being embraced.
This does not look so republican to me-
Create a Medicare-like public insurance option
Improve and expand enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans
Allow people to keep their private insurance
Cap health care prices
Lower drug costs
Expand access to dental, hearing, and vision coverage
Create a permanent reinsurance program that reduces customer premiums
A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.
The spectrum has moved so far right that he seems almost left.
"Create a Medicare-like public insurance option"
Would be the most progressive healthcare system in the history of the United States
Yes, but is that really the measuring stick?
I'm baffled by the people here who think M4A is some pie-eyed betrayal of DNC principles. Harry Truman of all people supported a universal system (that went farther than FDR and the New Deal). Christ, if Harry fucking Truman showed up in 2020, he'd be labeled a Socialist!
Probably Eisenhower would be labeled a liberal as well. That's the point and it's why moderation is the proper vote in 2020.
The point is to WIN. The electoral college gives a disproportionate voting power to the swing states and trumps base.
We risk everything if we start giving the oppositions socialist argument validity with a too progressive plan right now.
The 2 oldest Justices are liberal and over 80 and might need to be replaced between now and Jan 2025.
We could be risking a 7-2 supreme court. That could be staunchly conservative for at least 30 years and ANY liberal healthcare mandate would be out the window until 2055.
You and I have very different definitions of what it means to win, so maybe don't use "we" when responding to me.
"We" was referring to the Democrats as in the topic of this thread.
Instead of thinking my comment is personal, how about addressing the risks of locking in a conservative court for 30 years? I'm assuming you are down with that.
The ideological distance between Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia is smaller than the distance between me and Bernie Sanders. The narrowness of your political horizons lead you to ask questions that miss the point.
Do you live in the states?
Scalia believed the 2nd amendment was ironclad that there was zero room for regulation despite that word being in the actual text
Scalia believed homosexuality should be illegal
Scalia believed the wealthy corporations are people and have a right to spend unlimited amounts of money o politics while hiding in secrecy
Scalia believed the govt had zero right to set up a health care exchange.
Scalia believed the constitution does not limit gender discrimination
Scalia believed the constitution can not limit any restriction placed on a women's right to choose
So yeah, he and Ginsberg are real tight.
The topic is about Democrats winning in 2020. IRL. Not some hope of a philosophical society that could exist in 2112.
That only buys us (America) more Republicans this year.
Though I don't like Sanders' chances much, it would be pretty hilarious if he won the nomination and beat Trump since Trump seems to think that sticking up for Sanders in this manner might help him win the Dem nomination, and in Trump's mind, make for an easier general election opponent than say Bloomberg...
oh I see now. because you cant vote your opinion is irrelevant.
You didn't give an answer. You just rephrased you assertion that I have asked you to clarify:
What has me not being able to vote to do with anything, why would my opinion be irrelevant here, please explain.
you have been all over the map. who ever was flavor of the day , you seemed to back. like someone manic. Bernie was last a member of an SD party 43 fucking years ago. Has only won elected office as an Independent. Hes a carpetbagging fuck hijacking a party he was never a member of but only registered to run for Pres , spouting policy agenda he has NO HOPE OF PASSING.
You are entitled to your opinion. It means nothing in this. period. You might be taken more seriously if you presented yourself in this forum seriously. The mems gifs and pop culture references are childish and beneath you here, or are they?
my question was asked weeks ago, you have chosen to ignore it. Until you do, refer back to page 85..........
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?
Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination.
Until we pass a constitutional amendment limiting campaign spending, this is our system.
democrats can either play this game or watch from the sidelines.
The majority of New York is low crime. High crime does exist but is centered in very specific neighborhoods. You need to put the cops where the crime occurs. Unfortunately Bloomberg made disparaging comments about alleged criminals and focused his comments towards race instead of location. But in no way did I support stop and frisk. It went too far.
You're definitely preaching to the choir on campaign spending. He's not doing anything illegal but it's obnoxious to watch and one more reason for me to not like the guy.
Stop and frisk is a big part of it for me. And his deference to China and wrangling a third term. If you look at his record, it's easy to see how he was a Republican. I'm surprised how much he's being embraced.
This does not look so republican to me-
Create a Medicare-like public insurance option
Improve and expand enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans
Allow people to keep their private insurance
Cap health care prices
Lower drug costs
Expand access to dental, hearing, and vision coverage
Create a permanent reinsurance program that reduces customer premiums
A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.
The spectrum has moved so far right that he seems almost left.
"Create a Medicare-like public insurance option"
Would be the most progressive healthcare system in the history of the United States
Yes, but is that really the measuring stick?
I'm baffled by the people here who think M4A is some pie-eyed betrayal of DNC principles. Harry Truman of all people supported a universal system (that went farther than FDR and the New Deal). Christ, if Harry fucking Truman showed up in 2020, he'd be labeled a Socialist!
Probably Eisenhower would be labeled a liberal as well. That's the point and it's why moderation is the proper vote in 2020.
The point is to WIN. The electoral college gives a disproportionate voting power to the swing states and trumps base.
We risk everything if we start giving the oppositions socialist argument validity with a too progressive plan right now.
The 2 oldest Justices are liberal and over 80 and might need to be replaced between now and Jan 2025.
We could be risking a 7-2 supreme court. That could be staunchly conservative for at least 30 years and ANY liberal healthcare mandate would be out the window until 2055.
You and I have very different definitions of what it means to win, so maybe don't use "we" when responding to me.
"We" was referring to the Democrats as in the topic of this thread.
Instead of thinking my comment is personal, how about addressing the risks of locking in a conservative court for 30 years? I'm assuming you are down with that.
The ideological distance between Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia is smaller than the distance between me and Bernie Sanders. The narrowness of your political horizons lead you to ask questions that miss the point.
Do you live in the states?
Scalia believed the 2nd amendment was ironclad that there was zero room for regulation despite that word being in the actual text
Scalia believed homosexuality should be illegal
Scalia believed the wealthy corporations are people and have a right to spend unlimited amounts of money o politics while hiding in secrecy
Scalia believed the govt had zero right to set up a health care exchange.
Scalia believed the constitution does not limit gender discrimination
Scalia believed the constitution can not limit any restriction placed on a women's right to choose
So yeah, he and Ginsberg are real tight.
The topic is about Democrats winning in 2020. IRL. Not some hope of a philosophical society that could exist in 2112.
That only buys us (America) more Republicans this year.
Lived in the US my whole life--why do you ask?
I'm quite familiar with everything you just said about Ginsberg and Scalia--now go back and read what I said again, because I meant it.
Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?
Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination.
Until we pass a constitutional amendment limiting campaign spending, this is our system.
democrats can either play this game or watch from the sidelines.
The majority of New York is low crime. High crime does exist but is centered in very specific neighborhoods. You need to put the cops where the crime occurs. Unfortunately Bloomberg made disparaging comments about alleged criminals and focused his comments towards race instead of location. But in no way did I support stop and frisk. It went too far.
You're definitely preaching to the choir on campaign spending. He's not doing anything illegal but it's obnoxious to watch and one more reason for me to not like the guy.
Stop and frisk is a big part of it for me. And his deference to China and wrangling a third term. If you look at his record, it's easy to see how he was a Republican. I'm surprised how much he's being embraced.
This does not look so republican to me-
Create a Medicare-like public insurance option
Improve and expand enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans
Allow people to keep their private insurance
Cap health care prices
Lower drug costs
Expand access to dental, hearing, and vision coverage
Create a permanent reinsurance program that reduces customer premiums
A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.
The spectrum has moved so far right that he seems almost left.
"Create a Medicare-like public insurance option"
Would be the most progressive healthcare system in the history of the United States
Yes, but is that really the measuring stick?
I'm baffled by the people here who think M4A is some pie-eyed betrayal of DNC principles. Harry Truman of all people supported a universal system (that went farther than FDR and the New Deal). Christ, if Harry fucking Truman showed up in 2020, he'd be labeled a Socialist!
Probably Eisenhower would be labeled a liberal as well. That's the point and it's why moderation is the proper vote in 2020.
The point is to WIN. The electoral college gives a disproportionate voting power to the swing states and trumps base.
We risk everything if we start giving the oppositions socialist argument validity with a too progressive plan right now.
The 2 oldest Justices are liberal and over 80 and might need to be replaced between now and Jan 2025.
We could be risking a 7-2 supreme court. That could be staunchly conservative for at least 30 years and ANY liberal healthcare mandate would be out the window until 2055.
You and I have very different definitions of what it means to win, so maybe don't use "we" when responding to me.
"We" was referring to the Democrats as in the topic of this thread.
Instead of thinking my comment is personal, how about addressing the risks of locking in a conservative court for 30 years? I'm assuming you are down with that.
The ideological distance between Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia is smaller than the distance between me and Bernie Sanders. The narrowness of your political horizons lead you to ask questions that miss the point.
Do you live in the states?
Scalia believed the 2nd amendment was ironclad that there was zero room for regulation despite that word being in the actual text
Scalia believed homosexuality should be illegal
Scalia believed the wealthy corporations are people and have a right to spend unlimited amounts of money o politics while hiding in secrecy
Scalia believed the govt had zero right to set up a health care exchange.
Scalia believed the constitution does not limit gender discrimination
Scalia believed the constitution can not limit any restriction placed on a women's right to choose
So yeah, he and Ginsberg are real tight.
The topic is about Democrats winning in 2020. IRL. Not some hope of a philosophical society that could exist in 2112.
That only buys us (America) more Republicans this year.
In fairness to Scalia, his majority opinion in Heller allows for reasonable regulation of guns. He states it clear that the 2A is not unlimited. This is why VA could pass the assault weapons ban that it recently did.
Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?
Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination.
Until we pass a constitutional amendment limiting campaign spending, this is our system.
democrats can either play this game or watch from the sidelines.
The majority of New York is low crime. High crime does exist but is centered in very specific neighborhoods. You need to put the cops where the crime occurs. Unfortunately Bloomberg made disparaging comments about alleged criminals and focused his comments towards race instead of location. But in no way did I support stop and frisk. It went too far.
You're definitely preaching to the choir on campaign spending. He's not doing anything illegal but it's obnoxious to watch and one more reason for me to not like the guy.
Stop and frisk is a big part of it for me. And his deference to China and wrangling a third term. If you look at his record, it's easy to see how he was a Republican. I'm surprised how much he's being embraced.
This does not look so republican to me-
Create a Medicare-like public insurance option
Improve and expand enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans
Allow people to keep their private insurance
Cap health care prices
Lower drug costs
Expand access to dental, hearing, and vision coverage
Create a permanent reinsurance program that reduces customer premiums
A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.
The spectrum has moved so far right that he seems almost left.
"Create a Medicare-like public insurance option"
Would be the most progressive healthcare system in the history of the United States
Yes, but is that really the measuring stick?
I'm baffled by the people here who think M4A is some pie-eyed betrayal of DNC principles. Harry Truman of all people supported a universal system (that went farther than FDR and the New Deal). Christ, if Harry fucking Truman showed up in 2020, he'd be labeled a Socialist!
Probably Eisenhower would be labeled a liberal as well. That's the point and it's why moderation is the proper vote in 2020.
The point is to WIN. The electoral college gives a disproportionate voting power to the swing states and trumps base.
We risk everything if we start giving the oppositions socialist argument validity with a too progressive plan right now.
The 2 oldest Justices are liberal and over 80 and might need to be replaced between now and Jan 2025.
We could be risking a 7-2 supreme court. That could be staunchly conservative for at least 30 years and ANY liberal healthcare mandate would be out the window until 2055.
You and I have very different definitions of what it means to win, so maybe don't use "we" when responding to me.
"We" was referring to the Democrats as in the topic of this thread.
Instead of thinking my comment is personal, how about addressing the risks of locking in a conservative court for 30 years? I'm assuming you are down with that.
The ideological distance between Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia is smaller than the distance between me and Bernie Sanders. The narrowness of your political horizons lead you to ask questions that miss the point.
Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?
Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination.
Until we pass a constitutional amendment limiting campaign spending, this is our system.
democrats can either play this game or watch from the sidelines.
The majority of New York is low crime. High crime does exist but is centered in very specific neighborhoods. You need to put the cops where the crime occurs. Unfortunately Bloomberg made disparaging comments about alleged criminals and focused his comments towards race instead of location. But in no way did I support stop and frisk. It went too far.
You're definitely preaching to the choir on campaign spending. He's not doing anything illegal but it's obnoxious to watch and one more reason for me to not like the guy.
Stop and frisk is a big part of it for me. And his deference to China and wrangling a third term. If you look at his record, it's easy to see how he was a Republican. I'm surprised how much he's being embraced.
This does not look so republican to me-
Create a Medicare-like public insurance option
Improve and expand enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans
Allow people to keep their private insurance
Cap health care prices
Lower drug costs
Expand access to dental, hearing, and vision coverage
Create a permanent reinsurance program that reduces customer premiums
A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.
The spectrum has moved so far right that he seems almost left.
"Create a Medicare-like public insurance option"
Would be the most progressive healthcare system in the history of the United States
This is redundant to his "Improve the ACA" plank. We would have both? How would they differ and how would eligibility for each differ? It tells me he either doesn't know what he's talking about or he just wants the political capital of advocating for both (even though it makes no sense).
With the ACA, you are on an exchange for private insurers. It does not offer you the chance to purchase any form of gov't facilitated insurance. The choice option would provide that option.
Most ACA plans include some government subsidy. Most Medicare beneficiaries have supplemental private plans. Unless you're massively overhauling both systems there is a ton of redundancy. If someone is eligible for both, why are they shopping two sets of hybrid plans?
Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?
Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination.
Until we pass a constitutional amendment limiting campaign spending, this is our system.
democrats can either play this game or watch from the sidelines.
The majority of New York is low crime. High crime does exist but is centered in very specific neighborhoods. You need to put the cops where the crime occurs. Unfortunately Bloomberg made disparaging comments about alleged criminals and focused his comments towards race instead of location. But in no way did I support stop and frisk. It went too far.
You're definitely preaching to the choir on campaign spending. He's not doing anything illegal but it's obnoxious to watch and one more reason for me to not like the guy.
Stop and frisk is a big part of it for me. And his deference to China and wrangling a third term. If you look at his record, it's easy to see how he was a Republican. I'm surprised how much he's being embraced.
This does not look so republican to me-
Create a Medicare-like public insurance option
Improve and expand enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans
Allow people to keep their private insurance
Cap health care prices
Lower drug costs
Expand access to dental, hearing, and vision coverage
Create a permanent reinsurance program that reduces customer premiums
A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.
The spectrum has moved so far right that he seems almost left.
"Create a Medicare-like public insurance option"
Would be the most progressive healthcare system in the history of the United States
Yes, but is that really the measuring stick?
I'm baffled by the people here who think M4A is some pie-eyed betrayal of DNC principles. Harry Truman of all people supported a universal system (that went farther than FDR and the New Deal). Christ, if Harry fucking Truman showed up in 2020, he'd be labeled a Socialist!
Probably Eisenhower would be labeled a liberal as well. That's the point and it's why moderation is the proper vote in 2020.
The point is to WIN. The electoral college gives a disproportionate voting power to the swing states and trumps base.
We risk everything if we start giving the oppositions socialist argument validity with a too progressive plan right now.
The 2 oldest Justices are liberal and over 80 and might need to be replaced between now and Jan 2025.
We could be risking a 7-2 supreme court. That could be staunchly conservative for at least 30 years and ANY liberal healthcare mandate would be out the window until 2055.
You and I have very different definitions of what it means to win, so maybe don't use "we" when responding to me.
"We" was referring to the Democrats as in the topic of this thread.
Instead of thinking my comment is personal, how about addressing the risks of locking in a conservative court for 30 years? I'm assuming you are down with that.
The ideological distance between Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia is smaller than the distance between me and Bernie Sanders. The narrowness of your political horizons lead you to ask questions that miss the point.
Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?
Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination.
Until we pass a constitutional amendment limiting campaign spending, this is our system.
democrats can either play this game or watch from the sidelines.
The majority of New York is low crime. High crime does exist but is centered in very specific neighborhoods. You need to put the cops where the crime occurs. Unfortunately Bloomberg made disparaging comments about alleged criminals and focused his comments towards race instead of location. But in no way did I support stop and frisk. It went too far.
You're definitely preaching to the choir on campaign spending. He's not doing anything illegal but it's obnoxious to watch and one more reason for me to not like the guy.
Stop and frisk is a big part of it for me. And his deference to China and wrangling a third term. If you look at his record, it's easy to see how he was a Republican. I'm surprised how much he's being embraced.
This does not look so republican to me-
Create a Medicare-like public insurance option
Improve and expand enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans
Allow people to keep their private insurance
Cap health care prices
Lower drug costs
Expand access to dental, hearing, and vision coverage
Create a permanent reinsurance program that reduces customer premiums
A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.
The spectrum has moved so far right that he seems almost left.
"Create a Medicare-like public insurance option"
Would be the most progressive healthcare system in the history of the United States
Yes, but is that really the measuring stick?
I'm baffled by the people here who think M4A is some pie-eyed betrayal of DNC principles. Harry Truman of all people supported a universal system (that went farther than FDR and the New Deal). Christ, if Harry fucking Truman showed up in 2020, he'd be labeled a Socialist!
Probably Eisenhower would be labeled a liberal as well. That's the point and it's why moderation is the proper vote in 2020.
The point is to WIN. The electoral college gives a disproportionate voting power to the swing states and trumps base.
We risk everything if we start giving the oppositions socialist argument validity with a too progressive plan right now.
The 2 oldest Justices are liberal and over 80 and might need to be replaced between now and Jan 2025.
We could be risking a 7-2 supreme court. That could be staunchly conservative for at least 30 years and ANY liberal healthcare mandate would be out the window until 2055.
You and I have very different definitions of what it means to win, so maybe don't use "we" when responding to me.
"We" was referring to the Democrats as in the topic of this thread.
Instead of thinking my comment is personal, how about addressing the risks of locking in a conservative court for 30 years? I'm assuming you are down with that.
The ideological distance between Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia is smaller than the distance between me and Bernie Sanders. The narrowness of your political horizons lead you to ask questions that miss the point.
And yet another deflection. Are you okay with a conservative Supreme Court with a 7-2 majority for the next 50 years? It’s a yes or no question. And, how does that help your friend POC who’s doing all that organizing, outreach and advocacy? Unless he wears a MAGA hat?
Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?
Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination.
Until we pass a constitutional amendment limiting campaign spending, this is our system.
democrats can either play this game or watch from the sidelines.
The majority of New York is low crime. High crime does exist but is centered in very specific neighborhoods. You need to put the cops where the crime occurs. Unfortunately Bloomberg made disparaging comments about alleged criminals and focused his comments towards race instead of location. But in no way did I support stop and frisk. It went too far.
You're definitely preaching to the choir on campaign spending. He's not doing anything illegal but it's obnoxious to watch and one more reason for me to not like the guy.
Stop and frisk is a big part of it for me. And his deference to China and wrangling a third term. If you look at his record, it's easy to see how he was a Republican. I'm surprised how much he's being embraced.
This does not look so republican to me-
Create a Medicare-like public insurance option
Improve and expand enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans
Allow people to keep their private insurance
Cap health care prices
Lower drug costs
Expand access to dental, hearing, and vision coverage
Create a permanent reinsurance program that reduces customer premiums
A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.
The spectrum has moved so far right that he seems almost left.
"Create a Medicare-like public insurance option"
Would be the most progressive healthcare system in the history of the United States
This is redundant to his "Improve the ACA" plank. We would have both? How would they differ and how would eligibility for each differ? It tells me he either doesn't know what he's talking about or he just wants the political capital of advocating for both (even though it makes no sense).
With the ACA, you are on an exchange for private insurers. It does not offer you the chance to purchase any form of gov't facilitated insurance. The choice option would provide that option.
Most ACA plans include some government subsidy. Most Medicare beneficiaries have supplemental private plans. Unless you're massively overhauling both systems there is a ton of redundancy. If someone is eligible for both, why are they shopping two sets of hybrid plans?
Yes true on both, but you don't have to buy supplemental insurance for medicare. I'm just not sure that the planks are redundant. But if you think of it from a political marketing perspective, they feel different. I guess I don't necessarily agree with your hypothesis that Bloomberg doesn't understand the difference. The man isn't stupid.
For example, someone on a Medicare Advantage plan is in a similar situation to someone on an ACA plan. A private insurance company is the primary payor with a reduced cost due to government subsidy.
Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?
Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination.
Until we pass a constitutional amendment limiting campaign spending, this is our system.
democrats can either play this game or watch from the sidelines.
The majority of New York is low crime. High crime does exist but is centered in very specific neighborhoods. You need to put the cops where the crime occurs. Unfortunately Bloomberg made disparaging comments about alleged criminals and focused his comments towards race instead of location. But in no way did I support stop and frisk. It went too far.
You're definitely preaching to the choir on campaign spending. He's not doing anything illegal but it's obnoxious to watch and one more reason for me to not like the guy.
Stop and frisk is a big part of it for me. And his deference to China and wrangling a third term. If you look at his record, it's easy to see how he was a Republican. I'm surprised how much he's being embraced.
This does not look so republican to me-
Create a Medicare-like public insurance option
Improve and expand enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans
Allow people to keep their private insurance
Cap health care prices
Lower drug costs
Expand access to dental, hearing, and vision coverage
Create a permanent reinsurance program that reduces customer premiums
A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.
The spectrum has moved so far right that he seems almost left.
"Create a Medicare-like public insurance option"
Would be the most progressive healthcare system in the history of the United States
Yes, but is that really the measuring stick?
I'm baffled by the people here who think M4A is some pie-eyed betrayal of DNC principles. Harry Truman of all people supported a universal system (that went farther than FDR and the New Deal). Christ, if Harry fucking Truman showed up in 2020, he'd be labeled a Socialist!
Probably Eisenhower would be labeled a liberal as well. That's the point and it's why moderation is the proper vote in 2020.
The point is to WIN. The electoral college gives a disproportionate voting power to the swing states and trumps base.
We risk everything if we start giving the oppositions socialist argument validity with a too progressive plan right now.
The 2 oldest Justices are liberal and over 80 and might need to be replaced between now and Jan 2025.
We could be risking a 7-2 supreme court. That could be staunchly conservative for at least 30 years and ANY liberal healthcare mandate would be out the window until 2055.
You and I have very different definitions of what it means to win, so maybe don't use "we" when responding to me.
"We" was referring to the Democrats as in the topic of this thread.
Instead of thinking my comment is personal, how about addressing the risks of locking in a conservative court for 30 years? I'm assuming you are down with that.
The ideological distance between Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia is smaller than the distance between me and Bernie Sanders. The narrowness of your political horizons lead you to ask questions that miss the point.
Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?
Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination.
Until we pass a constitutional amendment limiting campaign spending, this is our system.
democrats can either play this game or watch from the sidelines.
The majority of New York is low crime. High crime does exist but is centered in very specific neighborhoods. You need to put the cops where the crime occurs. Unfortunately Bloomberg made disparaging comments about alleged criminals and focused his comments towards race instead of location. But in no way did I support stop and frisk. It went too far.
You're definitely preaching to the choir on campaign spending. He's not doing anything illegal but it's obnoxious to watch and one more reason for me to not like the guy.
Stop and frisk is a big part of it for me. And his deference to China and wrangling a third term. If you look at his record, it's easy to see how he was a Republican. I'm surprised how much he's being embraced.
This does not look so republican to me-
Create a Medicare-like public insurance option
Improve and expand enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans
Allow people to keep their private insurance
Cap health care prices
Lower drug costs
Expand access to dental, hearing, and vision coverage
Create a permanent reinsurance program that reduces customer premiums
A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.
The spectrum has moved so far right that he seems almost left.
"Create a Medicare-like public insurance option"
Would be the most progressive healthcare system in the history of the United States
This is redundant to his "Improve the ACA" plank. We would have both? How would they differ and how would eligibility for each differ? It tells me he either doesn't know what he's talking about or he just wants the political capital of advocating for both (even though it makes no sense).
With the ACA, you are on an exchange for private insurers. It does not offer you the chance to purchase any form of gov't facilitated insurance. The choice option would provide that option.
Most ACA plans include some government subsidy. Most Medicare beneficiaries have supplemental private plans. Unless you're massively overhauling both systems there is a ton of redundancy. If someone is eligible for both, why are they shopping two sets of hybrid plans?
Yes true on both, but you don't have to buy supplemental insurance for medicare. I'm just not sure that the planks are redundant. But if you think of it from a political marketing perspective, they feel different. I guess I don't necessarily agree with your hypothesis that Bloomberg doesn't understand the difference. The man isn't stupid.
Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?
Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination.
Until we pass a constitutional amendment limiting campaign spending, this is our system.
democrats can either play this game or watch from the sidelines.
The majority of New York is low crime. High crime does exist but is centered in very specific neighborhoods. You need to put the cops where the crime occurs. Unfortunately Bloomberg made disparaging comments about alleged criminals and focused his comments towards race instead of location. But in no way did I support stop and frisk. It went too far.
You're definitely preaching to the choir on campaign spending. He's not doing anything illegal but it's obnoxious to watch and one more reason for me to not like the guy.
Stop and frisk is a big part of it for me. And his deference to China and wrangling a third term. If you look at his record, it's easy to see how he was a Republican. I'm surprised how much he's being embraced.
This does not look so republican to me-
Create a Medicare-like public insurance option
Improve and expand enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans
Allow people to keep their private insurance
Cap health care prices
Lower drug costs
Expand access to dental, hearing, and vision coverage
Create a permanent reinsurance program that reduces customer premiums
A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.
The spectrum has moved so far right that he seems almost left.
"Create a Medicare-like public insurance option"
Would be the most progressive healthcare system in the history of the United States
This is redundant to his "Improve the ACA" plank. We would have both? How would they differ and how would eligibility for each differ? It tells me he either doesn't know what he's talking about or he just wants the political capital of advocating for both (even though it makes no sense).
With the ACA, you are on an exchange for private insurers. It does not offer you the chance to purchase any form of gov't facilitated insurance. The choice option would provide that option.
Most ACA plans include some government subsidy. Most Medicare beneficiaries have supplemental private plans. Unless you're massively overhauling both systems there is a ton of redundancy. If someone is eligible for both, why are they shopping two sets of hybrid plans?
Yes true on both, but you don't have to buy supplemental insurance for medicare. I'm just not sure that the planks are redundant. But if you think of it from a political marketing perspective, they feel different. I guess I don't necessarily agree with your hypothesis that Bloomberg doesn't understand the difference. The man isn't stupid.
I agree that he's probably more disingenuous than stupid, but I'm allowing for either. For all of the crowing about excessive overhead in health care costs, setting up side-by-side redundant systems (even if they *feel* different to consumers) is creating massive administrative waste.
Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?
Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination.
Until we pass a constitutional amendment limiting campaign spending, this is our system.
democrats can either play this game or watch from the sidelines.
The majority of New York is low crime. High crime does exist but is centered in very specific neighborhoods. You need to put the cops where the crime occurs. Unfortunately Bloomberg made disparaging comments about alleged criminals and focused his comments towards race instead of location. But in no way did I support stop and frisk. It went too far.
You're definitely preaching to the choir on campaign spending. He's not doing anything illegal but it's obnoxious to watch and one more reason for me to not like the guy.
Stop and frisk is a big part of it for me. And his deference to China and wrangling a third term. If you look at his record, it's easy to see how he was a Republican. I'm surprised how much he's being embraced.
This does not look so republican to me-
Create a Medicare-like public insurance option
Improve and expand enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans
Allow people to keep their private insurance
Cap health care prices
Lower drug costs
Expand access to dental, hearing, and vision coverage
Create a permanent reinsurance program that reduces customer premiums
A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.
The spectrum has moved so far right that he seems almost left.
"Create a Medicare-like public insurance option"
Would be the most progressive healthcare system in the history of the United States
Yes, but is that really the measuring stick?
I'm baffled by the people here who think M4A is some pie-eyed betrayal of DNC principles. Harry Truman of all people supported a universal system (that went farther than FDR and the New Deal). Christ, if Harry fucking Truman showed up in 2020, he'd be labeled a Socialist!
Probably Eisenhower would be labeled a liberal as well. That's the point and it's why moderation is the proper vote in 2020.
The point is to WIN. The electoral college gives a disproportionate voting power to the swing states and trumps base.
We risk everything if we start giving the oppositions socialist argument validity with a too progressive plan right now.
The 2 oldest Justices are liberal and over 80 and might need to be replaced between now and Jan 2025.
We could be risking a 7-2 supreme court. That could be staunchly conservative for at least 30 years and ANY liberal healthcare mandate would be out the window until 2055.
You and I have very different definitions of what it means to win, so maybe don't use "we" when responding to me.
"We" was referring to the Democrats as in the topic of this thread.
Instead of thinking my comment is personal, how about addressing the risks of locking in a conservative court for 30 years? I'm assuming you are down with that.
The ideological distance between Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia is smaller than the distance between me and Bernie Sanders. The narrowness of your political horizons lead you to ask questions that miss the point.
And yet another deflection. Are you okay with a conservative Supreme Court with a 7-2 majority for the next 50 years? It’s a yes or no question. And, how does that help your friend POC who’s doing all that organizing, outreach and advocacy? Unless he wears a MAGA hat?
You always say I'm deflecting when I reject the premises of your questions. You're creating a false dichotomy and insisting I choose one side of it. I'm refusing.
oh I see now. because you cant vote your opinion is irrelevant.
You didn't give an answer. You just rephrased you assertion that I have asked you to clarify:
What has me not being able to vote to do with anything, why would my opinion be irrelevant here, please explain.
you have been all over the map. who ever was flavor of the day , you seemed to back. like someone manic. Bernie was last a member of an SD party 43 fucking years ago. Has only won elected office as an Independent. Hes a carpetbagging fuck hijacking a party he was never a member of but only registered to run for Pres , spouting policy agenda he has NO HOPE OF PASSING.
You are entitled to your opinion. It means nothing in this. period. You might be taken more seriously if you presented yourself in this forum seriously. The mems gifs and pop culture references are childish and beneath you here, or are they?
my question was asked weeks ago, you have chosen to ignore it. Until you do, refer back to page 85..........
All those words and no answer to be found. Then, maybe you should stop bringing up your void-of-anything nonsense regarding this every 10 or so pages? Because you clearly can't find a reason for it other than you wanting to disparage another user. If you want a thread for just Americans to discuss whatever Americans discuss when just Americans are round, than ask a moderator to start one for you.
And me being childish for using GIFs? Then what is not using capital letters when forming sentences? Is that good if you want to be - and I quote - "taken more seriously" and believe it is important to "presented yourself in this forum seriously"? Pasting in a GIF actually takes some work, thought and time. What does skipping out on grammar take?
Lev som du lär. Here is Freddy Krueger writing in a GIF:
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?
Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination.
Until we pass a constitutional amendment limiting campaign spending, this is our system.
democrats can either play this game or watch from the sidelines.
The majority of New York is low crime. High crime does exist but is centered in very specific neighborhoods. You need to put the cops where the crime occurs. Unfortunately Bloomberg made disparaging comments about alleged criminals and focused his comments towards race instead of location. But in no way did I support stop and frisk. It went too far.
You're definitely preaching to the choir on campaign spending. He's not doing anything illegal but it's obnoxious to watch and one more reason for me to not like the guy.
Stop and frisk is a big part of it for me. And his deference to China and wrangling a third term. If you look at his record, it's easy to see how he was a Republican. I'm surprised how much he's being embraced.
This does not look so republican to me-
Create a Medicare-like public insurance option
Improve and expand enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans
Allow people to keep their private insurance
Cap health care prices
Lower drug costs
Expand access to dental, hearing, and vision coverage
Create a permanent reinsurance program that reduces customer premiums
A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.
The spectrum has moved so far right that he seems almost left.
"Create a Medicare-like public insurance option"
Would be the most progressive healthcare system in the history of the United States
Yes, but is that really the measuring stick?
I'm baffled by the people here who think M4A is some pie-eyed betrayal of DNC principles. Harry Truman of all people supported a universal system (that went farther than FDR and the New Deal). Christ, if Harry fucking Truman showed up in 2020, he'd be labeled a Socialist!
Probably Eisenhower would be labeled a liberal as well. That's the point and it's why moderation is the proper vote in 2020.
The point is to WIN. The electoral college gives a disproportionate voting power to the swing states and trumps base.
We risk everything if we start giving the oppositions socialist argument validity with a too progressive plan right now.
The 2 oldest Justices are liberal and over 80 and might need to be replaced between now and Jan 2025.
We could be risking a 7-2 supreme court. That could be staunchly conservative for at least 30 years and ANY liberal healthcare mandate would be out the window until 2055.
You and I have very different definitions of what it means to win, so maybe don't use "we" when responding to me.
"We" was referring to the Democrats as in the topic of this thread.
Instead of thinking my comment is personal, how about addressing the risks of locking in a conservative court for 30 years? I'm assuming you are down with that.
The ideological distance between Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia is smaller than the distance between me and Bernie Sanders. The narrowness of your political horizons lead you to ask questions that miss the point.
Do you live in the states?
Scalia believed the 2nd amendment was ironclad that there was zero room for regulation despite that word being in the actual text
Scalia believed homosexuality should be illegal
Scalia believed the wealthy corporations are people and have a right to spend unlimited amounts of money o politics while hiding in secrecy
Scalia believed the govt had zero right to set up a health care exchange.
Scalia believed the constitution does not limit gender discrimination
Scalia believed the constitution can not limit any restriction placed on a women's right to choose
So yeah, he and Ginsberg are real tight.
The topic is about Democrats winning in 2020. IRL. Not some hope of a philosophical society that could exist in 2112.
That only buys us (America) more Republicans this year.
In fairness to Scalia, his majority opinion in Heller allows for reasonable regulation of guns. He states it clear that the 2A is not unlimited. This is why VA could pass the assault weapons ban that it recently did.
True but I didnt realize "reasonable" was the adjective before regulated.
Individual states regulating guns are about as useful to me as a concert costing $1500. At least until states start enforcing their border security
Though I don't like Sanders' chances much, it would be pretty hilarious if he won the nomination and beat Trump since Trump seems to think that sticking up for Sanders in this manner might help him win the Dem nomination, and in Trump's mind, make for an easier general election opponent than say Bloomberg...
Don't think this has much or anything to do with wanting Bernie to win to have an easier opponent, but just to keep pushing the narrative of the DNC and the democrats being corrupt.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?
Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination.
Until we pass a constitutional amendment limiting campaign spending, this is our system.
democrats can either play this game or watch from the sidelines.
The majority of New York is low crime. High crime does exist but is centered in very specific neighborhoods. You need to put the cops where the crime occurs. Unfortunately Bloomberg made disparaging comments about alleged criminals and focused his comments towards race instead of location. But in no way did I support stop and frisk. It went too far.
You're definitely preaching to the choir on campaign spending. He's not doing anything illegal but it's obnoxious to watch and one more reason for me to not like the guy.
Stop and frisk is a big part of it for me. And his deference to China and wrangling a third term. If you look at his record, it's easy to see how he was a Republican. I'm surprised how much he's being embraced.
This does not look so republican to me-
Create a Medicare-like public insurance option
Improve and expand enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans
Allow people to keep their private insurance
Cap health care prices
Lower drug costs
Expand access to dental, hearing, and vision coverage
Create a permanent reinsurance program that reduces customer premiums
A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.
The spectrum has moved so far right that he seems almost left.
"Create a Medicare-like public insurance option"
Would be the most progressive healthcare system in the history of the United States
Yes, but is that really the measuring stick?
I'm baffled by the people here who think M4A is some pie-eyed betrayal of DNC principles. Harry Truman of all people supported a universal system (that went farther than FDR and the New Deal). Christ, if Harry fucking Truman showed up in 2020, he'd be labeled a Socialist!
Probably Eisenhower would be labeled a liberal as well. That's the point and it's why moderation is the proper vote in 2020.
The point is to WIN. The electoral college gives a disproportionate voting power to the swing states and trumps base.
We risk everything if we start giving the oppositions socialist argument validity with a too progressive plan right now.
The 2 oldest Justices are liberal and over 80 and might need to be replaced between now and Jan 2025.
We could be risking a 7-2 supreme court. That could be staunchly conservative for at least 30 years and ANY liberal healthcare mandate would be out the window until 2055.
You and I have very different definitions of what it means to win, so maybe don't use "we" when responding to me.
"We" was referring to the Democrats as in the topic of this thread.
Instead of thinking my comment is personal, how about addressing the risks of locking in a conservative court for 30 years? I'm assuming you are down with that.
The ideological distance between Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia is smaller than the distance between me and Bernie Sanders. The narrowness of your political horizons lead you to ask questions that miss the point.
Do you live in the states?
Scalia believed the 2nd amendment was ironclad that there was zero room for regulation despite that word being in the actual text
Scalia believed homosexuality should be illegal
Scalia believed the wealthy corporations are people and have a right to spend unlimited amounts of money o politics while hiding in secrecy
Scalia believed the govt had zero right to set up a health care exchange.
Scalia believed the constitution does not limit gender discrimination
Scalia believed the constitution can not limit any restriction placed on a women's right to choose
So yeah, he and Ginsberg are real tight.
The topic is about Democrats winning in 2020. IRL. Not some hope of a philosophical society that could exist in 2112.
That only buys us (America) more Republicans this year.
Lived in the US my whole life--why do you ask?
I'm quite familiar with everything you just said about Ginsberg and Scalia--now go back and read what I said again, because I meant it.
Lastly, are you the topic police?
I asked because I would think the hope is to move the country to the left, in small enough steps the the dems get enough conservative support to win the election
I thought we started this by criticizing Bloombergs plan as not liberal enough. The only other interpretation of the Scalia comment is you are very conservative.
Though I don't like Sanders' chances much, it would be pretty hilarious if he won the nomination and beat Trump since Trump seems to think that sticking up for Sanders in this manner might help him win the Dem nomination, and in Trump's mind, make for an easier general election opponent than say Bloomberg...
Don't think this has much or anything to do with wanting Bernie to win to have an easier opponent, but just to keep pushing the narrative of the DNC and the democrats being corrupt.
Everything Trump does is calculated to benefit him. He rants more than enough about the Dems and the DNC being corrupt without mentioning Bernie to push that narrative. He wants Sanders. Most Republicans do.
Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?
Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination.
Until we pass a constitutional amendment limiting campaign spending, this is our system.
democrats can either play this game or watch from the sidelines.
The majority of New York is low crime. High crime does exist but is centered in very specific neighborhoods. You need to put the cops where the crime occurs. Unfortunately Bloomberg made disparaging comments about alleged criminals and focused his comments towards race instead of location. But in no way did I support stop and frisk. It went too far.
You're definitely preaching to the choir on campaign spending. He's not doing anything illegal but it's obnoxious to watch and one more reason for me to not like the guy.
Stop and frisk is a big part of it for me. And his deference to China and wrangling a third term. If you look at his record, it's easy to see how he was a Republican. I'm surprised how much he's being embraced.
This does not look so republican to me-
Create a Medicare-like public insurance option
Improve and expand enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans
Allow people to keep their private insurance
Cap health care prices
Lower drug costs
Expand access to dental, hearing, and vision coverage
Create a permanent reinsurance program that reduces customer premiums
A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.
The spectrum has moved so far right that he seems almost left.
"Create a Medicare-like public insurance option"
Would be the most progressive healthcare system in the history of the United States
Yes, but is that really the measuring stick?
I'm baffled by the people here who think M4A is some pie-eyed betrayal of DNC principles. Harry Truman of all people supported a universal system (that went farther than FDR and the New Deal). Christ, if Harry fucking Truman showed up in 2020, he'd be labeled a Socialist!
Probably Eisenhower would be labeled a liberal as well. That's the point and it's why moderation is the proper vote in 2020.
The point is to WIN. The electoral college gives a disproportionate voting power to the swing states and trumps base.
We risk everything if we start giving the oppositions socialist argument validity with a too progressive plan right now.
The 2 oldest Justices are liberal and over 80 and might need to be replaced between now and Jan 2025.
We could be risking a 7-2 supreme court. That could be staunchly conservative for at least 30 years and ANY liberal healthcare mandate would be out the window until 2055.
You and I have very different definitions of what it means to win, so maybe don't use "we" when responding to me.
"We" was referring to the Democrats as in the topic of this thread.
Instead of thinking my comment is personal, how about addressing the risks of locking in a conservative court for 30 years? I'm assuming you are down with that.
The ideological distance between Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia is smaller than the distance between me and Bernie Sanders. The narrowness of your political horizons lead you to ask questions that miss the point.
Do you live in the states?
Scalia believed the 2nd amendment was ironclad that there was zero room for regulation despite that word being in the actual text
Scalia believed homosexuality should be illegal
Scalia believed the wealthy corporations are people and have a right to spend unlimited amounts of money o politics while hiding in secrecy
Scalia believed the govt had zero right to set up a health care exchange.
Scalia believed the constitution does not limit gender discrimination
Scalia believed the constitution can not limit any restriction placed on a women's right to choose
So yeah, he and Ginsberg are real tight.
The topic is about Democrats winning in 2020. IRL. Not some hope of a philosophical society that could exist in 2112.
That only buys us (America) more Republicans this year.
In fairness to Scalia, his majority opinion in Heller allows for reasonable regulation of guns. He states it clear that the 2A is not unlimited. This is why VA could pass the assault weapons ban that it recently did.
True but I didnt realize "reasonable" was the adjective before regulated.
Individual states regulating guns are about as useful to me as a concert costing $1500. At least until states start enforcing their border security
/s
Well this is true, and we had the federal ban for ten years which never had a SCOTUS challenge. I believe the law was challenged a few times through commerce clause sorts of things, but nothing ever made it to even a SCOTUS review. We certainly need to control the legislature and exec to get another federal ban. Until then, state is better than nothing. And Scalia certainly set the precedent with his opinion. Remember that the DC law in Heller prohibited even hand gun ownership in your personal home. Even I think that went too far.
Without reading through all posts, what are thoughts on Bloomberg?
Would be pretty low on my list. Authoritarian who's trying to buy the nomination.
Until we pass a constitutional amendment limiting campaign spending, this is our system.
democrats can either play this game or watch from the sidelines.
The majority of New York is low crime. High crime does exist but is centered in very specific neighborhoods. You need to put the cops where the crime occurs. Unfortunately Bloomberg made disparaging comments about alleged criminals and focused his comments towards race instead of location. But in no way did I support stop and frisk. It went too far.
You're definitely preaching to the choir on campaign spending. He's not doing anything illegal but it's obnoxious to watch and one more reason for me to not like the guy.
Stop and frisk is a big part of it for me. And his deference to China and wrangling a third term. If you look at his record, it's easy to see how he was a Republican. I'm surprised how much he's being embraced.
This does not look so republican to me-
Create a Medicare-like public insurance option
Improve and expand enrollment in Affordable Care Act plans
Allow people to keep their private insurance
Cap health care prices
Lower drug costs
Expand access to dental, hearing, and vision coverage
Create a permanent reinsurance program that reduces customer premiums
A normal moderate Republican similar to Romney.
The spectrum has moved so far right that he seems almost left.
"Create a Medicare-like public insurance option"
Would be the most progressive healthcare system in the history of the United States
Yes, but is that really the measuring stick?
I'm baffled by the people here who think M4A is some pie-eyed betrayal of DNC principles. Harry Truman of all people supported a universal system (that went farther than FDR and the New Deal). Christ, if Harry fucking Truman showed up in 2020, he'd be labeled a Socialist!
Probably Eisenhower would be labeled a liberal as well. That's the point and it's why moderation is the proper vote in 2020.
The point is to WIN. The electoral college gives a disproportionate voting power to the swing states and trumps base.
We risk everything if we start giving the oppositions socialist argument validity with a too progressive plan right now.
The 2 oldest Justices are liberal and over 80 and might need to be replaced between now and Jan 2025.
We could be risking a 7-2 supreme court. That could be staunchly conservative for at least 30 years and ANY liberal healthcare mandate would be out the window until 2055.
You and I have very different definitions of what it means to win, so maybe don't use "we" when responding to me.
"We" was referring to the Democrats as in the topic of this thread.
Instead of thinking my comment is personal, how about addressing the risks of locking in a conservative court for 30 years? I'm assuming you are down with that.
The ideological distance between Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Antonin Scalia is smaller than the distance between me and Bernie Sanders. The narrowness of your political horizons lead you to ask questions that miss the point.
Do you live in the states?
Scalia believed the 2nd amendment was ironclad that there was zero room for regulation despite that word being in the actual text
Scalia believed homosexuality should be illegal
Scalia believed the wealthy corporations are people and have a right to spend unlimited amounts of money o politics while hiding in secrecy
Scalia believed the govt had zero right to set up a health care exchange.
Scalia believed the constitution does not limit gender discrimination
Scalia believed the constitution can not limit any restriction placed on a women's right to choose
So yeah, he and Ginsberg are real tight.
The topic is about Democrats winning in 2020. IRL. Not some hope of a philosophical society that could exist in 2112.
That only buys us (America) more Republicans this year.
Lived in the US my whole life--why do you ask?
I'm quite familiar with everything you just said about Ginsberg and Scalia--now go back and read what I said again, because I meant it.
Lastly, are you the topic police?
I asked because I would think the hope is to move the country to the left, in small enough steps the the dems get enough conservative support to win the election
I thought we started this by criticizing Bloombergs plan as not liberal enough. The only other interpretation of the Scalia comment is you are very conservative.
No, the other interpretation is that he is much further to the left, which I think posting history would support.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Comments
I have no problem believing that....
Do you live in the states?
Scalia believed the 2nd amendment was ironclad that there was zero room for regulation despite that word being in the actual text
Scalia believed homosexuality should be illegal
Scalia believed the wealthy corporations are people and have a right to spend unlimited amounts of money o politics while hiding in secrecy
Scalia believed the govt had zero right to set up a health care exchange.
Scalia believed the constitution does not limit gender discrimination
Scalia believed the constitution can not limit any restriction placed on a women's right to choose
So yeah, he and Ginsberg are real tight.
The topic is about Democrats winning in 2020. IRL. Not some hope of a philosophical society that could exist in 2112.
That only buys us (America) more Republicans this year.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I'm quite familiar with everything you just said about Ginsberg and Scalia--now go back and read what I said again, because I meant it.
Lastly, are you the topic police?
But, I guess "something something Bernie Bros makes me angry and start calling people morons"
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/10/nyregion/vaping-bloomberg-e-cigarette.html
All those words and no answer to be found. Then, maybe you should stop bringing up your void-of-anything nonsense regarding this every 10 or so pages? Because you clearly can't find a reason for it other than you wanting to disparage another user. If you want a thread for just Americans to discuss whatever Americans discuss when just Americans are round, than ask a moderator to start one for you.
And me being childish for using GIFs? Then what is not using capital letters when forming sentences? Is that good if you want to be - and I quote - "taken more seriously" and believe it is important to "presented yourself in this forum seriously"? Pasting in a GIF actually takes some work, thought and time. What does skipping out on grammar take?
Lev som du lär. Here is Freddy Krueger writing in a GIF:
True but I didnt realize "reasonable" was the adjective before regulated.
Individual states regulating guns are about as useful to me as a concert costing $1500. At least until states start enforcing their border security
/s
I thought we started this by criticizing Bloombergs plan as not liberal enough. The only other interpretation of the Scalia comment is you are very conservative.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
No, the other interpretation is that he is much further to the left, which I think posting history would support.