EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2058
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
On June 26 2015 03:13 Jerubaal wrote: Please. Frankly, the idea that Roberts is a coward is more complimentary than that he actually believe these lines he is agreeing with. When your own arguments just don't make sense, even before you get to policy discussion, then you know you are just saying to hell with it. The fact that we had the solid bloc of 4 voting the way they did in the last Obamacare decision, where the SCOTUS basically changed the White House's argument so it made even partial sense, and Hobby Lobby, where HHS didn't even follow their own rules, shows that they are just going to vote on their Progressive ideology. Even if you think a bill could be wrangled into something workable, you shouldn't allow it because then that crappy law gets enshrined and we get to read Op-Eds on the NYT about how they are "rolling back the clock" to 15 minutes ago. Also, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a throwback to early Progressivism where it was fashionable to talk about eugenics and reducing the undesirables. I throw up in my mouth a little bit every time someone praises her. Wait, what? | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
On June 26 2015 02:59 Introvert wrote: Interesting facts you have there, considering the words of one of the primary architects. Their stick didn't work, so they ran to the Court to save it. And the Court did save it. For the good of the people. Gruber wasn't an architect of the bill, he was a number cruncher. The only evidence that the intent of the drafters was to create a carrot and stick structure with the subsidies was Gruber's one statement that he has since repudiated. Every other person who had a hand in drafting the bill has maintained that it was never the intent of the ACA to deprive states of subsidies which failed to set up their own exchanges. What's the point of a stick anyway if you're going to hide it in 4 words in a bill that is many thousands of words long? Your position is laughable. "We're the federal government and we are going to destroy the healthcare industry in your state if you don't set up an exchange. We're going to do our best to hide this incentive and keep it secret however because...why?" I'm curious to know what you think the purpose was of the drafters in including an extremely coercive incentive in the bill, and then not telling anyone about. It seems like that defeats the purpose of adding the incentive. Roberts summed it up nicely: "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter." | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On June 26 2015 03:26 Mercy13 wrote: Roberts summed it up nicely: "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter." This doesn't seem to make any sense. The judiciary is not involved in policy. They do not help implement policy, they only make sure that the policy makers act within the rules of the law. Their decisions should be "this acted within the scope of the law" or "it did not". This quotation sounds like "we will enforce the result however it comes about". | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
I saw that and I have no idea what it references, but I bet its super out of context from some dumb college essay. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
""Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. " Inb4, taken out of context. She has complex ideas, etc. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14211 Posts
In other news Univision has dumped trump and all of his shows from the network. Would be interested to see if NBC follows suit. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 26 2015 03:41 Jerubaal wrote: 2009 ""Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. " Inb4, taken out of context. She has complex ideas, etc. She addressed it and said she was talking about population growth and the zero population movement back when that was a thing. I was alive and remember when that was a concern. It was not about eugenics. Her quote is not perfect, but the idea that someone is suddenly in support of eugenics because of one gaff is pretty silly. Also indicative of modern media coverage now that I think about it. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/10/ruth_bader_ginsburg_clears_up_her_views_on_abortion_population_control_and.html LOL Glen Beck, of fucking course. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On June 26 2015 03:41 Jerubaal wrote: 2009 ""Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. " Inb4, taken out of context. She has complex ideas, etc. Not only was it taken out of context, it was deliberately taken out of context to distort what she was saying. Here you go. | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
On June 26 2015 03:34 Jerubaal wrote: This doesn't seem to make any sense. The judiciary is not involved in policy. They do not help implement policy, they only make sure that the policy makers act within the rules of the law. Their decisions should be "this acted within the scope of the law" or "it did not". This quotation sounds like "we will enforce the result however it comes about". The Court's job is to decide what the law is. They do this by interpreting the language drafted by the legislature. It's not possible to interpret language without considering its context. In this case, the context was Congress passed a bill with the express purpose of improving the health insurance market. It would be nonsensical for the Court to adopt an interpretation of the ACA which would accomplish the opposite effect. | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On June 26 2015 03:41 Jerubaal wrote: 2009 ""Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. " Inb4, taken out of context. She has complex ideas, etc. What is the context? Did she clarify? It is terribly worded and does evoke the concept of eugenics, but if you think about legalized and accessible abortion as a method for people who cannot afford to have children or do not want children to avoid having children they would otherwise have, it is indeed a form of population control. If the "population we don't want to have too many of" are unwanted children and children of parents who can't afford to give them proper care, I agree with her. But I still can't believe a Supreme Court justice would say something like that without taking the time to think it through. But one statement does not a Nazi make. EDIT: Or Occam's Razor strikes again and it really was conservatives skewing her words and taking it out of context. Should have known. Thanks kwizach! | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
On June 26 2015 03:53 Mercy13 wrote: The Court's job is to decide what the law is. They do this by interpreting the language drafted by the legislature. It's not possible to interpret language without considering its context. In this case, the context was Congress passed a bill with the express purpose of improving the health insurance market. It would be nonsensical for the Court to adopt an interpretation of the ACA which would accomplish the opposite effect. I can hear the howls of laughter from Johnathan Gruber right now. | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46540 Posts
NJ Gov. Chris Christie To Announce Presidential Run Next Week NEWARK, N.J. (CBSNewYork/AP) — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie will announce next week that he is running for president in 2016, CBS2 has confirmed. Christie will make an official announcement Tuesday at his old high school, two people familiar with his plans told The Associated Press. The Republican governor has been laying the groundwork for months. Christie considered a bid in 2012 before deciding to pass on a campaign. He joins a field of more than a dozen major candidates for the GOP nomination. Once considered an early front-runner, Christie has yet to build momentum in the early days of the race. The people spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to pre-empt Christie’s formal announcement. Christie is likely to be one of four current governors in the 2016 race, joining Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, who announced his candidacy this week, and expected candidates Scott Walker of Wisconsin and John Kasich of Ohio. (TM and © Copyright 2015 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries. CBS RADIO and EYE Logo TM and Copyright 2015 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.) http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/06/25/christie-president/ lol. No shot. As a resident of NJ, I can tell you that even we hate him as our governor, and we're accustomed to speaking/ being spoken to in a dismissive, arrogant manner. He has zero tact, he hasn't helped job growth, and he's marginalized public servants (especially teachers and police officers) with his behavior and actions. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
They need to make a meme of the Gruber quotes...with that laughing spanish language guy.. the "El Risiatas" interview. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 26 2015 04:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/06/25/christie-president/ lol. No shot. As a resident of NJ, I can tell you that even we hate him as our governor, and we're accustomed to speaking/ being spoken to in a dismissive, arrogant manner. He has zero tact, he hasn't helped job growth, and he's marginalized public servants (especially teachers and police officers) with his behavior and actions. As someone from MA, that won't change anything. We had Mit and the whole time the entire state was like "What are you all doing!?!?!?!?!" during the last election. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On June 26 2015 04:03 RCMDVA wrote: There's no obsession with him... everything he said is 100% true. Yes, like when he said that it's better to have this law than not. Glad that you agree with him. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
On June 26 2015 04:10 kwizach wrote: Yes, like when he said that it's better to have this law than not. Glad that you agree with him. So then you agree with your elected officals deliberately lying to the CBO to green light a bill as well? | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On June 26 2015 03:49 Plansix wrote: She addressed it and said she was talking about population growth and the zero population movement back when that was a thing. I was alive and remember when that was a concern. It was not about eugenics. Her quote is not perfect, but the idea that someone is suddenly in support of eugenics because of one gaff is pretty silly. Also indicative of modern media coverage now that I think about it. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/10/ruth_bader_ginsburg_clears_up_her_views_on_abortion_population_control_and.html LOL Glen Beck, of fucking course. I didn't hear it from Glenn Beck. You mock Glenn Beck then rush to Slate? Of course they are going to The question is who the "we" is. Is she describing other people's views? Is she summarizing her own views? The country as a whole? Was the "we" a slip of the tongue? Do we all not want some populations but some people actively want them to be removed while others only passively give them the means to do so? It's just not the one quote; she's made several comments to the effect that it's better to reduce the population of poor people. Maybe the problem is that some people don't find the idea that it's better that people not be born than be poor objectionable. And, Plansix, you spend a lot of time accusing everyone who disagrees with you of just ignoring all evidence against them. I'm sorry I couldn't steal RBG's secret manifesto that reveals her hatred of poor people. I don't know what else you want. | ||
| ||
