US Politics

Raoul said:
Why didn't she correct him ?
Click to expand...

Because she’s inexperienced and clearly messed up. So does that justify Tappers viewers coming away with a false impression of the policy? Who exactly wins in this scenario (other than Republicans)? What is the goal supposed to be here?
 
berbatrick said:
I wish I was such an accomplished troll... all down to laziness.


Huh I remember reading that Roberts had personally issued a stay some days back.
Click to expand...

Justice Roberts issued that judgement a few days ago. The full court has now had a chance to look at the case and have denied the stay.
 
Raoul said:
I'm curious how he would've raised the extra 400billion per year without getting voted out due to raising taxes too much
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be an extra 400bn. The estimate is for total cost not extra cost and that 400bn number is illogical as it assumes single payer is just going to be straight more expensive overall - as assumption debunked by Europe, Japan, Australia, Canada and pretty much every advanced country with universal coverage.

The Nurses Association put the total cost at 330bn which is much more realistic and logical. A large chunk of that would come from existing Medi-cal and medicare funding. From what I read the shortfall amounts to something like 50-100bn which seems like a lot until, again, people realize that yes they are paying more in taxes but they are actually saving more from not paying private insurance with a huge overhead and for-profit motive.
This estimate says Californians would save 37bn/year from implementing a single payer system.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05...37-billion-and-cover-more-people-study-finds/
 
Revan said:
If he was black he would have gone in jail. You go in jail if you attempt rape at that age. Unless you're part of the elite, in which case you become a Scotus.
Click to expand...
Weird comment, if he was black he would have gone to jail despite the victim not reporting the assault?
 
Tarrou said:
The GOP never cease to amaze me in the way they respond to stuff like this.
Click to expand...

You're amazed?

Once in a lifetime opportunity to cement a majority on the Supreme Court before midterms... they'd punt a baby across the National Mall wearing wingtips if that got them that majority. Gut the Voting Rights Act further, repeal Roe, loosen government regulation...

Of course they're trying to ram this through as soon as possible, accuser be damned.
 
The Firestarter said:
It's absolutely weird to bring race into this discussion.
Click to expand...

So what's your point then? That it was several decades ago and shouldn't matter? That it is a minor offence according to the law, which then makes it not that big of a deal?
 
adexkola said:
You're amazed?

Once in a lifetime opportunity to cement a majority on the Supreme Court before midterms... they'd punt a baby across the National Mall wearing wingtips if that got them that majority. Gut the Voting Rights Act further, repeal Roe, loosen government regulation...

Of course they're trying to ram this through as soon as possible, accuser be damned.
Click to expand...

To be fair, they don’t need Kavanaugh specifically for that purpose. He was nominated despite not being McConnell’s choice because he would defer to the POTUS ability to pardon himself.

They are still favoured to retain the Senate, and in the absolute worst case scenario, Dems don’t have the cojones to hold up a SCOTUS seat for 2 years, despite what happened to Garland, so they will get their guy eventually, just maybe not as blatantly right wing as Kavanaugh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.