Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 105: Ossoff wins Handel-y? Or Too Much to Handel?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I still think it's pretty wild that Sandra Day O'Connor retired like a decade ago and is still very much alive
---

metroid composite posted...

He's for gay marriage,

He made up a clause in the Constitution that considers gay marriage a federal right, which is pretty much the most ludicrous decision in the history of the court.
---

Still so mad about that?
---

https://twitter.com/kibblesmith/status/878278140555964416
---

http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/the-wrap/article/CNN-Resorts-to-Sketching-White-House-Press-11243654.php
---

I thought the ruling was related to the 14th amendment.
---

https://twitter.com/braddjaffy/status/877693484282630144



A solar-powered wall! Genius!
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/braddjaffy/status/877693484282630144



A solar-powered wall! Genius!

Ajksdj 4u4y s d8 4tasjflkasdfj sggijasdkf asdf. Ijasdlfk aonu5 gakdna!!!!!!
---

woodman posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/braddjaffy/status/877693484282630144



A solar-powered wall! Genius!

Ajksdj 4u4y s d8 4tasjflkasdfj sggijasdkf asdf. Ijasdlfk aonu5 gakdna!!!!!!

http://ttsreader.com/
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

He made up a clause in the Constitution that considers gay marriage a federal right, which is pretty much the most ludicrous decision in the history of the court.

seems kind of stupid to say he's a flaming liberal on social issues just because he's pro gay marriage though.

just because one of my political stances is "get the government out of education" doesn't mean i'm a flaming libertarian by default.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/braddjaffy/status/877693484282630144



A solar-powered wall! Genius!

...

So setting aside that that would, like, quadruple the cost of the already way too damn expensive wall. Because that goes without saying.

But the Mexican Border is around 2000 miles long (Specifically 1989 miles)

It's been estimated that you could fully fund the US's electricity demands with approximately 2000 square miles of solar panels. (Specifically 1939 miles)

While the wall probably won't be a mile wide, we still have a fair supply of solar panels besides that.

So, uh, if you really want to kill off your Coal Miners, this is a fantastic way to get it done, Donny >.>
---

It's almost like he doesn't need those miners anymore.
---

SupremeZero posted...

Coal Miners

*Minors
---

We just need to have separate costs for coal-based energy and solar. Normally solar would command a higher price but we can beat that by giving it out for free and calling it energy welfare. Then people will have to buy coal based energy to avoid receiving welfare. Coal miners will get to mine less coal and make more money, it's a win-win.
---

If there's ever a "wall" it'll be like a one mile stretch in which Trump can take pictures in front of. No Republican will ever call him on it because Republicans will take a tennis racket up the ass as long as it somehow angers a Democrat
---

That sure would anger me, boy howdy.

I would be totally triggered if they all did that in unison on the House floor
---

DeathChicken posted...

If there's ever a "wall" it'll be like a one mile stretch in which Trump can take pictures in front of. No Republican will ever call him on it because Republicans will take a tennis racket up the ass as long as it somehow angers a Democrat

It'll be a 10 foot wall, just large enough to cover the picture. He'll then tell everyone it's a tremendous wall, and nobody will question it. He'll then cite statistics saying illegal immigration is down, and spend the billions to build the wall on golf courses and Melania's replacement.
---

What if we just made the whole border a golf course?

Trump would patrol it himself
---

Obviously he'll go with a circular wall like in Arrested Development
---

https://www.vox.com/2017/6/24/15867614/senate-health-waiting-period

Sounds like a mandate to me.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

https://www.vox.com/2017/6/24/15867614/senate-health-waiting-period

Sounds like a mandate to me.

Experts expect that this would cause a death spiral, where only the sickest patients purchase coverage and premiums skyrocket.

The cynical part of me really wants this to happen so that we can kill off the for-profit healthcare model in the US and move on to something sane and reasonable.

The rest of me isn't ok with what will happen during that span of time though.
---

The mandate is a way better solution to the problem of encouraging healthy people to buy into the market than a waiting period is. Republicans probably know that, but can't do it since they railed against the mandate for easy political points for the past 8 years.
---

I got a 3KL "offensive" moderation for discussing the Virginia shooter in relation to the Ossef election.

Disputed it, pointing out this quote:

The Washington Post quotes Brad Carver, chairman of the Republican Party in the neighboring 11th Congressional District, as saying to a group of volunteers: "I'll tell you what: I think the shooting is going to win this election for us.

but I'm not holding my breath.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

https://www.vox.com/2017/6/24/15867614/senate-health-waiting-period

Sounds like a mandate to me.

So wait, the punishment for not buying insurance is... not being able to buy insurance?

wat
---

"buy insurance when you don't need it or fuck you when you do need it"
---

I mean, it theoretically works.... IF you think that people are good at properly factoring in severe long term consequences into their decision making.

The mandate, on the other hand, is a much less severe but continuous penalty (and thus a continuous incentive).
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I mean, it theoretically works.... IF you think that people are good at properly factoring in severe long term consequences into their decision making.

The mandate, on the other hand, is a much less severe but continuous penalty (and thus a continuous incentive).

Yeah, the mandate at least has the virtue of not being likely to directly lead to someone's death and/or sudden bankruptcy.
---

That sounds exactly like what insurance is supposed to be. If you don't buy it, it won't pay for your healthcare later. Many people will intelligently choose to forgo insurance under those conditions, and they will be wealthier for it to the tune of 10-20%+ more income per year. And a far bigger increase to savings.

If bad things happen? Get emergency care, and declare bankruptcy.

The utter inability of many people in the Democratic Party to understand that loads of low income people would prefer not to buy insurance because it's too expensive, and that they don't give a fig that they are acting as free riders driving up the costs for upper middle class people, is a big reason why they lost.
---

red sox 777 posted...

If bad things happen? Get emergency care, and declare bankruptcy.

This is an incredibly dumb solution and you should feel ashamed for suggesting it.
---

red sox 777 posted...

That sounds exactly like what insurance is supposed to be. If you don't buy it, it won't pay for your healthcare later. Many people will intelligently choose to forgo insurance under those conditions, and they will be wealthier for it to the tune of 10-20%+ more income per year. And a far bigger increase to savings.

If bad things happen? Get emergency care, and declare bankruptcy.

The utter inability of many people in the Democratic Party to understand that loads of low income people would prefer not to buy insurance because it's too expensive, and that they don't give a fig that they are acting as free riders driving up the costs for upper middle class people, is a big reason why they lost.

And this behavior screws everyone else. When an uninsured person gets all of their care through the emergency room (likely at a much higher cost than they would pay for preventative care) it's not like nobody has to pay for it. It is very much the government's role to coordinate things so everybody is paying a moderate amount relative to their means in order to prevent many from being completely destroyed financially.
---

Why is it dumb? If you don't like that route, you should buy insurance. If you do like it, it should be your choice and your right.

If you actually believe the mandate drives down premiums for low income people......then that's a different debate.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Why is it dumb? If you don't like that route, you should buy insurance. If you do like it, it should be your choice and your right.

If you actually believe the mandate drives down premiums for low income people......then that's a different debate.

i don't know that dumb is the word I would use for your "solution"

maybe cruel?

or inhumane?
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

red sox 777 posted...

That sounds exactly like what insurance is supposed to be. If you don't buy it, it won't pay for your healthcare later. Many people will intelligently choose to forgo insurance under those conditions, and they will be wealthier for it to the tune of 10-20%+ more income per year. And a far bigger increase to savings.

If bad things happen? Get emergency care, and declare bankruptcy.

The utter inability of many people in the Democratic Party to understand that loads of low income people would prefer not to buy insurance because it's too expensive, and that they don't give a fig that they are acting as free riders driving up the costs for upper middle class people, is a big reason why they lost.

And this behavior screws everyone else. When an uninsured person gets all of their care through the emergency room (likely at a much higher cost than they would pay for preventative care) it's not like nobody has to pay for it. It is very much the government's role to coordinate things so everybody is paying a moderate amount relative to their means in order to prevent many from being completely destroyed financially.

Then they should create a system where everyone contributes a similar percentage of their income. Preferably, with wealthier people contributing a greater percentage. Instead, we have a system where low income people have a VASTLY higher burden as a percentage of income. Why should someone earning 30k a year vote for a system where they must pay 20% of their after tax income while someone making 100k pays 8% and someone making 500k pays 2%?

Well, they voted against it. As well they should.
---

Yes, that's why the ACA expanded Medicaid and offers subsidies.

The writers of the law didn't anticipate many states suing to prevent the Medicaid expansion. The subsidies are also probably insufficient and should be increased.

Those are both problems with the ACA not going far enough (either in design or implementation), not with the fundamental idea behind the bill.
---

The fundamental idea of Obamacare/Romneycare is that the problem with healthcare costs is that there are too many freeloading poor people who don't want to buy health insurance and are driving up costs for everyone else, and so we should force them to contribute to the system.

This is both a stupid idea because even if it were true that this kind of freeloading were driving up national healthcare costs, it doesn't come remotely close to explaining the gaping chasm in costs between the US and every other first world country. It is also evil in that it expressly demonizes low income people (similar to Republicans blaming other problems on welfare recipients), refuses to acknowledge their ability to intelligently make decisions (such as not buying a product because they can't afford it), and goads more affluent people into alternately blaming and patronizing less well off people.

And, it also entrenches the lack of a free market in healthcare in the US (it wasn't very free before, but Obamacare codifies it and places the whole burden of making things run smoothly on government bureaucrats).

As I see it, it is really the worst of both worlds. I guess it's not surprising the Heritage Foundation came up with the outline, but it ought to be disturbing that the Democrats have spent the last 7 years steadfastly defending one of the worst ideas produced by the Republican Party in the last 20.
---

I don't understand why people say SephyG is bad but not red sox

SephyG is atleast brutally honest about who he is and what he wants

red sox just chimes in with pseudo-intellectual bullshit and "this is why you lost"
---

Probably because I never remember that red sox exists.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

and "this is why you lost"

Has he ever actually done this in the non-facetious way?

Sure he has some bad ideas, but they seem to me like spit-ball thoughts that he hasn't thought out.

I don't get the impression he genuinely hates the poor like say, Seph and Ulti seem to.
---

*Spoilers*

SephyG and Ulti don't hate the poor either.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

red sox just chimes in with pseudo-intellectual bullshit and "this is why you lost"

My impression is that, as alluded to previously, red sox is facetious about 80% of the time, and then the rest falls under this yeah. He also appears to not actually believe in 2/3 of what he says. Very obnoxious person to try to hold a conversation with.
---

red sox 777 posted...

*Spoilers*

SephyG and Ulti don't hate the poor either.

Seph probably would like them to go back to their boxes and be quiet though.
---

It's always interesting that so many people demand to be taken seriously... while being intentionally facetious and needlessly provocative.


Wait not interesting. Just disappointing. Makes it hard to actually have conversations that don't eventually degrade into schoolyard banter.


(And then a certain someone turns around and says it's everyone else's fault for... "picking on" him? *Shrug*)
---

There are some people in this topic who I take seriously, but it's probably less than half. I don't feel that I've had anything resembling a conversation with the rest.
---

And that isn't concerning? Sure it's an internet fourm so one should never take it 100% seriously...

But for as long as B8ers have interacted with each other surely we can at least... be respectful to each other when it comes to politics? But when certain people make it their sole mission to stir up shit, it just makes it harder for everyone.


Granted... I may not be the best person to chastise others for such a thing.
---

red sox 777 posted...

There are some people in this topic who I take seriously, but it's probably less than half. I don't feel that I've had anything resembling a conversation with the rest.

Half of the posts you make give off the airs that you're supposed to be an ironic account, and you've stated that you're aware ofnl this. Does that not seem like it might be a factor?
---

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/878711517537083392

Now he's giving himself nicknames
---

The ironic thing is that the reason for Obama's inaction was literally because he, Donald Trump, was making wild accusations of election rigging
---

Honestly, McConnell probably would've thrown his shit fit with or without Trump providing.
---

Make Estelle Bright Again PLEASE
---