That’s how the rest of us feel about the popular vote, marijuana, healthcare for all and a host of other issues. Odd for you to only take that stance in this one particular case that benefits the right, isn’t it? Hypocrites gonna hypocrite.
Are you claiming that the majority of STATES favor the positions you listed? There has been ample time for all 50 states to vote for changes you suggest. Yet only a handful have done so after decades of opportunity. Or are you claiming the majority of the public, including those too young to vote, favor legalization of pot, expansion of the current healthcare laws, and changing the election process itself?
FYI; the Electoral College process only applies in the election of a President. So, why did you use that posture to criticize the OP?
I meant majority, quite simply. Since yes, the majority of Americans are for sane things, like marijuana legalisation and healthcare for all. Unfortunately the system is rigged, we are run by a cartel that is in place specifically to benefit the rich and keep the poor as is. Google it, the majority of Americans are for the policies your side hates so much. If you can’t figure out why I criticized Agent, you haven’t been paying attention until this very moment, which seems very unlikely.
Jon, pretty clear you get your talking points from the Communist News Network. Radicals like you will never win. I can’t believe you even have a job in our industry.
January 7, 2020 at 2:59 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
7
5
You’re so indoctrinated to the Fox News propaganda that you can’t view anyone who disagrees as valid, despite the whining from your side about censorship whenever people don’t want to hear your lies.
I’m in this industry because I excel at critical thinking and data analysis. I have no idea how you maintain a job in this industry with your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears.
January 9, 2020 at 7:42 am
Outhouse of Representatives says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
Your teachers brainwwashed you as part of their ‘Rules for Radicals’ indoctrination process. What part of the Affordable Care Act has succeeded?
If you are an excellent critical thinker, tell us why the ACA should be repaired rather than repealed. Then support your stance by citing polls of US citizens’ opinion of their health care options now versus prior to enactment of the Affordable Care Act.
I wonder if you are up to the challenges I set above.
January 9, 2020 at 8:44 am
Outhouse of Representatives says:
Like or Dislike:
4
1
One thing you ignored, or are unwilling to admit; the United States of America is a Republic; i.e. a UNION of states… which set laws independent of the Federal government. Federal laws are set by the Republic’s Legislators, but may be challenged by individuals, or states.
In this instance, a ‘popular vote’ (your term; ‘majority’) is irrelevant because 20 individual STATES AGs are challenging an appeals court ruling. Even if the number of citizens in those 20 states exceed those in the other 30, the differential is irrelevant to the appeal. The 20 AGs represent ONE state each. This avoids tyranny expected by The Founding Fathers who anticipated a potential for ‘mob rule’ in the US.
January 9, 2020 at 8:50 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
“United States of America is a Republic; i.e. a UNION of states… which set laws independent of the Federal government. Federal laws are set by the Republic’s Legislators, but may be challenged by individuals, or states.”
Since the majority of states (33 of 50) have approved medicinal marijuana independent of the Federal government, sounds like you’re in favor of the Fed changing the classification of marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug because the majority of the union of states has voted for it. Thanks for finally getting on board!
January 9, 2020 at 9:50 am
Outhouse of Representatives says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
Nope. Federal laws are enacted by ONE body of Congress, not by the consensus of individual, independent states legislative actions spread out over a period of years. The current US Congress would not allow a Federal law change legalizing marijuana. The Senate would block it.
You made a naive, sophomoric attempt to convince readers that marijuana is/ should be acceptable on a federal level, using a flawed application of principles of federal legislation.
January 9, 2020 at 10:02 am
Outhouse of Representatives says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
Further, you applied failed logical construction of extrapolation of positions of STATE legislators to FEDERAL legislators. They campaign on specific pledges / positions that are not necessarily coincident.
Try to confine your comments to the topic; The ACA’s severibility issue, rather than go off topic to marijuana legalization.
January 9, 2020 at 10:57 am
Outhouse of Representatives says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
I await ANYONE to reply with items that show the ACA has succeeded.
January 9, 2020 at 11:20 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
Let me rephrase my post then…
Do you agree individual states are challenging the federal government’s classification of marijuana as a schedule 1 drug evidenced by the majority of states approving its use for medicinal purposes?
Also, “Try to confine your comments to the topic” is hilariously hypocritical of you since you constantly post off-topic all the time … at least when you’re not ghosting people’s direct on-topic questions calling out your lies or arguments not supported with any historical precedent (e.g. marijuana can’t be vaped without an additive or the republican’s won’t release their ACA replacement until it’s been copywrite protected)
January 10, 2020 at 8:28 am
Outhouse of Representatives says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Re-state your OFF TOPIC question as often as you like. I’m not following you down your rabbit hole.
Topic of the article: ACA Repeal; Democrats seek ruling on legal issues.
January 9, 2020 at 2:22 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
30 states not being in favor means 30 locations, not just the most populated echo chambers. It is not hypocrisy
Allowing the most populated areas the most say is foolish. Echo chambers are going to echo.
You need the lower populated bubbles to have just as much of a say. 40 locales that are small will be 40 echo chambers of less people, but those 40 will differ among say 10 million people, and each of those eco systems should have sway. 40 states with 100,000,000 will not have more diverse logics, they will just be 40 more echo chambers. Allowing each ecosystem a say is more important than one densely populated area. The best way I can think of saying this is if each animal in an animal kingdom had a vote. The smallest animal kingdoms population wise would be destroyed. But if each individual animal kingdom, the lions, the cubs, had a vote, each ecosystem would have a say for what was best.
There should not be a national popular vote, and from my view, we should limit the vote of larger cities even more than we already do, because as it stands now, you can’t win with say 40,000,000 if there are 40 bubbles vs 300,000,000 with 40 bubbles, it works out much more in line with you can win if you have a slight minority, like say 3 to 5 million. It only stops some of the will of the majority taking out the will of the minority.
The way this person said majority rules works for states though, and is not hypocrisy.
I don’t have a job, Jon. I am the owner who cuts the checks for employees. I would never hire anyone like you who are so angry at the world. You also didn’t learn right from wrong growing up.
0% chance you will respond with constructive comments. Your comments are filled with paranoid remarks about conspiracies, cartels, etc. because things aren’t as you wish them to be.
Use of BOTs to censor conservatives remarks is your reply on the topic?!
Off topic: explain how almost 100 down votes occurred in less than a few minutes on a particularly upsetting (to liberals) post without use of BOTs. Then, explain why IJ changed software filters in response to the BOTs.
You failed, again, to discredit me, based on something that can only be strictly proven by IJ IT pros. I offered soft but substantial proof through my ‘challenge question’ on 100 rapid downvotes above.
This is at least the 4th time we’ve been over this: BECAUSE. IT. WASN’T. BOTS. it was an error that allowed multiple downvotes by rapidly clicking the mouse on either the downvote OR upvote button. If you did it quickly enough, you were able to get multiple votes. I used to do it all the time because I was immature and enjoyed getting a rise out of you when you would blame it on BOTs. Once it was brought to the attention of the IJ IT staff, they fixed it.
The fact that you still, to this day, believe that somebody actually took the time to a) spend the time and / or resources to utilize a BOT to downvote you and other conservatives on this site, or b). took money from “George Soros” to use a BOT to downvote you or other conservatives on this site, or c). took the time to utilize multiple IP addresses to downvote you or other conservatives on this site instead of coming to the logical conclusion of a simple software glitch is what makes people on this site question your credibility when you start ranting about things you’re supposedly an expert on. You’re so caught up in having to right on everything that you stick to this paranoid conspiracy instead of admitting, “hey,it turns out I was mistaken about this.” Nobody has EVER seen you admit you were wrong, even when evidence proves otherwise. Admitting you were wrong doesn’t make you WEAK, it makes you HUMAN.
Have a great weekend.
January 10, 2020 at 3:12 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
^^^^^^ THIS x100. Thanks for taking the time to reply to him, rob.
January 9, 2020 at 8:00 am
Outhouse of Representatives says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
“The 5th Circuit sent the case back to a lower court judge who has already decided once to throw out the entire health care law. The appellate court asked Texas-based U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor to determine whether other parts of the law can be separated from the insurance requirement, and thus remain in place.”
There is no severibility provision on any of the 2,000+ pages of the ACA Bill. That is a major blunder of Gruber and Emmanuel, among other ‘legal scholars who drafted the Bill that Nancy never read before passing it’. Thus, the only possible way for residual parts to remain intact is for a court ruling based on some precedent ruling yet to be identified. Hence, the 20 Democrat State Attorneys General requested ‘rush to judgement’.
Part of the ACA replacement process will be restoring MediCare coverage for those who were bounced off and given an ACA policy instead (so as to exaggerate the number of people ‘newly insured’ under ACA policies). Thus, the claims of loss of coverage if ACA is fully repealed are lies intended to conceal the actual changes that will occur. Many prexers will be covered by MediCare, …again.
Healthcare is a game to the likes of our Politicians. One in which they enrich themselves many times over. If not while in office, they do things to cement their ability to land on a board of a hospital, Big Pharm company, etc.
The issue is clear. We need a complete reset on the system. Period.
We need to take out extreme profits, go back to what guys like Jonas Salk intended. HELP people, not enrich others.
The rest is just bologne sandwiches for us. When men like Bill Frist and Rick Scott are not in jail is absurd. We the Middle Class, can just keep taking.
More and More companies do not want to pay anything towards medical. It has become a major issue.
Must mean 30 states are not in favor. Sorry, majority wins.
That’s how the rest of us feel about the popular vote, marijuana, healthcare for all and a host of other issues. Odd for you to only take that stance in this one particular case that benefits the right, isn’t it? Hypocrites gonna hypocrite.
Are you claiming that the majority of STATES favor the positions you listed? There has been ample time for all 50 states to vote for changes you suggest. Yet only a handful have done so after decades of opportunity. Or are you claiming the majority of the public, including those too young to vote, favor legalization of pot, expansion of the current healthcare laws, and changing the election process itself?
FYI; the Electoral College process only applies in the election of a President. So, why did you use that posture to criticize the OP?
I meant majority, quite simply. Since yes, the majority of Americans are for sane things, like marijuana legalisation and healthcare for all. Unfortunately the system is rigged, we are run by a cartel that is in place specifically to benefit the rich and keep the poor as is. Google it, the majority of Americans are for the policies your side hates so much. If you can’t figure out why I criticized Agent, you haven’t been paying attention until this very moment, which seems very unlikely.
Jon, pretty clear you get your talking points from the Communist News Network. Radicals like you will never win. I can’t believe you even have a job in our industry.
You’re so indoctrinated to the Fox News propaganda that you can’t view anyone who disagrees as valid, despite the whining from your side about censorship whenever people don’t want to hear your lies.
I’m in this industry because I excel at critical thinking and data analysis. I have no idea how you maintain a job in this industry with your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears.
Your teachers brainwwashed you as part of their ‘Rules for Radicals’ indoctrination process. What part of the Affordable Care Act has succeeded?
If you are an excellent critical thinker, tell us why the ACA should be repaired rather than repealed. Then support your stance by citing polls of US citizens’ opinion of their health care options now versus prior to enactment of the Affordable Care Act.
I wonder if you are up to the challenges I set above.
One thing you ignored, or are unwilling to admit; the United States of America is a Republic; i.e. a UNION of states… which set laws independent of the Federal government. Federal laws are set by the Republic’s Legislators, but may be challenged by individuals, or states.
In this instance, a ‘popular vote’ (your term; ‘majority’) is irrelevant because 20 individual STATES AGs are challenging an appeals court ruling. Even if the number of citizens in those 20 states exceed those in the other 30, the differential is irrelevant to the appeal. The 20 AGs represent ONE state each. This avoids tyranny expected by The Founding Fathers who anticipated a potential for ‘mob rule’ in the US.
“United States of America is a Republic; i.e. a UNION of states… which set laws independent of the Federal government. Federal laws are set by the Republic’s Legislators, but may be challenged by individuals, or states.”
Since the majority of states (33 of 50) have approved medicinal marijuana independent of the Federal government, sounds like you’re in favor of the Fed changing the classification of marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug because the majority of the union of states has voted for it. Thanks for finally getting on board!
Nope. Federal laws are enacted by ONE body of Congress, not by the consensus of individual, independent states legislative actions spread out over a period of years. The current US Congress would not allow a Federal law change legalizing marijuana. The Senate would block it.
You made a naive, sophomoric attempt to convince readers that marijuana is/ should be acceptable on a federal level, using a flawed application of principles of federal legislation.
Further, you applied failed logical construction of extrapolation of positions of STATE legislators to FEDERAL legislators. They campaign on specific pledges / positions that are not necessarily coincident.
Try to confine your comments to the topic; The ACA’s severibility issue, rather than go off topic to marijuana legalization.
I await ANYONE to reply with items that show the ACA has succeeded.
Let me rephrase my post then…
Do you agree individual states are challenging the federal government’s classification of marijuana as a schedule 1 drug evidenced by the majority of states approving its use for medicinal purposes?
Also, “Try to confine your comments to the topic” is hilariously hypocritical of you since you constantly post off-topic all the time … at least when you’re not ghosting people’s direct on-topic questions calling out your lies or arguments not supported with any historical precedent (e.g. marijuana can’t be vaped without an additive or the republican’s won’t release their ACA replacement until it’s been copywrite protected)
Re-state your OFF TOPIC question as often as you like. I’m not following you down your rabbit hole.
Topic of the article: ACA Repeal; Democrats seek ruling on legal issues.
30 states not being in favor means 30 locations, not just the most populated echo chambers. It is not hypocrisy
Allowing the most populated areas the most say is foolish. Echo chambers are going to echo.
You need the lower populated bubbles to have just as much of a say. 40 locales that are small will be 40 echo chambers of less people, but those 40 will differ among say 10 million people, and each of those eco systems should have sway. 40 states with 100,000,000 will not have more diverse logics, they will just be 40 more echo chambers. Allowing each ecosystem a say is more important than one densely populated area. The best way I can think of saying this is if each animal in an animal kingdom had a vote. The smallest animal kingdoms population wise would be destroyed. But if each individual animal kingdom, the lions, the cubs, had a vote, each ecosystem would have a say for what was best.
There should not be a national popular vote, and from my view, we should limit the vote of larger cities even more than we already do, because as it stands now, you can’t win with say 40,000,000 if there are 40 bubbles vs 300,000,000 with 40 bubbles, it works out much more in line with you can win if you have a slight minority, like say 3 to 5 million. It only stops some of the will of the majority taking out the will of the minority.
The way this person said majority rules works for states though, and is not hypocrisy.
I don’t have a job, Jon. I am the owner who cuts the checks for employees. I would never hire anyone like you who are so angry at the world. You also didn’t learn right from wrong growing up.
Mike, I wouldn’t want to work for a boss like who you doesn’t understand modern issues, and just has an outdated mindset.
Also, has anyone ever noticed that Agent doesn’t know how to respond to a message? How often he just makes a new thread? LOL
0% chance I believe you own a company when you can’t even figure out how to respond to a single thread of conversation on this forum.
0% chance you will respond with constructive comments. Your comments are filled with paranoid remarks about conspiracies, cartels, etc. because things aren’t as you wish them to be.
“Your comments are filled with paranoid remarks about conspiracies”
Says the guy who claimed for months that Soros Bots were trying to silence him
*cough cough* DEEP STATE…*cough cough* BOTs…
Use of BOTs to censor conservatives remarks is your reply on the topic?!
Off topic: explain how almost 100 down votes occurred in less than a few minutes on a particularly upsetting (to liberals) post without use of BOTs. Then, explain why IJ changed software filters in response to the BOTs.
You failed, again, to discredit me, based on something that can only be strictly proven by IJ IT pros. I offered soft but substantial proof through my ‘challenge question’ on 100 rapid downvotes above.
This is at least the 4th time we’ve been over this: BECAUSE. IT. WASN’T. BOTS. it was an error that allowed multiple downvotes by rapidly clicking the mouse on either the downvote OR upvote button. If you did it quickly enough, you were able to get multiple votes. I used to do it all the time because I was immature and enjoyed getting a rise out of you when you would blame it on BOTs. Once it was brought to the attention of the IJ IT staff, they fixed it.
The fact that you still, to this day, believe that somebody actually took the time to a) spend the time and / or resources to utilize a BOT to downvote you and other conservatives on this site, or b). took money from “George Soros” to use a BOT to downvote you or other conservatives on this site, or c). took the time to utilize multiple IP addresses to downvote you or other conservatives on this site instead of coming to the logical conclusion of a simple software glitch is what makes people on this site question your credibility when you start ranting about things you’re supposedly an expert on. You’re so caught up in having to right on everything that you stick to this paranoid conspiracy instead of admitting, “hey,it turns out I was mistaken about this.” Nobody has EVER seen you admit you were wrong, even when evidence proves otherwise. Admitting you were wrong doesn’t make you WEAK, it makes you HUMAN.
Have a great weekend.
^^^^^^ THIS x100. Thanks for taking the time to reply to him, rob.
“The 5th Circuit sent the case back to a lower court judge who has already decided once to throw out the entire health care law. The appellate court asked Texas-based U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor to determine whether other parts of the law can be separated from the insurance requirement, and thus remain in place.”
There is no severibility provision on any of the 2,000+ pages of the ACA Bill. That is a major blunder of Gruber and Emmanuel, among other ‘legal scholars who drafted the Bill that Nancy never read before passing it’. Thus, the only possible way for residual parts to remain intact is for a court ruling based on some precedent ruling yet to be identified. Hence, the 20 Democrat State Attorneys General requested ‘rush to judgement’.
Part of the ACA replacement process will be restoring MediCare coverage for those who were bounced off and given an ACA policy instead (so as to exaggerate the number of people ‘newly insured’ under ACA policies). Thus, the claims of loss of coverage if ACA is fully repealed are lies intended to conceal the actual changes that will occur. Many prexers will be covered by MediCare, …again.
Healthcare is a game to the likes of our Politicians. One in which they enrich themselves many times over. If not while in office, they do things to cement their ability to land on a board of a hospital, Big Pharm company, etc.
The issue is clear. We need a complete reset on the system. Period.
We need to take out extreme profits, go back to what guys like Jonas Salk intended. HELP people, not enrich others.
The rest is just bologne sandwiches for us. When men like Bill Frist and Rick Scott are not in jail is absurd. We the Middle Class, can just keep taking.
More and More companies do not want to pay anything towards medical. It has become a major issue.
Complete repeal of ACA.
Complete phase out of MediCare over a few decades.
Complete control of health insurance by an expanded, competitive health insurance market.
Phase out of the VA. Vouchers to be used in private hospitals, clinics, med provider companies.
Complete revision of tax code to encourage increased supply of med pros, pharma research, purchase of health insurance, etc.
Complete removal of ‘Givernment’, to be replaced by ‘government’ legislation that promotes competition as indicated above.