or even "My code is correct, so I don't need to test."
or even "My code is correct, so I don't need to test."
The ACA was the largest government handout to industry in possibly the history of government.
That's a a very narrow view. Guess you're middle-class, huh?
Can you name any government program that involved a transfer of more power and private money to any private industry? No, of course you cannot. The government just essentially gave the health insurance industry license to print money.
The GOP would have happily voted in favor of it if only the white house were occupied by a republican; they opposed it because they didn't want a democrat to get credit for health care reform.
Events from the last 2 weeks would seem to undercut that argument quite a bit.
I suspect you meant to say "thoroughly support that argument". Can you find the profound differences between the ACA and the Ryan proposal that just fell? No, because it is still largely the same. Just because the mandate is gone doesn't mean the industry will be making any less money, indeed it accelerates their ability to make money in several important ways.
but the bill did largely the opposite of that.
There are, at minimum, 24 million of your fellow countrymen who think that argument is full of shit.
24 million people are now buying health care on the market because the law says they have to. Are they getting the health care that they wanted? I know plenty who are not; they are paying for what the law says they are required to buy.
He gave the GOP the bill they wanted.
That's a bizarre statement to make, considering that not one single solitary GOP congresscritter voted for its passage.
I already laid out exactly why the ACA was the bill that the GOP wanted, and they supported that by drafting a bill that was 90% the same as the ACA and then we saw the majority of them tripping over each other to be the first to vote in favor of it. They just couldn't get a few others of their own ilk in line to ram it through.
the difference between a party that believes that democratic governments are a good thing vs. a party that thinks the private sector ought to do everything but defense
I wish there was an example of the former in this country. The ACA was the largest government handout to industry in possibly the history of government. The dems have given comfy speeches from time to time about restricting the power and influence of the private sector but then when the time comes to actually write and vote on bills their actions are the opposite of that.
That doesn't change the fact that what was passed in 2009 was in no small part influenced by the Heritage Foundation and their own requirement for an individual mandate.
That's not what we're arguing here.
Are you pretending that the democrats actually campaigned in 2008 on the actions that went into the ACA? What went into that bill was awful. The GOP would have happily voted in favor of it if only the white house were occupied by a republican; they opposed it because they didn't want a democrat to get credit for health care reform.
Except that Obama was willing to sign damned near any piece that crossed his desk,
Would love a cite on this considering everything that's been written about this topic ad nauseam is that this was an issue close to Obama's heart,
Obama campaigned on health care reform, but the bill did largely the opposite of that. He said he was going to bring us more choices and instead this bill makes us obligate consumers of a giant for-profit industry that makes money by denying access to health care. This is not what he said he would do.
(and trying and failing same with the GOP side).
He gave the GOP the bill they wanted. They just didn't want someone with a (D) after their name to get credit for signing it into law.
I will point out that the GOP pretty well took control of the meaning of "Un-American" and applied it to everything they didn't like starting on Sept 12 2001
No no no. American conservatives have been calling American liberals all kinds of traitorous names since the late 40s. This has been going on the entire modern era.
I didn't say the name calling itself was a new problem, rather that the democratic response to it was. Once 2001 came through it was no longer fashionable for democrats to have any response other than "we're awful, please abuse us more master!" to the GOP verbal bullying. They were only allowed to be cowards from that point onward, even when they had "power".
The democrats wrote it to make the Heritage Foundation happy
Also incorrect. As I've pointed out numerous times, health care reform was a major topic of discussion during both of W's terms,
You're memory is short, then. It was a topic of discussion when Clinton was president as well. That doesn't change the fact that what was passed in 2009 was in no small part influenced by the Heritage Foundation and their own requirement for an individual mandate.
You then "lucked" out that Obama came in 2008 with an idea to make it his signature legislation.
Except that Obama was willing to sign damned near any piece that crossed his desk, to have the distinction of being the first president to do something about the health care debacle - even if it contained almost none of the reforms he campaigned on.
As for Obacamare being a lightly remixed version of The Heritage Foundation plan everyone loves talking about, they couldn't be more different.
Are you suggesting then that the heritage foundation document on the heritage foundation server that calls for an individual mandate is somehow not the heritage foundation calling for an individual mandate?
Try turning off the TV
I've tried that, but oddly enough it's hard to turn off something that isn't already on. I hit the power button and the damned thing turns back on.
The majority of the country are for trans rights
I'm not sure where the majority stands on this, to be honest. I think a more accurate statement might be that the majority of the country opposes wasting time and money on oppressing trans people, and sees oppressing them to be a pointless and stupid thing to do. I'm not sure if that is always 100% the same thing as being in favor of trans rights.
As far as I'm concerned, the world that existed before the bathroom bills started showing up reflects how most people feel. If a person who looks like a woman walks into a women's restroom, who cares if they were born biologically female or not? I'm not sure that we need to codify a law to ensure that people can use bathrooms that match their identity. If we dropped gender designations from all single-hole bathrooms that would likely resolve quite a bit of this, wouldn't it?
And it's going to get worse for the religious bigots because religion is dying.
As I recall, a recent Pew study in the US showed that the fastest growing response for the survey of religions in the US was "none". Granted this includes a lot of things beyond atheists, agnostics, and the sort; it would also potentially include the "Christmas & Easter" Christians and various other people to consult their religion when they feel like it.
The people who want him gone the most are Republicans
They'll never admit to that if it is the case. While they won't admit how much they have changed since his days, they still hold Saint Ronnie's 11th amendment as sacred and won't impeach Drumpt over anything. The only way they'll cut his administration short is if he has a medical emergency that renders him physically unfit (we already know he is mentally unfit) for the job.
because they realize he's killing them.
Killing them? More like killing for them. His mantra of "there is no such thing as bad press" has permeated the entire organization. He's on the front page news every day and has been for well over a year now. Often the democrats don't appear in the paper until at least half way to the editorial page, and the editorial page is overrun with people screaming about how the democrats are here to do the duties of Satan himself.
There is very much a non-zero chance that Drumpf will go down in history as the last POTUS. We are barreling full-speed towards dissolution of the union.
Democrats played the same blame game against the republicans when they had the power in 2009-2010.
Actually, no. The Democrats were too cowardly to actually use the power granted to them by the voting public. They were so used to being beaten up by the GOP (as they had been for around a decade at that point) that they had no notion of how to use power when they had it. They were just as afraid of being called "Un-American" in congress as they were before.
"Luke, I'm yer father, eh. Come over to the dark side, you hoser." -- Dave Thomas, "Strange Brew"