Except isn't the Tea Party caucus going to be even bigger now? They already had him by the balls before...
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2014 |OT2| We need to be more like Disney World
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
He's got some Vegas baggage. I can't see how he'd get through the Dem Presidential primaries considering he's fairly Pro-Life on the abortion debate.
jamesinclair
Banned
Thanks, Obama, for directing your employees to release this news before the election.
Oh wait.
http://time.com/3572116/new-jobs-report/
Oh wait.
http://time.com/3572116/new-jobs-report/
speculawyer
Member
Yes, when herding cats is your job, having more cats makes it easier.
The Republican Recovery begins!
Black Mamba
Member
Oh what the hell Supreme Court...
Sirpopopop
Member
The line will be as follows:
"Employers started hiring because of confidence that Republicans will control the House & Senate and start enacting measures to spur growth."
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFwb8z0A5nM
Just think of all those poor cops that are going to lose their lives because that mayor pointed her finger at a black guy.
Just think of all those poor cops that are going to lose their lives because that mayor pointed her finger at a black guy.
Potentially big day for Metamorpheus/Halbig truthers:
https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews/status/530780187483709440
Also:
https://twitter.com/AP/status/530782571253497856
And:
https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews/status/530780187483709440
Also:
https://twitter.com/AP/status/530782571253497856
And:
speculawyer
Member
PhoenixDark
Banned
RIP Obamacare in multiple states.
RIP in peace ACA. You were decent and somewhat helpful while you lasted.
Jack Remington
Banned
Christ, I was really going the SC would hold off on hearing a King appeal.
5-4 or 6-3 in favor of the subsidies seems likely though. At the end of the day, "such exchange" pretty unambiguously supports the IRS rule.
5-4 or 6-3 in favor of the subsidies seems likely though. At the end of the day, "such exchange" pretty unambiguously supports the IRS rule.
speculawyer
Member
Is this the stupid thing over the typo that only mentioned state exchanges?
Yes.
speculawyer
Member
We soon won't have Bachmann to kick around any more.
Or is she already gone?
Or is she already gone?
January, at which time she will be running for president full time when not appearing on Fox News.
jamesinclair
Banned
Millions of federal employees, and they cant hire someone to proofread?
Sirpopopop
Member
We'll see.
Been a terrible week for sanity.
Why not? Roberts only saved ACA because the conservative wing on the court wanted to throw out the entire law. Plus, it was an election year. Roberts was protecting the court's image.
There's no such issue as that this time around. I can easily see Roberts justifying throwing out the subsidies.
Jack Remington
Banned
If they're thrown out, Metapod gets to rejoice at the subsequent increase in human suffering that will result.
No way they get struck down though. As I said, "such exchange" is unambiguous.
No way they get struck down though. As I said, "such exchange" is unambiguous.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
This week just won't let up.
I think I may just die of schadenfreude.
I think I may just die of schadenfreude.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
yeah! people are going to lose access to health care!!!!!
including possibly myself.
I'm glad your happy though.
Black Mamba
Member
Quite the opposite. Robersts had every chance to kill the ACA in that case leaving Obama with very little to stand on going forward.
The truth is, Roberts found every which way not to kill the ACA because of his notion in his legacy and because it would have been a most unprecedented move for the Court to kill such sweeping economic reform. There is literally nothing like it and for the Court to do that would change everything.
For that reason, I still think we're okay. If Roberts didn't kill it then he surely isn't going to kill the law nearly 2 years in and throw the entire market into absolute chaos in most of the states over a superficial technicality.
Everyone seems to be panicking, but the SCOTUS does take Court cases it upholds (1/3 of them in fact) and numerous ones without disagreement in the lower courts. Sometimes they like to reaffirm a decision or send a signal about it.
I really can't fathom the SCOTUS overturning the case. Not just because the legal argument is one of the most garbage arguments I've ever seen but the notion that they'd do something so unprecedented and so against what the SCOTUS has always done in terms of getting involved in laws in this way which would also through a huge economic market into chaos, and really the economy, seems impossible.
But who knows?
Jack Remington
Banned
Being a sociopath sounds fun sometimes. Wish I could try it out, just for a day.
You're generally amusing and your posts are well articulated even when I disagree, but fuck this.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Just to be clear, my schadenfreude is caused by the expressed misery of those in this thread, not the actual, real-life misery of folks who lose health insurance if the Supreme Court rules against the subsidies.
Black Mamba
Member
My misery is based on the fact that it would cause real-life misery.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
You're just trying to bring back that Inception discussion we had, aren't you?
How does it feel to drink liberal bitter tears? Are they as sweet as conservative tears?
Black Mamba
Member
literally this is why the whole thing matters to me, though. And probably most of us here.
This isn't like that case about prayer in townhalls in which either outcome really doesn't have much of an effect on every day people. Sure, I want it to go one way, but it's not the same.
We're literally talking about the lives of folks, here. It's fine to make an argument against it, but I don't like the cheering of the outcome even if it is the right one (it isn't, but besides the point).
Jack Remington
Banned
It's always nice to see the people who utterly annihilated you in multiple debates get annoyed by something, isn't it?
When you've been made to look like an utter fool on numerous occasions, you've got to savor those small victories.
That is what perplexes me about Republicans. When Democrats lose in presidential races, congressional races, gubernatorial, etc. people get upset because they will be effected, whether it's healthcare, jobs, unions, marriage, social security or losing pay raises (federal employees). They are most likely going to be negatively impacted in some way.
What do middle class republicans have to dread when republican candidates are rejected? "Shit, now I might have to do a back ground check when I buy my 500th gun! Taxes may be increased for millionaires! Labor union will still have power! Democrats are ruining everything!"
Edit: maybe they get upset simply because the other side won?
*Except the Republican Party.
Except for the whole "taking away health insurance from hundreds of thousands of people" thing.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
That seems to be where we're headed. Looking at some of the drive by posts in the OT threads it's full of "yeah it sucks for gays who want to get married and yeah it sucks for people who want to raise the minimum wage....but my team won"
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Jack Remington
Banned
Millions.
Millions of people the Republicans won't be able to convince that they DIDN'T have something to do with it.
You give the American people too much credit.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Except the democrats are so terrible at messaging right now that it would have nearly no effect.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked