Support NeoGAF

[Macho Madness]

Pence still reeling from the RFRA disaster.

http://wishtv.com/2015/06/17/poll-rfra-problems-linger-for-pence/

There’s a new poll out that shows that the political problems created for Mike Pence by his handling of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act linger.

The poll shows that only 32 percent of Indiana voters believe that Pence deserves re-election. 54 percent believe it’s time to give a new person a chance to do a better job.

The poll was conducted by Washington pollster Christine Matthews of Bellwether Research at the request of Bill Oesterle, the outgoing CEO of Angie’s List and a RFRA opponent.

According to the poll it shows that in a head-to-head matchup the Republican Pence would tie Democrat Glenda Ritz. He would lose to Democrat John Gregg by a single point.

The governor’s approval and disapproval numbers match at 46 percent, the poll showed.

46 percent also believe that the governor’s handling of RFRA was an embarrassment.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Thats assuming Trump uses his money to form the LLC. There were plenty of examples in the economic crash where a vehicle went bankrupt and most or almost all of the real losses were charged to banks or investment groups that put up the money. That's why while everyone has the same potential to use an investment vehicle someone with existing wealth has exponentially more ability to utilize their rules.

Sure, if Trump doesn't have any money in the ventures, then he wouldn't lose any money if they collapse. But I took APK's comment to relate to the form of ownership, not the source of funding.

 

[Yellowtail]

IMPORTANT POLL

PPP's newest national poll finds that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is Americans' favorite Supreme Court justice- to the extent that they have one- and Clarence Thomas is their least favorite.

19% pick Ginsburg as their favorite member of the Supreme Court to 11% each for Thomas and Sotomayor, 8% each for John Roberts and Antonin Scalia, 7% for Elena Kagan, 5% for Anthony Kennedy, and 4% each for Samuel Alito and Stephen Breyer. Ginsburg leads due to her strong support among Democrats- 31% pick her as their favorite to 19% for Sotomayor, with no one else in double digits. Thomas finishes first among Republicans at 21% with Roberts and Scalia both joining him in double digits at 14%.

18% pick Thomas as their least favorite member of the Supreme Court to 12% for Ginsburg, 10% for Scalia, 8% for Kagan and Sotomayor, 5% for Alito, 4% for Roberts, and 3% each for Kennedy and Breyer. Thomas is the least favorite member of 28% of Democrats, with only Scalia at 15% also hitting double figures. 25% of Republicans say Ginsburg is their least favorite with Kagan at 12% and Sotomayor at 11% getting substantial 'support' on that question as well. Men, women, Hispanics, whites, and voters in every age category agree on Thomas as their least favorite Justice but the group most emphatic in that sentiment is African Americans, 36% of whom give him that designation.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/...ost-popular-thomas-least-popular-justice.html

 

[Crisco]

Donald Trump ran hotels and casinos that all went Chapter 11. Do you have any idea how hard it is to fuck those businesses up? Especially for a billionaire with almost unlimited capital to invest? Just take a drive down the Las Vegas strip if you don't believe me. He's basically the worst businessman of our, or any generation.

 

[Metaphoreus]

IMPORTANT POLL


http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/...ost-popular-thomas-least-popular-justice.html

It'd be interesting to see historical data. I'm guessing the approval rating is driven by cases of immediate concern (and liberal demagoguery, natch). I'd also like to know the reasons people give for their favorite justice and last favorite justice. I'd guess it's driven almost entirely by media representations of each.

(When I say "cases of immediate concern," I mean a case like Obergefell, presently. The approval among Republicans strikes me as low, and that among Democrats as high. I'd reckon Obergefell explains that, though it could also be that my expectations are inaccurate.)

 

[Jack Remington]

Donald Trump ran hotels and casinos that all went Chapter 11. Do you have any idea how hard it is to fuck those businesses up? Especially for a billionaire with almost unlimited capital to invest? Just take a drive down the Las Vegas strip if you don't believe me. He's basically the worst businessman of our, or any generation.

To be fair, is it actually that hard? The leisure industry is vulnerable to recessions, as leisure spending is the first thing people cut back on in a downturn. IIRC, Vegas got hit hard by the recession.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The uber thread is amazing. It shows how people can people can love the walmartization of a new industry as long as you dress it up in "Revolutionary" lingo and hip terms.

Most consumers are oblivious to the hidden costs of these types of practices. But fuck it, they can get a cheap cab ride! Workers be damned.

Amazon is the same way.

Give people a product for cheap, they'll support the most abusive practices

 

[Crisco]

To be fair, is it actually that hard? The leisure industry is vulnerable to recessions, as leisure spending is the first thing people cut back on in a downturn. IIRC, Vegas got hit hard by the recession.

Gambling isn't a "leisure industry" anymore than crack cocaine is lol

 

[B-Dubs]

The uber thread is amazing. It shows how people can people can love the walmartization of a new industry as long as you dress it up in "Revolutionary" lingo and hip terms.

Most consumers are oblivious to the hidden costs of these types of practices. But fuck it, they can get a cheap cab ride! Workers be damned.

Amazon is the same way.

Give people a product for cheap, they'll support the most abusive practices

Because people like to think that the internet is changing everything. There's things that Uber does right on the customer side that taxi companies can and should emulate, but they're pretty fucked up on the employee side of things.

Gambling isn't a "leisure industry" anymore than crack cocaine is lol

LOL

Yes, failing at a casino is like failing at life. I'm not kidding, if you can drive a casino out of business then you are a shit businessman.

 

[ivysaur12]

On my phone and copying the link isn't working, but Quinnipiac has Rubio up 1 over Hill in PA

 

[B-Dubs]

On my phone and copying the link isn't working, but Quinnipiac has Rubio up 1 over Hill in PA

One poll a year out. Doesn't matter.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

The uber thread is amazing. It shows how people can people can love the walmartization of a new industry as long as you dress it up in "Revolutionary" lingo and hip terms.

Most consumers are oblivious to the hidden costs of these types of practices. But fuck it, they can get a cheap cab ride! Workers be damned.

Amazon is the same way.

Give people a product for cheap, they'll support the most abusive practices

I haven't read the thread, and I usually take cabs over Uber, but Uber offers what cabs don't-- fast pickup outside of the usually-covered areas.

 

[HylianTom]

Eh.. Not too worried about PA. Romney & Obama were tied there at several points in 2011 & 2012. If anything, this entices the GOP to pursue their fools' gold once again.

 

[Yellowtail]

Yeah, Obama was actually running behind Romney at this point in 2011 in PPP and Quinnipiac polls. PA flirts with the GOP candidates but always come back home in the end.

The bigger deal is that she's soundly beating Rubio and Bush in their own back yard and routing every other candidate:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-...ing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2234

Florida is the bluest Swing State so far as Secretary Clinton gets 47 percent to U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio's 44 percent. She gets 46 percent to former Gov. Jeb Bush's 42 percent. In other matchups:
Clinton tops New Jersey Gov. Christopher Christie 46 - 35 percent;
She beats U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky 46 - 39 percent;
She tops former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee 49 - 38 percent;
Clinton thumps Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker 48 - 38 percent;
She buries U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas 48 - 37 percent;
Clinton bashes Ohio Gov. John Kasich 48 - 35 percent.

(Lol at their verb choices)

Yes it's over a year out, but Clinton has always been an excellent fit for FL (I'd argue better than Obama), and she's helped even more with the fast changing demographic trends there. Bush or Rubio have to be on the ticket or the election will be lost for the GOP from the outset.

And the more the Republican donor class looks at poll numbers, the more they're going to turn hostile towards Walker. He'd lose by 2008 margins.

 

[Trouble]

The uber thread is amazing. It shows how people can people can love the walmartization of a new industry as long as you dress it up in "Revolutionary" lingo and hip terms.

Most consumers are oblivious to the hidden costs of these types of practices. But fuck it, they can get a cheap cab ride! Workers be damned.

Amazon is the same way.

Give people a product for cheap, they'll support the most abusive practices

Cab companies are often exactly the same, though, depending on the city. Cab drivers are rarely defined as employees. In most cities they actually rent the car and license from the company that owns them for a set block of hours.

Talking to cab drivers in Dublin where there are two systems they can use, the tradional radio dispatch and Hailo (like Uber but for actual cabs), they nearly universally prefer Hailo, even though Hailo takes a cut of their fares (while the dispatch service is a set weekly fee).

Anyways, my point is that Uber isn't doing anything new from a driver/company interaction perspective. Their shtick is changing the interaction with the customer, which is why they are so popular.

I haven't read the thread, and I usually take cabs over Uber, but Uber offers what cabs don't-- fast pickup outside of the usually-covered areas.

Not having to deal with cash/tip is a huge draw for the app-based services. Having to awkwardly sit there while a driver takes an overly long time making change in the hopes you just say fuck it and give a $10 tip is figuratively the worst thing ever.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Yeah, Obama was actually running behind Romney at this point in 2011 in PPP and Quinnipiac polls. PA flirts with the GOP candidates but always come back home in the end.

The bigger deal is that she's soundly beating Rubio and Bush in their own back yard and routing every other candidate:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-...ing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2234

(Lol at their verb choices)

Yes it's over a year out, but Clinton has always been an excellent fit for FL (I'd argue better than Obama), and she's helped even more with the fast changing demographic trends there. Either Bush or Rubio have to be on the ticket or the election will be lost for the GOP from the outset.

and yet the GOP is at their strongest in years. W didnt destroy the party for decades like I hoped. Hillary may win but we may lose in the process. We need a blowout next year not a squeaker.

U.S Senate
54-46
U.S House
247-181
Governorships
31-18-1
State Legislatures(House and Senate controlled by R)
31-11-8

 

[Macho Madness]

You think one of the big SCOTUS cases will drop tomorrow?

 

[Metaphoreus]

You think one of the big SCOTUS cases will drop tomorrow?

One can hope, but they normally hold their big cases until the very last possible moment.

 

[Jack Remington]

Run a 270 to win model with Hillary taking Florida and Pennsylvania.

With those states out, Republicans need to sweep Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado, Nevada, AND New Hampshire to win. And that colossal sweep still only puts them at 272.

If they pick up a long-shot state like Michigan or Minnesota, they have some more margin for error.

Assuming PA stays blue, Florida is THE key to the election, because there's no way they're getting the aforementioned swing state sweep. And they still have to get one of Ohio or Pennsylvania. If they lose both they need that sweep plus both of Minnesota and Michigan.

 

[BertramCooper]

You think one of the big SCOTUS cases will drop tomorrow?

I predict that KvB drops tomorrow and OvH drops next week.

 

[Aaron Strife]

and yet the GOP is at their strongest in years. W didnt destroy the party for decades like I hoped. Hillary may win but we may lose in the process. We need a blowout next year not a squeaker.

U.S Senate
54-46
U.S House
247-181
Governorships
31-18-1
State Legislatures(House and Senate controlled by R)
31-11-8

Winning Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania even by 3-4 point margins (especially for those first two) would probably indicate a blowout more than a squeaker. There's a reason they're considered swing states. Walker gets creamed everywhere, Bush less so, and Rubio will too if he's the nominee and becomes better known. It's telling that his worst state is his home state.

Her performance in the PA poll is a little weak but eh. I should point out their partisan makeup is just a D+2 electorate when it was D+10 in 2012.

 

[BertramCooper]

I'm getting Jeb banner ads on GAF.

Gross.

 

[HylianTom]

I predict that KvB drops tomorrow and OvH drops next week.

Larry Kudlow from CNBC is claiming that someone has leaked to him news that King is tomorrow. I'm always incredibly skeptical of such claims.. but it would be welcome.

Still betting the 29th for Obergefell, although with so many cases still outstanding, it also wouldn't surprise me if it got pushed further back.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Larry Kudlow from CNBC is claiming that someone has leaked to him news that King is tomorrow. I'm always incredibly skeptical of such claims.. but it would be welcome.

They should leak what the result is while they're at it.

 

[Jack Remington]

Every day that KvB doesn't drop is driving up my risk of cardiovascular disease. I'll be so relieved when it's over.

Of course, if the plaintiffs win I may literally die that day, so there's that.

Be thankful for every day you get, bros.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Hold up.

Carly Fiorina's full first name is "Carleton" (PDF)?

EDIT:

Larry Kudlow from CNBC is claiming that someone has leaked to him news that King is tomorrow. I'm always incredibly skeptical of such claims.. but it would be welcome.

If true, I'd think that bodes well for the government. The last few years the Court has dropped its most controversial opinions at the very end, then scattered to their various downtime activities. If they voted to disallow the subsidies (which I imagine would result in the most backlash), I think they'd hold the opinions until the last day--or at least the last week.

 

[BertramCooper]

Me tomorrow when SCOTUS rules 7-2 against King.

 

[Jack Remington]

Who is the 7th? You think Thomas joins the majority?

Alito and Scalia basically announced their votes in advance during arguments.

 

[B-Dubs]

Larry Kudlow from CNBC is claiming that someone has leaked to him news that King is tomorrow. I'm always incredibly skeptical of such claims.. but it would be welcome.

Still betting the 29th for Obergefell, although with so many cases still outstanding, it also wouldn't surprise me if it got pushed further back.

I'm not sure he'd be the one who would get a leak like this, but if true it bodes well for the ACA.

 

[thepotatoman]

So I'm wondering. Do you personally think a lack of a college degree is a meaningful negative when thinking about who should be president? I'm not just talking about Walker, but overall. Should we actually care if our president is a college dropout?

Typically, I think college degrees are overrated, but when we're talking about something as big as the US presidency, I'd like to think our standards should be much, much higher than the average person, and that includes being able to prove your well roundedness by getting at least a bachelor's degree.

With how polarized things are, it wouldn't be enough to change my vote, but if I were one of those weird people somehow in the middle still, or people voting in the Republican Primary, I'd really have to ask if his achievements make up for his lack of a degree.

 

[BertramCooper]

Who is the 7th? You think Thomas joins the majority?

Alito and Scalia basically announced their votes in advance during arguments.

I'm being unreasonably optimistic here. Still, I don't think the vote is going to be particularly close.

6-3 would be a more likely outcome, IMO. Ginsberg, Kagan, Sotomayor, Kennedy, Roberts, Breyer in the majority; Thomas, Alito, Scalia in the minority.

 

[B-Dubs]

So I'm wondering. Do you personally think a lack of a college degree is a meaningful negative when thinking about who should be president? I'm not just talking about Walker, but overall. Should we actually care if our president is a college dropout?

Typically, I think college degrees are overrated, but when we're talking about something as big as the US presidency, I'd like to think our standards should be much, much higher than the average person, and that includes being able to prove your well roundedness by getting at least a bachelor's degree.

With how polarized things are, it wouldn't be enough to change my vote, but if I were one of those weird people somehow in the middle still, or people voting in the Republican Primary, I'd really have to ask if his achievements make up for his lack of a degree.

As far as getting a normal job goes it's definitely overrated, but the presidency isn't any job. The sheer number and breadth of things that the President needs to deal with in any single day would leave us shook. Yes they have advisers to help with that, but the President always has the last say. If the President isn't smart enough to question the advice they are getting, to be able to spot bad advice or things that have been overlooked, then we're in deep shit. If, Walker for example, can prove that he has an inquisitive enough mind, that he has a well-rounded education and is constantly continuing it, then I'd be ok with the fact he doesn't have a college degree.

 

[NeoXChaos]

From this morning.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Chuck Todd. Ben Carson is at the top of the polls. I don't hear you, like, you know --- wearing sack cloth and ashes about Ben Carson.

TODD: The guy is legitimately trying to run for president. I think he's got -- putting out an actual agenda, doing policy speeches. Look, if this is what Trump does and he spends the next three months going after --

SCARBOROUGH: Wait. Wait. Ben Carson keeps comparing America to Nazi Germany, Chuck.

TODD: And I think it's something that --

SCARBOROUGH: I think your outrage is a bit focused on Donald Trump.

TODD: Well, look, I don't want to see the Republican primary race or any presidential race turn into a three-ring circus and us, you know, sitting there going isn't this great? And look at the shiny metal objects. It's not fair to what is the strongest Republican party presidential field in 36 years.

No Chuck Todd that is great. We Democrats want a circus. On paper it is a very strong field but once you go pass the paper things get really mucky.

 

[B-Dubs]

From this morning.



No Chuck Todd that is great. We Democrats want a circus. On paper it is a very strong field but once you go pass the paper things get really mucky.

Todd is right that on paper this should be a great primary for the GOP with contenders that all have good resumes, but any sort of deeper look turns them all into clowns anyway.

 

[thepotatoman]

From this morning.



No Chuck Todd that is great. We Democrats want a circus. On paper it is a very strong field but once you go pass the paper things get really mucky.

Man, that fits so perfectly with why Chuck Todd is a terrible journalist. It is admirable to say that you don't want a circus, that the presidential race should be a serious one, but if it's actually a circus you can't just pretend it's not one.

I think even most republicans can agree the only reason there's so many candidates is because all of them are seriously vulnerable for one reason or another. It's insane to act like all the candidates are so strong republicans are feeling like kids who can't pick what they want from the candy store.

 

[Aaron Strife]

But how else will they pretend Ohio is a dead heat

 

[Coriolanus]

Typically, I think college degrees are overrated, but when we're talking about something as big as the US presidency, I'd like to think our standards should be much, much higher than the average person, and that includes being able to prove your well roundedness by getting at least a bachelor's degree.

With how polarized things are, it wouldn't be enough to change my vote, but if I were one of those weird people somehow in the middle still, or people voting in the Republican Primary, I'd really have to ask if his achievements make up for his lack of a degree.

Sure, but if you go down that path, why should any bachelor's suffice? Why should A bachelor's suffice?

Plus if you go by the Great Men theory (i do not), it's kinda hard not to notice that nearly all of them, even in recent history, did not have superior education.

Would quite like to see someone outside of the Ivy League get the job, tho.

 

[Fenderputty]

All I care about are the policies. They've got two years to campaign on policy and how many years of experience implementing policy to show their worth.

Give me a coke snorting, atheist college drop out for all I care. Just implement populist policy and try as hard as possible to stay the fuck out of the middle east and cut back military spending.

 

[ivysaur12]

The Obamacare Republican alternative is to.... repeal Obamacare!!!!!!!!! And block grants. But also repeal Obamacare!!!

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/245355-gop-prepares-for-obamacare-ruling

House Republicans appear to be coalescing behind a plan that would give states the option of keeping ObamaCare subsidies if the Supreme Court rules against the healthcare law.

The plan, presented Wednesday by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), would give block grants to states that want them, according to lawmakers who attended a briefing. States would get to choose how to spend the money to cover people in their state. The grants would last for two years, giving the next president a chance to enact an alternative to ObamaCare.

But if states decided not to accept the block grants, residents would be allowed to keep their ObamaCare subsidies. They would also be allowed to buy any plan approved by the state, on or off the federal exchange.

The emerging House plan would also repeal the Affordable Care Act’s individual and employer mandates, in a nod to conservatives who are pushing to scale back the law. Top members of the House Freedom Caucus and the Republican Study Committee both appeared receptive to the plan on Wednesday.

“It block-grants the money to states that opt in to our state program, and then they can set up their own exchange, they can give tax credits, they can set up health savings accounts, they can do whatever they want,” said Rep. John Fleming (R-La.).

Rep. Phil Roe (R-Tenn.), a co-chairman of the House GOP Doctors Caucus, offered early approval for the plan because the amount in block grants offered to each state would be equal to the amount of money people in the state are now receiving in ObamaCare subsidies.

He said he believes the approach would be particularly popular in states with both a GOP governor and legislature, such as his home state of Tennessee. Other states, like New York, he said could decide to keep every part of ObamaCare.

Rep. Charles Boustany Jr. (R-La.) said the plan could include “safe harbor,” to allow people to keep their ObamaCare subsidies until the end of the year, when the block grants would kick in.

Boustany said that after two years, ObamaCare would sunset as a whole, sometime in 2017.

For many members, the House briefing offered the first chance to hear details from leadership about their likely proposals, which won’t be made public unless the justices rule against the law in King v. Burwell. A decision in the case could come as early as Thursday.

And the Senate is on the same plan as this block grant program, right?

While House lawmakers left their meeting describing the outlines of the plan presented to them, Senate Republicans emphasized they did not have a consensus after their separate strategy session.

Asked if Senate Republicans came to any kind of consensus, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) replied, “No.” Asked the same question separately, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) laughed and also said “no.”

The Senate’s briefing, which was led by two GOP chairmen, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), highlighted multiple proposals that have been put forward in the chamber.

Barrasso said he presented a “broad outline of what we’ve been working on with the House” that would temporarily extend healthcare subsidies through at least the 2016 elections.

“I think there's kind of an amalgamation of plans and ideas of different members that we've had out there that we're trying to put together, but at this point it's still a work in progress,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.).

He mentioned competing plans from Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and a group of committee chairmen.

A plan from Johnson to continue ObamaCare subsidies through 2017 has gained support among Senate Republicans, and Barrasso has said that the plan would include some form of temporary assistance. Leaving the meeting Wednesday, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said the plan could include some way to “grandfather” current ObamaCare subsidies.

No senator leaving the meeting mentioned the idea of providing block grants to states, even though the House presented that as its plan later in the afternoon.

Republicans say having a plan to point to would lessen the pressure they know will come from the White House to simply restore the ObamaCare subsidies.

“We recognize there will be a messaging war, and so the question is, how do we position ourselves, how do we posture ourselves for what will be a messaging war?” Fleming said. “Most of us are skeptical the president will sign anything we send him.”

So there is no plan. Besides sunset Obamacare in 2017. But it's also not really about the plan, it's about how to win the messaging war. Okay!!!

But remember, the King plaintiff isn't worried about millions of people losing their healthcare, because:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/us/david-king-obamacare-supreme-court.html

But Mr. King said that he was not really worried about the outcome of the case, King v. Burwell, because as a Vietnam veteran, he has access to medical care through the Department of Veterans Affairs.

If he wins, Mr. King said, “the left will blow it out of proportion and claim that eight million people will lose their health insurance.” But he said lawyers had assured him that “things are in play to take care of the problem.”

Also, what exactly is his standing in this case if he can just get health insurance through the VA?

 

[pigeon]

So I'm wondering. Do you personally think a lack of a college degree is a meaningful negative when thinking about who should be president? I'm not just talking about Walker, but overall. Should we actually care if our president is a college dropout?

Typically, I think college degrees are overrated, but when we're talking about something as big as the US presidency, I'd like to think our standards should be much, much higher than the average person, and that includes being able to prove your well roundedness by getting at least a bachelor's degree.

With how polarized things are, it wouldn't be enough to change my vote, but if I were one of those weird people somehow in the middle still, or people voting in the Republican Primary, I'd really have to ask if his achievements make up for his lack of a degree.

I can't imagine somebody for whom the lack of a college degree would be the deciding factor in my vote. Like, if somebody otherwise had the demonstrated capabilities and qualifications for being President, but didn't have a degree, I can't really see why I would vote against them just for that. They're already handicapped enough by not having a degree when it comes to just being in contention. (Full disclosure, I don't have a college degree!)

 

[Jack Remington]

I can't see how they win the messaging war. A one paragraph bill vs a hugely multi-faceted policy that few members of the general public will understand? This while Obama can trot out leukemia patients in Alabama who are getting thrown off their insurance?

Ask one of your non-political friends to tell you what a block grant is. They'll probably give you a confused look.

 

[ivysaur12]

I can't see how they win the messaging war. A one paragraph bill vs a hugely multi-faceted policy that few members of the general public will understand? This while Obama can trot out leukemia patients in Alabama who are getting thrown off their insurance?

Ask one of your non-political friends to tell you what a block grant is. They'll probably give you a confused look.

The Democrats would really have to drop the ball if they lost the messaging war on King. As seen with Thune's stumble, there really isn't a coherent message.

That being said -- it all might be for naught. If the case is decided on tomorrow, then that's probably good for the government.

EDIT: SCOTUSblog only considers 6 "major" cases left: execution drugs, license plates, satan marriage, subsidies, FHA, and AZ legislature districting. 16 cases total.

EDIT 2: The case that's been languishing the most right now is one from early January. Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona:

Issue: Whether the Town of Gilbert's mere assertion that its sign code lacks a discriminatory motive renders its facially content-based sign code content-neutral and justifies the code's differential treatment of petitioners' religious signs.

 

[Chichikov]

I haven't read the thread, and I usually take cabs over Uber, but Uber offers what cabs don't-- fast pickup outside of the usually-covered areas.

Yeah, I don't like Uber as a company and I really don't like their employment model, but cab companies failed consumers terribly, especially in the bay area, where it was pretty much impossible to catch a cab on busy night.

We used to call pizza delivery and then pay the guy to drive us.

 

[Jack Remington]

Greatest thing I've ever read:

Rep. Marsha Blackburn: Increased access to affordable health care begins with end of ObamaCare subsidies

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/06/17/increased-access-to-affordable-healthcare-begins-with-end-obamacare-subsidies.html

The King v. Burwell decision will arrive soon. The future of ObamaCare hangs in the balance. There are days when the court decision appears to be a subject of intrigue and other days when it is a subject of dread. President Obama seems to have no Plan B while the Republican-led Congress continues to bring forward ideas. It is fair to say that the Democrats and this administration have made a mess of health insurance and health care delivery.

The defenders of ObamaCare are touting a reduction in the uninsured rate as a marker for success. Unfortunately, that is all ObamaCare has accomplished – increased numbers of people with insurance cards. As we have consistently said, this is a poor surrogate for actual access to health care. Health insurance and delivery of health care are two separate activities.

We continue to hear from our constituents about high co-pays, high deductibles, and skyrocketing insurance premiums under this program. Constituents say enormous out of pocket expenses present a barrier to health care. If you can’t afford your co-pay, deductible, or premium your insurance card is worthless.

I was recently stopped in the grocery store by a single mom with 3 children and she told me her policy was simply too expensive to use. She felt she was the victim of false hopes.

The Supreme Court decision in King v Burwell will provide us with the opportunity to undo the damage of the past 5 years and reset the health care button. The court will set the date for the subsidies to end. At that point, they must end and must not be renewed.

There is a conservative way forward which will incorporate two overarching, strategic ideas. We begin with the end in mind – access to affordable health care for all Americans.

First, with increased access to affordable health care for all Americans as our mantra, we will reform the health care system. It is crucial to understand that actual access to affordable health care is different than eligibility for an overly prescriptive, Washington-driven, health insurance policy.

Secondly, once the Supreme Court determines the ObamaCare subsidies to be illegal, they must stop. They represent the most disingenuous part of law – they are a broken promise to Americans looking for affordable health care.

Once again, if you can’t afford your co-pay, deductible, or insurance premium, your subsidy and insurance cards are worthless.

Further, these subsidies are an irresponsible, wishful thinking, use of taxpayer dollars. The American people expect us to end them at the very moment the Court deems them to end. At that point, ObamaCare will cease to exist.

Next we move to the tactics of implementing our strategy to increase access to affordable health care for all Americans. We do not want anyone to be left in the lurch due to having been a part of the ill-conceived exchanges.

Reaching our goal will require significant changes in our ways of thinking about the infrastructure and use of health care. The fatal flaw of ObamaCare is that it simply built a system on what was already crumbling.

To achieve transformation, all voices must be heard – patients, doctors, payors, hospitals, and others. Transformation will never be accomplished behind closed doors in Washington. Washington should create the environment and transformation will be accomplished in health care innovation centers around the country.

Legislative changes will need to be made. These will be done in a systematic, thoughtful, and deliberative manner and meet the date the court sets to end the subsidies. Some changes will not be easy, but they will be necessary. Choices made will be done in a pragmatic manner.

We’ve discussed an overarching strategy of increasing access to affordable health care for all Americans. We’ve also discussed the deliberative process by which we will accomplish the tactical implementation of true healthcare reform.

Finally, we will focus on specific ideas to implement. Many of these ideas are already included in GOP sponsored legislation – they are on the shelf, ready to go. For the past several years, these ideas have been the subject of hearings, discussions, task force efforts and have been found worthy of consideration.

Patient-focused reforms will include protection from old practices which allowed insurance companies to refuse to insure because of pre-existing conditions. Lifetime limits on health care would no longer be allowed, nor would rescissions of coverage. All efforts would be made with the idea of making health care affordable for the individual and providing bankruptcy protection which was problematic in the past.

Small businesses and individuals will be empowered by having the ability to choose from a wide variety of insurance products such as health savings accounts. This is in stark contrast to Obamacare which is a mandated, one size fits all idea.

A standard tax deduction for health insurance will make the tax code fairer for those who work for small companies or who are self employed. Currently, many of those individuals are purchasing insurance with post-tax dollars. All would benefit from the tax advantage that employees of large companies enjoy.

A more competitive insurance market will be encouraged by allowing the purchase of health insurance across state lines as well as the enforcement of antitrust measures with insurance companies.

States will be empowered to provide coverage for their most vulnerable citizens by increasing the roll of State high risk pools and modernizing Medicaid.

And costs in health care will be addressed. Discouraging overutilization of services, misutilization of the emergency room and decreasing the need for defensive medicine will all help with costs.

Finally, in this process it is helpful to remember the wise words of Lao Tzu, “The journey of 1,000 miles begins with one step.”

In the case of achieving meaningful increased access to healthcare, it begins with the end of the ObamaCare subsidies.

I mean you cannot goddamn make this up. I'm speechless.

 

[BertramCooper]

Paul Ryan and his fucking block grants...

 

[Gotchaye]

So I'm wondering. Do you personally think a lack of a college degree is a meaningful negative when thinking about who should be president? I'm not just talking about Walker, but overall. Should we actually care if our president is a college dropout?

Typically, I think college degrees are overrated, but when we're talking about something as big as the US presidency, I'd like to think our standards should be much, much higher than the average person, and that includes being able to prove your well roundedness by getting at least a bachelor's degree.

With how polarized things are, it wouldn't be enough to change my vote, but if I were one of those weird people somehow in the middle still, or people voting in the Republican Primary, I'd really have to ask if his achievements make up for his lack of a degree.

This is one of those things that's not really worth looking at since almost nobody with a shot at the presidency is going to have such a non-record that you have to resort to this kind of evidence about their fitness for the office.

Yeah, a random person with a college degree is likely to be a better president than a random person without one (although I suppose it'd be easy enough to argue the opposite). But we get to know a whole lot more about presidential candidates than whether or not they have a college degree. They got there by building a public record - many of them have held political office before, some have run large companies, and several have made fools of themselves on television.

So what's the concern about Scott Walker that'd be addressed by him producing a diploma but which hasn't been much more conclusively settled by other stuff he's done and said? We sometimes go and look at stuff people wrote when they were much younger, but even this is less about seeing if the candidate is smart than it is about trying to find something embarrassing they used to believe.

 

[Wilsongt]

#hotgaystove

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...iage_n_7588496.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

"If this Supreme Court rules against marriage, all hell is going to break loose. In fact, I'm a signatory of a document that basically says you can rule any way you want to, but we're going to stand for marriage even if it takes civil disobedience." -- Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas)

"I think there’s an attempt to destroy the institution of marriage and I think it will cause, literally cause the destruction of our country or lead to the destruction of our country over the long run." -- Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore

"I believe God loves homosexuals as much as he loves everyone, but if we can redefine marriage as between two men or two women or any other way based on social pressures as opposed to between a man and a woman, we will continue to redefine it in any way that we wish, which is a slippery slope with a disastrous ending, as witnessed in the dramatic fall of the Roman Empire." -- GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson

"The country can be no stronger than its families. I really believe if what the Supreme Court is about to do is carried through with, and it looks like it will be, then we’re going to see a general collapse in the next decade or two." -- Focus on the Family founder James Dobson

"And this isn’t new, and it’s been tried over and over. And it’s usually tried at the end of a great civilization." -- Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)

"Anybody who knows something about the history of the human race knows that there is no civilization which has condoned homosexual marriage widely and openly that has long survived." -- Former Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.)

 

[Diablos]

Greatest thing I've ever read:

Rep. Marsha Blackburn: Increased access to affordable health care begins with end of ObamaCare subsidies

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/06/17/increased-access-to-affordable-healthcare-begins-with-end-obamacare-subsidies.html



I mean you cannot goddamn make this up. I'm speechless.

I can't keep reading this, it's making me too upset.

 

[Plinko]

Greatest thing I've ever read:

Rep. Marsha Blackburn: Increased access to affordable health care begins with end of ObamaCare subsidies

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/06/17/increased-access-to-affordable-healthcare-begins-with-end-obamacare-subsidies.html



I mean you cannot goddamn make this up. I'm speechless.

To be honest, some of what she is saying sounds good.

I just have absolutely zero faith in them to follow through.

"Sure, we won't block those with pre-existing conditions...you'll just have to pay 100 times what others do!"

 

[Diablos]

Me tomorrow when SCOTUS rules 7-2 against King.

No way in hell it's 7-2 either way.

I hope the ruling comes down tomorrow. They already decided. Just let us know.