Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The REAL victory is putting the Dictator and his sheep in their place!
ObamaCare does need to be fixed, but not with something that is worse and goes back to cutting out the poorest Americans (something Republicans are famous for doing).
The Democratic Party needs a hardliner, take no excuses kind of person to tell the GOP how to solve the real world, not ideological problems.
Healthcare's true long term fix is single payer. Need to get the profit motive out of providing healthcare + heavily regulate the healthcare industry (pharma, medical devices, etc.). Someone from the Democratic Party basically needs to tell Ted Cruz or whoever else in their face that, if you want true freedom of choice you need to include all doctors and hospitals into 1 network under 1 insurer and that insurer will be the federal government. Hopefully a new Anthony Weiner will step forward, just less scandalous!
I would generally agree with that, especially because it doesn't look like they would even be close if they voted. If they thought it would only fail by a handful of votes they might have gone through with the vote, gone hard after those who didn't vote for it and took it from there. However, based off what has been reported about how many were no's, how many were leaning no and how many were still on the fence, it doesn't look like they even cross the 200 # if a vote is held.
Oh no, you never go for a vote unless you are confident you have the votes. It goes on record as a loss if you don't. Taking it off the table doesn't go on record. So they were correct in doing that.
Oh no, you never go for a vote unless you are confident you have the votes. It goes on record as a loss if you don't. Taking it off the table doesn't go on record. So they were correct in doing that.
It has happened albeit rarely. Not saying it would have happened, but something that could have as a way to make an example out of the ones who didn't play ball if it was close.
It has happened albeit rarely. Not saying it would have happened, but something that could have as a way to make an example out of the ones who didn't play ball if it was close.
You don't understand. If there was a vote and it failed it would tarnish Trump's presidency. It would be on record. A no vote means nothing. And it wasn't that close. Many republicans were smart enough to know it was a horrible bill for their districts.
Both parties are in Congress to work for the best interests of the citizens - not their party. The ACA could have been funded and fixed with bipartisan cooperation.
Now we have a president who doesn't give a damn and says - let it fail - and then everyone will suffer. So much for caring about the welfare of the people who voted for him, not to mention the even greater number who didn't.
Not our president, not my president, not anyone's president.
Agree with you that feelings are not a "valid argument," not really my argument either...
What do you consider "the state" that is any different here than elsewhere?
There are free societies and there are societies not so free at all, but all dependent on what the state protects, allows and/or imposes either way. The freedoms we enjoy may be viewed as a result of our Constitution, but many of these same freedoms are enjoyed elsewhere as a result of different means, and as such these same freedoms are not being enjoyed just by Americans. All a result of what "the state" does or doesn't do in any case.
Perhaps a bit off-topic for this thread, but consider the following before we get back on track...
Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment. "Speech" is not limited to public speaking and is generally taken to include other forms of expression. The right is preserved in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is granted formal recognition by the laws of most nations. Nonetheless the degree to which the right is upheld in practice varies greatly from one nation to another. In many nations, particularly those with relatively authoritarian forms of government, overt government censorship is enforced. Censorship has also been claimed to occur in other forms (see propaganda model) and there are different approaches to issues such as hate speech, obscenity, and defamation laws even in countries seen as liberal democracies.
Council of Europe
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), signed on 4 November 1950, guarantees a broad range of human rights to inhabitants of member countries of the Council of Europe, which includes almost all European nations. These rights include Article 10, which entitles all citizens to free expression. Echoing the language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights this provides that:
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
These facts/protections are why my "feelings" about how these freedoms are enjoyed by others in other countries is perhaps more valid than you want to recognize.
The difference is very simple.
Notice none of those rights are inalienable. The rights of those in the US are. I know you may think this a mood point, but the difference is that no man can contest those rights as they have no authority to contest them. The US affirms those rights, recognizing they are above the authority of man (ie God given).
This is very important when you argue the right itself, for in the cases you explain, the state grants this right, and because it is the authority that states such, it can also under its own discretion limit or remove those liberties as it sees necessary. In the US, they can not because it is outside of the states authority.
This means, in the US they can never "legally" ban guns, free speech, religion, etc.. as those rights are above the authority of the state.
Certainly, the state can choose to ignore them and violate them, but it would have no legitimacy in its actions while in the examples of other countries, the state could apply some reason or claim of legitimacy to do such based on some reasoned need. That is, the rights the people "have" are merely granted or provided by the state.
It is a subtle difference, but it is extremely important as it separates the authority of the state, showing that the people do not exist at the service of the state, but rather the state exists at the service of the people and can be abolished, or reformed as the people see fit. This shows you who the real power is as it concerns the state.
Remember, many of these other countries were ruling countries, where the state is the power over the people and its move to recognize "rights" is merely a process of them granting such to the people, again... denoting the true authority being the state, not the people. This is why you see many states remove many basic rights from free speech to arms, to private property. The state grants them their rights.
You don't understand. If there was a vote and it failed it would tarnish Trump's presidency. It would be on record. A no vote means nothing. And it wasn't that close. Many republicans were smart enough to know it was a horrible bill for their districts.
If the vote fails, Trump will move on to other priorities and ObamaCare will stay as the law of the land, Mulvaney said.
Well, that was fast.
An utter failure of the art of the spiel.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
