politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
There's been multiple times the dems have capitulated in negotiations before the negotiations have started.
If there was no gop we'd still get terrible bills from the right democrats
DNC haven't had more than 48 senators in ten years and haven't had supermajority since a 60 day period after 2010 only if you count independent caucus otherwise not since 1979. Right now they have 45.
The DNC haven't capitulated, they've wrung minor victories like blood from a fucking stone while not having the power to actually do anything aside from filibuster the worst of it all.
It's amazing how the only period you ever reference is when with a short super majority only managed to implement Romneycare.
Biden was a moderate, Obama started leaning progressive but quickly ran to be a moderate, both Clinton's more on the right than moderate, etc.
You think expanding healthcare to another 50 Million People, outlawing refusal of coverage based on pre-existing conditions, is right wing? AND THAT WAS WATERED DOWN VERSION WE NEEDED TO GET THE INDEPENDENTS ON BOARD. You've lost your damn mind.
We've had this conversation before. They literally used Romneycare as the base for the ACA. The biggest reason ACA is hated is the parts pulled from it. Also why gop can't replace ACA because it's already their solution
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/23/451200436/mitt-romney-finally-takes-credit-for-obamacare
Excuse me, I asked if you thought expanding healthcare to 50 million people, outlawing refusal of coverage based on pre-existing conditions, is right wing?
When they're still required to pay private insurance to be covered yes.
Well no wonder you've got everything so backwards, you think people getting healthcare is conservative.
Yes forcing people to pay corporations to get Healthcare is conservative.
The only good part of ACA was forcing coverage of pre existing conditions. Rest just gift to insurance companies
Lmao, expanding medicaid to 50 million people didn't force them to pay corporations. Medicaid is payed for with taxes. This year the Trump Admin froze $425 Billion Dollars of aid including Medicaid as well as Food Stamps, Farmers subsidies, Natural Disaster Relief, Mental Health services, and Research including critical medical research.
I think the government paying for people's healthcare is progressive and I think we should get the dems a supermajority without relying on any Independents like Joe Lieberman so we can see it improved upon.
Yes when you ignore the mandate forcing everyone to get insurance it looks better. Especially when ignoring the states that didn't go for the medicaid expansion simply to spite people.
Still the non moderate position in the rest of the world is universal Healthcare of makes sense why our center right parties refuse to actually go for it.
No this is why we need a progressive or leftist party in charge not dems or gop
If you don't want to pay the fine for not having insurance simply check the box saying "insurance was not affordable" on your taxes. It was literally that easy, there was no enforcement at all.
Love that's the only part you seemed to read there
You don't exactly have a lot of credibility when you start your rant with a lie.