|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 6, 2017 1:18:27 GMT
I guess I am missing the point. I also think you're missing her point. I think she's saying that it's all well and good to demand that employers pay a "livable wage" but that doesn't take into account the employer's ability to actually pay the arbitrary minimum wage the government (or the workers) demand. And what would you expect a company that cannot meet it's costs of business and make a livable profit for the employer to do other than go out of business? And how does hiring cheap immigration labor help the overall labor force? If nothing else, it keeps wages low.No. Go back and read those three articles you said you were too lazy to read before you keep throwing around misinformation like this. Fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 6, 2017 1:19:28 GMT
Considering Obamacare was enacted by a Congress that had not read the bill, are you really going to ask that question? I'm sure you remember Nancy Pelosi's unforgettable gaffe "we have to pass the bill in order to know what's in it"? And I'm sure you read that quote in context so you know it didn't mean what Fox and Breitbart told you it meant, right? Didn't you? LOL. I know, if it's Fox or Breitbart is bad; if it's CNN or another liberal leaning publication, then it simply has to be true.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 6, 2017 1:25:14 GMT
I don't dispute that. But as always, the tide turns. We have a new base that elected a new president who reflected their desires, values and concerns about the actions of his predecessor. There are many who were quite open about expressing their remorse for voting for Obama the second time around. There are people who have remorse about voting for Trump. In the end, each president, if he hopes to keep his base and be re-elected, is going to do what he can to satisfy that base. When Any other president was elected did they go in and reverse every f'ing thing that the previous president did? Did the congress in any other presidency openly state that their goal was to block anything that the president wanted to do? Did any other idiot question whether a president was born in this country and have people actually question it and keep it going for years? Why is Trump's use of a legal procedure dependent on whether a previous president did it or how often? If he has a legal right to use an EO, then he has a legal right to do so. One that's independent of how many times Obama did it and independent of what use he makes of it. You should have been questioning Obama's use of an executive order to enact legislation that was by-rights, the Congress' to enact or not enact. Instead, you focus on Trump's allowing that EO to expire and to leave it where it should have been in the first place...in the hands of Congress. Have you read any American history? Take a look at what went on in the early years of our country. The animosity, the deviousness, the attempts to block the actions of the president (even by the vice-president) make what's going on today look like child's play. We survived then. We'll survive now.
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,744
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Sept 6, 2017 1:26:01 GMT
And let's not forget - it turns out that a big portion of his base doesn't want him to repeal the ACA after all, now that they understand the potential effects. Can we trust his base to actually know what they voted for or what they want? Considering Obamacare was enacted by a Congress that had not read the bill, are you really going to ask that question? I'm sure you remember Nancy Pelosi's unforgettable gaffe "we have to pass the bill in order to know what's in it"?Even without debating this^^^ to be true or not it does not negate the fact that ACA is here and much of his base doesn't want it repealed. They got it and they want to keep it, regardless of how it came about.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 6, 2017 1:27:38 GMT
Considering Obamacare was enacted by a Congress that had not read the bill, are you really going to ask that question? I'm sure you remember Nancy Pelosi's unforgettable gaffe "we have to pass the bill in order to know what's in it"? Even without debating this^^^ to be true or not it does not negate the fact that AC is here and much of his base doesn't want it repealed. They got it and they want to keep it, regardless of how it came about. And if that's the case and he repeals it, then he will most likely lose the election in 2020. That's the way the system works.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 6, 2017 1:28:46 GMT
And I'm sure you read that quote in context so you know it didn't mean what Fox and Breitbart told you it meant, right? Didn't you? LOL. I know, if it's Fox or Breitbart is bad; if it's CNN or another liberal leaning publication, then it simply has to be true. No, just a simple reading of the transcript of her comments will show you that the Fox/Breitbart narrative was false. I honestly have no idea what CNN said about it. It's a good idea to look at complete transcripts of whatever snippets are reported, no matter which media are doing the reporting. Here's the quote in context: Again, intellectual laziness - not taking the time to vet what you read - is the source of a lot of these false narratives that are passed around.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 6, 2017 1:30:49 GMT
I don't think she's saying anything much different than what I believe she said.
Thank you Merge for a great discussion. I promised myself I was going to start on a new cross-stitch tonight (my first in over 20 years) so I'm going to say goodnight. I will take a look at the articles you've posted.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 13:48:15 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 1:42:43 GMT
And let's not forget - it turns out that a big portion of his base doesn't want him to repeal the ACA after all, now that they understand the potential effects. Can we trust his base to actually know what they voted for or what they want? Considering Obamacare was enacted by a Congress that had not read the bill, are you really going to ask that question? I'm sure you remember Nancy Pelosi's unforgettable gaffe "we have to pass the bill in order to know what's in it"? Yes let's don't what Nancy Pelosi said at The National Association of Counties Legislative Confefence in March 2010. I bolded the important part. The entire quote.... "Imagine an economy where people could follow their aspirations, where they could be entrepreneurial, where they could take risks professionally because personally their families [sic] health care needs are being met. Where they could be self-employed or start a business, not be job-locked in a job because they have health care there, and if they went out on their own it would be unaffordable to them, but especially true, if someone has a child with a pre-existing condition. So when we pass our bill, never again will people be denied coverage because they have a pre-existing condition. We have to do this in partnership, and I wanted to bring [you] up to date on where we see it from here. The final health care legislation that will soon be passed by Congress will deliver successful reform at the local level. It will offer paid for investments that will improve health care services and coverage for millions more Americans. It will make significant investments in innovation, prevention, wellness and offer robust support for public health infrastructure. It will dramatically expand investments into community health centers. That means a dramatic expansion in the number of patients community health centers can see and ultimately healthier communities. Our bill will significantly reduce uncompensated care for hospitals. You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention–it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. "
In case you don't understand she was talking about us, the public. And the "fog of controversy" was the hit job the Republicans had done on the ACA. You remember those "death panels" that really weren't? The Democrats told people what was in the bill. President Obama held town hall meetings answering questions about it. But the Republicans did a masterful job of spreading misinformation. And now you know the entire story.
|
|
|
Post by redhead32 on Sept 6, 2017 1:42:58 GMT
When Any other president was elected did they go in and reverse every f'ing thing that the previous president did? Did the congress in any other presidency openly state that their goal was to block anything that the president wanted to do? Did any other idiot question whether a president was born in this country and have people actually question it and keep it going for years? Why is Trump's use of a legal procedure dependent on whether a previous president did it or how often? If he has a legal right to use an EO, then he has a legal right to do so. One that's independent of how many times Obama did it and independent of what use he makes of it. You should have been questioning Obama's use of an executive order to enact legislation that was by-rights, the Congress' to enact or not enact. Instead, you focus on Trump's allowing that EO to expire and to leave it where it should have been in the first place...in the hands of Congress. Have you read any American history? Take a look at what went on in the early years of our country. The animosity, the deviousness, the attempts to block the actions of the president (even by the vice-president) make what's going on today look like child's play. We survived then. We'll survive now. Huh. Pre or post Civil War? I'd like to prepare.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 6, 2017 1:46:58 GMT
I meant the early days of this country; Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Burr, etc.
|
|
|
Post by redhead32 on Sept 6, 2017 1:51:58 GMT
I meant the early days of this country; Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Burr, etc. Are you serious? This is what you want mean? (Edited - wrong word choice so I fixed it) Well, Pence needs to go. We need to install a Dem VP, for starters. Like the old days. That'll get some stuff done. But I guess your right ... we are heading back to the glory days of isolationist, stay out of our country, yeoman farmer, white supremacist glory. I'll go dig out my long skirts and sharpen my hoe. Oh - and maybe a few duels! That's going to help. Militia. Get your guns ready. And slaves. I bet they thought those were the good old days, along with all of the Native Americans and women.
|
|
lindas
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,160
Jun 26, 2014 5:46:37 GMT
|
Post by lindas on Sept 6, 2017 1:55:03 GMT
Considering Obamacare was enacted by a Congress that had not read the bill, are you really going to ask that question? I'm sure you remember Nancy Pelosi's unforgettable gaffe "we have to pass the bill in order to know what's in it"? Yes let's don't what Nancy Pelosi said at The National Association of Counties Legislative Confefence in March 2010. I bolded the important part. The entire quote.... "Imagine an economy where people could follow their aspirations, where they could be entrepreneurial, where they could take risks professionally because personally their families [sic] health care needs are being met. Where they could be self-employed or start a business, not be job-locked in a job because they have health care there, and if they went out on their own it would be unaffordable to them, but especially true, if someone has a child with a pre-existing condition. So when we pass our bill, never again will people be denied coverage because they have a pre-existing condition. We have to do this in partnership, and I wanted to bring [you] up to date on where we see it from here. The final health care legislation that will soon be passed by Congress will deliver successful reform at the local level. It will offer paid for investments that will improve health care services and coverage for millions more Americans. It will make significant investments in innovation, prevention, wellness and offer robust support for public health infrastructure. It will dramatically expand investments into community health centers. That means a dramatic expansion in the number of patients community health centers can see and ultimately healthier communities. Our bill will significantly reduce uncompensated care for hospitals. You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention–it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. "
In case you don't understand she was talking about us, the public. And the "fog of controversy" was the hit job the Republicans had done on the ACA. You remember those "death panels" that really weren't? The Democrats told people what was in the bill. President Obama held town hall meetings answering questions about it. But the Republicans did a masterful job of spreading misinformation. The And now you know the entire story. I'm pretty sure it was Obama that repeatedly told people that if you like your doctor you can keep your droctor.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 13:48:15 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 1:57:13 GMT
Let the market determine the wage. Yes, a federal, minimum wage standard needs to be in place, but not a $10 or $15 an hour wage. If McDonalds or Wendy's cannot keep their restaurants staffed with workers that earn $8 or $9 an hour, McDonalds or Wendy's will have to make the decision, on their own, to pay more, or not have the staff to keep the doors open at their restaurant. Who are you to decide that the average American worker can live on $8 or $9 an hour? I'm honestly curious. Do you have some research to show this is a livable wage? Why not $10 an hour or $15 in very high cost areas? I'm not just talking about Wendy's - I'm talking about the mom and pop operation down the street, the small family-owned cafe, etc. If the store can't do business, that's it for them. It's not like Wendy's where closing one store isn't a big deal. The restaurant is their whole livelihood. And on the one hand you want to say, don't raise the minimum wage too high because it'll put them out of business, and on the other hand you want to say, if they can't afford to pay a wage American citizens are willing to work for, they shouldn't get to have a business. That doesn't make any sense. I never claimed that $8 or $9 an hour is a "livable wage" so there's no need for me to provide you any research. Wendy's won't miss one location, and yes mom and pop operations would be much more impacted by the closing of their business. But again, let the market determine what employers are able to pay and let the market determine what employees are worth to their employers. I don't make a lot of money. (to be honest, I don't earn enough in a month to have even covered my monthly rent when I had my apartment) In the next month or two, I'm going to ask for a pay raise as I am still earning what I did when I was hired nearly 2 yrs ago. I most certainly think I'm worth it to my employer, and think that I'm more valuable to them now than when they hired me with no experience. They can give me a pay raise because they think I'm worth it and want to keep me happy, and working for them, being of benefit to their business, or they can risk me being unhappy with never having had a pay increase and I'll look for employment elsewhere. They can decide what to pay me and I can decide if it's enough for me. We each have the power to make decisions and do what's best for each of us.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Sept 6, 2017 1:58:49 GMT
That's what we haven't done; that's why we're at fault for this mess. We've created a huge market for unskilled labor from outside the country, without also creating a legal avenue for people to come here and do those jobs. That's on us. And I would say that you can't cry about the influx of low cost labor and simultaneously oppose raising the minimum wage. Many of these jobs go unfilled because Americans don't want to do them for a low wage. Republicans oppose raising the minimum wage to a livable level for Americans. How does that make sense? Let the market determine the wage. Yes, a federal, minimum wage standard needs to be in place, but not a $10 or $15 an hour wage. If McDonalds or Wendy's cannot keep their restaurants staffed with workers that earn $8 or $9 an hour, McDonalds or Wendy's will have to make the decision, on their own, to pay more, or not have the staff to keep the doors open at their restaurant. Why is a federal minimum wage acceptable, but not a higher minimum as determined by states and smaller localities? I thought we were all about states' rights?
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 6, 2017 2:02:59 GMT
I meant the early days of this country; Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Burr, etc. Are you serious? This is what you want mean? (Edited - wrong word choice so I fixed it) Well, Pence needs to go. We need to install a Dem VP, for starters. Like the old days. That'll get some stuff done. But I guess your right ... we are heading back to the glory days of isolationist, stay out of our country, yeoman farmer, white supremacist glory. I'll go dig out my long skirts and sharpen my hoe. Oh - and maybe a few duels! That's going to help. Militia. Get your guns ready. And slaves. I bet they thought those were the good old days, along with all of the Native Americans and women. Oh stop the histrionics. Go back and read what I said rather than getting on your podium. Once you come back to earth, maybe we can have a discussion.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 6, 2017 2:04:46 GMT
Let the market determine the wage. Yes, a federal, minimum wage standard needs to be in place, but not a $10 or $15 an hour wage. If McDonalds or Wendy's cannot keep their restaurants staffed with workers that earn $8 or $9 an hour, McDonalds or Wendy's will have to make the decision, on their own, to pay more, or not have the staff to keep the doors open at their restaurant. Why is a federal minimum wage acceptable, but not a higher minimum as determined by states and smaller localities? I thought we were all about states' rights? Personally, I'd prefer that minimum wage be determined by each state or county. But we all know that's not happening. The whole concept of state's rights has been flushed down the toilet, Article 10 of the Bill of Rights be damned.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Sept 6, 2017 2:05:58 GMT
And now, I'm going to do what I told Merge I was doing; off to begin cross-stitching again.
Good night.
|
|
|
Post by redhead32 on Sept 6, 2017 2:08:36 GMT
Are you serious? This is what you want mean? (Edited - wrong word choice so I fixed it) Well, Pence needs to go. We need to install a Dem VP, for starters. Like the old days. That'll get some stuff done. But I guess your right ... we are heading back to the glory days of isolationist, stay out of our country, yeoman farmer, white supremacist glory. I'll go dig out my long skirts and sharpen my hoe. Oh - and maybe a few duels! That's going to help. Militia. Get your guns ready. And slaves. I bet they thought those were the good old days, along with all of the Native Americans and women. Oh stop the histrionics. Go back and read what I said rather than getting on your podium. Once you come back to earth, maybe we can have a discussion. 7.3 for the handslap. But for reals, using colonial United States as a measuring stick in the modern world and saying, "There, there - it's gonna be ok because we handled this atrocious behavior in the past" isn't exactly an opening for meaningful conversation.
|
|
trollie
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,580
Jul 2, 2014 22:14:02 GMT
|
Post by trollie on Sept 6, 2017 2:11:31 GMT
I'm not a liberal. I'm registered as an Independent, and my voting history is pretty much split down the middle between Republican and Democrat. I have my own opinion as to why Trump "won," if you consider getting fewer votes "winning." That's beside the point. My comment here, however, has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with your automatic-asshole-response. I'm sick of YOUR bullshit. Then put me on ignore. Because being an asshole yourself doesn't make your point of being sick of anything I've said in my scant 30 days here. Feisty for a scant 30 days, aintcha?
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Sept 6, 2017 2:23:20 GMT
When Any other president was elected did they go in and reverse every f'ing thing that the previous president did? Did the congress in any other presidency openly state that their goal was to block anything that the president wanted to do? Did any other idiot question whether a president was born in this country and have people actually question it and keep it going for years? Why is Trump's use of a legal procedure dependent on whether a previous president did it or how often? If he has a legal right to use an EO, then he has a legal right to do so. One that's independent of how many times Obama did it and independent of what use he makes of it. You should have been questioning Obama's use of an executive order to enact legislation that was by-rights, the Congress' to enact or not enact. Instead, you focus on Trump's allowing that EO to expire and to leave it where it should have been in the first place...in the hands of Congress. Have you read any American history? Take a look at what went on in the early years of our country. The animosity, the deviousness, the attempts to block the actions of the president (even by the vice-president) make what's going on today look like child's play. We survived then. We'll survive now. Let me get this straight...it is ok for Trump to use an EO, but it wasn't for Obama. My point was that typically, a new president doesn't come in with the agenda of destroying everything that the previous president did. You said that Trump was elected (and I hear that quite often in defense of what he does). But I am pointing out that Obama was also elected. Twice. And with a much larger base than Trump. What he enacted was what people wanted. If every new president changed everything back that the previous president did, we would still be living in the days of 200 years ago (which sounds like it is ok with you). Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD or that it is the right thing to do. Trump and the rest of the Republicans in congress definitely have an agenda, and have had so since Obama was elected.
|
|
ComplicatedLady
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,037
Location: Valley of the Sun
Jul 26, 2014 21:02:07 GMT
|
Post by ComplicatedLady on Sept 6, 2017 2:44:57 GMT
I only got halfway through Obama's statement before saying "wow." I sure do miss that guy!
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Sept 6, 2017 2:46:55 GMT
Who are you to decide that the average American worker can live on $8 or $9 an hour? I'm honestly curious. Do you have some research to show this is a livable wage? Why not $10 an hour or $15 in very high cost areas? I'm not just talking about Wendy's - I'm talking about the mom and pop operation down the street, the small family-owned cafe, etc. If the store can't do business, that's it for them. It's not like Wendy's where closing one store isn't a big deal. The restaurant is their whole livelihood. And on the one hand you want to say, don't raise the minimum wage too high because it'll put them out of business, and on the other hand you want to say, if they can't afford to pay a wage American citizens are willing to work for, they shouldn't get to have a business. That doesn't make any sense. I never claimed that $8 or $9 an hour is a "livable wage" so there's no need for me to provide you any research. Wendy's won't miss one location, and yes mom and pop operations would be much more impacted by the closing of their business. But again, let the market determine what employers are able to pay and let the market determine what employees are worth to their employers. I don't make a lot of money. (to be honest, I don't earn enough in a month to have even covered my monthly rent when I had my apartment) In the next month or two, I'm going to ask for a pay raise as I am still earning what I did when I was hired nearly 2 yrs ago. I most certainly think I'm worth it to my employer, and think that I'm more valuable to them now than when they hired me with no experience. They can give me a pay raise because they think I'm worth it and want to keep me happy, and working for them, being of benefit to their business, or they can risk me being unhappy with never having had a pay increase and I'll look for employment elsewhere. They can decide what to pay me and I can decide if it's enough for me. We each have the power to make decisions and do what's best for each of us. None of that has anything to do with the cognitive dissonance of saying, on the one hand, that you don't want a higher minimum wage because it will hurt small businesses, but on the other hand small businesses who can't afford to pay what American citizens are willing to work for should just go out of business. Are we helping small businesses or are we not?
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,744
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Sept 6, 2017 2:47:13 GMT
I only got halfway through Obama's statement before saying "wow." I sure do miss that guy! Complete and coherent sentences and empathy. How refreshing.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 20, 2024 13:48:15 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 6:25:57 GMT
Yes let's don't what Nancy Pelosi said at The National Association of Counties Legislative Confefence in March 2010. I bolded the important part. The entire quote.... "Imagine an economy where people could follow their aspirations, where they could be entrepreneurial, where they could take risks professionally because personally their families [sic] health care needs are being met. Where they could be self-employed or start a business, not be job-locked in a job because they have health care there, and if they went out on their own it would be unaffordable to them, but especially true, if someone has a child with a pre-existing condition. So when we pass our bill, never again will people be denied coverage because they have a pre-existing condition. We have to do this in partnership, and I wanted to bring [you] up to date on where we see it from here. The final health care legislation that will soon be passed by Congress will deliver successful reform at the local level. It will offer paid for investments that will improve health care services and coverage for millions more Americans. It will make significant investments in innovation, prevention, wellness and offer robust support for public health infrastructure. It will dramatically expand investments into community health centers. That means a dramatic expansion in the number of patients community health centers can see and ultimately healthier communities. Our bill will significantly reduce uncompensated care for hospitals. You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention–it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. "
In case you don't understand she was talking about us, the public. And the "fog of controversy" was the hit job the Republicans had done on the ACA. You remember those "death panels" that really weren't? The Democrats told people what was in the bill. President Obama held town hall meetings answering questions about it. But the Republicans did a masterful job of spreading misinformation. The And now you know the entire story. I'm pretty sure it was Obama that repeatedly told people that if you like your doctor you can keep your droctor. Funny thing about this country. The government can't always stop a company from taking certain actions. For the record President Obama also said that if you like your plan you can keep it. The problem was those statements is they were based on the assumption insurance companies wouldn't make changes to the existing plans and the networks. Well they did and that negated the promises. Did the Obama Administration know this was going to happen? Who knows. Personally I think the insurance companies saw a chance to charge higher premiums by eliminating plans and to cut costs by narrowing networks and they took it regardless of what the President said. Cause that's what insurance companies like, higher premiums and cutting costs.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Sept 6, 2017 8:04:35 GMT
Yes let's don't what Nancy Pelosi said at The National Association of Counties Legislative Confefence in March 2010. I bolded the important part. The entire quote.... "Imagine an economy where people could follow their aspirations, where they could be entrepreneurial, where they could take risks professionally because personally their families [sic] health care needs are being met. Where they could be self-employed or start a business, not be job-locked in a job because they have health care there, and if they went out on their own it would be unaffordable to them, but especially true, if someone has a child with a pre-existing condition. So when we pass our bill, never again will people be denied coverage because they have a pre-existing condition. We have to do this in partnership, and I wanted to bring [you] up to date on where we see it from here. The final health care legislation that will soon be passed by Congress will deliver successful reform at the local level. It will offer paid for investments that will improve health care services and coverage for millions more Americans. It will make significant investments in innovation, prevention, wellness and offer robust support for public health infrastructure. It will dramatically expand investments into community health centers. That means a dramatic expansion in the number of patients community health centers can see and ultimately healthier communities. Our bill will significantly reduce uncompensated care for hospitals. You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention–it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. "
In case you don't understand she was talking about us, the public. And the "fog of controversy" was the hit job the Republicans had done on the ACA. You remember those "death panels" that really weren't? The Democrats told people what was in the bill. President Obama held town hall meetings answering questions about it. But the Republicans did a masterful job of spreading misinformation. The And now you know the entire story. I'm pretty sure it was Obama that repeatedly told people that if you like your doctor you can keep your droctor. And I'm pretty sure that It was the insurance companies who changed all that.
|
|
|
Post by LavenderLayoutLady on Sept 6, 2017 10:02:16 GMT
I miss President Obama so much! Remember what it was like to have a caring literate eloquent person in the White House? I miss him so much, too.
|
|
tduby1
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,979
Jun 27, 2014 18:32:45 GMT
|
Post by tduby1 on Sept 6, 2017 10:12:18 GMT
In your opinion, he took the morally "right" action. Many Americans disagree with your assessment. Trump is now taking the same legal route to repeal DACA. However, he's deferred it 6 months to give Congress a chance to act. Executive actions are "legal". No one disputes this. BUT, executive actions are easily undone. Obama knew these when he used it to implement DACA. He was banking on Hillary's winning the election. He backed the wrong horse and now finds his successor with the same "legal" options. Many Americans think it is morally Right to deport people brought here not of their own free will, people who don't know the country or possibly even language of the country they are being sent back to? Law abiding people who serve our country and/or make our country better in other ways? So are you one of those people that think this is morally right? Ho can any decent human being find *this* morally right. I am beginning to think some of my fellow citizens are just as spiteful as our President. If President Obama did it, it must be wrong- lets un-do it- mentality, with no thought as to what the action actually means.
|
|
tduby1
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,979
Jun 27, 2014 18:32:45 GMT
|
Post by tduby1 on Sept 6, 2017 10:19:08 GMT
Typical liberal response. Immediately resort to name calling. Responses like yours are among the reasons Trump won. People got sick of your bullshit. So, name calling is bad? And the republicans were sick of it so they elected the biggest name caller of them all? Explain that logic. No, really, please do. Oh wait, you're just throwing anything at the wall, defending this man, hoping *something* will stick. "Lame". "Sad". i just don't understand why people are so unwilling to admit electing him was a mistake. He has done a whole lot but NONE of it has added any value to our country or done anything to make us a better nation.
|
|
tduby1
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,979
Jun 27, 2014 18:32:45 GMT
|
Post by tduby1 on Sept 6, 2017 10:30:07 GMT
Further harm to who? The lawbreaker? Why shouldn't the lawbreaker bear the burden of his actions? And how are we fixing anything while we continue to give incentive for people to come here illegally in the form of future rights to stay. These were CHILDREN brought here NOT of their own free will, many aren't/ weren't even aware they were here illegally. You are not asking them to bear the burden of their OWN actions, but someone else's. They are not the lawbreakers ans should not be punished.
|
|
tduby1
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,979
Jun 27, 2014 18:32:45 GMT
|
Post by tduby1 on Sept 6, 2017 10:35:12 GMT
I'm talking about our current policies of granting amnesty or some type of deferral of action to people who come to this country in violation of our laws. As for the children of these people, no it's not their fault. But that shouldn't necessarily translate into a right to stay. That's odd; the thread was about DACA. What other policies of amnesty or deferral are you talking about? The truth is, I suspect many people gleefully applauding the reversal of DACA don't even really understand what it is. I saw someone post the love emoji on fb today regarding the reversal and I have never known the person to be cold hearted. I mean- supporting it out of some ill perceived sense of neccisitaty- maybe, although I don't get it- but to LOVE it? That's just cruel.
|
|