Sexual Harassment/Assault Scandals

Medicaid 'expansion' is STILL Medicaid. Then you said the medicaid threshold is too strict.

So do you just want medicaid expansion for everyone or do you want single payer? What or which one exactly do you want?

 

I have a lot of respect for you as well, reasonable people can agree to disagree on politics, just fyi, I WAS a lifelong Republican, a few years back I switched to independent.

 

Black people celebrated his election because it was seen as a fulfillment of the progress we have made in this country. He became the president of a country that wouldn't let him vote 100 years previously and would make him sit in a different section of public places just 50 years previously, that is the hope and change people believed in. Only nincompoops and willfully ignorant racists thought Obama was going to start some kind of black revolution.

 

This is why there's no point in trying to have conversations because people keep trying to impose their opinions of half-truths on an often willing public. No better example than this constant misleading viewpoint on why Obama went the Mitt Romney route with healthcare. Yes, not one single Republican was going to give a Yes vote, but it was more than that . Far too many Democrats, known as Blue Dogs, weren't gonna vote for a more Medicaid approach either or a Single Payer. It wasn't just that some of them were business toadies themselves, it was also that they were from more purple or red parts of the USA and their constituents DID NOT WANT change in their healthcare system. And that was BEFORE right wind media started peddling fear, and fear has always been something Americans easily swallowed. The Obama administration weren't lazy or unwilling to fight. They did their homework ahead of time, knew where the wind was blowing and studied all the failed past attempts to pass healthcare. However a public option was still on the table. Until this....

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2009/10/did-sen-joe-lieberman-just-kill-the-public-option.html

Did Lieberman Just Kill the Public Option?
Don’t bet on Connecticut’s junior senator showing independence from the insurance lobby.
By TIMOTHY NOAH


OCT 27, 20097:08 PM


Senate majority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., says that “Joe Lieberman is the least of [my] problems” in passing health reform with a public option. I’m not so sure.

Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, who was formerly a Democrat but who is now an independent, announced today that “if the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage.” In other words, Lieberman will support a filibuster. “I can’t see a way in which I could vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-run insurance company,” Lieberman said.

One largely unspoken assumption behind Reid’s quest to get an “opt out” version of the public option through the Senate is that he doesn’t really need 60 votes for the health reform bill itself. He just needs 60 votes for the cloture motion prior to final passage. Once a filibuster is cut off, health reform can pass with 50 votes (the 51st being Vice President Joe Biden, president of the Senate). One reason Reid’s gambit looked so promising as recently as yesterday was that Lieberman, despite his previously stated opposition to the health reform bill even without a public option (i.e., as passed by the Senate finance committee), had agreednot to support a filibuster against it. It now appears that Lieberman either changed his mind or was misunderstood.

------------

Ezra Klein of Washingtonpost.com and Jonathan Chait of the New Republic both point out that Lieberman’s reason for opposing the public option—that it’s too expensive—makes no sense, because the public option actually lowers the cost of health reform by exerting downward competitive pressure on the private-insurance premiums whose purchase the government would subsidize. The Congressional Budget Office’s scoring of the Reid proposal is expected to show this. But any illogic in Lieberman’s position strikes me as evidence not that Lieberman is likely to change his mind when he becomes better acquainted with the facts but, rather, that Lieberman has already decided facts shouldn’t get in the way of his opposition.


Why would Lieberman want to sink health reform? Klein points out that in the pretty recent past, Lieberman has supported the general goal, if not the specifics, of Obamacare. But consider Lieberman’s political situation. He is no longer a Democrat. That means he no longer has a political base. In the future, he will have to rely more on constituencies and on cash. The White House suggests that Lieberman wouldn’t dare alienate voters by opposing health reform. But what’s the most cash-rich constituency in the Nutmeg State? The insurance industry, which is headquartered in Connecticut and employs 64,000 people.

At the moment, insurers probably aren’t too pleased with Connecticut’s other senator, Democrat Chris Dodd, because Dodd is a prominent advocate for the public option. As I’ve noted previously, Dodd, during the past 20 years, received $2.3 million in contributions from insurers—more than any member of the House or Senate except John McCain, R-Ariz. During that same period, Dodd collected $774,000 from health insurers, ranking second only to House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. Lieberman, even though he’s from Connecticut, has during that same period had to settle for 14th place in both insurance-industry contributions and health-insurance-industry contributions. Blocking the public option might allow Lieberman to displace Dodd as “the senator from Aetna.”
.............

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, look. I can pull a link of a Slate out of my ass too.

People constantly forget what Lieberman did. People forget all the opposition to health care reform on both sides of the aisles. People forget all the scare-mongering of death panels and cries of socialized healthcare. People forget the majority of Americans polled against healthcare reform because they preferred the health care they were already getting.

 

(CONTINUED)
Granted some progressives didn't think the proposed laws didn't go far enough but they still supported the idea of any healthcare reform if push came to shove. But conservatives, conservative Democrats and moderates were against whatever Obama and Co were proposing. This all happened in real time and yet somehow America got quick amnesia on what went down that entire year in which the proposed new laws were being pushed. There is documentation of this everywhere. I have dozens saved to my collection of articles. But why share it if people already are sticking to the belief that Obama sold them out (that tired refrain) from the beginning? But if anyone was really interested I would suggested reading "The New New Deal" by Michael Grunwald which gives arguably the most detailed step-by-step account on what the Obama administration tried to do and all the roadblocks and setbacks they encountered. Grunwald has also been a constant presence on twitter to correct the misinformation about why Obama didn't try passing a more progressive healthcare. What the actual events made clear, which almost every historian agrees with, is that there was no path to pass the more progressive health care legislation. None. The Obama administration worked both sides for one year and still would not have the votes for progressive laws on that front. Such a proposal would have gone down in flames and it would have been as great and embarrassing a rebuke towards a President in his first year, especially if he had lost many votes from Legislative members of his own party. There may not have been any coming back for Obama after a historical political defeat like that. So he went with the more Republican'leaning version that Romney had implemented in a blue state. Did he underestimate the depravity of just how much the Republicans would put party over country because of how much they wanted him to fail? Yes. And while it may seem extremely naive now just remember that all this happened when Republicans were still playing somewhat nice by agreeing to all of the bipartisan townhall events. This was long before it became public that how during inauguration, high level Republican officials were meeting privately to plan opposing ANYTHING that Obama did, something unprecedented in the history of our nation. But you Monday Quarterbacks want to suggest Obama should have been all-seeing to realize Republicans would sink that low. Get the fuck out of here.

Even with the watered-downed version of health care the law was only gonna get passed by the slimmest of margins. And then, just like that, Ted Kennedy died and a Republican won his seat in a special election. And this senator said he would vote no on health care reform. The whole thing looked dead in the water. I would spare you all the details of how Obama and the Dems regrouped and did enough tweaking of healthcare again to get three Republicans to break rank and side with them. And the law would end up passing.

For those in retrospect who side with the inane notion peddled by the far, far left that Obama should have scrapped healthcare reform entirely instead of compromising, I say that's nuts. First of all you don't give any credit to the Dems and one Republican who knew they would be voted out of office thanks to the demonization of healthcare reform through the media but voted for the bill anyway. They did so because they believed it was the right thing to do and the best option for the nation under the circumstances. I consider those folks heroes. But most of all the people who hold this point of view that passing NOTHING was better than a compromise, are typically folks who actually had healthcare coverage and didn't have to worry about pre-existing conditions blocking them from either. What a selfish asshole one would have to be to hold that point of view, a bunch of purity ponies who out of petulance and pettiness would have seen to the deaths, continued lack of coverage and financial ruins of millions of Americans who were in need of any coverage. Yeah. let those poor souls go down just to prove a point of no compromise. How idiotic.

 

Oh boy!! Set you alarms in the morning for this upcoming fuckery:


https://twitter.com/CBSThisMorning/status/1103069861524189185



I don't even think Cosby did a sit down interview. But R. Kelly, who is a remedial nigga that can't read or write. is about do one. This looking like it could be a repeat of past interview fuccery:







EDIT:

Preview has just been released:

 

Cosby did, with his wife, l think. But questions unrelated to the accusations were off limits, if l recall.

 

IDK.. He's pretty convincing there in the 2nd segment. I got a twinge of doubt.
Next week she interviews 2 of his voluntary female roommates. We shall see.

 

There's a tape he's lying to keep his ass out of jail because he knows he's finished in there

 

Nobody is in denial about Kellz messing with teen girls back in the day, we all know he did that shit. The 2nd clip that Bliss is talking about is Kellz saying that his sugar daddy harem is NOT sex-slave cult like the online black SJWs have been claiming for a year & and a half. Any logical person can tell Kellz is telling the truth because that story has always been obvious B.S.

 

This R Kelly crap is rather gross.

We know what R Kelly has done in the past, and it is disgusting. But, I keep waiting for someone to do the #metoo shuffle on the women who raped R Kelly and his brother growing up. I swear, our society is incapable of holding women accountable for sex crimes. Like those women teachers raping 13 year old boys every other week. I say lock em all up.

 

And these teacher-student cases have been going on for YEARS and yet no outrage, no emergency or anyone looking to do anything about that.

 

Honestly I could care less if that situation is bs as long as he goes to jail. He only got caught because of the tape people like that don't stop at just three people he has a clear history of pedophilia fuck him and fuck his supposed innocence. Get this garbage off the streets

 

Because their logic is always default men bad women good. It's simple source code and nothing can ever deviate from that absolutely nothing

 

Learned that when I was a child from that old ass nursery rhyme from the early 19th century.

"Little boys are made of snips and snails and puppy dog tails. Little girls are made of sugar and spice and everything nice."

 

Forgot about that one. Its clear they hate men

 

LOL. I'm pretty sure a man wrote that lyric.

 

It was written in like 1820 and no one is sure about the author.

Something like that begs the question as to why it's still around, not who wrote it.

Either way I'm sure simps existed back then

 

R. Kelly is back in jail today due to failure to pay back child support:

Despite Kellz being a musical genius, he lives up to a lot of negative stereotypes.


@The Dark King I don't know about you, but I can't be only 1 SMH that everytime a BM celeb/athlete is in trouble it has to turn into a ratings-gold Reality TV entertainment spectacle.

 

I say lock em all up