Democratic Obstructionism in Senate is going to end BADLY for them

[Tijuana]

I wonder why so many people complain about the affordable care act, it didnt go far enough but if it hadnt passed a lot of people wouldve died needlessly.

Because 80% of the new insurance enrollees, who didn't have prior coverage, found out they were already eligible for Medicaid. Because life or death care has been illegal to refuse since before WWII. Because everyone is getting screwed with higher premiums, higher deductibles, and the bill is just a giant mess. No matter who won, this bill would have needed alterations. This bill is about the finances of health care, not the administration of it. Hardly anything about the bill address the primary source of 90% of health care costs. For example that whole online records sharing that was supposed to be a huge cost savings is effectively not a thing. The bill sucks, and the only people in Washington who defend it, do so with a camera on only.

[Aeka]

So much lack of knowledge here. I don't mean this as an insult, but:

1. First, the Republicans opposed the Dems based on the radical policies of Obama. The Dems had 2 years of majority control, with well over half of that being a super majority control after Arlen Specter switched in the hopes of staying in power.

What did that mean?

Well, you have to consider this: The mainstream media did jack squat in examining Obama and his politics. They were having so many orgasms at the thought that they were helping to elect a black man that:
-They ignored his admissions of rampant drug use, including cocaine, that Obama made in his books.
-They ignored that Obama had begun his political career in the living room of an 1960s radical American terrorist.
-Barely made mention that he had for years attended a radical black church.
-They made no effort to discover his true politics.

The result: Americans elected Obama as an unknown quantity. He was an empty slate, free for anyone to paint him however they wanted, rather however they hoped he would be.

2. The result was a disaster for Democrats and the rise of the Tea Party rebellion. 2010 saw a massive rejection of Obama and his policies. Elections mean something, Obama had told Republicans when he arrived in office in 2009, something he did not believe applied to him, given his conduct after the 2010 elections.

3. But Republicans blew their chance. The so-called opposition to Obama was meaningful in some aspects, but attempts to use the power of the purse to roll back Obama's legislation during his first two years was largely symbolic. The Republican leadership was terrified of two things: Being accused of shutting down the government and being called racists.

4. Result: In 2012, the Republican establishment rallied around Mitt Romney. The base did not. A combination of evangelical distrust of a Mormon, a weak campaign by Romney, the moderator correcting Romney in the debate (a correction that was flat out wrong), and a failure to fight hard in the last week of the campaign, resulted in an Obama victory.

5.Obama, of course, failed to learn anything. He continued to attempt to implement radical policies, without an ounce of compromise in him.

6. Result: A smashing defeat in the midterms for the Democrats. Republicans made numerous promises to their outraged base, and swept in with unprecedented success.

7. But the Republicans, again, did not keep their promises. Again, there was real opposition on many levels in blocking things, but all too often, the fear of being blamed for a government shutdown and being labeled as racists, caused Republican leadership to roll over and play dead against Obama.

8. For some reason, the Republican base was unhappy about this, feeling betrayed a second time.

9. Along comes Trump who found a ready made audience of those who were pissed off at those in Washington who wouldn't listen to them.

10. This movement is alive on both sides, of the political spectrum, as witnessed by Bernie Sanders' success. Sanders would've been the nominee if the Democrats had elected their nominee using the same rules as the Republicans. Instead, the Democrats shamelessly rigged the election for Hillary, which was obvious to all, but became even more obvious after the email leaks. This fed into voter anger, assisting Trump.

So what does all this wall of text amount to? See the shorter wall of text to follow.

[Vynny]

As a non-American if we have to go through another Federal Government shutdown with the world economy tethering on the brink because of America's insane partisanship we'll start chucking bricks in your faces, and by we I mean the rest of the world.

I think that you're not really informed enough to have a good view of things. Republicans have a majority in the house and senate, they have the presidency, and they're going to have the nomination to the supreme court along with up to 4 of the other seats if those justices don't last the next 4 years. As much as debate is necessary in a democracy, it's not gonna happen when either party has enough control over the government to just steamroll over the other party, so the Democrat's only option for combating the Republicans is for them to obstruct the Republicans and push them into PR losses so that they can hopefully take away the Republicans majority in the house and senate in 2 years.

As far as the chucking bricks thing, it's not gonna happen. I find it funny how many Europeans talk big about how to deal with America, but when it comes down to it, you're currently too reliant on us to do anything. Your armies are pitiful, your union is strained, and your public funds are stretched thin thanks to Merkel and your left wing crazies opening the flood gates on immigration.

Right now the entire west is dealing with the growing pains of our changing world and while Europe may be somewhat similar from country to country, the USA is radially different on a fundamental level due to the fact that the USA is fundamentally different from Europe. We're not struggling with naturalization of immigrants because we have the melting pot philosophy when it comes to multiculturalism while you guys are having serious issues with muslim ghetto's due to them creating insular communities that refuse to adopt your countries values. The USA has legally enforced secularism, so while the UK is struggling with islamic faith schools radicalizing children, the USA doesn't have that issue. The USA has a police force that is still willing and capable of doing their job as opposed to European countries that are currently struggling with rape gangs, mass sexual assault, and an increase in hate crimes. The US government was designed specifically to keep tyrants from seizing complete control of the government; whereas, a lot of very extreme far right parties are gaining influence in Europe which is less thorough in it's protections against tyranny.

P.S.

Please don't take this as a dick measuring contest of who's better or worse off. The fact is that western politics is completely fucked right now regardless of where you go.

Also, how are those anti-corruption laws in Romania? :P

[Aeka]

What this all means is that you can't compare the Democrats and Republicans on several important areas in how the Dems are reacting compared to how the Republicans reacted to Obama.

Or, rather, most people fail to realize the following: The Dems are essentially doing exactly what the Republicans did, that is true. However, people are not seeing that comparison. Rather than the Dems playing to their base, they are doing what the Republicans did after their victories in 2010 and 2014; Instead of playing to their e, the Republicans played to their establishment. And that's what the Dems are doing now: They're not playing to their base, they're playing to their establishment. It's easy to make this mistake; The Republican base is a fairly sedate bunch, while the Democratic establishment has become more and more extreme.

People forget that more people consider themselves as conservative than liberal. Or that many people raised as Democrats have zero in common with the present radical policies of the party. It was those disenfranchised people who caused Trump to breach the Blue Wall, winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

Those voters don't want obstruction: They want Trump to have the chance to do what he's promised. Unlike in 2008, where the only promises were "Hope and Change", Trump has promised jobs and a great many specific things. He has committed to the material, not pie-in-the-sky ephemeral promises of how great everything will be if elected, without any substantial promises to back up the flowery language. Unlike Obama, Trump is not an empty slate. When you have an empty slate, and you draw how you want a candidate to be and the slate is turned over to show how the candidate really is, and it's nothing like how you imagined, it can easily result in voter disenchantment. Hence 2010 and 2014.

The Dems are running huge risks, with their mindless obstructionism. First, this is obstructionism merely as to people, not policies at this point. The vast majority of the people in question are highly qualified.

And then there's the Supreme Court. Neil Gorsuch is beyond qualified to be an associate justice on the Supreme Court (and, yes, he's got better credentials than Garland. And for those whining about Garland, just remember the Republicans are doing exactly what Democrats have postured in the past, including Joe Biden. It has long been Democratic policy to reject any Republican Supreme Court nominee in the final year of a Republican president's term).

Gorsuch, in any sane times, would be a shoo-in for confirmation. He will be confirmed. Result? No change in the Court's make-up, going back to the status quo that existed prior to Scalia's death.

The Dems will have spent political capital for no gain. But here's where it gets interesting: What happens if Trump gets another shot at confirmation? One which would change the make-up of the Court? In that case, rampant senseless obstruction of Judge Gorsuch will weaken their position at a later, more urgent (for them) date.

And the Democratic base? They'll be even more likely to align themselves with Trump as they realize, just as the Republican base did, how little in common they have with their own party establishment.

[scrangos]

Because 80% of the new insurance enrollees, who didn't have prior coverage, found out they were already eligible for Medicaid. Because life or death care has been illegal to refuse since before WWII. Because everyone is getting screwed with higher premiums, higher deductibles, and the bill is just a giant mess. No matter who won, this bill would have needed alterations. This bill is about the finances of health care, not the administration of it. Hardly anything about the bill address the primary source of 90% of health care costs. For example that whole online records sharing that was supposed to be a huge cost savings is effectively not a thing. The bill sucks, and the only people in Washington who defend it, do so with a camera on only.

Wasnt there a serious issue with pre-existing conditions or things that were costly to treat both beign flat out denied by insurance companies or having a cost that was unaffordable for most americans and thus having to go back home empty handed to slowly die? Im not really talking about having the door barred on you when you have a stab wound and are bleeding out on the door to the hospital.

There are still cost issues (and others), and the solutions are being avoided by congress, but the republicans seem more adverse to said solutions than the democrats. Though democrats still carry a good share of the blame, like the recent bill that didnt pass.

The affordable care act has problems, but back then I did not see the republicans proposing a competing plan, and to the day I still dont see them proposting a competing plan that is better for the american citizens.

Perhaps i shouldve phrased my initial question better, a lot of people hate the affordable care act but instead of calling for it to be improved, they call it to be repealed. It was good that it passed, it was bad that nobody improved it since.

[Gestopft]

1. First, the Republicans opposed the Dems based on the radical policies of Obama.fed into voter anger, assisting Trump.

Which of Obama's policies were particularly radical? Obamacare has plenty of (at least formerly) Republican ideas, and has many similarities to Romney's healthcare plan in Mass. The "radical" Democratic solution is single-payer, but that's not what Obama gave us. He also got blasted from the left for the bailouts of the big banks, so that wasn't radical. TPP was about as establishment orthodox as it gets (until this election). DAPA and DACA weren't very radical- it's not like he was trying to make every illegal immigrant a citizen or something. The Stimulus Package wasn't radical- it's just basic Keynesian economics. On wages, he was only asking for a $10.10 minimum wage, not even the $15 that is being floated around on the left. It's not like he was pushing for a UBI. It's not like he tried to legalize hardcore drugs. He wasn't pushing for free college. He wasn't trying to make fossil fuels illegal. He didn't try to overturn the second amendment. Where are these "radical" policies you speak of? Obama is center-left at best.

The Dems had 2 years of majority controlfed into voter anger, assisting Trump.

How much did the Dems really do with their two years though? Obamacare took a long time to get done, there was still a mess of a war in Iraq to deal with, and oh yeah, the financial crisis. The Obama administration got a fair bit of social policy in, but between the inherited crises and six years of obstruction, were hamstrung on a lot of domestic and economic policy.

5.Obama, of course, failed to learn anything. He continued to attempt to implement radical policies, without an ounce of compromise in him.fed into voter anger, assisting Trump.

Once GoP got the majority, they became the party of "no." It's hard to compromise with someone who won't play the game. We could all argue about who "started it," but really it took two to tango. The partisanship and gridlock came from both sides. And again, which of his policies were particularly radical?

10. This movement is alive on both sides, of the political spectrum, as witnessed by Bernie Sanders' success. Sanders would've been the nominee if the Democrats had elected their nominee using the same rules as the Republicans. Instead, the Democrats shamelessly rigged the election for Hillary, which was obvious to all, but became even more obvious after the email leaks. This fed into voter anger, assisting Trump.

The DNC as a private organization was clearly pulling for Hillary, which I disliked as a someone who supported Sanders, but she still did get more votes during the primaries. No need to re-litigate all of this, but in hindsight- yes, Hillary was clearly the wrong candidate.

And that's what the Dems are doing now: They're not playing to their base, they're playing to their establishment. It's easy to make this mistake; The Republican base is a fairly sedate bunch, while the Democratic establishment has become more and more extreme.

I thought the opposite was the problem. Hillary lost because she represented "the establishment." Bernie Sanders found enthusiasm to the left of the Democratic Party establishment. I know that traditional political science says stick to the middle, but for Democrats it was the voters on the left that were energized during the primaries, and stayed home during the general. We may have a different definition of "base" and "establishment" though as it pertains to the Democratic Party.

People forget that more people consider themselves as conservative than liberal. Or that many people raised as Democrats have zero in common with the present radical policies of the party.

Except that the voter base as a whole sides with the Democratic "orthodoxy" over the Republican "orthodoxy" on a litany of issues- same-sex marriage, climate change, increasing the min. wage, universal background checks, money in politics, etc. On a purely ideological basis, independents tend to lean toward the Democratic party position. Younger voters also tend to lean to the left, so in the long-term the Republicans are going to lose out on a number of issues unless they change. And again, still wondering about all of these radical positions: in most other Western countries, our Democratic party would be a center to center-right party- but since we only have two major parties it's presumably easy for you to notice the farthest left ones since both parties have a broad ideological spectrum to cover. You seem to have this boogeyman of radical extremism that you've constructed, when the fact is that the party covers a wide range, and is quite honestly, not far enough left for plenty of young Progressives in this country.

Those voters don't want obstruction: They want Trump to have the chance to do what he's promised.

Of course plenty of people want this. Millions of people marching in the streets are also afraid that Trump will do exactly what he promised. The Tea Party didn't want to give Obama a chance, and that's the wave that by and large ushered in the current GoP majorities.

The Dems are running huge risks, with their mindless obstructionism.

I don't see the risk. They don't have the numbers to succeed with obstruction the way the GoP has for the last six years. They can either a) get rolled over and lose, or b) show some spine and still end losing almost as much. Millions of people marching in the streets want to see the Democrats' backbone. Democratic pundits have said for a while now that they are the party that has been bringing a knife to a gun fight. Keep in mind that even if they did have the numbers, mindless obstructionism worked extremely well for the Republicans.

The vast majority of the people in question are highly qualified.

Some are. But what about those that have zero government experience? Those that have viewpoints completely antithetical to their proposed cabinet position? The one that said himself that he wasn't qualified? The one whose nomination has been jamming Senate phone lines with public opposition?

And then there's the Supreme Court. Neil Gorsuch is beyond qualified to be an associate justice on the Supreme Court (and, yes, he's got better credentials than Garland. And for those whining about Garland, just remember the Republicans are doing exactly what Democrats have postured in the past, including Joe Biden.

It would've been remarkably shitty if the Dems had pulled it, but they never got the chance. The GoP actually did. Dems have every right to be pissed off, regardless of his qualifications, and Republicans deserve every bit of backlash for this outright theft. (As an aside, I think this move was critical in Trump's victory- it gave a lot of turned off conservatives that may have otherwise jumped ship or stayed home a strong reason to bite their lip and pull the lever)

And the Democratic base? They'll be even more likely to align themselves with Trump as they realize, just as the Republican base did, how little in common they have with their own party establishment.

Who and what is the Democratic base anymore? Is it the people they need to win back, like those in the rust belt that jumped ship when the Dems ran a damaged candidate and failed to deliver a strong economic message (or promise the impossible like Trump)? Is it the millions of people all over the country who in Trump's first two weeks have marched in protests, gone to their representatives' offices, called in, or written to petition against multiple different appointments or policies, and are demanding strong opposition? Is it the young people that stayed home because they were turned off by Hillary that they need to get out to vote? I'm not sure based on your arguments where you consider the "base" and the "establishment" of the party to be.

Ultimately however, I think that what happens to the Democrats in the next four years' elections has much less to do with what they do as an opposition/minority party than how well the G.O.trumP platform works for the country.

If tariffs raise the price of consumer goods and fail to bring back jobs (for people, not robots), if trickle-down economics continues to squeeze the middle class and increase the wealth gap, if wages stay stagnant, if the GoP screws up healthcare, if we get into another unpopular war, if nothing gets done about money in politics, if college tuitions continue to skyrocket, if Trump does something that even Republicans would impeach him for- if the next two/four years don't start looking up, voters will leave the GoP without Dems having to do anything.

[Bodakane]

This was not a reaction to the democrats putting up the most corrupt and worst candidate they could find? I guess if you have to blame someone , blame the other side instead of looking in the mirror at the problem. It's not having a black president, it's having a president who was against everything you stand for socially and economically. After 8 years, the pendulum usually swings to the other party most of the time. This time the opposition ran one of the worst candidates in history and you still lost to him......and you find anything to blame besides yourself.

No.

You need to ask yourself why Trump was the forerunner in a crowded field and then got the Repub nom. A significant portion of the Republican base is evangelical Christians, which Trump has the least in common with. Yet that base helped him beat out all other Republican candidates. Why? Because he said things they've been wanting to say for 8 years of a black POTUS. He espoused xenophobia, racism, bigotry and misogyny. That appealed to the Repub base so they compromised their previously held values and made him the candidate.

If it was about draining the swamp or Constitutional ethics or even because Obama represented the opposite of what you gus wanted (which is a lie), then you guys would have made Rand Paul the nom. That didn't happen. The significant difference is that Trump spewed hate.

As for the actual election, the problem was multifaceted. Hillary wasn't the best candidate but her campaign underestimated the power of hate in the base of the right. Russia played a significant part as well. There's really only a very small handful of votes in key spots that swayed the election. This was not the statment making ass kicking Trumpers would have us believe.

- - - Updated - - -

So much lack of knowledge here. I don't mean this as an insult, but:

1. First, the Republicans opposed the Dems based on the radical policies of Obama. The Dems had 2 years of majority control, with well over half of that being a super majority control after Arlen Specter switched in the hopes of staying in power.

What did that mean?

Well, you have to consider this: The mainstream media did jack squat in examining Obama and his politics. They were having so many orgasms at the thought that they were helping to elect a black man that:
-They ignored his admissions of rampant drug use, including cocaine, that Obama made in his books.
-They ignored that Obama had begun his political career in the living room of an 1960s radical American terrorist.
-Barely made mention that he had for years attended a radical black church.
-They made no effort to discover his true politics.

The result: Americans elected Obama as an unknown quantity. He was an empty slate, free for anyone to paint him however they wanted, rather however they hoped he would be.

2. The result was a disaster for Democrats and the rise of the Tea Party rebellion. 2010 saw a massive rejection of Obama and his policies. Elections mean something, Obama had told Republicans when he arrived in office in 2009, something he did not believe applied to him, given his conduct after the 2010 elections.

3. But Republicans blew their chance. The so-called opposition to Obama was meaningful in some aspects, but attempts to use the power of the purse to roll back Obama's legislation during his first two years was largely symbolic. The Republican leadership was terrified of two things: Being accused of shutting down the government and being called racists.

4. Result: In 2012, the Republican establishment rallied around Mitt Romney. The base did not. A combination of evangelical distrust of a Mormon, a weak campaign by Romney, the moderator correcting Romney in the debate (a correction that was flat out wrong), and a failure to fight hard in the last week of the campaign, resulted in an Obama victory.

5.Obama, of course, failed to learn anything. He continued to attempt to implement radical policies, without an ounce of compromise in him.

6. Result: A smashing defeat in the midterms for the Democrats. Republicans made numerous promises to their outraged base, and swept in with unprecedented success.

7. But the Republicans, again, did not keep their promises. Again, there was real opposition on many levels in blocking things, but all too often, the fear of being blamed for a government shutdown and being labeled as racists, caused Republican leadership to roll over and play dead against Obama.

8. For some reason, the Republican base was unhappy about this, feeling betrayed a second time.

9. Along comes Trump who found a ready made audience of those who were pissed off at those in Washington who wouldn't listen to them.

10. This movement is alive on both sides, of the political spectrum, as witnessed by Bernie Sanders' success. Sanders would've been the nominee if the Democrats had elected their nominee using the same rules as the Republicans. Instead, the Democrats shamelessly rigged the election for Hillary, which was obvious to all, but became even more obvious after the email leaks. This fed into voter anger, assisting Trump.

So what does all this wall of text amount to? See the shorter wall of text to follow.

So much of this is bullshit.

There was NOTHING radical about Obama's policies.

[bladeXcrasher]

Either the Democrats reform and really distinguish themselves from the Republican party or a third party actually picks up the momentum to be a genuine threat to "the establishment". We have about 2 years to get that ball rolling and I sincerely hope we do.

Will never happen unfortunately, both parties get to be idiots if it is just them. Split it with a legitimate 3rd party chance and the both of them loose too much. The CPD needs to either remove or at least lower the 15% to get into the debates so these independent party candidates can actually be heard some place other than a CNN town hall.

[Allybeboba]

I wonder why so many people complain about the affordable care act, it didnt go far enough but if it hadnt passed a lot of people wouldve died needlessly.

My insurance premiums have went up 5 fold. My deductibles have went up 8 fold. I have to spend $12,000 before I can even use my insurance now. Most of the time I don't even use it yet I still pay for it because if I don't I will get a fine if I do not because of the ACA law.
People that were "uninsured" before ACA could have gotten on Medicare. We need a replacement so premiums will go down for middle class people. Sure, 1% got insurance. But more be losing it because they now can't afford it because it is too high.

[Bodakane]

My insurance premiums have went up 5 fold. My deductibles have went up 8 fold. I have to spend $12,000 before I can even use my insurance now. Most of the time I don't even use it yet I still pay for it because if I don't I will get a fine if I do not because of the ACA law.
People that were "uninsured" before ACA could have gotten on Medicare. We need a replacement so premiums will go down for middle class people. Sure, 1% got insurance. But more be losing it because they now can't afford it because it is too high.

Its because the Repubs neutered the act. Part of the ACA was supposed to be allowing sales across state lines and allowing groups of people to form collectives to have more powerful purchasing power against the insurance companies. The right knew taking these things out would screw things up (because ACA is their plan after all, as an answer to single payer) and did it to us anyway.

[bladeXcrasher]

Its because the Repubs neutered the act. Part of the ACA was supposed to be allowing sales across state lines and allowing groups of people to form collectives to have more powerful purchasing power against the insurance companies. The right knew this would screw things up (because ACA is their plan after all, as an answer to single payer) and did it to us anyway.

I'm really interested to see the Sanders / Cruz debate on healthcare. I wonder if America will wake up on a UHC system in my lifetime.

[Bodakane]

I'm really interested to see the Sanders / Cruz debate on healthcare. I wonder if America will wake up on a UHC system in my lifetime.

I don't think we will.

The Party of Me would never allow it. I mean we passed their Plan (ACA) and they lost their collective shit so hard, they formed the Tea Party and willingly and proudly voted for Trump.

[Tijuana]

Wasnt there a serious issue with pre-existing conditions or things that were costly to treat both beign flat out denied by insurance companies or having a cost that was unaffordable for most americans and thus having to go back home empty handed to slowly die? Im not really talking about having the door barred on you when you have a stab wound and are bleeding out on the door to the hospital.

There are still cost issues (and others), and the solutions are being avoided by congress, but the republicans seem more adverse to said solutions than the democrats. Though democrats still carry a good share of the blame, like the recent bill that didnt pass.

The affordable care act has problems, but back then I did not see the republicans proposing a competing plan, and to the day I still dont see them proposting a competing plan that is better for the american citizens.

Perhaps i shouldve phrased my initial question better, a lot of people hate the affordable care act but instead of calling for it to be improved, they call it to be repealed. It was good that it passed, it was bad that nobody improved it since.

Why is it good that the worst peice of legislation ever derived was passed? Why do Liberals view any failed bill as "at least we tried" instead of "oh shit we just broke the country"?

[Shadowferal]

Why do "conservatives" obstruct all the way but then complain about it when it's done to them?

[Endus]

Why is it good that the worst peice of legislation ever derived was passed?

Holy hyperbole, Batman.

The ACA has issues, but if we're talking about "worst piece of legislation ever derived", then you're contending with things like (just to stick with American laws) the Indian Removal Act, Public Law 503 (authorizing internment of Japanese-Americans, among others), the Prohibition Act, the Fugitive Slave Act, the Alien and Sedition Acts, and this is without getting into laws where we might disagree over partisan divides, like the Patriot Act.

The ACA is so "terrible" that after campaigning on a platform of repealing it, Trump's cabinet has now realized they want to keep a lot of it. It has issues, but it's by no means "the worst piece of legislation ever derived", that's just ridiculous.

[Darkeon]

Why do "conservatives" obstruct all the way but then complain about it when it's done to them?

Probably the same reason why the "liberals" complained about being obstructed all the way but then are doing the same.

[Tijuana]

Holy hyperbole, Batman.

The ACA has issues, but if we're talking about "worst piece of legislation ever derived", then you're contending with things like (just to stick with American laws) the Indian Removal Act, Public Law 503 (authorizing internment of Japanese-Americans, among others), the Prohibition Act, the Fugitive Slave Act, the Alien and Sedition Acts, and this is without getting into laws where we might disagree over partisan divides, like the Patriot Act.

The ACA is so "terrible" that after campaigning on a platform of repealing it, Trump's cabinet has now realized they want to keep a lot of it. It has issues, but it's by no means "the worst piece of legislation ever derived", that's just ridiculous.

You are basing your judgement of the law on morality, I was judging it on effectiveness. Why is everything always about the feels with Liberals?

Before you tell me what a terrible person I am, for daring to disagree with a Lefty, keep in mind I support not just single payer, but single provider health care. Obamacare is the worst law ever written. My opinion on that is fact.

[Ahovv]

Republicans were obstructionist for the last eight years and it seemed to work fine for them....shrug.

Exactly.

If the Democratic Party wants to win in the future, they need to drop corporate influence, and push really hard for liberal ideas. "Compromises" give us deals and politicians we end up hating.

- - - Updated - - -

Holy hyperbole, Batman.

The ACA has issues, but if we're talking about "worst piece of legislation ever derived", then you're contending with things like (just to stick with American laws) the Indian Removal Act, Public Law 503 (authorizing internment of Japanese-Americans, among others), the Prohibition Act, the Fugitive Slave Act, the Alien and Sedition Acts, and this is without getting into laws where we might disagree over partisan divides, like the Patriot Act.

The ACA is so "terrible" that after campaigning on a platform of repealing it, Trump's cabinet has now realized they want to keep a lot of it. It has issues, but it's by no means "the worst piece of legislation ever derived", that's just ridiculous.

I know I'm nitpicking here, but the Patriot Act is no longer a partisan divide. Most Democrats supported the measures after Obama took office. Seems half of them were opposed to it only because a Republican was in office.

[Xeones]

Why is it good that the worst peice of legislation ever derived was passed? Why do Liberals view any failed bill as "at least we tried" instead of "oh shit we just broke the country"?

It didn't break the country, by any stretch.

[Shadowferal]

Probably the same reason why the "liberals" complained about being obstructed all the way but then are doing the same.

This says it all

And then there's McConnel's letter about nominations:

McConnell's 2009 requirements include an ethics agreement letter and financial disclosures being submitted to a Senate committee before a hearing.