#ACA Joes Ad

[davedyecom]

Hands up who's heard of TOM LICHTENHELD?

In the late 80s, I discovered a discount bookshop on Shaftesbury Avenue, amongst the junk,  ‘Knitting For The Whole Family’ and ‘Fun With Chives’ were piles American advertising books I’d never heard of; One Show Annuals. They were dirt cheap – £4.99. For the cost of one D&AD Annual I could buy six One Shows. So I bought six One Shows. The work was a revelation. Bolder, funnier and less genteel…

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Will Bunch at The Philadelphia Inquirer:

The most wildly misunderstood yet commonly used word in American politics is “gaffe.” The dictionary defines it as “an unintentional act or remark causing embarrassment to its originator; a blunder” — and that’s not wrong. But on the campaign trail, 95% of the time a much-talked-about “gaffe” is the blunder of a politician accidentally blurting out the truth. You’ve been hearing a lot about Donald Trump’s disastrous, Nazi-echoing rally at Madison Square Garden, and “comedian” Tony Hinchcliffe’s vote-killing “jokes” about Puerto Ricans and African Americans, and that’s been a game-changing development. But over the last week, it’s also been open-mic night for the Republicans who want to run Congress, and the embarrassing blunder of accidental truth-telling has been coming faster than Henny Youngman one-liners. Election Day will tell whether the joke is on the GOP, or on the American people for electing them.

[...] In fact, the current GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson, with a 50-50 chance of clinging to that job next January, has been barnstorming America in a festival of truth-telling “gaffes,” including the revelation that his party dreams of not just gutting Obamacare — as McCormick suggested on that hot mic — but repealing the ACA altogether. This despite Trump’s September debate admission that after a decade of talking about this, he only has “concepts of a plan” (and in reality he doesn’t even have that) on how to replace a program that has saved thousands of American lives.

“No Obamacare,” Johnson responded to a voter’s comment during a news conference in Pennsylvania, before suggesting that Republicans, if it’s in their control, will make major but totally unspecified changes to a program that is broadly popular with the American public while currently insuring more than 21 million. He added: “The ACA is so deeply ingrained, we need massive reform to make this work, and we got a lot of ideas on how to do that.” Yeah, sure, Mike. But like Bluto in Animal House, the House speaker was now rolling. Only a day or so later, campaigning for an embattled House ally in upstate New York, Johnson replied to a student journalist from Syracuse University asking if Congress would also repeal 2022′s bipartisan CHIP and Science Act, which is aiding an $100 billion new plant in that New York candidate’s district creating thousands of new jobs. “I expect that we probably will but we haven’t developed that part of the agenda yet — we gotta get over the election first,” Johnson said.

This time, Johnson soon realized that he’d gone too far even for today’s Republicans, and he rolled back the comment with the hard-to-believe claim that he’d misheard the clearly audible student journalist just a few feet away. But while the semiconductor-aid program, and its large-scale job creation, appear to be safe for now, we should take Johnson, McCormick and their colleagues seriously, if not always literally. To reach their true spiritual goal of taking America back to a time when white men like them ruled without challenge — not only on Capitol Hill but in every household — they are willing to willy-nilly repeal anything passed not just by President Joe Biden but LBJ and maybe even FDR. They want to bring back an uneven playing field for women, Black and brown folks, or the LGBTQ community, even if it also hurts the white middle class they claim to be representing.

Is it a gaffe that we’re learning in the campaign’s final hours that Team Trump plans to give enormous power over public health policy to former-candidate-turned-Trump-ally and anti-vaccine nutjob Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who tweeted Saturday night that he literally wants to take America back to the 1950s by removing fluoride — which has improved the dental health of U.S. children for decades — from public drinking water. Make all the jokes you want about the John Birch Society or Gen. Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove, but — just like Hinchcliffe’s MSG put-downs of Latinos and Black people — their push to unravel modern American progress is no laughing matter. Voters understand RFK Jr.’s words are serious because we’ve already seen in one hugely important area — reproductive rights — what happens when the barking dog of GOP policy nonsense actually catches the car. The Trump-fried U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 reversal of Roe vs. Wade has taken women’s health care back more than 60 years, and now we are learning the stories of the women who are dying as a result. How many more Americans will die needlessly if Johnson, McCormick, Trump and their ilk keep driving their 1950s Rambler policies off the cliff?

[...] The GOP’s 11th-hour policy truth bombs aren’t getting the media attention they deserve. They are competing with the increasingly racist, violent and unhinged rhetoric from Trump’s allies but especially from the 78-year-old candidate himself, who seems to be descending into madness in what, either way, are (probably) his last days ever on the trail. We should be paying great attention to events like his nearly six-hour Manhattan hatefest. But understand that the cruelty is the point of the modern MAGA movement, and Trump’s despicable language and attitudes toward women and nonwhite men will be translated on Capitol Hill into cruel policies — political neutron bombs that will devastate everyone, even the folks lining up in Appalachia or the prairies of the Great Plains to vote for Trump.

Will Bunch delivers a truthbomb in his latest Philly Inquirer column that the GOP’s deranged quest to repeal CHIPS Act and Obamacare, along with pandering to anti-fluoride cranks, will doom them.

See Also:

HuffPost: Republicans Close Out Final Week Of 2024 Race By Saying The Quiet Part Out Loud

[contemplatingoutlander]

In the New York Magazine article, “The Future of Trumpism: The greatest threat to Donald Trump’s hold on the GOP comes from Ron DeSantis, who may be more MAGA than the MAGA king himself,” Jonathan Chait discusses some of Ron DeSantis’s more disturbing beliefs about the U.S. Constitution and wealth.

Basically, DeSantis seems to believe that the Constitution was designed to protect elite wealth from being redistributed to the working classes. If DeSantis were to be elected president, there’s a good chance he would try to undo every progressive social safety net program we have created since the New Deal, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, SNAP, and TANF.

Below are some excerpts from DeSantis’s 2011 book Dreams From Our Founding Fathers: First principles in the age of Obama:

[Benjamin] Franklin and other Founding Fathers believed that respect for individual property rights was the sine qua non of a free society, and regarded the so-called “leveling spirit,” which seeks to equalize property through government action, as a danger that American institutions needed to check…. How to craft a government based on popular consent that did not devolve into popular majorities voting themselves the property of others was one of the main concerns for Madison and his colleagues at the Constitutional Convention. [...] Madison pulled no punches about specifying the particular types of faction that a republican form of government needed to guard against. “A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project”…. Madison…also viewed these ���wicked projects” as inimical to fundamental notions of justice and individual liberty. As a matter of first principle, the republic needed to be constructed to prevent such projects from ever coming into being.

[emphasis added]

--Ron DeSantis (2011, pp. 123, 128-129)

If Ron DeSantis wins the White House in 2024 and has a GOP Congress, and a Federalist Society dominated Supreme Court, he will be able to dismantle the social safety net in the U.S. with impunity. We cannot let that happen.

[edited]

____________________

Ron DeSantis Photo-Illustration: Eddie Guy & Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images (before edits & title caption); Maya Angelou quote image source (before edits & a newer version of Maya Angelou’s signature) 

[jules-has-notes]

Manila, Philippines — VoicePlay & Rachel Potter live performances

When VoicePlay and their buddy Rachel Potter released their "Moana medley" video in the summer of 2017, it went a bit viral and brought them a number of new fans, especially among young kids and their parents. A year later, one of those families invited the six singers to perform at their daughter's birthday party in Manila, with the added incentive of a public show for more of their Filipino fans. A trip to the other side of the world was an opportunity they weren't about to pass up. Even if it did require a full day of travel each way, everyone agreed that the experience was well worth it.

.

VoicePlay knows how to start a show with a bang, and this song gives each member a moment to shine.

Details:

title: Any Way You Want It

original performers: Journey

written by: Steve Perry & Neal Schon

arranged by: Geoff Castellucci

performance date: 18 August 2018

.

The boys kept the good times going with some bouncy prog rock and a little audience participation.

Details:

title: Mr. Blue Sky

original songs / performers: "Mr. Blue Sky" by the Electric Light Orchestra (ELO); [1:03] "Blue Skies" by Ben Selvin & Charles Kaley (as The Knickerbockers)

written by: "Mr. Blue Sky" by Jeff Lynne; "Blue Skies" by Irving Berlin

arranged by: Geoff Castellucci

performance date: 18 August 2018

.

Next up was a more modern groove that let the fellas show off their harmonies and diction.

Details:

title: Ride

original performers: Twenty One Pilots

written by: Tyler Joseph

arranged by: Geoff Castellucci

performance date: 18 August 2018

.

VoicePlay kept things a little mellow for one more number with the first song that this lineup recorded together.

Details:

title: Scars To Your Beautiful & All Time Low mashup

original songs / performers: "Scars to Your Beautiful" by Alessia Cara; "All Time Low" by Jon Bellion (see also: acoustic version) [NOTE: The original lyrics are more explicit than VP's version.]

written by: "Scars to Your Beautiful" by Alessia Cara, Warren "Oak" Felder, Sebastian Kole, Andrew "Pop" Wansel, & Justin "DJ Frank E" Franks; "All Time Low" by Jon Bellion, Mark Williams, Raul Cubina, & Travis Mendes

arranged by: Layne Stein & Hannah Juliano

performance date: 18 August 2018

.

Their cover of Disney music was what brought the guys to the Philippines, so it was only natural for them to include this energetic mashup of the Mouse's Broadway tunes.

Details:

title: aca-Disney medley

original songs / performers: "Kiss the Girl" by Titus Burgess as Sebastian in The Little Mermaid (2008); "All About That Bass" by Meghan Trainor; [0:24] "A Whole New World" by Adam Jacobs & Courtney Reed as Aladdin & Jasmine in Aladdin (2014); "Rude" by Magic!; [0:53] "I Just Can't Wait to Be King" by Scott Irby-Ranniar, Geoff Hoyle, & Kajuana Shuford as Simba, Zazu, & Nala in The Lion King (1997); "Trumpets" by Jason Derulo; [1:34] "Seize the Day" by the cast of Newsies (2012); [1:41] "Arabian Nights" by James Monroe Iglehart as the Genie and the cast of Aladdin (2014); "Fireball" by Pitbull, featuring John Ryan

written by: "Kiss the Girl" by Howard Ashman & Alan Menken; "All About That Bass" by Meghan Trainor & Kevin Kadish; "A Whole New World" by Alan Menken & Tim Rice; "Rude" by Magic!, Adam "Messy" Messinger, & Alex Tanas; "I Just Can't Wait to be King" by Elton John & Tim Rice; "Trumpets" by Jason Derulo & Jon Bellion; "Seize the Day" by Alan Menken & Jack Feldman; "Arabian Nights" by Alan Menken & Tim Rice; "Fireball" by Armando "Pitbull" Perez, "John the Blind" Ryan, Andreas Schuller, Ricky Reed, Joe Spargur, Tom Peyton, & Ilsey Juber

arranged by: VoicePlay

performance date: 18 August 2018

.

The reason Rachel wasn't on The Sing-Off with the boys back in 2013 is that she had already been selected for The X-Factor, and this is the song that got her there.

Details:

title: Somebody to Love

original performers: Queen

written by: Freddie Mercury

arranged by: Rachel Potter

performance date: 18 August 2018

.

This video contains two songs, each with a new performer in a featured role. For the first, J.None steps into Tony's Phantom shoes. For the second, Rachel picks up the torch of self-love from Emoni Wilkins.

Details:

title: Phantom of the Opera

original performers: Sarah Brightman as Christine Daaé & Michael Crawford as the Phantom in The Phantom of the Opera (1986)

written by: Andrew Lloyd Webber, Charles Hart, Richard Stilgoe, & Mike Batt

arranged by: Layne Stein

performance date: 18 August 2018

.

title: I Love Me

original performers: Meghan Trainor, feat. LunchMoney Lewis

written by: Ricky Reed, Gamal "LunchMoney" Lewis, Jacob Kasher Hindlin, Meghan Trainor, & Thomas Troelsen

arranged by: Layne Stein

performance date: 18 August 2018

.

The three pieces in this video are all fan favorites that show off the guys' skills and sense of humor, and are sure to get your toes tapping.

Details:

title: Elvira

original performers: The Oak Ridge Boys

written by: Dallas Frazier

arranged by: Geoff Castellucci

performance date: 18 August 2018

.

title: Percussion solo

original performer: Layne Stein

written & arranged by: Layne Stein

performance date: 18 August 2018

.

title: A Crimpella

original songs / performers: [6:12] "Walk the Dinosaur" by Was (Not Was); [6:24] "Witch Doctor" by Alvin & the Chipmunks; [6:31] "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang; [6:35] "We Go Together" from Grease!; [6:42] “Motownphilly” by Boyz II Men; [6:50] "Imma Be" by the Black Eyed Peas; [6:59] "Tutti Frutti" by Little Richard; [7:01] "Shoop" by Salt N Pepa; [7:06] "Jock-A-Mo" (aka "Iko Iko") by James "Sugar Boy" Crawford; [7:15] "Mahna Mahna" from The Muppet Show; [7:26] "Lovin, Touchin, Squeezin" by Journey; [7:50] "Goofy Goober Rock" from The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie; [7:53] "MMMBop" by Hanson; [8:05] "Hooked on a Feeling" by Blue Swede; [8:09] "Bawitdaba" by Kid Rock; [8:14] "Breaking Up Is Hard to Do" by Neil Sedaka; [8:22] "Bohemian Rhapsody" by Queen; [8:36] "Bad Romance" by Lady Gaga; [8:42] "Can't Get You Outta My Head" by Kylie Minogue; [8:48] "Limbo La La" by James Lloyd; [8:51] "All Night Long" by Lionel Richie; [9:10] "Wanna Be Starting Something" by Michael Jackson; [9:16] "Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye" by Steam

arranged by: VoicePlay

performance date: 18 August 2018

.

It would've been a shame to leave out VP's very first collaboration with Rachel, especially since it gave the crowd a chance to hear Layne tackle that rapid-fire rap verse.

Details:

title: I Knew You Were Trouble / As Long As You Love Me

original songs / performers: "I Knew You Were Trouble" by Taylor Swift; "As Long As You Love Me" by Justin Bieber, featuring Big Sean; "All Around the World" by Justin Bieber, featuring Ludacris

written by: "I Knew You Were Trouble" by Taylor Swift, Max Martin, & Karl "Shellback" Schuster; "As Long As You Love Me" by Justin Bieber, Nasri Atweh, & "Big Sean" Anderson; "All Around the World" by Justin Bieber, "Sir Nolan" Lambroza, & Nasri Atweh

arranged by: Layne Stein & Hannah Juliano

performance date: 18 August 2018

.

They had to cap things off with the medley that resulted in them going to Manila, and it certainly makes a fantastic ending. It's also fun to see how they adjusted the arrangement to integrate J.None and create a fuller sound in a live setting.

Details:

title: Moana medley

original songs / performers: "Where You Are"; [0:46] "How Far I'll Go"; [1:47] "You're Welcome"; [2:54] "Shiny"; [3:54] "Know Who You Are"; [4:36] "How Far I'll Go (reprise)"; [4:55] "We Know the Way" by the cast of Moana (2016)

written by: Lin-Manuel Miranda, Mark Mancina, & Opetaia Foa'i

arranged by: Layne Stein & Hannah Juliano

performance date: 18 August 2018

.

Additional photos

[Geoff isn't in the meet-and-greet photos because the poor guy had food poisoning and needed to go sit down after they finished singing.]

.

Private party

[mariacallous]

A lot of people were surprised two weeks ago when Donald Trump started posting on social media about trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act. I certainly was.

The attempt to wipe out “Obamacare” in 2017 was one of his administration’s most spectacular policy failures, and one of its most damaging political failures too. The backlash to the unpopular effort was a big reason Democrats took back the House in 2018. Two years later, it helped put Joe Biden in the White House, while giving Democrats a narrow hold on the Senate as well. A sensible, thoughtful politician mindful of that experience would do everything to avoid the subject altogether. Or, if they were truly committed to the repeal cause out of principle, they would return to it only after developing a well-considered strategy to succeed where the last attempt failed.

Suffice to say it does not appear Trump did that.

The likely backstory, according to a report in Politico, is that a Wall Street Journal editorial on the Affordable Care Act “piqued his frustration” with the program, enough that he decided to post on Truth Social that he was “seriously looking at alternatives” to Obamacare and imploring fellow Republicans to “never give up” on trying to get rid of the law.

Trump’s own advisers didn’t seem to expect the post, based on the Politico story, and Republicans in Congress certainly didn’t. In the days that followed, they made clear their reluctance to try repeal again ― in no small part, I’m sure, because so many of them were around last time and remember how that all turned out.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican and senior Finance Committee member, told a local radio station that “I don’t hear any Republicans talking about it.” His GOP colleague from South Dakota, Majority Whip John Thune, offered similar thoughts to Politico: “Boy, I haven’t thought about that one in a while.” Translation: “Are you f**king kidding me?” Their ambivalence makes even more sense given that repealing the Affordable Care Act now would likely be more difficult than it was in 2017, when the then-fledgling program’s widely publicized implementation problems ― like the catastrophic rollout of the HealthCare.gov online shopping site, or insurers pulling out of markets because they were losing so much money ― made it an easy target for political attacks.

Six years later, the website works great, insurers have figured out how to offer a profitable product and the markets are stable. People buying coverage on their own can have access to lower premiums and out-of-pocket costs because Biden and the Democrats have added to the program’s financial assistance.

That’s one reason that, relative to 2017, even more people are getting insurance through the program. Another is that voters in conservative states like Idaho and Missouri have since approved Medicaid expansions that their state Republican officials had been blocking, adding hundreds of thousands to the long list of Americans with something to lose if Obamacare goes away.

In short, the program is a lot more entrenched than it was before ― and, as the polls show, a lot more popular too. Just this week, a new Navigator survey found support for the Affordable Care Act at 61%. That’s the highest the poll ever recorded, and consistent with findings from the KFF monthly poll, which has been tracking support for the Affordable Care Act since it first became law in 2010. All of that makes it tempting to dismiss the threat of repeal ― and significance of the issue more generally. But that would be a mistake.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Chris Hayes: “This is one of the most impressive macroeconomic interventions in recent American history—and if we end up in 2024 with these trends continuing, Joe Biden has one of the best economic stories to tell of any president in the last century.” Yes. The bottom line is that America right now has the best performing economic it has had since Dwight David Eisenhower was president—yet very few Americans have an inkling of this fact. They're all concerned about inflation and a recession that aren't happening.

* * * *

Bidenomics is the new Obamacare.

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

JUN 29, 2023

         Part of the GOP effort to disparage the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was to tie the program specifically to President Obama by creating the label “Obamacare.” Originally intended as an insult, “Obamacare” has now become synonymous with “access to health insurance.” Although Republicans have stubbornly refused to acknowledge the success of Obamacare (even as they depend on its benefits), “Obamacare” is now viewed favorably by 60% of all American adults—the high-water mark for almost any policy in our fractious society. See KFF Health Tracking Poll: The Public’s Views on the ACA.

          So, too, with “Bidenomics”—a term created by Republicans to tie Biden to inflation and high gas prices. But as the economy has continued a historic stretch of expansion and improvement—especially for middle-class Americans, Biden has embraced the term “Bidenomics” as a badge of honor. As they say, “Eighty is the new sixty” and “Bidenomics is the new Obamacare.”

          On a day when President Biden gave a major speech in Chicago embracing the term Bidenomics, the White House released a brag sheet entitled, “Bidenomics Is Working: The President’s Plan Grows the Economy from the Middle Out and Bottom Up—Not the Top Down.” The press release described Bidenomics as follows:

[Bidenomics] is an economic vision centered around three key pillars:

Making smart public investments in America

Empowering and educating workers to grow the middle class

Promoting competition to lower costs and help entrepreneurs and small businesses thrive

While our work isn’t finished, Bidenomics is already delivering for the American people. Our economy has added more than 13 million jobs—including nearly 800,000 manufacturing jobs—and we’ve unleashed a manufacturing and clean energy boom. There were more than 10 million applications for new small businesses filed in 2021 and 2022—the strongest two years on record. America has seen the strongest growth since the pandemic of any leading economy in the world. Inflation has fallen for 11 straight months and has come down by more than half. And we have done it all while responsibly reducing the deficit. President Biden believes in a fundamentally different approach. Under Bidenomics, he has proven that we can make smart investments in the American people while reducing the deficit by ensuring the wealthy and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes, closing wasteful tax loopholes, and slashing wasteful spending on special interests.

          It is worth ten minutes of your time to read the entire press release—its content will become the substance of Biden’s campaign pitch for 2024.

          Dan Pfeiffer of Pod Save America posted an analysis with charts and graphs in an accessible, shareable format. See Dan Pfeiffer, The Message Box, The Biden Economy: What You Need to Know. Pfeiffer distills Bidenomics to the following:

Inflation is down.

Jobs are up.

Manufacturing is back.

Consumer confidence is up.

Republicans want more tax cuts for the wealthy.

          E.J. Dionne Jr. penned an op-ed in WaPo that described the quiet revolution of Bidenomics, If ‘Bidenomics’ works, it will be a very big deal. Dionne writes:

“President Biden might not seem like a revolutionary, but he is presiding over a fundamental change in the nation’s approach to economics. Not only is he proposing a major break from the “trickle-down” policies of Ronald Reagan, as Biden highlighted in a speech in Chicago on Wednesday. He is also departing from many orthodoxies that shaped the presidencies of Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. “Government is no longer shying away from pushing investment toward specific goals and industries. Spending on public works is back in fashion. New free-trade treaties are no longer at the heart of the nation’s international strategy. Challenging monopolies and providing support for unionization efforts are higher priorities.

          “On Wednesday [in his Chicago speech], he stressed they are producing well-paying jobs for those who have been on the short end of economic growth: Americans without college degrees and those living in places with “hollowed out” economies.”

          One sure sign that Bidenomics is working is that Republicans who opposed Biden’s signature legislative achievements are now trying to take credit for those accomplishments. Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville tweeted to his constituents,

“Broadband is vital for the success of our rural communities and for our entire economy. Great to see Alabama receive crucial funds to boost ongoing broadband efforts.”

          Senator Tuberville twice voted against the Biden bill containing funds for broadband in rural areas. President Biden responded to the Tuberville tweet with his own tweet, saying “See you at the groundbreaking.”

          Despite the successes of Bidenomics, it is difficult for the slow work of rebuilding the economy to rise above the daily drama of Russian rebellions, Trump indictments, and new tragedies involving the Titanic. Each of us should help spread the word of Biden’s successes. Sharing Dan Pfeiffer’s article (above) is a good place to start. And Simon Rosenberg’s Hopium Chronicles is always a reliable source of data and talking points relating to Democratic successes. Don’t be shy about sharing the good news of Bidenomics!

[Robert B. Hubbell]

[hellstobetsy]

I donate to liberal candidates sometimes, so I'm on like 80 campaign email lists that go straight to the "promotions" folder of my inbox and sit there unread forever, not even really worth the effort of unsubbing from. But I got one today with the subject "Unified Reich", in reference to Trump tweeting a campaign ad where he promised to create a unified reich in America.

It was in the small background text and he's acting like it was an accident even though that would also be bad yadda yadda. But it occurred to me how unusual it is for these emails to contain any, like, reason to vote for Biden or even against Trump. Maybe they assume anyone who's donated to Democrats is a lock, but I went and counted my last fifty campaign emails. Not just the headlines, I opened them and skimmed them to see the messages they're sending out. By my count, it's

Specific Anti-Trump Campaign Messages

Trump wants to create a Unified Reich, the latest in his Nazi Rhetoric

Trump says he'll be a dictator, picked three SCOTUS judges who overturned Roe vs Wade, and wants to terminate the Affordable Care Act

Trump wants to destroy the ACA, here's a campaign ad about Biden protecting it which also is a pro-Biden ad but primarily anti-Trump

When I debate Trump I'll talk about Roe v Wade

Trump wants to ban abortion nationwide

Trump is pro-Putin and anti-Ukraine

Trump is anti-democracy and anti-gay

The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade (Trump isn't mentioned, but I'll count it)

Specific Pro-Biden Campaign Messages

Biden challenged Trump to a debate and Trump wilted before Joe Biden's manly virility

Biden has invested in 56,000 infrastructure projects and is fighting for AANHPI communities

Biden called on Trump to debate and they're gonna debate

Biden called on Trump to debate and they're gonna debate

Generic Anti-Trump Campaign Messages (e.g. "Do you want four more years of Trump?")

Do you want four more years of Trump in the white house?

Remember how much Trump sucked?

Remember how much Trump sucked?

"We are out of money" messages that contain no specific pro-Biden or anti-trump lines

Trump raised $76 million in April

We are nowhere near our fundraising goal

There's an FEC deadline coming up

Trump has a lot of money from billionaires

Trump raised $50 million today

We are behind our goal

You donated to me in 2020, why not in 2024?

We are below target

Biden Good, Trump Bad, will you chip in $46?

Literally just the word "$46"

99% of people who see this email don't donate

Biden Good, Trump Bad, will you chip in $46 (this is literally the same email again!)

FEC deadline coming up

Donate now for a chance to meet Obama and George Clooney

Meet George Clooney!

We're in danger of not hitting our fundraising goals

Meet George Clooney

Trump has money

Average donations are down slightly, so we need more donors

Can you give us 46 dollars?

Can you give us 46 dollars?

Meet the Bidens!

It's neck and neck!

We are TIED with Trump in the polls

Fundraising deadline

Fundraising deadline

We need to maintain the blue wall

Trump might win

Here's what we're spending money on

Trump is closing in the polls

Fundraising deadline

Biden might lose

We're not making our fundraising deadline

Here's what we're spending money on

We need more donations from your area

Okay, that's about 70% of Biden's campaign emails that don't have "Biden good" or "Trump bad" even in a vague way. I do get that Democratic donors probably already support Biden and that the point of these emails is to raise money, but Jesus. Personally, if I were running for re-election and had a huge vibes problem, I'd try to find uncontroversial good things to say about myself in my fundraising emails. Real wages are up and the unemployment rate is super-low, for instance. Give my most devoted supporters pro-me talking points to bring up in conversation, y'know?

Or, like, if my "Trump bad" department recently made a really powerful "Trump bad" ad that went semi-viral in liberal circles for how good it was, I'd be bringing that shit up once a week. Maybe it doesn't pull in quite as much money as the fearmongering, but the whole point of the money is to get your message out.

[blackmagecat]

Codifying means taking the standards of viability as outlined in Roe v Wade and making it a federal law. And no, it wouldn’t be easy to repeal it any more than it would be easy for Republicans to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which they have tried. Many times. And failed. They might be able to pass additional limits, sure. The ACA has been more or less chipped away at over the years and that is very possible with abortion, but it’s still a hell of a lot better than what we have now with regards to reproductive care.

As for the states, a federal law would prevent states from imposing restrictions. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes that federal supersedes state laws.

The Supreme Court is still a problem, that I won’t argue with. Doesn’t mean Dems shouldn’t pass a federal law though. This should’ve been top priority the very second the Supreme Court draft got leaked, even if there wasn’t a chance of it passing. Dems have this awful habit of not bothering with the fight if they know they can’t win. But there is value to recording the positions of legislators even on failing legislation. Those votes are called out during electoral campaigns all the time.

Biden is being blamed perhaps unfairly in a lot of cases surrounding abortion, but I would argue that this frustration towards the Democratic Party goes back to before Biden. Obama enjoyed a Democratic supermajority in congress during his first term and had specifically promised to codify Roe. Then in March 2009 he decided that passing the Freedom of Choice Act was not his “highest legislative priority.” Biden, having been his VP and heir to party leadership, now gets to endure the ramifications of that lacking priority which continued well past Obama’s terms. In that way, Biden absolutely deserves some blame. The buck stops where, again?

Democrats have absolutely been using abortion as a wedge issue to fundraise upon for years, and the fall of Roe has only added to that paradigm. Am I saying don’t vote for Democrats at all? Of course not, but also consider that this is a good cop, bad cop situation, and it’s up to us to use our vote as a tool to leverage our highest priorities, not a politician’s career. Not to be scolded or scared into voting for the very people who got to enjoy years of comfortable elections off of the backs of dying women and their terrified daughters while doing absolutely nothing for them when they promised they would.

This is not to say there aren’t legislators doing the hard work. There absolutely are. But the fundraising arm of the Democratic Party loves that Roe is gone. Existential threats are great for campaigns.

The issue at hand here is money in politics. There is a straight line connecting Citizens United to the fall of Roe v Wade and Democrats are more involved in that than you might think. Genocide Joe will probably not be getting my vote, but I will vote for whichever legislator has proven themselves to their constituency on the matter of safeguarding reproductive rights. Here is the obligatory reminder that local elections matter and they matter greatly.

I have more to say on Democrats and the real existential threat of Trump that they supposedly fear, but that’s a much longer post and this is about abortion.

It is extremely disturbing how many posts I see claiming that Roe v. Wade was overturned on Biden's watch and blaming him and the Democratic Party for it. It's disturbing on a number of levels.

First, it was Trump and Bush-appointed justices who handed down the Dobbs decision. This is a flagrant example of blaming Democrats for things Republicans did, and not coincidentally is one of the the most widely felt differences between the two parties. As a result, it's usually the first example Democrats and their allies point to; this misappropriation suggests a deliberate attempt to undercut that fact.

Secondly, and related to the first point, it obfuscates who the real enemy is, and I am comfortable using word "enemy" to describe the Republican Party because of the policies they advocate and enact. The truth is that states controlled by the Republican Party were where the effects of Dobbs are most severely felt, while states controlled by the Democratic Party are passing laws to protect abortion. It is important to know which party opposes abortion and which party supports it. If the Republicans gain control of the House, Senate, and White House, they will pass a national abortion ban, as they have done at the state level in several places.

Thirdly, blaming Biden for Dobbs demonstrates a very concerning lack of understanding of how the government functions. The judiciary is its own branch of government; judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. It doesn't matter who is president when a decision is handed down, it matters who was president when the justices were appointed. People sometimes react to this by moving the goalposts and claiming the real issue was a failure by Democrats to "codify" Roe v. Wade. I am not sure what "codify" means in this context, and I'm not sure they are either. One thing it does not mean is that congress can pass a law saying "abortion is legal forever." Republicans could easily repeal such a law and it the federal government cannot necessarily prevent states from restricting abortion at the state level. Roe v. Wade was a ruling stating that the constitution guaranteed a right to privacy, which included the right to have an abortion. This prevented abortion restrictions in a way federal law cannot. That doesn't mean passing federal law protecting abortion is a bad idea, but it isn't a foolproof protection. It's fair to argue that the Democratic Party and the left of center generally were complacent about abortion. The form of this complacency was not taking the courts seriously, while the right spent fifty years openly filling the courts with anti-abortion judges.

The last thing that worries me is that this is popping up phrased almost the exact same way all over the place. I am afraid that it is not merely incompetence, but intentional misinformation, that is then repeated by the incompetent who believe it.

I know some will probably dismiss this post as being from a "vote harder" liberal Biden supporter, but whatever your feelings about Biden, the Democratic Party, or the democratic process in the U.S., you should care about the truth. The truth is that Roe v. Wade was overturned by Republican-appointed judges and abortion bans are being enacted by Republican elected officials, and Joe Biden opposes these things. You can do with that information whatever you wish, but you denying it is dishonest.

[phantomtutor]

SOLUTION AT Academic Writers Bay Biden reopens ACA enrollment, will revisit Medicaid work requirements Brady, Michael; Tepper, Nona . Modern Healthcare ; Chicago Vol. 51, Iss. 5, (Feb 1, 2021): 6. ProQuest document link ABSTRACT (ENGLISH) In a widely anticipated move, Biden signed an executive order directing HHS to create a special enrollment period to allow people to sign up for a health plan through Affordable Care Act marketplaces. The payer serves as the largest publicly operated health plan in the U.S. and offers the cheapest exchange plan in the region, CEO John Baackes said. Since its exchange plans represent just 4% of the not-for-profit’s overall business or about 100,000 enrollees, Baackes doesn’t expect the extension to have a huge impact on the bottom line. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, it’s “unavoidable” for Medicaid work requirements to cause large coverage losses, even among people who are working or should be eligible for exemptions. FULL TEXT Continuing his march to undo several Trump-era policies, President Joe Biden last week took steps aimed at expanding access to insurance coverage. In a widely anticipated move, Biden signed an executive order directing HHS to create a special enrollment period to allow people to sign up for a health plan through Affordable Care Act marketplaces. HHS will allow individuals to enroll in coverage through HealthCare.gov from Feb. 15 to May 15. Ordinarily, signing up for an exchange plan is tightly restricted outside a six-week period late each year. The Trump administration refused to create a special enrollment period during the pandemic, despite requests from providers, insurers, consumer groups and Democrats to do it. A number of states reopened their own exchanges shortly after the crisis began to alleviate concerns people without insurance would be reluctant or unable to access care during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that opening the exchange would extend coverage options to 15 million people, 4 million of whom would qualify for a free plan under the ACA and 4.9 million eligible for subsidies to lower the cost of their coverage. The majority of those uninsured are disproportionately young adults, Latinx and hold a high school diploma or less, KFF said. Ceci Connolly, CEO of the Alliance of Community Health Plans, noted that states that reopened their exchanges for special enrollment periods earlier in the pandemic did not see significant changes to their risk pools. Experts had worried that higher-risk, sicker individuals would enroll in large numbers, while lower-risk, healthier people wouldn’t. Still, Connolly said the executive order would force insurers to accept more beneficiaries than they originally planned, adding some uncertainty into their risk pools. The announcement comes as the industry reckons with how costs related to the pandemic and consumers’ deferred care from the previous year will play out in 2021, she said. Insurers that serve as the only option in an area’s exchange will be disproportionately impacted by the extended enrollment period and uncertainty over COVID-19 costs, she said. KFF found that 10% of counties have a single insurer offering in 2021. L.A. Care Health Plan essentially acts as a public option for the nearly 2.4 million members it covers in Los Angeles County, representing 23% of the city’s population. The payer serves as the largest publicly operated health plan in the U.S. and offers the cheapest exchange plan in the region, CEO John Baackes said. Since its exchange plans represent just 4% of the not-for-profit’s overall business or about 100,000 enrollees, PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM Page 1 of 3 Baackes doesn’t expect the extension to have a huge impact on the bottom line. But the federal government should look to California as a model for how to properly operate the ACA. He said California kept its open enrollment available for triple the amount of time the federal exchange

was open, reinstated the tax penalty for consumers lacking coverage and made subsidies available for those earning 400% above the federal poverty line. Biden also directed federal regulators to take another look at waivers granting states the ability to impose work requirements on Medicaid beneficiaries. Former CMS Administrator Seema Verma made Medicaid work requirements central to her effort to modify the program. Proponents argued the waivers would encourage people to work and ensure people didn’t receive benefits if they didn’t qualify for them. Of the 13 states CMS approved for a work requirement, Arkansas was the only state to completely implement its experiment. A federal court struck down the demonstration after seven months, and a federal appeals court agreed. A Health Affairs study found that more than 18,000 people, or nearly 1 in 4 people covered by the waiver, lost their coverage, with profound adverse effects on their finances and medication adherence. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, it’s “unavoidable” for Medicaid work requirements to cause large coverage losses, even among people who are working or should be eligible for exemptions. THE TAKEAWAY HHS will allow individuals to enroll in coverage through HealthCare.gov from Feb. 15 to May 15. CMS will also take another look at Medicaid work requirements. DETAILS Subject: Enrollments; Consumers; Medicaid; Waivers; Executive orders; Coronaviruses; Subsidies; Pandemics; Insurance coverage; COVID-19 Business indexing term: Subject: Consumers Medicaid Subsidies Insurance coverage Location: California United States–US Company / organization: Name: Department of Health &Human Services; NAICS: 923120 Publication title: Modern Healthcare; Chicago Volume: 51 Issue: 5 First page: 6 Publication year: 2021 Publication date: Feb 1, 2021 Publisher: Crain Communications, Incorporated Place of publication: Chicago Country of publication: United States, Chicago PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM Page 2 of 3 Publication subject: Medical Sciences, Health Facilities And Administration ISSN: 01607480 e-ISSN: 19447647 Source type: Trade Journal Language of publication: English Document type: Feature ProQuest document ID: 2486197684 Document URL: https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/biden-reopens-aca-enrollment-willrevisit/docview/2486197684/se-2?accountid=28844 Copyright: Copyright 2021 Crain Communications Inc. All Rights Reserved. Last updated: 2021-09-09 Database: ProQuest One Academic LINKS Linking Service Database copyright  2021 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest PDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM Page 3 of 3 Journal of Health Economics 56 (2017) 383–396 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Health Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/econbase Insurers’ response to selection risk: Evidence from Medicare enrollment reforms夽 Francesco Decarolis a,∗ , Andrea Guglielmo b a b Department of Economics, Università Bocconi, Italy Analysis Group, United States a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 30 September 2016 Received in revised form 24 February 2017 Accepted 27 February 2017 JEL classification: I11 I18 L22 a b s t r a c t Evidence on insurers’ behavior in environments with both risk selection and market power is largely missing. We fill this gap by providing one of the first empirical accounts of how insurers adjust plan features when faced with potential changes in selection. Our strategy exploits a 2012 reform allowing Medicare enrollees to switch to 5-star contracts at anytime. This policy increased enrollment into 5star contracts, but without risk selection worsening. Our findings show that this is due to 5-star plans lowering both premiums and generosity, thus becoming more appealing for most beneficiaries, but less so for those in worse health conditions. © 2017 Published by Elsevier B.V. Keywords: Health insurance Risk selection Vendor rating Medicare 1. Introduction The behavior of insurers is a crucial component of the functioning of any insurance market.

Understanding such behavior is thus key to evaluate reforms like the creation of the healthcare marketplaces under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the growingly privatized provision of Medicare throughout the Part C and Part D programs.1 The question of how competition 夽 Guglielmo is an associate at Analysis Group, Inc. Research for this article was undertaken when he was a student at University of Wisconsin – Madison. The views presented in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect those of Analysis Group, Inc. Decarolis is grateful to the Sloan Foundation (grant 2011-5-23 ECON) for financial support. We are also grateful for the comments received from Pierre Andre Chiappori, Vilsa Curto, Mark Duggan, Liran Einav, Randy Ellis, Amit Gandhi, Jesse Gregory, Ken Hendricks, Kate Ho, Brad Larsen, Jon Levin, Tim Layton, Maria Polyakova, Mike Riordan, Alan Sorensen, Chris Taber, Pietro Tebaldi and Bob Town and from the participants at the seminars at Boston University, Columbia, EIEF, Stanford, Università Bocconi and the University of Wisconsin Madison where earlier versions of this paper were presented. ∗ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (F. Decarolis), [email protected] (A. Guglielmo). 1 Part C, also known as Medicare Advantage, is a substitute for the traditional Medicare services (i.e., Part A covering in-hospital services and Part B covering physicians, surgeons and other outpatient hospital services. Part D is a program offering prescription drug insurance. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2017.02.007 0167-6296/© 2017 Published by Elsevier B.V. works in environments with potential risk selection (either advantageous or adverse) is, however, still unsettled from a theoretical perspective and there is still much to be learned on the complex interaction between market power and selection. More specifically, nearly all the recent literature on selection markets focuses on pricing distortions while abstracting from how selection affects the broader set of characteristics of the contracts offered. The supply-side analysis presented in this paper is, instead, about how health plans respond in terms of both premiums and benefits to additional opportunities for beneficiaries to move among plans, possibly in response to health shocks. Therefore, our contribution follows in the tradition initiated by the seminal theoretical studies of Rothschild and Stiglitz (1976) and Glazer and McGuire (2000) in which plans alter their product seeking to attract good risks. Although a handful of earlier studies have already shown evidence of insurers taking actions to attract good and deter bad health risk,2 our contribution is to provide a particularly clean identification strategy to quantify how both premiums and benefits respond to a potential change in selection driven by a policy reform stimulating consumers’ mobility between plans and to do so in a 2 Several of these contributions, from the early study of Ellis and McGuire (2007) to the more recent contributions of Carey (2016) and Shepard (2016), will be discussed next. 384 F. Decarolis, A. Guglielmo / Journal of Health Economics 56 (2017) 383–396 context, that of Medicare Advantage, that is characterized by the presence of market power.3 Reliable evidence on this type of behavior is hard to collect because it is rare to observe changes in selection risk within a market. Furthermore, even when selection risk changes for a subset of plans, it is often impossible to find a set of plans that can serve as a valid comparison group since the equilibrium in the whole market is affected. Our analysis overcomes this difficulty by exploiting the combined effects of a Medicare reform that altered the potential selection risk of the highest quality (5-star) Part C and D plans and the geographical dispersion of such plans over the US. This allows us to separately observe treated and control geographical markets both before and after this policy change,

thus allowing a quantile differences-in-differences approach that we use to study distributional changes in contract features in the treated markets relative to the control ones. Our main finding is that the policy triggered a response that involved not only changing premiums, but also adjusting benefits. This made 5-star plans more appealing for most beneficiaries through lower premiums, but less so for those in worse health through higher out of pocket costs. The starting point of our analysis is a Medicare reform changing the enrollment rules, most notably allowing enrollment outside the open enrollment period for a subset of plans. As in most insurance markets, beneficiaries select their Part C or D plan for coverage year t during a window of time in the fall of year t − 1.4 However, starting with the enrollment year 2012, a reform allowed enrollees to switch to 5-star Part C or D plans at any point during the year. Despite the official motivation for this reform (known as “5-star Special Enrollment Period” or “5-star SEP”), which was to foster enrollment into high quality plans, the reform exposes 5star plans to an evident selection risk: enrollees could initially select cheap plans and then move to expensive 5-star plans with generous coverage only after being hit by health shocks. The selection risk associated with within-year plan changes is different from the typical selection problem studied in the existing Medicare literature involving choices made in the open enrollment period and is potentially more severe as people select plans after learning their health status. Limiting this type of selection is typically seen as important for the proper functioning of managed care markets and, indeed, this the logic behind the penalties for waiting beyond age 65 to join Part D and Medigap, for the individual mandate in the ACA and for insurers’s resistance to expand the set of “qualifying life events” allowing plan changes.5 Moreover, institutional remedies for selection that exist in both privatized Medicare and the ACA exchanges are currently not arranged to deal with selection originating from within-year plan changes.6 To study the impact of this reform, we exploit the heterogenous presence of 5-star plans across geographical markets. Due to regulatory reasons, the US is segmented into geographically separated markets both for Part C – where insurers offer plans at the county 3 Using Part C data for 2006–2011, Curto et al. (2014) estimate that plan margins are on the order of 16% above their (variable) costs of coverage. Similar estimates are found by Guglielmo (2016) with a shorter dataset (2008–2011): by looking separately at plan types, he finds that HMOs and LPPOs generate the most profit per enrollee, amounting to a markup of 12%, while PFFS plans’ markup is approximately 9.5%. These estimates are also broadly consistent with the average markup of 13% reported the MedPAC annual report 2010. 4 While the open enrollment period length can very from 2 months to 2 weeks in employer sponsored health insurance, the open enrollment period in Medicare is fixed. Specifically in Medicare, as well as in the ACA exchanges, the open enrollment period is from October 15th to December 7th. This open enrollment period only applies to those who are already Medicare beneficiaries and not to individuals turning 65 who become eligible for Medicare. 5 In the ACA exchanges, for instance, these events include marriage, release from prison, and childbirth. 6 For instance, the enrollees’ risk score is recalculated only on a yearly basis. level – and for Part D – where insurers offer plans at regional level. Since not all geographical markets have 5-star plans, some markets were affected by the reform while others were not. Our empirical strategy exploits this difference, together with the robustness to manipulations of the star rating in the first two years after the policy change, to identify the causal effect of the policy on various features of the plans supplied.

In particular, the methodology that we use is a quantile-based difference-in-differences analysis (Chetverikov et al., 2015) that we use to estimate distributional changes in the treated markets (those with at least one 5-star plan) and compare them to control markets (those with at least one 4 or 4.5-star plan, but no 5-star plans). Since, during our sample period, we observe 160 treated counties for Part C, but only 2 treated regions for Part D, we focus our analysis on the plans active in Part C, most of which also bundle together Part D benefits. These plans are usually referred to as MA-PD plans.7 We analyze how the distribution of both premiums and generosity changes in response to the 5-star SEP treatment and find a tendency for premiums to increase in the medium-low end of the premium distribution and to decrease in the medium-high end of the distribution, where 5-star plans are located. To measure the effects on plan generosity, we look at three measures of the out of pocket cost which have the benefit of aggregating all non-premium and non-customer service benefits into expected cost measures. The first is the Part C maximum out of pocket (MOOP). We find that the MOOP remains unchanged for plans in the high end of the MOOP distribution, but tends to worsen for plans at the low and medium end of the distribution. Since 5-star plans are among those with a low MOOP before the reform, this result implies a worsening of their generosity. We find the same result when looking at our second proxy for benefits, the Part C plan simulated out of pocket cost (OOPC) of enrollees in poor health. For the third measure, the simulated OOPC of enrollees in excellent health, instead, we find that the 5-star SEP did does not cause changes in the OOPC distribution. Among the additional coverage generosity measures that we observe, an interesting one for which we observe the opposite pattern relative to what described above (i.e., 5-star plans becoming more generous) is the Part D deductible. Given the importance of the deductible for beneficiaries switching to 5-star plans during the year, we argue that this is consistent with a strategic response by insurers. We also use the same empirical strategy to study several “soft” quality measures behind the star rating and show that 5-star plans do not worsen on those. We conclude that the insurers’ response entailed making 5-star plans more appealing than competing plans for most consumers (by lowering premiums and deductibles), but less so for the less healthy enrollees (by worsening generosity for enrollees in poor health). Finally, to better understand the interaction between competition and the effects of the 5-star SEP, we repeat the analysis separately for markets where there is a monopolist insurer for 5star plans and for markets where there is competition (duopoly) in the supply of 5-star plans. The most interesting result is that competition among 5-star insurers seems to exacerbate the extent to which these insures try to cream skim the market by worsening their plan generosity. Consumers in duopoly markets are more likely to be negatively affected by the 5-star SEP: while the premium changes in the two cases are similar, the increase in the OOPC for poor health enrollees is about twice in duopoly relative to monopoly markets. A simultaneous reform that, starting in 2012, bolstered plan payments in proportion to their star rating requires particular care on how the earlier results should be interpreted. Indeed, the evidence 7 We do not analyze, instead, the market for Prescription Drug Plans (PDP) active exclusively in Part D. F. Decarolis, A. Guglielmo / Journal of Health Economics 56 (2017) 383–396 on declining premium… CLICK HERE TO GET A PROFESSIONAL WRITER TO WORK ON THIS PAPER AND OTHER SIMILAR PAPERS CLICK THE BUTTON TO MAKE YOUR ORDER

[dhaaruni]

@heylabodega yes! And sorry, for the long rant lol.

It honestly boils down to Joe Manchin being a Democrat and Lisa Murkowski being a Republican like, when it comes down to the wire, Manchin, like Bernie, votes with Democrats, and Murkowski votes with the Republicans. With the American Rescue Plan for instance, Murkowski got her amendment in (something about seafood processors in Alaska), but she ultimately voted against the bill while Manchin fell in line (albeit after Kyrsten Sinema, Jon Tester, and Joe freaking Biden all implored him to).

Also, Manchin was one of the first elected officials to endorse both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden (he endorsed Hillary before Bernie iirc), and he voted to convict Trump twice, while Murkowski didn’t endorse either Democrat, and only impeached Trump once, after the insurrection. Manchin’s a big labor guy too like he’s very supportive of unions and he's cosponsored the PRO Act.

Also, even though he’s pro-life, Manchin has voted to preserve Planned Parenthood funding multiple times before, so just for that, he’s leaps and bounds better than 95% of Republicans even without his saving the ACA multiple times (albeit with guns lmao). Like, back in 2017, people were protesting outside Susan Collins' and Lisa Murkowski's and John McCain's houses so they'd vote against the ACA repeal, but nobody had to protest outside Sherrod Brown's or Jon Tester's or Joe Manchin's houses, who are all red state Democrats, not least since Manchin put out this ad! Do I love guns? No. But I like that Manchin voted to save the ACA (multiple times), and this is how he did it.

This is the Manchin Cycle basically:

Manchin is very performative and annoying at times but he’s also never the deciding vote to tank a Democratic policy! And, the rest of the Democratic caucus that’s to the left of him definitely uses Manchin as a scapegoat when they don’t want to say or do something that they’ll get more flack for than Manchin will because he represents West Virginia and not like, Rhode Island. Even with Manchin tanking Neera Tanden’s nomination for OMB director, he was definitely covering for Bernie who was being mighty petty since Neera’s a huge Hillary Clinton surrogate and supporter and criticized him before, but Bernie would get much more criticism for tanking a nominee of his own party’s president than Manchin because Biden got 66.1% of the vote in Vermont and 29.7% of the vote in West Virginia. That makes sense right?

Like, I hated that Manchin voted for Brett Kavanaugh, but he only did so after Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, who voted yes and present on Kavanaugh, ensured Kavanaugh was in no matter how Manchin voted. It was the month before the 2018 midterms when he was up for re-election in a state Trump won by 40 so I get why Manchin ultimately voted for Kavanaugh. And a month later, during the midterms, Heidi Heitkamp, Claire McCaskill, and Joe Donnelly, all red state Democratic senators, lost their seats to Republicans after voting no on Kavanaugh. Manchin won by about 2%, his lowest margin of winning ever, and in all likelihood, Manchin and Jon Tester are toast in 2024 if Trump is on the ballot since Trump draws out low-propensity Republicans, and Sherrod Brown’s got an uphill fight. And, it’s only because Manchin and Tester barely eked out wins in states that voted for Trump by ~40 and ~20 respectively that we even have a 50-50 Senate at this point, which isn’t sustainable at all.

Anyways, like I always say, Democrats need to figure out how to stop losing white non-college voters so badly because our major losses with that demographic make it nearly impossible for us to hold the Senate, and those losses are also why Biden was barely 40,000 votes across Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia from a 269-269 electoral college tie with a 6-3 Supreme Court.

And finally, this is a great and very catchy song:

[thehalfwaypost]

VOTE BLUE

Nothing will make Medicare-4-All or at least a public option more likely than the Supreme Court gutting the ACA. Nothing will make Court packing more likely than breaking the preposterous “Garland Rule” two weeks before America votes in a landslide for Joe Biden to pick liberal Supreme Court justices. Nothing will make a GOP midterm Tea Party 2.0 more irrelevant than overturning Roe V. Wade and taking away bodily autonomy from the majority of Americans. Nothing will make replacing the filibuster and adding DC and PR as states more likely than McConnell again using Senate minority power in cynical bad faith. There’s a reason Republicans are fawning over a racist demagogue and claiming all of a sudden that America isn’t a democracy, and it’s because they know they barely cling to power with gerrymandering, voting rights disenfranchisement, and an Electoral College dominated by small states who have 1/40th the population of California but still get two senators.

[patriotsnet]

Why Do Republicans Lie About Everything

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/why-do-republicans-lie-about-everything/

Why Do Republicans Lie About Everything

Which Came First: Republican Hate Or Gop Misinformation

Do Honest Republicans Still Exist?

Hate is a great motivator. All political parties have used it to get out the vote. Generally, those who seek elected office shape information in a way that helps a certain voting block hate their opponent. Thats how we elect people in America. That is a sad reality we just have to accept in order to fix it. Hope doesnt fix it.

Whats unique and new about negative politics in the post-Obama era is that we have this thing called the Internet and dare I acknowledge itSocial Media. ;Social media has completely isolated the Republican Party base. The Internet and social media have created hard-edged, isolated buckets of information where facts dont matteragreement;and emotion matter. For republicans, agreement with their own bias is considered fact, whereas disagreement is a lie they literally transform reality to support their own opinion: the Post-Truth Era. In order to maintain that alternate reality, they have to hate those who dont agree, otherwise their reality bubble starts to break apart.

This is the case on both sides of the aisle, but the hardliners have taken it to a new level, which is why they seem to hate everything. Theyre even taught to hate things that help them like the ACA, unions, and public education.

Social media and 1000 cable channels dont increase the information we receive they focus the information and repeat it 1000 times more often. Anything can become the truth when its repeated enough times.

The Big Lie Is Gop Gospel

Cheney is not alone in suffering consequences for challenging Trumps allegations.

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who defended the states counting process against Trumps attempts to interfere with it, was stripped of his voting power on the State Election Board as part of Georgias new voting restrictions law.

In a special House election in Texas held on in early May, the Trump-critical Republican in the race Michael Wood got 3 percent of the vote.

In January, Michigan Republicans removed Aaron van Langevelde, a GOP attorney who broke with the party to certify Bidens victory in Michigan, from his post on the states Board of State Canvassers.

At the Utah Republican Partys convention this weekend, Sen. Mitt Romney perhaps the GOPs leading Trump critic was booed and called a traitor.

At the same time, Republicans who have embraced falsehoods about the election have been elevated.

Rep. Elise Stefanik , who appears likely to replace Cheney in the No. 3 spot, backed Trumps anti-election efforts to the hilt. Most egregiously, she falsely asserted that there were 140,000 illegal votes in Georgias Fulton County alone which would amount to more than 25 percent of all the votes in the entire Democratic-leaning county. The breakout Republican stars in the House of Representatives, Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert , both egged on the January Stop the Steal rally that culminated in the attack on Capitol Hill.

Why Do Conservatives Soak Up Lies

The evidence that conservatives crave lies is abundant.

Conservatives loved George W. Bush’s and Dick Cheney’s lies about “Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction” — loved them so much, that the researchers who wrote “‘There Must Be a Reason’: Osama, Saddam, and Inferred Justification” surveyed 49 conservative Republicans, during October 2004, who admitted that they still believed Saddam Hussein had caused the 9/11 attacks, and these researchers found that 48 of those 49 extreme conservatives were entirely impervious to the overwhelming factual evidence that was provided to them by the presenters contradicting this false belief they held. Then, a showed that when Republicans were offered the official 2004 Duelfer report that had concluded Iraq hadn’t possessed any weapons of mass destruction for years before the United States invaded it in 2003, the percentage of Republicans who believed that Iraq did have WMD immediately prior to the invasion shot up, instead of going down . Even all of the exposés that had already been published about Bush’s faked WMD “proofs” didn’t persuade Republican voters that they’d simply been deceived by the people they trusted and supported. They didn’t resent it at all; they just asked for more, from those same discredited liars.

So: why do conservatives sop up lies, on topic after topic?

They do it because, if they didn’t, they couldn’t be themselves; they couldn’t be conservatives. Lie-lovers is whom they are. It’s their identity.

———-

Don’t Miss: Have Democrats Tried To Impeach Every Republican President

The Gop Elite Gave Us This Party

This dire outcome was not inevitable: The best evidence we have suggests that the rise of the Big Lie is the direct result of strategic choices by Republican leaders.

A new paper by Dan Hopkins, a political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, analyzes data from a panel survey, which looks at roughly the same group of people over time, running between 2007 and 2020. The survey asked people to rate the fairness of the US electoral system on a scale of 1 to 5, and tracked the changes over time.

What they found was a striking consistency: Support for the American system is both high and reasonably stable when assessed via this measure, Hopkins writes. Though there are some fluctuations, with partisans evaluating the system as somewhat less fair when the other party is in power, generally theyre small.

Hopkinss last survey wave was in October 2020 which means the results dont reflect the false allegations lobbed in the aftermath of Bidens victory. The stability documented here was very likely shattered by Trumps post-election actions, Hopkins concludes.

Other data confirm this supposition. A report from the Voter Study Group analyzed Pew surveys, conducted after every presidential election since 2004, on whether voters thought their vote was counted fairly. You see the same general stability documented in Hopkinss paper, with a majority of voters in both parties saying they were very confident their vote was counted accurately in every year except 2020:

Republicans Have A Good Reason Not To Want To Investigate Jan 6: Theyre To Blame

To revist this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories.

Save Story

To revist this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories.

Our nations preeminent bipartisanship fetishistsJoe Manchin, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowskiare deeply disappointed that they cant get Republicans to back an investigation into the January 6 attack on Capitol Hill. Indeed, they seem outright baffled that their efforts at compromise have fallen short on plans for a bipartisan panel. There is no excuse for any Republican to vote against this commission since Democrats have agreed to everything they asked for, Manchin said in an angry statement on Twitter. It would be so much better if we had an independent outside commission, Collins, a moderate Republican, told reporters Thursday. Is that really what this is about, one election cycle after another? added Murkowski, blasting Mitch McConnells anticipated filibuster. Or are we going to acknowledge that as a country that is based on these principles of democracy that we hold so dear, and one of those is that we have free and fair elections.

I kind of want that to endure beyond just one election cycle, the Alaska moderate Republican told reporters.

Twitter content

More Great Stories FromVanity Fair

Recommended Reading: Did Trump Really Say Republicans Are Stupid

In 2009 Republicans Predicted That The Economic Stimulus Package Would Only Make The Recession Worse And Cause More Unemployment

The results show they couldn’t have been more wrong. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ended the recession after only a few months. Although 750,000 people were losing their jobs each month when Obama took office, after the Recovery Act was passed the rate of job loss immediately decreased each month and within a year the economy showed positive job growth.

Considering the severity of the 2008 economic collapse and the total opposition by Republicans to do anything at all to stimulate the economy, it is remarkable that the US economy recovered as quickly as it did.

Looking at the rate of job loss and job creation, its easy to see that the stimulus of 2009 was highly successful in stopping the job losses and turning the economy around.

Republicans Predicted That We Would Find Iraqs Weapons Of Mass Destruction Even Though Un Weapons Inspectors Said That Those Weapons Didn’t Exist

The Bush administration continued to insist that WMDs would be found, even when the CIA said some of the evidence was questionable. As we all know, the WMDs predicted by the Bush administration did not exist, and Saddam Hussein had not resumed his nuclear weapons program as they claimed. Ultimately, both President Bush and Vice President Cheney had to admit that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Don’t Miss: Who Is Behind Republicans For The Rule Of Law

Republicans Said President Obama Would Raise Taxes Sky High

It never happened. Income taxes for over 95% of Americans remained the same or lower than they were before Obama was elected. The only people whose income taxes increased were those who make more than $400,000 per year, and their taxes rose only 3%. For most Americans, taxes are still lower now than they were under Reagan.

In 1993 When The Brady Law And The Assault Weapons Ban Were Passed Republicans Predicted Increasing Rates Of Crime And Murder

Republicans Are Lying To Themselves About Trump’s Toxicity

Thankfully, just the opposite happened. While the rate of violent crime had increased steadily from the 1970s into the 1990s, it suddenly began to drop after 1993 and continued to decline for more than ten years. What could have happened in 1993 to precipitate such a sudden and prolonged drop in crime? Thats the year Congress passed the Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Law, which mandated background checks and a waiting period to buy a gun.

Despite Republican predictions to the contrary, the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban were followed by the most dramatic reduction in violent crime since the FBI started keeping statistics. The graphs below, based on the actual numbers from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports website, show how the rates of murder and violent crime in the US dropped suddenly after the 1993 Brady Law and Assault Weapons Ban were passed.

These charts show the rate of murder and violent crime over 35 years based on numbers from the FBI Uniform Crime reports.

Recommended Reading: How Many Republicans Voted For Obamacare In The Senate

Here Are A Few More Things Republicans Have Been Wrong About:

Republicans said that Obamacare would have death panels to decide who would live and who would die. Wrong. No such death panels were ever proposed and nothing of the kind ever happened.

They said the 2009 laws to improve automobile fuel efficiency standards would kill the US auto industry. Wrong. The new standards were followed by a resurgence of the US auto industry enabling them to hire back tens of thousands of workers.

They said environmental protection laws requiring companies to clean up their pollution would create an undue burden and kill businesses. Nope, it never happened.

They said Ebola would spread across the country because President Obama allowed American Ebola patients to be treated in the US. The outbreak never happened. Only three people contracted Ebola in the US and all three survived.

They said President Obama would open our borders to illegal immigrants. Wow, were they wrong about that. Under Obama, we set new records for most illegal immigrants stopped at the border and sent home.

They said Obama would drive up the Federal budget deficit. That didn’t happen. Obama cut the $1.4 trillion deficit he inherited by two-thirds.

While someone could no doubt find instances where Democrats engage in over-the-top rhetoric, nothing compares to the consistently false and erroneous claims made by the GOP in recent years. When a political party has been so dismally wrong about nearly everything over the past 30 years, that party should lose all credibility.

‘nothing There’: More Republicans Are Calling Out Trump’s Election Lies

WASHINGTON The more we learn about Donald Trumps baseless, false and discredited claims about the 2020 election, the more baseless, false and discredited those claims have become.

Just consider the revelations over the past week from Republicans:

In Michigan, a GOP-led investigation by its state Senate concluded that it found no evidence of widespread or systematic fraud in Michigans prosecution of the 2020 election.

Regarding Arizona, a report co-authored by former Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson criticized the so-called audit of the election results in that state, saying it does not meet the standards of a proper election recount or audit, and that its being conducted by an inexperienced, unqualified contractor.

And over the weekend, ABCs Jon Karl writing for the Atlantic had former Trump Attorney General Bill Barr debunking Trumps claims about the 2020 election results. If there was evidence of fraud, I had no motive to suppress it. But my suspicion all the way along was that there was nothing there, Barr said. It was all bullsh!#.

Predictably, Trump lashed out at those GOP findings.

Michigan State Senators Mike Shirkey and Ed McBroom are doing everything possible to stop Voter Audits in order to hide the truth about November 3rd, the former president said in a statement, which even included those state senators phone numbers.

Even Bill Barr doesnt buy them.

Read Also: Who Won The House Republicans Or Democrats

Get Ready For Another Possible Crisis Like 2020

This is not the first time that Republicans have declared a Democratic president somehow illegitimate. They impeached Bill Clinton on flimsy grounds, after previously accusing him of crimes ranging up to murder; there was a widespread campaign to label Barack Obama an unlawful foreign-born president . These campaigns were effective: A 2019 poll found that 56 percent of Republicans still believed that Obama was born in Kenya.

Nor is this the first time Republican elites have ginned up suspicion of voter fraud for political purposes. After Republicans won a series of statehouse elections in 2010, they spent the next few years falsely claiming that voter fraud was a serious threat in order to pass voter ID laws that were nakedly designed to suppress the vote among Democratic-leaning minority groups. Research has found that, even prior to Trump, this convinced Republicans that voter fraud was a real problem when its exceptionally rare.

These earlier campaigns laid the intellectual groundwork for 2020. Republicans were already primed to believe elected Democrats were somehow illegitimate and to believe in widespread fraud in the American electoral system. Trumps innovation claiming that an entire presidential election result was fraudulent was pushing on an open door.

Paying Lower Taxes Hurts Taxpayers

Less revenue means fewer handouts. Thats bad news for Democrats who lie obsessively year after year about how tax revenue never gets the job done in distressed communities because we still arent spending enough.

Why is it that even when the party is in power, when Democrats call the shots every single year like they do in Illinois, the poor stay right where they are most valuable in poverty?

Recommended Reading: How Many Democrats And Republicans Are In The House

Times Republicans Were Wrong

It’s no secret that politicians tend to use exaggerated political rhetoric to get people to vote for them. In recent decades, Republicans have repeatedly made very ominous predictions about the horrors that will result from Democratic policies while painting a rosy picture of what will result from Republican policies. Now we have the luxury of looking back over the years to examine those predictions and policies. Below, you will find twenty-one examples of times Republicans were blatantly wrong.

Most Republicans Said That President Obama Should Be Impeached Because Of The 2012 Attack On The Us Consulate In Benghazi

Their own investigations, however, proved them wrong. Every Congressional inquiry, including those by the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee, concluded that the Obama administration did nothing wrong regarding Benghazi, that there was no stand down order given, and that neither the President nor anyone in his administration lied about it. Each and every Republican investigation has reached this same conclusion, but Republicans continue to exploit this tragedy for political gain.

You May Like: What 7 Republicans Voted To Impeach

Truth Matters Which Is Why I’m Telling It

I take comfort in knowing that I am doing the moral thing by telling the truth to my constituents.;I also;happen to believe;telling the truth;about;the 2020 election;is good politically.

If Republicans;become the party of the Big;Lie if we encourage this madness much longer we;will lose credibility with;the majority of;Americans on issues where I believe we have better ideas.;We will do;lasting damage to our republic.

True Republicans would never dream of wasting taxpayer money to hire an unknown cybersecurity firm with no elections auditing experience to audit an election that has;already been audited.;This is what the Arizona Senate is doing with their Cyber Ninja audit.

True Republicans would not;stand idly by while auditors paid with taxpayer dollars;chased;insane rumors that ballots were flown in from South Korea to change the outcome of the presidential race, or;that;secret watermarks;on the ballots;revealed by UV lights;would;expose fraud;once and for all.

This is what the Arizona Senate is doing with their Cyber Ninja audit.

Lies Damned Lies And The Truth About Joe Biden

Saagar Enjeti: Media Lets Biden SHAMELESSLY LIE About Hunter Bidens Business Dealings

Joe BidenKentucky state lawmakers vote to scrap school mask mandate Arkansas governor pushes back against Biden’s vaccine mandate RNC vows to sue over Biden vaccine, testing mandate MORE. I know him, said the House Speaker authoritatively, and that was that.

Does Bidens record warrant such confidence? Not really. In fact, Biden has a long history of lying about himself, about his past and about events that never took place.

Democrats want the 2020 campaign to be a referendum on President Trump. Fine, but if this is to be a contest of characters, it is only appropriate that Joe Bidens history of fabrication and deceit often intended to bolster his intellectual credentials also be fair game.

Over the past year, Biden thundered that the Obama administration didnt lock people up in cages. He also claimed that, Immediately, the moment started, I came out against it. And I was always labeled one of the most liberal members of Congress. Politicos rating of all three assertions? False.

No one should be surprised. Lest we forget

A video is making the rounds in which Biden boasts at a 1987 rally, “I went to law school on a full academic scholarship ended up in the top half of my class.”

Biden also maintained that he “graduated with three degrees from undergraduate school” and was the outstanding student in the political science department.

That commentary holds up well, as today more than ever Biden blunders into conversational crevasses, with no way out.

Also Check: Who Created Social Security Democrats Or Republicans

[bustedbernie]

what do you have to say to a leftist who has most of the same criticisms of the Democratic Party as other leftists, but who has also voted for them in every election in which she's been eligible? "well you didn't vote dumbass" like, literally can't be the sum of your defense for every Democratic political failure, can it?

To be patient, that patience brings fruit. Large-scale change happens over timescales that exceed a presidency or two and if you’re not invested in the long-haul, you’re going to be disappointed. To hold officials accountable, write letters, show up to council meetings and other easily-accessible things, even go to congressional offices. And be aware that what we say and do can affect others and their perceptions. That a lot of what Bernie Bros said in the primaries were directly copy/pasted by republicans to attack us (and it worked in a lot of places) hah. That getting voter participation way up is one of our largest goals regardless of where you sit on the left and being hyper-critical of democrats, calling them failures or corrupt, just doesn’t help that cause. And on that point, democrats have universally excelled at expanding voter access in every place they’ve been empowered to do so. But then, I also don’t think democratic failures as presented by leftists are often democratic failures at all. 

The ACA is pointed to sometimes as a democratic failure by this type, but I just don’t see it as a failure. It was a massive step forward. I think too, on this issue, people see the UK with its NHS, Canada with its various provincial single-payer plans, or France with its Sécurité-Sociale and they want something like that here. But, all of those systems were constructed over time and continue to evolve. And we’re not starting in the aftermath of the war. I think our efforts also need to be framed in the context of our politics. And that’s just not a pill that’s easy for this type to swallow. I mean, how can democrats have failed truly in the last 10 years when Mitch McConnell hasn’t even allowed votes on the most basic of democratic proposals? Are democrats really failing or have we been deprived of the power to make effective change? Despite that, we made some decent progress just with Obama at the helm. When they criticize us for being happy that Trump is gone, are you (or your friend) forgetting that Obama DID somehow get some good things through? It was less stressful? That there was that hope that we could keep making those changes as time passed? 

I think it’s also facetious when they spend so much time talking about democratic failures. Regardless of whether or not this particular friend votes, there are many others like them that don’t. Doesn’t this friend bear some of the onus for these “failures” for not getting others like them to vote Democratic? Democrats have routinely been punished for progressive legislation proposals since the 90s. Part of why the ACA was such a massive win was due to the leftover bruises from when Clinton tried to pass his healthcare proposals. What is this friend doing to change the environment to make these proposals less scary? How do you get people that are open-minded to making changes but who currently are comfortable with the system on board? Because Bernie’s “ban private insurance” chased a lot of folks that would perhaps be in favor of wide healthcare reform away. Or “Castro was chill, he taught people to read...” This is a pretty consistent thing leftists do. If we aren’t meeting people where they are and where they are now, how can we win? 

I guess I’d tell your friend that democrats already do reflect on their failures and it’s an attribute that is built into the party apparatus. I’d ask them why they fail to reflect on their own failures, the failures of the progressive caucus in the most general sense, and the failure of the left itself to take accountability? At what point is this “democratic failure” just a projection to escape accountability? Because I’ve noticed that when AOC says most people in swing districts that supported M4A got reelected, she blocks people on twitter for pointing out that many of those “swing-districts” she cites are D+20 districts. Xochitl Torres-Small was hurt by AOC and Bernie Sanders in a R+2/5 district. How do leftists think anything we want (yes, we, because even most “moderate” dems want many of the same things as the leftists despite their claims), without those marginal districts? And how do we win the Senate at all if we can’t field candidates that can win state-wide? 

I think me and lot of the folks that follow this blog do call themselves leftists, or would call themselves leftists, but don’t want to associate with very vocal people like your friend because though we may be pleased that they are voting well, we are frustrated that this friend is hurting us in other ways. We are frustrated that they call our policy accomplishments half-measures or failures. We are frustrated by how many of our leftist allies are willing to sacrifice the need for social justice for perceived economic gains. There are so many domains and areas where we could really increase our margins that are stymied because we get written off as extreme. Progressives that have won council seats now talk about how getting progressive legislation is almost impossible with progressive language (and i use progressive to reference Bernie Sanders-type followers). Yet, they note that you can start making progress with other language. Parking minimums can be voted away by talking about more liberty for development, options for renters and owners, a healthier market, etc. “Incentive programs” are easier to pass than a new tax. Maybe leftists see these things as failures and an abortion of progressive values. But I think we see it as getting things done in a way that CAN be done, and be done now. 

I would ask your friend to look to examples where incrementalism has helped cement democratic power and led to real, physical changes. In this country, the slow embracing of public transit by a larger number of people is a good example. Those first light rail lines in Denver, Houston and Phoenix were heated. Pulling teeth. Sometimes even violent rhetoric was used. For a silly little train. But once you get that first little segment of light rail, over a decade or so, people adjust and it’s not so bad. Then they might even want it to serve THEIR neighborhood. Maybe so they could get to an airport without driving, or see a ball game without parking, or get drinks with friends and enjoy the conversation rather than pay attention to the road. They might even want to use it to get to and from work everyday. Or to run errands. And that’s exactly what has happened in each of those cities. Phoenix in particular defeated a Koch-backed ballot measure and voted to fund multi-mile extensions to its system and begin planning even more. Hopefully, in two more decades, those will bear lots of fruit, leading to more sustainable, humane cities, that are more accessible, cleaner, and dense. We also saw Maricopa County vote blue. Small things, over time, add up. Change happens. Attitudes move.  We can do that with healthcare. If we can get a public option added to the ACA, it will just naturally expose how wasteful insurance actually is. People will be more likely to buy into it. And it will help build trust with people who “don’t want the government involved with my doctor.” And given how we’ve seen the politics shift just since the ACA was passed, something akin to M4A would likely be right around the corner. 

So yeah, hold democrats accountable. But the thing is, we already mostly do that. I’d tell them to remember who the real enemy is, and if they are criticizing Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden or Kamala Harris or whomever more than they criticize Mitch McConnell and his fascist army, then i have to doubt how progressive your friend is in the first place, regardless of their voting habit. 

[thepoliticalpatient]

RBG’s death all but guarantees the loss of the ACA

Last night was almost as hard and scary as election night, for me.

I will try to keep this brief as I can and so will be focusing on the impact of RBG’s death on healthcare policy in the US. Her death is a tragedy in many other ways, of course. She was a groundbreaking and iconic figure in the judiciary. She was forced to continue working through numerous illnesses and on her deathbed because she was in the position of serving as a 5′1″ human barrier between our already terrible reality and a much more terrible one. and And of course, her death will have numerous awful political consequences in subjects outside of healthcare. I will not be touching on any of that here. I’m sorry, I know it’s incredibly gross to move straight into the politics so fast, but there are millions of lives on the line and we have no time to lose!

The case against the ACA, now called California v. Texas, will start oral arguments on November 10, one week after the election. I have already written a number of posts on the background of this case - this one explains the basis for the case, and this one describes how the lower court has already ruled.

Obviously none of us can tell the future, but before RBG’s death, most folks were pretty optimistic about this case working out in favor of the ACA 5-4. All 5 justices who ruled in favor of the ACA in one of its previous challenges, NFIB v. Sebelius, were still on the court. Obviously this has now changed.

So the case will be heard starting on November 10. From there we should probably expect it to take months to come to a decision. Let’s talk about scenarios:

Trump and Senate Republicans manage to force through a nominee before the election

We all remember 2016 when McConnell refused to hold hearings for the nomination of Merrick Garland to SCOTUS because it was an election year. That seat was stolen by Neil Gorsuch after Trump’s election.

Surprising nobody, McConnell is a hypocrite. RBG’s body was still warm yesterday when he started politicking, releasing a statement indicating that he intends to fill the seat before the election.

If he succeeds, then of course the ACA’s chances are very slim of surviving a challenge in a 6-3 majority conservative SCOTUS.

We delay the confirmation until after inauguration

There is a nonzero possibility that this confirmation can be delayed until the new president is elected and inaugurated.

Republicans have a 53-47 majority in the Senate right now; they need 50 votes to approve a SCOTUS justice (Pence breaks ties).  Prior to RBG’s death, several sitting Senate Republicans stated that they would oppose voting on a nominee during the 2020 election year in order to be consistent with what they did in 2016. Take for instance this absolutely chef kiss video of Lindsey Graham:

https://twitter.com/vanitaguptaCR/status/1307153104941518848

I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.

Other Republican Senators who have made similar statements:

Lisa Murkowski: https://www.alaskapublic.org/2020/09/18/alaska-senator-murkowski-said-friday-she-would-not-vote-for-a-justice-ahead-of-election/

Chuck Grassley: https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/410686-grassley-says-judiciary-panel-wouldnt-consider-supreme-court-nominee-in

Susan Collins?: https://twitter.com/jmartNYT/status/1307112333253148672

Mitt Romney? Mixed signals. There’s this, https://twitter.com/JimDabakis/status/1307120855454044160, but his staff denies it: https://twitter.com/LJ0hnson/status/1307129082971385858

Sorry my sources aren’t better on some of these; this is all I’ve got right now. We will have to listen to what these 5 say over the next few days. We only need 4 of them to vote no. If any of them conveniently “change their minds” they will probably cite McConnell’s logic that this year is somehow different because Obama was a lame duck in 2016. Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham in particular might be pressurable because they’re both facing very tough challenges for their seats this year. We should keep the pressure on by pledging donations to their opponents, Sara Gideon and Jaime Harrison, in the event that they make the hypocritical decision to approve a nominee less than 2 months before an election.

I know we can’t trust these people as far as we can throw them but we have to try. What other choice do we have?

Another factor here is the special election in AZ. Martha McSally was appointed to John McCain’s seat after his death, after she previously lost her election against Kyrsten Sinema. She is being challenged this year by astronaut Mark Kelly, who is polling very well. If he wins, because of special election rules, he could be sworn in as early as November 30, reducing the Republican majority in the Senate well ahead of inauguration day.

McSally has already stated that she will vote for a nominee before the election: https://twitter.com/SenMcSallyAZ/status/1307123253845032960

Unfortunately, merely delaying the confirmation of a new justice won’t be enough to save the ACA

The situation is every bit as bad for the ACA against an 8 justice court as it would be against a court with a new conservative justice. In the case of a 4-4 tied decision, the lower court’s decision holds. And the Fifth Circuit’s ruling was that the fate of the ACA should be left to district judge Reed O’Connor, a far-right activist judge who already ruled that the entire ACA should be thrown into the garbage.

The only hope it has is if we both delay the confirmation of a new judge, elect Joe Biden, elect a Senate that will not be hostile to his nominee, and get that nominee through, all before the case is decided. The case will begin with oral arguments on November 10.

A legislative salvation for the ACA?

If we get control of both branches of Congress and the presidency, there is a very easy way to save the ACA. The entire case is null and void if we reinstate the individual mandate’s tax at any amount over $0. A $1 tax would save it. A Democratically-controlled Congress could pass such legislation with a simple majority.

But maybe we should just let it die?

Some members of the left seem to think it’s not such a big deal if the ACA goes under. Their argument is that without the ACA, the case for Medicare for All will become more urgent. They don’t care about the chronically ill and disabled people who will die without protections in the meantime. And besides that, what chance does M4A have of surviving a 6-3 conservative SCOTUS? The fucking ACA, as insufficient and centrist as it is, has been challenged mercilessly in the courts by conservatives. This is the third major SCOTUS case they’ve brought against it. M4A would fare no better. In fact, we can expect to say goodbye to any possibility of keeping any progressive policy within our lifetimes under a 6-3 conservative SCOTUS.

So what do we do?

For now, we put the pressure on Murkowski, Grassley, Graham, Collins, and Romney. If you live in AK, IA, SC, ME, or UT, call their offices every damn day until they commit to voting no on any judge nominated before Inauguration day.

Phone numbers:

Murkowski: (202) 224-6665

Grassley: (202) 224-3744

Graham: (202) 224-5972

Collins: (202) 224-2523

Romney: (202) 224-5251

For folks who do not live in those states, pressure your Republican Senators even if it it seems hopeless, and make a lot of noise about donating to the above 5′s opponents if they vote yes. Volunteer to phone or text bank to ask constituents in those 5 states to call those Senators. There’s still plenty you can do.

Then we must do everything we can to elect Joe Biden and a Democratic Senate. Vote on November 3. Phone or text bank for Biden. Adopt a Senate race in a swing state here: https://votesaveamerica.com/adopt-a-state/

If they push a nominee through, it’s time to pack the courts

If they’re going to change the rules on us and confirm a SCOTUS justice in an election year, then we will change the rules on them the minute we get power.

Adding more justices to SCOTUS does not require a Constitutional amendment. It can be done through legislation, and it has been done many times before:

1789-1807: six seats

1807-1837: seven seats

1837-1866: ten seats

1866-1867: nine seats

1867-1869: eight seats

1869-present: nine seats

Even the threat of opening the door to court packing might be enough to convince some Senators not to move forward with this scheme.

But again, in order to pack the court, we need to elect Joe Biden, flip the Senate, and keep the House.

Let’s get to work.

[jules-has-notes]

Aca Top 10: 80s Cartoon Themes — VoicePlay music video

The VoicePlay boys might technically be grown-ups, but they'll always be big kids at heart. So for their first "Aca Top 10" countdown of the year, they decided to revisit the joy of Saturday mornings spent in front of the TV with bowls of sugary cereal. Everybody sing along!

Details:

title: Aca Top 10 — 80s Cartoon Themes

original songs / performers: "La La Song" by the cast of The Smurfs (1981); [0:18] Inspector Gadget (1983) theme song; [0:35] Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987) theme by Chuck Lorre; [0:57] Scooby-Doo theme by Larry Marks; [1:16] G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (1983) theme; [1:36] Adventures of the Gummi Bears (1985) theme by Joseph Williams; [2:03] Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers (1989) theme by Jeff Pescetto; [2:24] My Little Pony (1986) theme; [2:34] "JEM – Truly, Truly, Truly Outrageous" by the singing cast of Jem and the Holograms (1985); [2:55] The Transformers (1984) theme; [3:14] "DuckTales" by Jeff Pescetto for DuckTales (1987)

written by: "La La Song" by Hoyt Curtin; Inspector Gadget theme by Shuki Levy & Haim Saban; Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles theme by Dennis C. Brown & Chuck Lorre; Scooby-Doo (1969) theme by David Mook & Ben Raleigh; The New Scooby-Doo Mysteries (1984) theme by Hoyt Curtin; G.I. Joe theme by Ford Kinder & Spencer Michlin; Adventures of the Gummi Bears theme by Michael & Patty Silversher; Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers theme by Mark Mueller; My Little Pony theme by Ford Klinder, Anne Bryant, & Barry Harman; "JEM – Truly, Truly, Truly Outrageous" by Barry Harman; The Transformers theme by Ford Kinder & Anne Bryant; "DuckTales" by Mark Mueller

arranged by: VoicePlay

release date: 30 March 2018

My favorite bits:

kicking things off with an extra dramatic fanfare

Layne's incredible ratchet sound and miming for the safe's lock dial in the Inspector Gadget theme

Earl giving an excellent Dr. Claw impression

the couch trio doing enthusiastic karate chops at the air 🥷 🐢

J.None taking over the bass line while Geoff sings lead

Layne making the pew-pew noises of the G.I. Joe lasers

Eli, Earl, and J delighting in how springy the couch cushions are at the start of the Gummi Bears theme

Layne and J crooning ♫ "my little brony" ♫ at Geoff while he scowls until he can't resist smiling anymore 🐎

Earl half-heartedly protesting at Eli and J singing the Misfits' part of the Jem! theme whlie he's wearing their signature colors / print

all the electronic-sounding elements they added to the Transformers theme

♫ "here in… Duckburg" ♫ ::quack:: 🦆

Gotta get in a bell chord somewhere, and that's a very good spot.

finishing on a joyful ♫ "Woo-ooo!" ♫

Eli quietly playing with a Transformer and Earl's enthusiastic "Cowabunga, dude!" in the outro

Trivia:

○ This was the first full-length video released on VoicePlay's YouTube channel in 2018. They started the year with a short video of "Happy Birthday", in between two collaborations they had recorded the previous fall that are on other channels — "Waving Through a Window" with Kurth Hugo Schneider, and "Look What You Made Me Do" with pocket.watch.

○ According to their replies to some YouTube comments, there was quite a debate about which songs to include or not, and "Thunder Cats was about a 2 hour argument. Shoes were thrown." 😆

○ Despite being very recognizable as The Smurfs theme, the version of the "La La Song" with lyrics was only used for the show's opening credits during season 2 in the U.S. However, an instrumental version was used for the closing credits from then on.

○ At least one of the guys came by his martial arts moves honestly. Eli studied karate from age six until he was sixteen.

○ For the Scooby-Doo theme, VoicePlay combined the original 1969 song from Scooby-Doo, Where Are You? (which was still airing in reruns) with some jazzier elements from the 1984 New Scooby Doo Mysteries opening.

○ The silliness in the YouTube description for this one is another misheard lyric — "JIM is truly outrageous / Truly Truly Truly outrageous / Woh oh oh JIM - JIM!!!" // "That's such a weird song. Who the heck is Jim anyway..?"

○ The guys' shirts reflect some of their childhood favorites:

Eli — Scrooge McDuck from DuckTales half-buried in the gold pile in his money vault with the inscription "living the dream"

Earl — Ultimate Warrior (WWF / WWE) facepaint, sort of referencing Hulk Hogan's Rock 'n' Wrestling, though the show was cancelled before that character could appear; bonus charteuse zebra-print leggings for The Misfits from Jem! and the Holograms

J.None — face masks of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (which aired into the mid-90s for the younger guy)

Geoff — Autobot mask symbol from The Transformers

Layne — Rainbow Dash from My Little Pony (a slight cheat with a character from the 2010s series, but probably inspired by one or more of his daughters). I cannot for the life of me figure out where that specific design came from, but I found a couple close-ish approximations.

○ Layne posted some videos of both the final rehearsal and cleanup process on his Instagram.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Layne Stein (@laynestein)

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Layne Stein (@laynestein)

Those light diffusers can be a handful.

[sentinelleblr]

“We are about to witness, for the first time, the power of a fully operational Affordable Care Act (ACA).

nobody will pay more than 8.5 percent of their income toward their health insurance.

So millions of people are newly eligible for subsidies and millions more now qualify for more generous subsidies. In fact, according to Kaiser’s estimates, a majority of the 29 million uninsured people in the US already qualify for either ACA subsidies or Medicaid.

a lot of these people don’t know they qualify for help.

This is where Biden’s extended enrollment period and advertising blitz come in. Shortly after taking office, Biden announced a special ACA enrollment period from February 15 to May 15. Then last week, the administration said they would extend that enrollment period until August 15. That gives them five months to try to reach as many of those 29 million as they can. A $50 million ad campaign (with more to come) should help.”