Obama

[TigerGrowls]

In the early 2000s, Obama was an Illinois State Senator representing the 13th District. After suffering a heavy defeat in the 2000 Democratic primary, Obama then worked with a Dem redistricting consultant, and helped redraw HIS state senate district.


New map was designed to protect Obama's base in Hyde Park while extending the district north along the lakefront into wealthier areas, creating a highly favorable voter pool that combined his African American base with affluent and liberal white voters.


This helped solidify his political standing for his future U.S. Senate run.


Later, the 2021 maps were noted for being "the most gerrymandered in the country," receiving an "F" grade from non-partisan monitoring groups like the Princeton Gerrymandering Project.


Democrats have been using gerrymandering to cheat for years, and loser
.@BarackObama cheated to win next time up.


See how that works

 

[Allornothing]

Obama lied when he said he knew nothing about Hillary Clinton's secret unsecure email server.

He claimed on an interview he found out through the media when in reality he was using a pseudonym on the same unsecured server as Hillary, hence why James Comey buried the case.

If Hillary went down, so would Obama.

They are both TRASH! Just wanted to note that.

 

[baltimorened]

and this is only the tip of the lies..no illegals on obamacare, $2500 savings/year for average family, more competition , 41 million Americans insured....no funding from the federal government...

 

[dpic73]

and this is only the tip of the lies..no illegals on obamacare, $2500 savings/year for average family, more competition , 41 million Americans insured....no funding from the federal government...

We'll really never know how well it would have worked if Republicans hadn't put so much effort into dismantling it.

I asked Claude:
Obamacare has been changed significantly over the years by Republicans, but would it have worked as Obama said it would, if it had never been changed from it's original design?

This is a genuinely interesting counterfactual question. Here's a balanced look at what the evidence suggests:

The ACA as Originally Designed​

Obama made several key promises about the ACA: it would cover nearly all Americans, premiums would fall, people could keep their existing plans, and it would reduce the deficit. The original law had several interconnected mechanisms designed to make these work together.

The three-legged stool: The ACA's architecture depended on three mutually reinforcing parts — the individual mandate (requiring everyone to buy insurance), guaranteed issue (insurers must cover everyone regardless of health status), and subsidies (to make coverage affordable). Republicans weakened the mandate's penalty to zero in 2017, which was arguably the most damaging change to the original design.

---

Where It Likely Would Have Worked Better​

The risk pool problem: The individual mandate, if enforced with meaningful penalties, was designed to pull healthy people into the exchanges, keeping premiums stable. Without Republican weakening of it, the adverse selection death spiral that plagued many state exchanges likely would have been less severe. Most health economists agree on this point.

The CO-OP program: The ACA created nonprofit Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans to compete with insurers. Republican-led Congress repeatedly defunded them, and most collapsed. With full funding, these could have provided meaningful competition and lower premiums in thin markets.

Medicaid expansion: The Supreme Court's 2012 ruling (not purely a Republican act, but driven by conservative justices) made Medicaid expansion optional. Had it been mandatory as written, roughly 4 million additional low-income people currently in the coverage gap would likely be insured.

---

Where It Still Would Have Fallen Short​

"If you like your plan, you can keep it" — This was problematic in the original law. The ACA's minimum coverage standards genuinely did cause millions of non-compliant individual market plans to be cancelled. Obama's promise was inaccurate regardless of later changes.

Premium growth: The law had limited tools to control underlying healthcare cost inflation — hospital consolidation, drug pricing, and administrative overhead. These would have driven premiums up over time regardless of Republican changes.

The "near-universal coverage" goal: The CBO originally projected the ACA would leave around 23 million uninsured even if fully implemented. It was never truly a path to universal coverage without a public option or mandate strong enough to achieve near-full participation — and the public option was dropped during negotiations before the bill even passed.

Rural and thin markets: Some parts of the country had so few insurers that competition was always going to be a problem, regardless of sabotage.

---

The Honest Bottom Line​

The ACA in its original form would likely have performed meaningfully better than what we ended up with — particularly on coverage numbers and exchange stability. The individual mandate with real teeth was the linchpin, and its neutering had real consequences.

However, Obama's most ambitious promises were somewhat overstated even for the original design. The law was a significant coverage expansion built on a politically compromised framework (it was based on a Heritage Foundation/Romney model, not a single-payer or public option system), and those compromises built in structural limitations from day one.

So the answer is: better than what we got, but probably not as good as Obama said.

 

[Hotshoe]

We'll really never know how well it would have worked if Republicans hadn't put so much effort into dismantling it.

I asked Claude:
Obamacare has been changed significantly over the years by Republicans, but would it have worked as Obama said it would, if it had never been changed from it's original design?

This is a genuinely interesting counterfactual question. Here's a balanced look at what the evidence suggests:

The ACA as Originally Designed​

Obama made several key promises about the ACA: it would cover nearly all Americans, premiums would fall, people could keep their existing plans, and it would reduce the deficit. The original law had several interconnected mechanisms designed to make these work together.

The three-legged stool: The ACA's architecture depended on three mutually reinforcing parts — the individual mandate (requiring everyone to buy insurance), guaranteed issue (insurers must cover everyone regardless of health status), and subsidies (to make coverage affordable). Republicans weakened the mandate's penalty to zero in 2017, which was arguably the most damaging change to the original design.

---

Where It Likely Would Have Worked Better​

The risk pool problem: The individual mandate, if enforced with meaningful penalties, was designed to pull healthy people into the exchanges, keeping premiums stable. Without Republican weakening of it, the adverse selection death spiral that plagued many state exchanges likely would have been less severe. Most health economists agree on this point.

The CO-OP program: The ACA created nonprofit Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans to compete with insurers. Republican-led Congress repeatedly defunded them, and most collapsed. With full funding, these could have provided meaningful competition and lower premiums in thin markets.

Medicaid expansion: The Supreme Court's 2012 ruling (not purely a Republican act, but driven by conservative justices) made Medicaid expansion optional. Had it been mandatory as written, roughly 4 million additional low-income people currently in the coverage gap would likely be insured.

---

Where It Still Would Have Fallen Short​

"If you like your plan, you can keep it" — This was problematic in the original law. The ACA's minimum coverage standards genuinely did cause millions of non-compliant individual market plans to be cancelled. Obama's promise was inaccurate regardless of later changes.

Premium growth: The law had limited tools to control underlying healthcare cost inflation — hospital consolidation, drug pricing, and administrative overhead. These would have driven premiums up over time regardless of Republican changes.

The "near-universal coverage" goal: The CBO originally projected the ACA would leave around 23 million uninsured even if fully implemented. It was never truly a path to universal coverage without a public option or mandate strong enough to achieve near-full participation — and the public option was dropped during negotiations before the bill even passed.

Rural and thin markets: Some parts of the country had so few insurers that competition was always going to be a problem, regardless of sabotage.

---

The Honest Bottom Line​

The ACA in its original form would likely have performed meaningfully better than what we ended up with — particularly on coverage numbers and exchange stability. The individual mandate with real teeth was the linchpin, and its neutering had real consequences.

However, Obama's most ambitious promises were somewhat overstated even for the original design. The law was a significant coverage expansion built on a politically compromised framework (it was based on a Heritage Foundation/Romney model, not a single-payer or public option system), and those compromises built in structural limitations from day one.

So the answer is: better than what we got, but probably not as good as Obama said.

What an absolute fraud you are. Obamacare is the single biggest disaster regarding healthcare in American history. Only Dems voted for it because, POS Socialists like you supported backroom deals, fully lied about the promises, and not one ever came to fruition. Good God, grow a pair. You do nothing but constantly lie on here. Obamacare is 100% on Dems. Even Bernie has called it out you gutless wonder. Not a single promise was kept. All y'all did was transfer folks over to Medicaid. You robbed over $700 million from Medicare. Meanwhile, y'all destroyed the middle class with it. Get lost. You are absolutely beyond clueless and a GD liar. We are still pushing 30 million people who are uninsured in America. The only thing that has changed is simply this. Not a single promise was kept, and we have had massive increases in costs regarding healthcare. GTFOOH with your pathetic lies. Bernie Sanders calls it a weak system. And only a moron like you would believe bs AI based on media reports. Lmao. What an absolute fool you are. Own it, it's 100% on Dems, and it's your program. What a gutless wonder you are, and totally dishonest.

 

[Hotshoe]

We'll really never know how well it would have worked if Republicans hadn't put so much effort into dismantling it.

I asked Claude:
Obamacare has been changed significantly over the years by Republicans, but would it have worked as Obama said it would, if it had never been changed from it's original design?

This is a genuinely interesting counterfactual question. Here's a balanced look at what the evidence suggests:

The ACA as Originally Designed​

Obama made several key promises about the ACA: it would cover nearly all Americans, premiums would fall, people could keep their existing plans, and it would reduce the deficit. The original law had several interconnected mechanisms designed to make these work together.

The three-legged stool: The ACA's architecture depended on three mutually reinforcing parts — the individual mandate (requiring everyone to buy insurance), guaranteed issue (insurers must cover everyone regardless of health status), and subsidies (to make coverage affordable). Republicans weakened the mandate's penalty to zero in 2017, which was arguably the most damaging change to the original design.

---

Where It Likely Would Have Worked Better​

The risk pool problem: The individual mandate, if enforced with meaningful penalties, was designed to pull healthy people into the exchanges, keeping premiums stable. Without Republican weakening of it, the adverse selection death spiral that plagued many state exchanges likely would have been less severe. Most health economists agree on this point.

The CO-OP program: The ACA created nonprofit Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans to compete with insurers. Republican-led Congress repeatedly defunded them, and most collapsed. With full funding, these could have provided meaningful competition and lower premiums in thin markets.

Medicaid expansion: The Supreme Court's 2012 ruling (not purely a Republican act, but driven by conservative justices) made Medicaid expansion optional. Had it been mandatory as written, roughly 4 million additional low-income people currently in the coverage gap would likely be insured.

---

Where It Still Would Have Fallen Short​

"If you like your plan, you can keep it" — This was problematic in the original law. The ACA's minimum coverage standards genuinely did cause millions of non-compliant individual market plans to be cancelled. Obama's promise was inaccurate regardless of later changes.

Premium growth: The law had limited tools to control underlying healthcare cost inflation — hospital consolidation, drug pricing, and administrative overhead. These would have driven premiums up over time regardless of Republican changes.

The "near-universal coverage" goal: The CBO originally projected the ACA would leave around 23 million uninsured even if fully implemented. It was never truly a path to universal coverage without a public option or mandate strong enough to achieve near-full participation — and the public option was dropped during negotiations before the bill even passed.

Rural and thin markets: Some parts of the country had so few insurers that competition was always going to be a problem, regardless of sabotage.

---

The Honest Bottom Line​

The ACA in its original form would likely have performed meaningfully better than what we ended up with — particularly on coverage numbers and exchange stability. The individual mandate with real teeth was the linchpin, and its neutering had real consequences.

However, Obama's most ambitious promises were somewhat overstated even for the original design. The law was a significant coverage expansion built on a politically compromised framework (it was based on a Heritage Foundation/Romney model, not a single-payer or public option system), and those compromises built in structural limitations from day one.

So the answer is: better than what we got, but probably not as good as Obama said.

You can't name a single thing that is better.

 

[dpic73]

What an absolute fraud you are. Obamacare is the single biggest disaster regarding healthcare in American history. Only Dems voted for it because, POS Socialists like you supported backroom deals, fully lied about the promises, and not one ever came to fruition. Good God, grow a pair. You do nothing but constantly lie on here. Obamacare is 100% on Dems. Even Bernie has called it out you gutless wonder. Not a single promise was kept. All y'all did was transfer folks over to Medicaid. You robbed over $700 million from Medicare. Meanwhile, y'all destroyed the middle class with it. Get lost. You are absolutely beyond clueless and a GD liar. We are still pushing 30 million people who are uninsured in America. The only thing that has changed is simply this. Not a single promise was kept, and we have had massive increases in costs regarding healthcare. GTFOOH with your pathetic lies. Bernie Sanders calls it a weak system. And only a moron like you would believe bs AI based on media reports. Lmao. What an absolute fool you are. Own it, it's 100% on Dems, and it's your program. What a gutless wonder you are, and totally dishonest.

I posted an AI response and you claim I'm a fraud with your normal list of inflammatory insults. Take it up with Claude you dinglenob. Did you see the question and answer was about how it would have been different/better if they had kept the original design? That doesn't mean it would have been perfect but all the sh*t you blame it for now is NOT what Obama proposed. This is the dying embers of the plan that Republicans dismantled piece by piece.

And no way you can call it a total failure because it enabled many to get healthcare for the first time, so it saved many lives and it allowed people up to age 26 to stay on their parent's policy, which kept young people from taking on additional debt while they were starting their careers.

Listen dude, if you have to be a nasty raging ******* every time you respond to a post, how about you take it elsewhere. This is a Clemson board and we don't want you here if you can't engage civilly. Many of the others are fine but you are not welcome.

 

[Hotshoe]

We'll really never know how well it would have worked if Republicans hadn't put so much effort into dismantling it.

I asked Claude:
Obamacare has been changed significantly over the years by Republicans, but would it have worked as Obama said it would, if it had never been changed from it's original design?

This is a genuinely interesting counterfactual question. Here's a balanced look at what the evidence suggests:

The ACA as Originally Designed​

Obama made several key promises about the ACA: it would cover nearly all Americans, premiums would fall, people could keep their existing plans, and it would reduce the deficit. The original law had several interconnected mechanisms designed to make these work together.

The three-legged stool: The ACA's architecture depended on three mutually reinforcing parts — the individual mandate (requiring everyone to buy insurance), guaranteed issue (insurers must cover everyone regardless of health status), and subsidies (to make coverage affordable). Republicans weakened the mandate's penalty to zero in 2017, which was arguably the most damaging change to the original design.

---

Where It Likely Would Have Worked Better​

The risk pool problem: The individual mandate, if enforced with meaningful penalties, was designed to pull healthy people into the exchanges, keeping premiums stable. Without Republican weakening of it, the adverse selection death spiral that plagued many state exchanges likely would have been less severe. Most health economists agree on this point.

The CO-OP program: The ACA created nonprofit Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans to compete with insurers. Republican-led Congress repeatedly defunded them, and most collapsed. With full funding, these could have provided meaningful competition and lower premiums in thin markets.

Medicaid expansion: The Supreme Court's 2012 ruling (not purely a Republican act, but driven by conservative justices) made Medicaid expansion optional. Had it been mandatory as written, roughly 4 million additional low-income people currently in the coverage gap would likely be insured.

---

Where It Still Would Have Fallen Short​

"If you like your plan, you can keep it" — This was problematic in the original law. The ACA's minimum coverage standards genuinely did cause millions of non-compliant individual market plans to be cancelled. Obama's promise was inaccurate regardless of later changes.

Premium growth: The law had limited tools to control underlying healthcare cost inflation — hospital consolidation, drug pricing, and administrative overhead. These would have driven premiums up over time regardless of Republican changes.

The "near-universal coverage" goal: The CBO originally projected the ACA would leave around 23 million uninsured even if fully implemented. It was never truly a path to universal coverage without a public option or mandate strong enough to achieve near-full participation — and the public option was dropped during negotiations before the bill even passed.

Rural and thin markets: Some parts of the country had so few insurers that competition was always going to be a problem, regardless of sabotage.

---

The Honest Bottom Line​

The ACA in its original form would likely have performed meaningfully better than what we ended up with — particularly on coverage numbers and exchange stability. The individual mandate with real teeth was the linchpin, and its neutering had real consequences.

However, Obama's most ambitious promises were somewhat overstated even for the original design. The law was a significant coverage expansion built on a politically compromised framework (it was based on a Heritage Foundation/Romney model, not a single-payer or public option system), and those compromises built in structural limitations from day one.

So the answer is: better than what we got, but probably not as good as Obama said.

You're not just a clown, you're dishonest as hell. Democrats wouldn't even allow Republicans in meetings regarding Obamacare. Nothing you state is honest. The Democrats used reconciliation to pass Obamacare.

 

[Hotshoe]

We'll really never know how well it would have worked if Republicans hadn't put so much effort into dismantling it.

I asked Claude:
Obamacare has been changed significantly over the years by Republicans, but would it have worked as Obama said it would, if it had never been changed from it's original design?

This is a genuinely interesting counterfactual question. Here's a balanced look at what the evidence suggests:

The ACA as Originally Designed​

Obama made several key promises about the ACA: it would cover nearly all Americans, premiums would fall, people could keep their existing plans, and it would reduce the deficit. The original law had several interconnected mechanisms designed to make these work together.

The three-legged stool: The ACA's architecture depended on three mutually reinforcing parts — the individual mandate (requiring everyone to buy insurance), guaranteed issue (insurers must cover everyone regardless of health status), and subsidies (to make coverage affordable). Republicans weakened the mandate's penalty to zero in 2017, which was arguably the most damaging change to the original design.

---

Where It Likely Would Have Worked Better​

The risk pool problem: The individual mandate, if enforced with meaningful penalties, was designed to pull healthy people into the exchanges, keeping premiums stable. Without Republican weakening of it, the adverse selection death spiral that plagued many state exchanges likely would have been less severe. Most health economists agree on this point.

The CO-OP program: The ACA created nonprofit Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans to compete with insurers. Republican-led Congress repeatedly defunded them, and most collapsed. With full funding, these could have provided meaningful competition and lower premiums in thin markets.

Medicaid expansion: The Supreme Court's 2012 ruling (not purely a Republican act, but driven by conservative justices) made Medicaid expansion optional. Had it been mandatory as written, roughly 4 million additional low-income people currently in the coverage gap would likely be insured.

---

Where It Still Would Have Fallen Short​

"If you like your plan, you can keep it" — This was problematic in the original law. The ACA's minimum coverage standards genuinely did cause millions of non-compliant individual market plans to be cancelled. Obama's promise was inaccurate regardless of later changes.

Premium growth: The law had limited tools to control underlying healthcare cost inflation — hospital consolidation, drug pricing, and administrative overhead. These would have driven premiums up over time regardless of Republican changes.

The "near-universal coverage" goal: The CBO originally projected the ACA would leave around 23 million uninsured even if fully implemented. It was never truly a path to universal coverage without a public option or mandate strong enough to achieve near-full participation — and the public option was dropped during negotiations before the bill even passed.

Rural and thin markets: Some parts of the country had so few insurers that competition was always going to be a problem, regardless of sabotage.

---

The Honest Bottom Line​

The ACA in its original form would likely have performed meaningfully better than what we ended up with — particularly on coverage numbers and exchange stability. The individual mandate with real teeth was the linchpin, and its neutering had real consequences.

However, Obama's most ambitious promises were somewhat overstated even for the original design. The law was a significant coverage expansion built on a politically compromised framework (it was based on a Heritage Foundation/Romney model, not a single-payer or public option system), and those compromises built in structural limitations from day one.

So the answer is: better than what we got, but probably not as good as Obama said.

Meanwhile, clowns like you are against voter ID when 82% of Americans support it. You're a fraud dude. Own it. You've already had your a&& handed to you with real facts. Go call your Socialist buddy Bernie

 

[dpic73]

You're not just a clown, you're dishonest as hell. Democrats wouldn't even allow Republicans in meetings regarding Obamacare. Nothing you state is honest. The Democrats used reconciliation to pass Obamacare.

You don't know what the fvkk you're talking about.

During the development of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2009–2010, over 100 Republican amendments—mostly technical or minor—were adopted in committee markups. While hundreds were proposed, only a small number (roughly 6–8) passed via roll-call vote in the Senate Finance Committee and HELP committee, with most adopted by unanimous consent or voice vote.

Key details regarding amendments and input:

Senate HELP Committee: Approximately 161 amendments from Republicans were adopted, though many were considered technical in nature, out of hundreds submitted.

Senate Finance Committee: Around six Republican amendments were adopted via roll-call vote.

Total Scope: Over 188 amendments from the minority party were included.

Key Adopted Changes: Included the "Kyl Amendment" (regarding Medicare/biologics) and an amendment forcing Congress members and staff to enroll in the ACA's exchange plans.

Despite these additions, no Republicans voted for the final passage of the bill in the Senate or the House.

Gutierrez says hundreds of Republican amendments in ACA

Republicans continue to sell their health care plan in an effort to deliver on a party-wide campaign promise to repeal a

www.politifact.com

How the ACA (Obamacare) Was Negotiated

Facts about the 427-day process of passing the Affordable Care Act, final vote tallies, “if you like your doctor” statements, and 19 taxes, revenue enhancements, penalties, and fees.

amarkfoundation.org

 

[dpic73]

Meanwhile, clowns like you are against voter ID when 82% of Americans support it. You're a fraud dude. Own it. You've already had your a&& handed to you with real facts. Go call your Socialist buddy Bernie

Being against the SAVE ACT - a voter suppression bill - is not the same as VOTER ID you ornery imbecile.

 

[AugTig]

Being against the SAVE ACT - a voter suppression bill - is not the same as VOTER ID you ornery imbecile.

What a . Are you ever going to respond to my wager about about Comey?

 

[baltimorened]

You don't know what the fvkk you're talking about.

During the development of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2009–2010, over 100 Republican amendments—mostly technical or minor—were adopted in committee markups. While hundreds were proposed, only a small number (roughly 6–8) passed via roll-call vote in the Senate Finance Committee and HELP committee, with most adopted by unanimous consent or voice vote.

Key details regarding amendments and input:

Senate HELP Committee: Approximately 161 amendments from Republicans were adopted, though many were considered technical in nature, out of hundreds submitted.

Senate Finance Committee: Around six Republican amendments were adopted via roll-call vote.

Total Scope: Over 188 amendments from the minority party were included.

Key Adopted Changes: Included the "Kyl Amendment" (regarding Medicare/biologics) and an amendment forcing Congress members and staff to enroll in the ACA's exchange plans.

Despite these additions, no Republicans voted for the final passage of the bill in the Senate or the House.

Gutierrez says hundreds of Republican amendments in ACA

Republicans continue to sell their health care plan in an effort to deliver on a party-wide campaign promise to repeal a

www.politifact.com

How the ACA (Obamacare) Was Negotiated

Facts about the 427-day process of passing the Affordable Care Act, final vote tallies, “if you like your doctor” statements, and 19 taxes, revenue enhancements, penalties, and fees.

amarkfoundation.org

I have my own recollections about Obamacare (one in particular concerning the rep from Michigan who traded his vote for commitment of no abortion covered by the ACA), and one thing is clear from the boards back and forth - we won't agree.

One thing I think we all could agree on is that we need to fix our healthcare system. And, it would seem to me that rather than starting from zero, we ought of us the ACA as a beginning point and see how we can fix what we now know are deficiencies.

In my opinion, once they did away with the mandate, the ACA was "dead man walking"

 

[yoshi121374]

I have my own recollections about Obamacare (one in particular concerning the rep from Michigan who traded his vote for commitment of no abortion covered by the ACA), and one thing is clear from the boards back and forth - we won't agree.

One thing I think we all could agree on is that we need to fix our healthcare system. And, it would seem to me that rather than starting from zero, we ought of us the ACA as a beginning point and see how we can fix what we now know are deficiencies.

In my opinion, once they did away with the mandate, the ACA was "dead man walking"

Totally agree with this. One of the current issues with our government is that we don't compromise and then improve as time goes on. We insist on getting every line item we care about, and because of this,nothing ever gets done.

The ACA is here, and based on recent polls, isn't going away without a different option. We need to try and fix the parts we don't like.

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[Moral]

DANJERUS LIBROL OBAMA

 

[BroncHawk]

DANJERUS LIBROL OBAMA

COMYOUNIST EVEN

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerGrowls]

Eventually, the world will be shown, that the wars in both Ukraine and Iran, lead back to Obama.

Obama offshored US bioweapon development in 2014, mainly to Ukraine.

Obama is also responsible for Iran’s nuclear program.

Everything leads back to Obama. He gave weapons of mass destruction to CIA/Deep State proxies. Obama is a terrorist that stole US secrets and technology, and put it in the hands of illegitimate Deep State regimes.

This is what it all comes down to. Everything Trump is doing revolves around cleaning up Obama’s mess and foiling their plans to take over the world.

Obama is essentially a Bond villain, and put weapons of mass destruction in the hands of people who sought to hold the world hostage.

 

[TigerGrowls]

ITS HAPPENING!!!



You know why Obama is furiously running around doing shadow government **** all of a sudden?

Because the people who had total control until last year have now lost it.

It's a desperate rear-guard, losing action trying to minimize damage being done to Shadow Government institutions.

The utter destruction of their precious Hidden Shadow Election Rigging Network is coming.

They know this.

They know Tulsi is coming.

Like the Wrath of God, Tulsi is coming.

But how do most people discuss Obama's frantic, desperate moves to you?

"Clever."

"Diabolical."

"Machiavellian."

They're losing.

Their getting their asses f**king kicked.

The death spiral has begun, but you can't see it because the Right-Leaning Fake News Matrix, you're still paying attention to it.

Their job is to maintain the Shadow Government illusions, not to destroy them.

They work for the same people Obama does.

Good thing they can't stop anything that's happening, and about to happen, eh?

Ain't life grand?

 

[Allornothing]

Totally agree with this. One of the current issues with our government is that we don't compromise and then improve as time goes on. We insist on getting every line item we care about, and because of this,nothing ever gets done.

The ACA is here, and based on recent polls, isn't going away without a different option. We need to try and fix the parts we don't like.

"We insist on getting every line item we care about, and because of this, nothing ever gets done."

That is the true "genius" of our "elected" officials as it currently consist. They (D/I/R-they are all to blame) and THEY don't want to get anything done.

This is a copy and paste so hopefully it is correct: "Members of Congress work an average of 147 legislative days per year in the House of Representatives and 165 days per year in the Senate."

365 days in a year minus 110 days so they can be off on the weekends, minus 11 federal holidays.

121 days. Don't forget they get vacation/sick days on top of this. What are they doing the other days of the year?

 

[Allornothing]

At least he didn't bow.