If Health Law Is Overturned, What Wil...

If Health Law Is Overturned, What Will Liberals Do?

There are 4935 comments on the thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com story from Mar 28, 2012, titled If Health Law Is Overturned, What Will Liberals Do?. In it, thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com reports that:

If the Supreme Court strikes down all or part of President Obama 's health care law , it will have unraveled a legislative compromise that many liberals had viewed with suspicion from the beginning.

In one of the ironies of recent politics, Mr. Obama was a late convert to the merits of the individual mandate that now appears to be in danger of being declared unconstitutional.

But the president’s embrace of the mandate — and his willingness to abandon a so-called public option to get a health care deal — was a hard pill to swallow for many of his Democratic supporters.

The Affordable Care Act promises to provide health insurance to millions who lacked it. But it also stops far short of the idea that health care is a basic right for everyone living in the country. And it embraces the market-based system of private health care delivery that has long existed in America.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com.

frank

Oakland, CA

#2090 May 18, 2012
Churmudgeon wrote:
<quoted text> I dont have any health insurance. I dont need it> I happen to have good genitics and I am a fatalist anyway. Im not afraid to die. I seen folks get cancer and spend mega bucks getting treatment and ouickly die. My neighbor got cancer and the doctor gave him 6 months to live. He declined treatment and didnt even stop smoking. He lived for 15 more years. He outlived the doctor that stated he had one foot in the grave and another on abanana peel. I have 48 units taht bring in about $16,000 per year gross income. The net profit is about 75% of that. The Mini storage is actually owned by my LLC. the obama care wants me to pay $3500 and my wife a additional $3500. If I refuse the IRS will attach my real property. I dont like being forced to do anything.
You and your crazy anecdotes - keep m' coming
Churmudgeon

United States

#2091 May 18, 2012
harvey wrote:
<quoted text>
That's fine, but you don't get to decide for OTHER people. Just so you're clear on that.
You correct I whole heartedly agree I dont get or want to decide for OTHER people. Thats the way it should be. So how come others decided I must purchase a certian amunt of health insurance. And if I dont OTHERS decide I have to pay the Govt Obama Care $3500 per year?
Churmudgeon

United States

#2092 May 18, 2012
repukes wrote:
free country wecan post whatever we want to greedy bastards.
Yes the first admendment applies to everyone. just because we disagree with the posters opinion is no reason to resort to censorism.
1 post removed

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#2094 May 18, 2012
Churmudgeon wrote:
<quoted text> I dont have any health insurance. I dont need it> I happen to have good genitics and I am a fatalist anyway. Im not afraid to die. I seen folks get cancer and spend mega bucks getting treatment and ouickly die. My neighbor got cancer and the doctor gave him 6 months to live. He declined treatment and didnt even stop smoking. He lived for 15 more years. He outlived the doctor that stated he had one foot in the grave and another on abanana peel. I have 48 units taht bring in about $16,000 per year gross income. The net profit is about 75% of that. The Mini storage is actually owned by my LLC. the obama care wants me to pay $3500 and my wife a additional $3500. If I refuse the IRS will attach my real property. I dont like being forced to do anything.
The point is, if either of you got sick you would be first in line for treatment. I pay $6K a year for my private insurance for 2 ppl plus 2% on taxes. I don't like it but one minor surgery can take $20K in a blink of an eye or major surgery your house. So its a fact of life we all have to live with and i'm in a land of free health. So how you righties came up with the "free" word is beyond me.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#2095 May 18, 2012
I see Facebook launched today with big fanfare, as a computer guy. I fail to see any merit in this crap at all. I predict facebook will fade away as quick as it came. It has all the ingredients of a dot.com failure. They need to put a dislike button to make it more of a consumer statment on a product. ;)
2 posts removed
Churmudgeon

Mountain Home, AR

#2098 May 18, 2012
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is, if either of you got sick you would be first in line for treatment. I pay $6K a year for my private insurance for 2 ppl plus 2% on taxes. I don't like it but one minor surgery can take $20K in a blink of an eye or major surgery your house. So its a fact of life we all have to live with and i'm in a land of free health. So how you righties came up with the "free" word is beyond me.
Wayne 1177000 wrote good on him dosnt everyone rich or poor deserve the right to proper and free health care. And you took offence at my reply to Wayne 1177000. He is the one who stated free. Ive never wrote that the obama care would be free. the 6k you pay that,s your choice. wait till its mandatory those insurance premiuns will go up. Just the same as a person may never need a major surgery. Of may decide just not to have the operation.When its your time to die it will happen even with the best of health care. Look how many wealthy people die young I know of a few young people who died on the operating table having surgery. My grandpaw who lived into his 90,s always said stay away from those doctors they will kill you. Maby Ill become a christian scientist and be exempt on religious grounds.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#2099 May 18, 2012
Churmudgeon wrote:
<quoted text> Wayne 1177000 wrote good on him dosnt everyone rich or poor deserve the right to proper and free health care. And you took offence at my reply to Wayne 1177000. He is the one who stated free. Ive never wrote that the obama care would be free. the 6k you pay that,s your choice. wait till its mandatory those insurance premiuns will go up. Just the same as a person may never need a major surgery. Of may decide just not to have the operation.When its your time to die it will happen even with the best of health care. Look how many wealthy people die young I know of a few young people who died on the operating table having surgery. My grandpaw who lived into his 90,s always said stay away from those doctors they will kill you. Maby Ill become a christian scientist and be exempt on religious grounds.
That's the problem with healthcare. Because we have it today, some feel it's their right to have it as well regardless who pays for it. But no matter who pays for it, or how much it costs, we are all going to die anyway.

Liberals believe they can solve mortality the same way they solved poverty. It's a figment of their imagination. What did people do before modern technology, medication, operations and other treatments? They died. That's all.

It's human and animal instinct to survive as long as possible. But it is not a right that others are liable for. That is of course unless you're a liberal Democrat.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2100 May 18, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the problem with healthcare. Because we have it today, some feel it's their right to have it as well regardless who pays for it. But no matter who pays for it, or how much it costs, we are all going to die anyway.
Liberals believe they can solve mortality the same way they solved poverty. It's a figment of their imagination. What did people do before modern technology, medication, operations and other treatments? They died. That's all.
It's human and animal instinct to survive as long as possible. But it is not a right that others are liable for. That is of course unless you're a liberal Democrat.
Nixon's Plan For Health Reform, In His Own Words

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2009/...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2101 May 18, 2012
Obama's Health Care Dilemma Evokes Memories Of 1974

As soaring health care costs threatened to push medical care out of reach for many families, the president offered an ambitious new plan to curb the growth in spending and extend health coverage to every American. But he faced fierce opposition from Capitol Hill.

Sound like the current political wrangling? Well, that was 1974 and the president was Richard M. Nixon. The partisan battles and Democratic infighting that threatens this year’s health reform efforts is reminiscent of the battles dating back to that era, says a veteran of that campaign.

Nixon's push to overhaul the health care system was foiled by political and personal scandal, but those events overshadowed an ideological chasm – similar to the dynamics in play now -- that may have undermined the effort anyway, according to Stuart Altman, then a deputy assistant secretary in the health department and an author of Nixon's overhaul plan. More recently, he was a health care adviser to President Barack Obama’s campaign.

Nixon’s plan included an employer mandate, assistance for those who were unable to afford insurance and a number of provisions that are similar to those being advanced today by Obama and congressional Democrats. The employer-based plan included a ceiling on out-of-pocket expenses and eliminated exclusions based on pre-existing conditions. The "Assisted Health Insurance" program would have subsidized coverage based on incomes, replacing Medicaid. Those plans, along with Medicare, would have provided the same protections and benefits to everyone.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Checking-In-W...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2102 May 18, 2012
National Health Insurance Debate Under Nixon

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#2103 May 18, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the problem with healthcare. Because we have it today, some feel it's their right to have it as well regardless who pays for it. But no matter who pays for it, or how much it costs, we are all going to die anyway.
Liberals believe they can solve mortality the same way they solved poverty. It's a figment of their imagination. What did people do before modern technology, medication, operations and other treatments? They died. That's all.
It's human and animal instinct to survive as long as possible. But it is not a right that others are liable for. That is of course unless you're a liberal Democrat.
No it's not about rights at all, its about the most cost effective. That's how other countries think, best bang per buck. The ONLY way to do that is to share the tax burden onto EVERYONE regardless of whether you need it or not. Same as your house insurance, you never want to claim on it but if you do it's there. If you have a system where you have a choice on being insured or not it only attracts those who are more likely to claim. As a result the premiums go UP! If you have a system where you encompass a bulk of your population that is healthy then the costs go DOWN! simple maths. Yet you want to try and disclaim something as a liberal freebie wannabe. No it's just plain common sense.
Just the same as if the only ppl who insured their house lived in a fire prone area or high amount of break in's. Of course the premiums will be high or not at all. All our house insurance went up nationally because of floods in one state. I don't see that as my problem either but i accept that insurance companies still need to profit for me to be insured. So this year it costs at least $150 more for the same as last year. Just like you can't refuse to pay tax because you don't agree with the military in Iraq or Afganistan, then this is exactly the same. The trouble is with the Tea Party logic they are so locked into boxed thinking now that its become almost the same mentality as the people you are at war with.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#2104 May 18, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Top 10 Reagan Achievements
by Human Events02/06/2011
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php...
Raygun our first Alzheimer's President.

"The fiscal shift in the Reagan years was staggering. In January 1981, when Reagan declared the federal budget to be "out of control," the deficit had reached almost $74 billion, the federal debt $930 billion. Within two years, the deficit was $208 billion. The debt by 1988 totaled $2.6 trillion. In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation."

WP

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#2105 May 18, 2012
Churmudgeon wrote:
<quoted text> I told you I bought the sawmill at a auction. I cant understand what point you are trying to make. What you could do is worry about yourself. You needent worry about the Churmudgeon I am self reliant. I gladly pay for my internet access Its a service I personally order and if the cost became more than the service is worth to me I could decide not to buy it anymore. The Health care is being forced on me.The obama care law is corcesing the citizens its almost blackmail.
You are quite as dense as the wood you saw at your sawmill in order to make PCs and get internet access.

The point is that you spit on the society that allows you the quality of life you enjoy. You see things through the filter of 'self reliance' as if you took your little axe and hoe and lived in a log cabin you built yourself.

You are very dense and rather arrogant but quite typical of your ilk.
poetic justice

Junction City, KS

#2106 May 19, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the problem with healthcare. Because we have it today, some feel it's their right to have it as well regardless who pays for it. But no matter who pays for it, or how much it costs, we are all going to die anyway.
Liberals believe they can solve mortality the same way they solved poverty. It's a figment of their imagination. What did people do before modern technology, medication, operations and other treatments? They died. That's all.
It's human and animal instinct to survive as long as possible. But it is not a right that others are liable for. That is of course unless you're a liberal Democrat.
Some day, a catastrophic illness, injury, or accident could strike you or a family member. It could bankrupt you and you could lose your house and everything you ever owned. Then you could find that without funds or resources, the medical care stops and you or little RayTed are simply going to die a slow , miserable death. This happens every day and it`s somebody else`s problem until it happens to you. People like you are usually the first to scream for help when the tables are turned against you.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#2107 May 19, 2012
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the problem with healthcare. Because we have it today, some feel it's their right to have it as well regardless who pays for it. But no matter who pays for it, or how much it costs, we are all going to die anyway.
Liberals believe they can solve mortality the same way they solved poverty. It's a figment of their imagination. What did people do before modern technology, medication, operations and other treatments? They died. That's all.
It's human and animal instinct to survive as long as possible. But it is not a right that others are liable for. That is of course unless you're a liberal Democrat.
It's the tea party who gets the free government health care. They are all old people on SS and Medicare. This country ONLY gives old people free health care and now we are supposed to pay $85 TRILLION dollars in Medicare costs to keep old people alive to be 9i0-100. Why should we pay to do that?? This is why the Republicans want people on Medicare to pay $6,000 a year and go and buy private insurance, so that the taxpayers get off the hook for their health care and so the young people can be rid of that $85 trillion dollars of debt. It's the tea party that needs to be paying $6,000 a year for part of their health insurance. The ONLY government health care we have is for the old tea party people, so they are the ones who need to give up government health care. If they were being honest about it, they are mad that Obama took money out of Medicare to fund Obamacare. They want all the free government health care to go only to them, not to young people. That's what started the fake tea party. It's old people who heard that Obama took $500 billion out of Medicare to fund Obamacare. Then the tea party started and they started protesting saying "no socialism, no government health care, but keep your hands off of my Medicare." The problem with this type of thinking is if they are all on socialized health care, they are all on government health care, they love it, they have no rights to say not to give the same thing to everyone in the country. Obama should have done single payer Medicare for all because people love Medicare. This idea that they don't like government health care is a lie. They love Medicare because it is very expensive old aged medical care with NO limits and very few charges to them. The tea party is just trying to keep Medicare and not have to pay the $6,000 a year for their medical insurance.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#2108 May 19, 2012
Churmudgeon wrote:
<quoted text> I dont have any health insurance. I dont need it> I happen to have good genitics and I am a fatalist anyway. Im not afraid to die. I seen folks get cancer and spend mega bucks getting treatment and ouickly die. My neighbor got cancer and the doctor gave him 6 months to live. He declined treatment and didnt even stop smoking. He lived for 15 more years. He outlived the doctor that stated he had one foot in the grave and another on abanana peel. I have 48 units taht bring in about $16,000 per year gross income. The net profit is about 75% of that. The Mini storage is actually owned by my LLC. the obama care wants me to pay $3500 and my wife a additional $3500. If I refuse the IRS will attach my real property. I dont like being forced to do anything.
You're right about that, and this is something that Dr. Paul has also talked about. He says that medical insurance should allow people to go to natural doctors if they want to, and he talks about how natural supplements cure many illnesses. The cancer industry is a huge, huge business. And what they do is cut off parts of people's bodies and then burn them with radiation and then poision them with chemicals so they get another kind of cancer a few years later because their immune system is broken down from the radiation and from the chemo and they are given so many drugs, and no good things. Doctors do not know one thing about natural supplements, but natural supplements have nutrition for the body - vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients, amino acids, etc. whereas the drugs doctors hand out like candy have no positive value to the body and they give people liver cancer cause the liver has to process the drugs. Doctors make more money on bonuses from drug companies for giving out drugs than they make in salaries. Everytime I ever went to a doctor they did not have one clue what they were doing. They act like they never heard of any of my symptoms, no one has ever had their stomach hurt, no one has ever had trouble breathing, they never heard of it. I had one doctor tell me I have stage 3 breast cancer when all I had was a lump she had not even done a biopsy on. They are so unhappy that they do all of these unethical things. I've lived for five years already since she lied to me that I have stage 3 breast cancer, no surgery, no chemo, no nothing other than lots of exercise and taking natural supplements and a healthy diet. Although I did quit smoking too.

I go to the doctor and they say "oh you have light sensitivity in your eyes, it's so serious, such a big deal, go to an eye doctor right away." Then I go and the eye doctor has no clue why, can't do one thing, but he is like "you should have come in a long time ago." But then he has no clue and can't help me. It's always like that, same crap for over 20 years. They don't know what they are doing. They want everyone on ten meds so they get a big bonus from the drug companies, and the drugs give people liver cancer.
Pamela

Citrus Heights, CA

#2109 May 19, 2012
Romney created a mandate that everyone has to have health insurance. Newt Gingrich was heavily involved with groups that were trying to create an individual mandate too. It's the same as states making everyone buy car insurance, liability insurance. It's the same thing. We pay more than any other country for health care but our system is rated 37th worldwide. The problem is the government health insurance ALL goes only to old people and they use most of the health care cause old people get sick. And the other side of it is Medicaid, so we give "poor" people free health care and they don't pay anything for it. Most people declare bankruptcy over medical bills. So they all agree we have to make everyone have health insurance. It's just a matter of how to do it. Obamacare does it by taxing people to death. He taxes estates 55 percent, taxes you when you sell a property, it's 1.5 trillion in new taxes on a broke, debtor, unemployed nation. So that's not going to work. He should have done single payer Medicare for all, that would have solved the problem and not created all of these new taxes.

One problem with Obamacare is it ties the insurance to employers, which is an old outdated way of providing health health care. The 1.5 trillion in taxes is a big, huge problem. And the system is a big problem because it gives everyone who makes less than $75,000 a year money to buy health insurance, so right away every retiree on Medicare says well they earn less than $75K retired, so they will go and apply for Medicaid as their supplement to Medicare, and Obama does not think about that. He doesn't get how greedy the old people are and how everyone only looks at how to get free stuff from the government and before it even starts they have figured out how to work the new system. Plus imagine putting millions more in each state on free health care, on Medicaid, and who pays for it? The rich, the guy who sells his house, the tiny estate that gets taxed 55 percent. And this goes to Mexicans and blacks and all of the people who never work and never pay taxes. It would go bankrupt in a few years between everyone young who would be on Medicaid and the old folks working the new law to be able to use Medicaid as their Medicare supplement. Paul Ryan has the right idea. Move Medicare over to the private sector, cap the expenses, give people a $12,000 a year voucher and let them go and buy health insurance and pay for the rest of it themselves. That would wipe out the debt in Medicare and end socialized medical care and put the costs on seniors instead of on taxpayers. Privatizing it would put limits on senior care. It would no longer be a blank check, and people would care how much they weight and they would have to exercise and eat healthy, take some responsibility for their own health. It would also end the 50 billion dollars a year of Medicare fraud. When the government has a blank check, any and all costs will be paid by the government, this is how you get all of this fraud in Medicare.

If it was a private company that has to make money, that company is not going to sign every check anyone and everyone submits to them.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#2110 May 19, 2012
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
No it's not about rights at all, its about the most cost effective. That's how other countries think, best bang per buck. The ONLY way to do that is to share the tax burden onto EVERYONE regardless of whether you need it or not. Same as your house insurance, you never want to claim on it but if you do it's there. If you have a system where you have a choice on being insured or not it only attracts those who are more likely to claim. As a result the premiums go UP! If you have a system where you encompass a bulk of your population that is healthy then the costs go DOWN! simple maths. Yet you want to try and disclaim something as a liberal freebie wannabe. No it's just plain common sense.
Just the same as if the only ppl who insured their house lived in a fire prone area or high amount of break in's. Of course the premiums will be high or not at all. All our house insurance went up nationally because of floods in one state. I don't see that as my problem either but i accept that insurance companies still need to profit for me to be insured. So this year it costs at least $150 more for the same as last year. Just like you can't refuse to pay tax because you don't agree with the military in Iraq or Afganistan, then this is exactly the same. The trouble is with the Tea Party logic they are so locked into boxed thinking now that its become almost the same mentality as the people you are at war with.
I have several thoughts on that. First one is that our healthcare costs are because of government--not because we don't have enough government. Next of course is the role the federal government is supposed to play in our lives. Healthcare isn't one of them, especially forced healthcare.

When flood prone areas are hit, you read all the time how homeowners could not get insurance. That's why government and the Red Cross steps in. Thirdly is to examine our healthcare systems that are on the road to failure such as Medicare and Medicaid. Why start a new program when you can't fix the old ones? That's like buying a used car that needs repair, yet you have two broken cars sitting in the driveway that you can't get going.

This Presidential election will be like any other. The Republicans will tell you what a mess Democrats made of things, and the Democrats will try to scare people by telling them what Republicans want to take away. This has little to do with healthcare because Democrats realized long ago that the more government dependent people they create, the more likely those people are to vote Democrat.

Once you start something like this, it's difficult to get rid of regardless of much of a failure it is. If you have a dog, give him a nice meaty bone, he will likely growl and even bite you if you try to take it away. Not all dogs, but many. The dog doesn't consider that you gave him the bone in the first place, only that it's rightfully his now.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#2111 May 19, 2012
poetic justice wrote:
<quoted text>Some day, a catastrophic illness, injury, or accident could strike you or a family member. It could bankrupt you and you could lose your house and everything you ever owned. Then you could find that without funds or resources, the medical care stops and you or little RayTed are simply going to die a slow , miserable death. This happens every day and it`s somebody else`s problem until it happens to you. People like you are usually the first to scream for help when the tables are turned against you.
As an insulin dependent diabetic with high blood pressure and cholesterol problems for the last 25 years, I have always made sure I am insured for my health. If I can do it, why can't others?

If you want to have government healthcare, fine by me, but make it fair for everybody. You don't need new bureaucracies or an extra 18,000 new IRS workers. You don't need 3,000 pages of bills. A simple consumption tax would do it all. Say 10% tax on domestic products and a 15% tax on foreign made products. That's it. Pure and simple. Rich, poor, black or white, everybody pays into the system.

Well gee....... if it's that simple, why didn't the Democrats create such a system in the first place? The answer: because it's not about healthcare. It's about politics. If we ever went to an all government healthcare system, trial lawyers wouldn't be able to sue providers. Trail lawyers are one of the largest contributors to the Democrat party come election time. Shhhh.

Next of course is that since government provides us with healthcare, they have the authority to tell us how to live. No smoking, no fatty foods, mandatory exercise, minimum alcohol consumption, and if you don't like it, you can't switch to another company like you can with insurance.

Heck, maybe government will even come out and measure your waistline to see if you are fit enough. "Come on Ray, now you're being ridiculous." Really? That's what they do in Japan because their government provides their citizens with healthcare:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/...
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#2112 May 19, 2012
Pamela wrote:
<quoted text>It's the tea party who gets the free government health care. They are all old people on SS and Medicare. This country ONLY gives old people free health care and now we are supposed to pay $85 TRILLION dollars in Medicare costs to keep old people alive to be 9i0-100. Why should we pay to do that?? This is why the Republicans want people on Medicare to pay $6,000 a year and go and buy private insurance, so that the taxpayers get off the hook for their health care and so the young people can be rid of that $85 trillion dollars of debt. It's the tea party that needs to be paying $6,000 a year for part of their health insurance. The ONLY government health care we have is for the old tea party people, so they are the ones who need to give up government health care. If they were being honest about it, they are mad that Obama took money out of Medicare to fund Obamacare. They want all the free government health care to go only to them, not to young people. That's what started the fake tea party. It's old people who heard that Obama took $500 billion out of Medicare to fund Obamacare. Then the tea party started and they started protesting saying "no socialism, no government health care, but keep your hands off of my Medicare." The problem with this type of thinking is if they are all on socialized health care, they are all on government health care, they love it, they have no rights to say not to give the same thing to everyone in the country. Obama should have done single payer Medicare for all because people love Medicare. This idea that they don't like government health care is a lie. They love Medicare because it is very expensive old aged medical care with NO limits and very few charges to them. The tea party is just trying to keep Medicare and not have to pay the $6,000 a year for their medical insurance.
Of course they want SS and Medicare. They paid into it their entire lives; and not by choice mind you.

I want SS and Medicare too. Why? Because government owes me? No, it's because government forced me into these systems which disabled me from providing for myself. Now they are talking about me working until the age of 67. Had I invested all that SS money into a conservative retirement fun, hell, I might be able to retire at 60 or earlier. But I had no choice.

If we didn't have Medicare, all that Medicare money my employers and I put into the system could have easily went into private insurance for when I get older. Without a government system, insurance companies would have created elderly care for when you hit the age of 65.

To criticize the Tea Party people for wanting their Medicare and Social Security is like criticizing a person who had house insurance their entire lives, and when the house burned down, tell them they are hypocrites for wanting the insurance company to pay for the damages because they never liked the private insurance system in the first place

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 3 min narrowmindedbigot... 51,947
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Grey Ghost 1,681,994
News Major shift as Trump opens way for Medicaid wor... 8 min Quirky 116
News News 14 Mins Ago Democrat's upset in Wisconsin ... 13 min Impeach the Creep 1
News Leaders say Trump presidency is at odds with ML... 27 min NOOPHRA 116
News Trump says he's 'like, really smart,' 'a very s... 43 min NOOPHRA 454
News Trump promises to sign DACA bill in public nego... 1 hr Quirky 76
More from around the web