Quote: FP123 wrote in post #15

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #12

---

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #11

---

"Repealing [Zero]care is a 'fools errand' ".
~John McClown

"Pass a bill that will not delay/defund [Zero]care."
~(Lady) Lindsey Graham

"You can't defund [Zero]care"
~Kelly (Idi)ayotte

"Defunding [Zero]care not in the cards"
~Bob "stick-a-forker in him" Corker

Oh yeah, theses guys (and gals) are real FIGHTERS.

Sure they are.

You betcha.

I'm sure glad they're on OUR team.

Uh-huh

I REPEAT. ZERO CARE IS HERE TO STAY. LEARN IT. LIVE IT. LOVE IT.

(the republicans' "good friend" Bob Beckel says "it's the law of the land." So there)

---

Yes, under our current congressional makeup, it's all but impossible. Do you not understand that?

See my post about the need to win more elections.

---

Not to be a "downer" on your current and present "optimism" (however that is constituted for you personally at this time), but there is something else to consider. (Seriously, I never want to be that, not to you, not to anyone; probably one of the reasons why I rarely post in these threads any more.) But, in order for your strategy (of winning more elections) to yield the results that we all want, there has to be candidates that are willing to basically "die on the hill" to represent our ("We the People's") interests. And they need to be able to withstand the fury of the current party machinations to get through the primary process in most cases, as step one.... Are there some coming to the fore in this regard? Yes, and they all need every ounce of support from us, in whatever ways we can provide it. Are there enough of them, and can they ultimately make it through the process and be "seated" in time to make a difference?? Perhaps that is the real question at the core of understanding the likelihood of a solution coming forward to much of what we see happening now. Just my two cents, take it or leave it ....

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #15

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #12

---

Yes, under our current congressional makeup, it's all but impossible. Do you not understand that?

See my post about the need to win more elections.

---

Not to be a "downer" on your current and present "optimism" (however that is constituted for you personally at this time), but there is something else to consider. (Seriously, I never want to be that, not to you, not to anyone; probably one of the reasons why I rarely post in these threads any more.) But, in order for your strategy (of winning more elections) to yield the results that we all want, there has to be candidates that are willing to basically "die on the hill" to represent our ("We the People's") interests. And they need to be able to withstand the fury of the current party machinations to get through the primary process in most cases, as step one.... Are there some coming to the fore in this regard? Yes, and they all need every ounce of support from us, in whatever ways we can provide it. Are there enough of them, and can they ultimately make it through the process and be "seated" in time to make a difference?? Perhaps that is the real question at the core of understanding the likelihood of a solution coming forward to much of what we see happening now. Just my two cents, take it or leave it ....

---

Zitat

---

By Ezra Klein

---

Oh. Thanks Journolister for giving us your 20 nothing year old thoughts on this. Now go back to obscurity you Regime hack.

Zitat

---

As Sarah Kliff noted, Medicare Part D was, at this point in its launch, also considered a disaster."When online shopping for prescription drug programs launched back in 2005, things went so badly that the federal government didn't even get off the ground until three weeks after its scheduled launch."

---

I didn't know that Medicare Part D was required for all Americans or they would have to pay fines or risk jail for not signing up. Thanks Ezra for pushing the flawed MSNBC lie.

Quote: Cedric wrote in post #21

---

Quote: Rufus T Firefly wrote in post #18

---

Quote: FP123 wrote in post #15

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #12

---

Yes, under our current congressional makeup, it's all but impossible. Do you not understand that?

See my post about the need to win more elections.

---

Not to be a "downer" on your current and present "optimism" (however that is constituted for you personally at this time), but there is something else to consider. (Seriously, I never want to be that, not to you, not to anyone; probably one of the reasons why I rarely post in these threads any more.) But, in order for your strategy (of winning more elections) to yield the results that we all want, there has to be candidates that are willing to basically "die on the hill" to represent our ("We the People's") interests. And they need to be able to withstand the fury of the current party machinations to get through the primary process in most cases, as step one.... Are there some coming to the fore in this regard? Yes, and they all need every ounce of support from us, in whatever ways we can provide it. Are there enough of them, and can they ultimately make it through the process and be "seated" in time to make a difference?? Perhaps that is the real question at the core of understanding the likelihood of a solution coming forward to much of what we see happening now. Just my two cents, take it or leave it ....

---

I'm with you, FP

I'm seriously considering not posting on these threads, myself. Sometimes it brings out the worst.

You cannot argue with the logic of the need to win more elections. That's a given.

But one's heart says' "what's the point?" when - if you WERE to win said elections - a sizeable number of the "winners" would be McClowns, Grahams, Corkers and Ayottes. (the latter being a "tea party" candidate)

Oh well, time to do like @Frank Cannon and go check out the "low info voter" news of interest.

What's that Gwyneth Paltro up to these days, anyway?

---

You (FP and RTF) both unrealistically got your hopes up that somehow the Cruz/Lee shutdown game of "chicken" could somehow work.

It didn't.

It never could have.

I understand your frustration.

But quitting won't help.

---

The trend may indeed be in "our favor," or it may not. But the real question has everything to do with the timeline and the run rate. Given an infinite timeline, all things are possible. Since there are just too many counter and oppositional forces at play, I see the timeline contracting in length, certainly not expanding.

(Oh, and if all of us want to make this place a bit more enjoyable, for all of us, we all really need to consider just letting any and all ad hominems (e.g., your RTF comment above) dropping by the wayside. Just my opinion as a member here, not a mod. Do with it what you may. There is certainly enough going on to discuss the issues at hand, rather than each other. What is that old saying about what kind of people discuss "ideas" and what kind of people discuss "other people?" I think that we all know that one, maybe it is time for ALL of us to take it to heart, at least a bit more...)