ldrews

Since the majority of the popular vote was Democratic, then you are asserting that the purpose of the U.S. Constitution at the moment is to protect the Republicans from the Democrats, right?

Well, let's prove me wrong. Would you support conducting a voter verification/validation study in California? The results of such a study would certainly shut me up, wouldn't it?

When you "no evidence of large-scale voter fraud" are you saying there is evidence of smaller scale voter fraud? Can you link me to any reputable studies on the subject. I know of one publicized case in Texas of an illegal immigrant illegally voting, but don't know of any more. California automatically registering driver license applicants for voting while at the same time issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants gives me pause. I would like to see somebody do at least a random sample of voter validation/verification in California. You may be right that there is no significant problem. But lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

As you point out the demographic most affected by voter ID requirements happens to vote mostly Democratic. It is the demographic that is also suspected of harboring illegal voters (in California illegal immigrants are issued drivers licenses and are automatically registered to vote). So it is a bit disingenuous to appeal to voter enfranchisement when it obviously favors Democrats, possible illegally. I would like to see all legal voters enfranchised. I also would like some assurances that illegal voting and voting fraud are avoided as much as possible. Do you have any suggestions on how we might achieve both goals?

Absolutely priceless is correct! You obviously have little appreciation for how the Constitutional Republic of the USA works to protect minorities from the overreaching majorities. Checks and balances. We are seeing it in operation as we post. For the last 8 years the US has enjoyed the Democratic/liberal/globalist approach to governance. Now the USA gets to enjoy the Republican/conservative/populist/nationalist approach. This swing has happened several times in the US history. In spite of all of the caterwauling the US is very likely to survive all of it. How well is another question. Limiting the reach of the Federal Government does not prevent states, cities, families, individuals from taking appropriate actions to achieve their goals. You would think that if the Federal Government does not bring you your bottle of milk you will die an agonizing death! Get serious! The US was founded on and has portrayed itself as the champion of individual liberty and opportunity. I much prefer that, and the risks that go with it, to a nanny state. If you prefer otherwise, there are several such countries around the world. Go for it!

don't let the door hit you in butt on your way out.

If someone damages your private property or interferes with its use, you are already damaged. You don't have to wait for human damage. And trying to prevent potential damage to your property without interfering with others' use of their property would be very difficult indeed. How can one prove that their actions are potentially damaging unless actual damage is done? Otherwise I could prevent you from driving a car because you could potentially damage me. Your viewpoint toward incompetent parents and the effects on their children is very humanitarian but is not anything mandated by the Constitution. And forcing other people to pay taxes to support your humanitarian inclinations is just an indirect form of robbery. Citizens and children have rights against actions of government or other people, they do not have rights to have the government make up for their shortcomings. There is no objection to you and your associates banding together to voluntarily do so, but plenty of objection to using the government as a vehicle to do so. And the fact that you do not know enough to properly manage your money does not impose an obligation on anyone else to do so for you. To protect you against fraud and deceptive advertising yes, to protect you against bad choices of managers no. In my opinion, government is not our nanny and should not be. You obviously have a brain. Use it!

And you seem to prefer the law of tyranny and gang rule. Whomever has the majority dictates to the minority with little if any protections. Or whomever has the biggest gang and most firepower must be right. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. As a libertarian I attempt to live by a moral code: No initiation of violence or coercion in my relationships, directly or indirectly. My relationships tend to be voluntary: all parties enter into the relationship voluntarily because they see a benefit to doing so. Do you have a moral code and do you live by it?

Excuse me, what are you smoking? I have not come out in favor of making it harder for minorities to vote, I have come out in favor of not making it easier for minorities or anyone else to vote. Your approach is inherently profiling/racist. Why would you elevate any group over the over groups?

Freedom is usually political freedom, freedom from interference by government. Or socially, freedom from hunger, threat, etc. You are talking about enfranchisement, a totally different subject. In any case, minorities and lower incomes can always participate, but perhaps not as easily or on the same level as others. But then some people run faster than others, are more intelligent than others, or better looking than others. Should we be trying equalize all outcomes?

First of all, it not your drinking water, it is the public's drinking water. Which to me is part of the problem. If it were indeed your drinking water you could sue the hell out of whoever is polluting it. Each person suffering damage to their drinking water could do the same. The entity polluting the drinking water would soon be out of business. Second, why is the school providing your children's food? Isn't that your responsibility as a parent? Aren't you responsible for monitoring your child's environment for dangers? Have you totally abdicated your responsibilities? Third, any time you give your money to someone else to manage you have the responsibility to monitor their performance. It is your money. Have you also abdicated your responsibilities in this area? Anytime we pass a law or regulation limiting public behavior we lessen our freedom. Some of it is required in order to live together peacefully, but, in my opinion, we have taken it much too far to point of creating a "nanny" state. And I agree that my freedom stops where it begins to infringe on your right to life, liberty, and property. We just have a disagreement on what is included in those categories.

Absolutely a smaller standing army and less defense spending! Particularly spending for overseas bases and troops. What has voting got to do with freedom? I believe in North Korea, for example, that voting participation is close to 100%.

I am in the camp that less government is better. More efficient government is better. I want the individual citizen to more free, not less. You seem to advocate the opposite.

This is one of the reasons I continue to support Trump: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/13/presidential-executive-order-comprehensive-plan-reorganizing-executive

Here is another viewpoint : http://isreview.org/issue/94/affordable-care-act

So, by opposing the Republicans current attempt at change you are asserting that the current situation is acceptable? That rather than try the Republican change we should do nothing? If not, what is your proposed solution? I personally think that the current ACA program is deteriorating rapidly and if nothing is done millions of people will be signed up but with no effective health care at all. Stories are already surfacing of people who cannot use their health care because they cannot afford the deductible, effectively leaving them with no health care at all. But they do have access, right?

First of all, "fairness" is in the eye of the beholder. What is fair to you may not be seen as fair by other people. Second, as has been pointed out by others, all change is not necessarily good. Change without respect to agreed upon goals is irresponsible and potentially damaging. The Democrats/liberals have their set of goals, the Republicans/conservatives have a different set of goals. Since the control of government has changed from one set of hands to another, many of the changes being proposed are an attempt to march to the new set of goals. In this context change that moves toward the Republican/conservative goals is "good" and changes that move away are "bad". Your idea of "fairer" is not in accord with the Republican/conservative goals, so your suggestion for change is "bad". You may not like it, but the only way to move in your preferred direction is to persuade the Republicans/conservatives that your ideas further their goals, or outvote them at the next election. Until a social consensus is achieved regarding an appropriate solution to the health care problem we will undoubtedly continue to see contentious behavior.

If you think the rich would end up paying a significant portion, you are ignorant of history or are incredibly naive.

Trump is a Republican in name only. He is a populist that executed a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. Do you not remember the campaign? The Republican Party leadership hated Trump almost as much as did Clinton. Trump won the election by appealing directly to the Republican voters and bypassing the Republican establishment. I think you are having a "senior" moment!

What makes you think he has control of the legislative branch of government? Have you talked to McCain, Shumer, Pelosi, Ryan about this? And you have forgotten that non-budgetary reconciliation legislation requires 60 votes in the Senate, allowing Democrats to filibuster? I am glad you approve of his cabinet.

I agree with many of the posters here: The Republican/Trump health care plan won't fix the problems, may make them worse. I propose that Trump and the Republicans back off and do nothing rather than make the situation worse. Let the current ACA program play out for a few more years and see how it does. What does anyone else think?

I am reading that premiums are soaring, deductibles are soaring, and insurance companies are rapidly exiting the ACA marketplace. Some states now have only 1 insurer left. How is this not imploding? But then I am not an expert like cherdano, just a voter with an opinion. See you at the voting booth, just like last time.

Your entire approach is based on the assumption that health care is a "right" that the Federal government must satisfy. I strongly disagree. Not with my taxes! I have no objection to you banding together with like-minded people and providing such health care to whomever you want. Just don't require the people who do not want to join to help pay for it. And you may exclude such people from your services as well. We will wish you good luck.

So, the Republican plan, which is known as "Obamacare Lite", and is basically a continuation of the ACA with some modifications, is not good. Surprise, surprise! We are in a mess that appears to be unfixable. How about actually fixing the health care situation. Of course that would require a consensus about what is the proper approach. Not likely to happen.

You have got to be kidding!