Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/11/14 11:44 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 11/11/14 02:26 AM, TheMason wrote: What you are missing is that the gains are usually made in vacancies.

Where are you getting this from? Between the 104 special elections held since 1990 there have only been 18 instances where the incumbent party flipped.

Irrelevent. We're not talking about special elections. We're talking about general elections here.

The point made was when a seat flips it is more common to be in open seats than ones held by incumbents.

edit:

At 11/11/14 02:26 AM, TheMason wrote: Furthermore, going into this election many observers did not think the Repubs could make any gains in the House (myself included).

This is also confusing. Sabato, Cook, 538 et al all had the GOP gaining seats in the House.

Not really. Those were late projections...like August or September on. At the beginning of the election cycle, not many were thinking there would be major Republican pick-ups in the House. The consensus starting out (ie: fourth quarter of 2013 on) was that the House was fairly rigid and not many seats would change.

At 11/13/14 10:36 PM, Warforger wrote:
The current max for 2014 is 9, this one is 8 in 1986 for the Democrats. So it doesn't sound like it's out of the ordinary.

So out of the last 20 Senate elections, there have been 5 Senate elections where 8 or more seats switched parties. This is only 25% of all Senate elections.

* 3 of the five were in conjunction with presidential elections (1980, 1984, and 2008). That's 30% of the elections where a president was being elected.
* 2 of the five were in midterms (1986 & 2014) That's 20% of the elections were a president was being elected.

If you look at what was going on during these years you'll see a pattern of presidential fatigue setting in:
1980: Jimmy Carter was very unpopular and suffered a crushing defeat in his re-election bid.
1986: This was the middle of the Iran-Contra Affair.
2008: The aftermath of W's presidency where the Republicans suffered historic losses.
2014: The current election being discusses.

1984 appears to be a bit of an outlier and not tied to the president's popularity since Reagan substantially increased his electoral leads:

EV: Went from 489 to 525.
States carried: From 44 to 49.
Popular vote went from 50.8% to 58.8%.

Looking at it, with Obama's popularity being at a near all-time low for him...I don't see where you can make a case 2014 is an outlier or anything but a repudiation of the party in the White House (as well as the Senate).

No this is a generic wave, it's just the culmination of decades of the removal of the Democrats from the South.?

Reach much?

Yes, part of it is a correction (not a culmination...that happened in 1994 but was lost during Bush). No doubt the Republicans were helped by Democratic retirements. But the losses by Democratic incumbents across the board is striking. Remember, this is not just about the Senate...but Republicans did better than expected in the House and Governor's races as well.

Yah, that's how everyone campaigns these days.

A trend of one is not a trend.

The Jimmy Carter comparison is popular amongst Conservatives, but I feel the President he's most similar to is Reagan.

I'll have to look into the economic data a little more...but there are significant differences.

1) Reagan's foreign policy was not as much of an abject failure as Obama's. America's power and place in the world was expanded under Reagan. Under Obama he has only shrunk it.
2) Reagan was able to expand his first electoral victory in 1984...in 2012 Obama lost ground (the first president to be reelected with less of a mandate since the middle of the 19th Century!)
3) Obama has suffered significant congressional losses in each election (midterm or not).
4) Reagan, despite a significant scandal, was able to not only see a Republican follow him...but his VP. We'll see if a Dem will be able to capture the White House in 2016.

At 11/11/14 01:32 AM, Warforger wrote:

At 11/11/14 01:08 AM, TheMason wrote: The midterms were a setback and defeat for the Democrats. Period. Not really up for debate.

Actually it is.

Sorry...but no it is not.

Yes you are correct, the historical trend is for the party in the White House to loose seats in midterms.

What you are missing is that the gains are usually made in vacancies. Incumbents typically have an advantage. That so many incumbents were toppled giving Republicans their biggest midterm pick-up in 80 years means there is something different about these midterms. Furthermore, going into this election many observers did not think the Repubs could make any gains in the House (myself included). So their double-digit pick-up is huge. Along with pick-ups in governor's races.

It is not merely about loses in the midterms...but how deep they are. Are they a wave, or merely an adjustment? Obama lost deeply in a wave. I doubt Begich will win...so that means Repubs pick-up 8 before Louisianna's run-off which means it could reach 9. It was a wave election despite Juan Williams being in denial and claiming it was not (and then moments later talking about how Repubs took out all of the Dem's bulwarks against a wave).

But we should not be surprised. Obama's 2012 victory was a whimper not a bang. Compare 2012 to 2008:

2008: 69.5 million popular votes (52.9%) and 365 EVs (28 states + DC and a split in Nebraska)
2012: 65.9 million popular votes (51.1%) and 332 EVs (26 states + DC)

This was a historic result, no other modern president has won a second term while losing a share of the vote. All other presidents who won a second term (minus FDR's 3rd & 4th terms) going back to the mid-1800s...have increased vote share over their initial win. He did not win on a message of how good his policies were...but on painting his opponent as a rich white guy who was part of the problem to begin with (while ignoring Dem culpability including policies he endorsed).

It is entirely possible that history will not be as kind to BHO as WJC, GHWB, RWR, LBJ, HST, or even RMN. He will probably occupy a place in history next to Jimmy Carter in terms of presidents who held great promise coming in but in the end did not measure up to the job.

At 11/9/14 05:06 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 11/9/14 12:39 PM, TheMason wrote: I also wonder if the biggest loser in this election was Hillary.

I wonder if she's even contemplating not running now...

That's certainly wishful thinking on your part.

I will admit that Hillary winning in 2016 is suboptimal to how I hope the election goes. However, I do not think Hillary would be a horrible president. Nor do I allow my personal feelings and ideological leaning to have a disproportionate impact on my analysis.

The midterms were a setback and defeat for the Democrats. Period. Not really up for debate.

This includes Hillary.

Now how much does it hurt her presidential pursuits? That is up for debate. Running for president is physically, emotionally, and financially exhausting. Any major defeat such as what happened a week ago should have any reasonable and rational person question whether or not she should run. Especially if she has any medical conditions.

I disagree with your assessment that Obama is not popular with Democrats

Moving the goal posts dude...and actually totally missing an undercurrent of my post. That Hillary would face opposition from the Left means there are Democrats who find Obama and his policies appealing.

So what you are disagreeing with is not my assessment...but possibly a strawman of your own design and desire.

"Quotes a person who stands to gain personally by becoming Hillary's chief campaign spin doctor."

Methinks I am not the only one thinking wishfully!

"Rand Paul and Ted Cruz and their allies in the House"

I watched Rand Paul talk about the election from Mitch McConnell's victory party. During the Midterms, Tea Party candidates did not do so well against 'establishment' Repubs. In short, I think they have learned their lessons and matured in office by learning from their mistakes.

While I am NOT saying that Repubs will definately play their hand artfully and masterfully...I think it is equally premature to assume they are going to be like Biden and prove to be gaffe machines!

Keep in mind we don't know the precise reason why Obama's approval ratings are so low as of yet -- is it a matter of policy or is it something else, like perceived competency, or a combination of both? If it's the former she needs to make it clear she's not continuing unpopular policies; if it's the latter, she doesn't necessarily have to run against him per se, but rather project an air of competency. .

I think the polls indicate it's a combination. If it's the latter...it is probably worse for her. She was a major figure in his administration. Any incompetency is something she is intimately attached to. It will be easy for Repubs to paint her as part of the competency problem.

At 11/9/14 08:21 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: Now that the Republicans control the House and Senate, there should be a higher chance for the next President to be a Republican. Agree or disagree?

Not really.

Midterm elections are different from presidential elections.

* The people who turn-out for midterms are generally older and whiter; demographics the Dems have historically lost.

* The House is actually fairly locked in place due to Republican gerrymandering and unlikely to switch to Blue in the next 4-6 years.

* Only 1/3 of the Senate are up for election every two years. This year the geography of seats in play favored Republicans (most Red Southern states). In 2016, the campaign will be Republicans who hold seats in Blue states.

At 11/9/14 02:18 PM, Feoric wrote: Moved the goal posts, appealed to emotion, and other irrelevancies.

In the comment to which I am replying, the underlying implication is that: 1) this is a Republican-centric phenomenon and 2) the Republicans deny and/or ignore reality and objectively researched data.

The original comment did NOT imply you are discussing what policies are or are not politically viable. Therefore making a counter-argument to my comments about the political viability of gun control policies are irrelevant.

My point was if Democrats also looked at objective facts and scientific data...there would be no gun control movement pushing policies (viable or otherwise) since the vast majority of their talking points are easily discredited by facts. In essence Michael Bloomberg would not be wasting his money on the movement.

Yes, the extreme Far Left Republican-lite Democrats who didn't run on any of Obama's policies. The horror!

Umm...there are actually Dems who ran on Obama's policies and won because of the political geography of the districts they are in. Obama's policies are not unpopular everywhere, and the geography will favor Dems in 2016.

I don't even know how to respond to this.

How about honestly and intelligently?

edit: to be clear, the Democratic Party in no way shape or form resembles a far left party.

This is intellectually dishonest because I know you are smarter than this. You are doing mental gymnastics to re-cast the House Democratic Caucus as moderate.

1) Yes you are right: on a global scale the Democratic Party in the US would NOT be a far left party. For example in England their policies would be center-left. In France it would be centerist.

2) In a topic discusing US politics and the effect of the Midterms on US policy, point one is COMPLETELY IRRELEVENT. The political compass is relative to the country which is being discussed.

3) The US Democratic Party is the umbrella party that represents the Left. Ergo strip away all the people who fall between 0 and -0.25 (or -0.33 depending on who you ask) on the American political compass; all you are left with is the extreme Left of the American political spectrum.

So my point is: the Democrats in Congress (especially the House) has had most of their moderates voted out of office. Those who are left are the ones with the most ideologically rigid and partisan.

I also wonder if the biggest loser in this election was Hillary.

There were several reports of how the Clintons were helping Dems while Obama stayed off the campaign trail because he (BHO) was dragging the Dems down. The Clintons were going to be the Blue Wall against the Republican tide. In Arkansas, Pryor didn't need to ask for Clinton's help because Clinton just knew when and where he was needed...and would magically just show-up.

In the end, they could not save any of the Senate Dems. This is an indicator that her coattails will be short and she may not be that capable of bringing Dems into the Congress and governor's mansions with her. So she may be abandoned by some, many, or all of her party allies.

So in 2016, many Dems who want to be president (but think Hillary is inevitable) may actually decide to throw their hat into the ring. Thus Hillary could experience what Romney experinced in 2012: the inevitable party nominee getting destroyed by their own party's ideological core during the primaries.

I wonder if she's even contemplating not running now...

At 11/6/14 04:20 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 11/6/14 01:59 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I'm kind of curious as to exactly why the shift to red happened.

All of the metrics show that the country has significantly improved under Obama.

Camaro:

I hate to break it to you, but the metrics are mixed in terms of improvement and in terms of degree none of them really point to any sort of improvement that can be termed 'signifcantly'.

Everyone focuses on the U-3 number which is the number of people who are looking/want a job and cannot find one. However, once you expand your focus to a broader metric after six years we are back to where we were in Oct 2008 (11.1%). Yes it is better than the high of 17.1%. But when you look at the record it has taken a lot to get us here. The averages from 2009-present are (in order): 16.2%, 16.7%, 15.9%, 14.7%, 13.8%, and 12.2%. This means Obama's average total unemployment rate is 14.9%.

However, the average under Bush was 9.2%. Comparatively, this is dismal. Yes Obama had a much deeper recession to contend with than Bush had to deal with early on. You can blame the crash on Bush, but remember it was a result of doubling down on policies that Clinton enacted and Obama is tangentally attached to (he worked on one of the lawsuits that put pressure on Clinton to lower credit worthiness for FANNIE/FREDDIE loans).

What we want to see in terms of unemployment (U-3) reported in the news is an increase. It means people are feeling better about the economy and see themselves as having a positive future. It means more people are hiring. The reality is we are not creating enough jobs to really give everyone who wants one a job...much less enough to get us back to Sept 17, 2008.
Source

As for other metrics: Wall Street is doing just fine, but there is a general feeling that it is a fragile recovery there as evidenced by the Fed not raising interest rates. This spans two things: 1) they are worried that such a shock would cause the market to tumble and 2) that it would stifle the economic activity of average Americans. Hell, I've been reading reports of changes in homebuying...more people are buying in cash and it is still hard for people to get loans.

Then there is consumer confidence which is still depressed. The inflation rate remains flat and (outside of 2011) has struggled to get over 2%. Why is this a bad thing: it means the US economy is NOT growing.

So I'm sorry, but the metrics pointing to an improved (much less significantly) just are not there.

Regardless of whether or not this is true, your average Republican is not going to believe this. Democrats need to stop believing that you can convince somebody to vote blue by endlessly citing facts. It's simply not going to work, and hasn't.

Two points Feoric:
1) This is not a Republican only phenomenon. The Democrats don't want to accept facts that are outside of their worldview either. I mean if they are the Vulcans you imply they are...they would not be pushing for gun control...even 'universal' background checks.

2) Moving forward, the Democratic party in Congress is the radical party. In 2010 the Democratic Party's moderates who won election in 2006 were swept out. With the pick-ups the Republicans made in the House last Tuesday...the party is once again reduced to its furthest Left members in the House and lost a significant amount of their moderates in the Senate. If the headline on RCP is to be believed, they are keeping Pelosi and Reid in as minority leaders. This just shows their disconnection. I mean shortly after a billionaire paid Dems to keep the Senate chamber open for a climate change fillibuster...Reid went on an anti-Koch rant where he claimed Dems didn't have billionaires on his side!

What we need now is moderates on both sides who can work together. I think that's what we have on the Republican side (this was not a Tea-Party led victory)...unfortunately we have a Congress where the Left has been distilled to their most radical components and so we'll get two more years of obstructionism.

At 9/2/14 08:26 PM, Light wrote: You know, I keep hearing this talking point from conservatives and there doesn't seem to be any truth to it. Most corporations have no trouble evading corporate taxes and are more profitable than ever. Even if they didn't do so, it's not as if they wouldn't try to find ways to maximize their profits at the expenses of their workers and/or the American taxpayer.

At 9/2/14 08:32 PM, Feoric wrote: Since you're so concerned, compare and contrast the tax rates companies are paying with and without deductions and tax loopholes. Once you've done that you should stop worrying about capital flight.

So...

President Obama is talking about this move to Canada being about evading their 'fair share' of taxes...

...but now both of you are claiming that there are loopholes and other means of reducing tax liability...and I looked it up (came across a top 10 list on Huff Post)...and suppossedly the high corporate tax rate in this country is negated by these loopholes and legal evasions.

So please pardon the cognitive dissonance...BUT it would appear that:

a) the Left's logic on this one contradicts itself.

-or-

b) Obama is either lying or completely ignorant of the business environment in this country.

Either way it would be irrational to try to untangle an argument that collapses upon itself or foolish to pay attention to someone who is either a fool or liar.

Thus my original point stands:

What is it about the American business environment that makes corporations want to leave?

This isn't about Left or Right. I can honestly give Bill Clinton high marks for his attention to detail to when it came to economic issues. It is about keeping a robust economy in this country that is capable of lifting all boats.

So where are we going wrong where we're no longer as competitive as we once were? How can we get back on track.

Of course BK is going to pocket some of the profits. However, this does make the Brazilian-owned American-brand that just bought a Canadian-brand more competitive.

This is a rational move.

However, I think one of the questions we should be asking is: why are countries like Canada and those in the EU more attractive to businesses than the US? What are we as a nation doing wrong to make us less competitive for businesses to move here?

I mean when our corporate tax rate is among the highest...and we tax profits made in other countries (not many, if any other countries do this)...I would worry about the sanity and competency of any corporation to stay in the US.

At 6/11/14 08:32 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 6/11/14 11:50 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Now he's blaming his loss on the Democrats...

If they have open primaries where non Republicans can vote, it would make sense for the Democrat party to form voting drives to get non Republicans to go to the polling stations to vote for the person least likely to beat the Democrats.

The Dems nominated a sociology prof. Unfortunately, the discipline is under seige by people more interested in radical/extreme Left agendas. He may be too far Left (afterall as a prof he's probably published) to be elected and thus the Dems may prove to have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. (Which is actually a Republican competency!

An Econ prof (who was attacked by Cantor as being a Liberal economist), may be just as tough for Dems to take down than Cantor.

I can't wait for RCP to put up their House polling section. It'll be interesting to see how the Econ prof (Brat) does against the Sociology prof (the other guy).

I almost wonder if the Tea Party brand isn't played out on both sides. I think it's become a cliche.

At 6/10/14 11:35 PM, Light wrote:

Not to turn this into another gun topic, but just need to point out a few factual errors (if you want to respond, let's take it to the gun control thread)...

We've just gotten so desensitized to these numerous school shootings. We just expect to hear about them every other week now. I remember when the Virginia Tech shooting got massive press coverage because in those days, school shootings were still relatively uncommon.

School shootings have not increased significantly. They've remained stable for the most part (that is to say, rare). Of the 74(?) that Obama referenced, very few were actual mass shootings. Most were run of the mill criminal activity rather than some nut on a mass killing rampage.

I blame the NRA and their ilk for blocking congressional action to stop these school shootings and persuading so many people to think that passing gun control legislation to stop these murders from happening is "politicizing" these tragedies.

Yet another falsehood. The proposed legislation would not stop school shootings.
* The vast majority of schools are gun free zones (less than 1% of all schools allow any sort of concealed carry by teachers or college students). All schools that have suffered mass shootings are gun free zones.
* About the only mass shooting where background checks were bypassed that comes to mind was Columbine. The vast majority are done by people who obtain their guns legally.
* The dude in California with the mysogyny complex did his rampage using a mix of weapons (knife, gun(s), and even his car). He also accomplished it in a state with gun restrictions higher than what some in Congress were proposing.

Also, avoid looking for corp/special interest boogey-men who block things you're ideologically married to.
* The Left has corporate interests and special interest groups that block/advance legislation along political lines.
* Both sides politicize tradgedy/crisis. Before he was Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanual was Obama's Chief of Staff and he famously said: 'never let a crisis go to waste'!
* There are issues that stir up passions of grassroots on the Right as well as on the Left. Two of the biggest: guns and abortion. It would be a mistake to overestimate the role that industry and the NRA plays in the opposition to further gun control.

Ugh.

For every complex problem there is a simple answer, and it is usually wrong.
-H.L. Menkin (paraphrased)

At 6/17/14 12:43 AM, MOSFET wrote: gun ownership has also been in decline, although I'd like to see more current data on this. another correlation.

On the surface this is a good point. However, when you look at the communities suffering the most from violent crime they are communities where gun ownership (legal ownership) is on the decline, heavily regulated, and/or all but banned.

This is a negative correlation that would actually suggest gun ownership reduces violent crime.

today's law abiding citizens are tomorrow's criminals and mass shooters.

Despite the sensationalism you see in the news, mass shootings remain an exceptionally rare event.

Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that this statement (which honestly is little more than bumper sticker sloganeering) is true.

Do not be too dismissive about correlations even if they don't imply causation. Some public policy has to be made with imperfect data, especially when such data collection is obstructed. Correlation has to exist before proving causation. The way you prove causation is to have Before and After scenarios. Because it's difficult to impose any sort of meaningful gun-control laws (you pro-gun types scoff at the laws being pass today, and rightly so, some of these laws are meaningless), a lot of attention is given to countries that recently switched and restricted gun ownership and added more regulations, such as Australia. With only an up tick of violence for a year or two since adopting strict gun control laws, they've seen a severe decline crime and homicides. If this doesn't prove to you that there is a causation, then it another strong piece of evidence that you'll need to refute before proving that there is absolutely no causation at all.

Would you question your physician's reliance on the Physician's Desk Reference when dosing your perscription? What about questioning a chemist's reliance on the law of conservation of matter when balancing a chemical reaction equation?

It would be just as great hubris to admonish a social scientist on correlation and causation. If a correlation proves to be weak or even spurious (ie: NO relationship), that correlations should NOT be used to make policy.

As for your charge of obstruction: that's a myth. Social scientists have been studying the gun issue for decades now. There is a considerable body of research on the topic, and not all of it is NRA funded. Take me for instance; I am not a member of the NRA. I am independent. I do my own lit reviews. I have crunched the numbers myself and I am knowledgeable of how to design studies to research the topic.

Likewise, being a shooter (with a diverse set of skills, training, & experience) I understand how guns operate and what makes them more or less lethal. The CDC would be starting from square one with researchers who are not the most skilled in the methodology necessary to crack this nut.

As for international correlations...

You can point to one or more countries such as Australia, Germany, or England. However, have you considered intervening variables such as ethnolinguisticfactionalization (ELF)? ELF is the degree to which a country is fractured along ethnic (not necessarily racial) lines. Those countries have low ELF scores. While there are 'racial' minorities in those countries, they tend to be a lot more inclusive. Minorities tend to not be treated as second class citizens like in the US.

I've crunched the numbers myself. The following list has more to do with crime (of all kinds):
* Access to education
* Economic opportunities
* Socio-economic class

In fact, when you look at gun availability on a global perspective; gun ownership actually correlates with either a stable or negative murder rate.

Source 1
Source 2 (Click the link in third paragraph to get to the Harvard study. The ACRU is a fairly biased site, I prefer things like the Harvard Journal.)
Source 3

The last one is a little deceptive. In order to get to a significant correlation, the author has to exclude South Africa as an outlier. The reasons: "That is a country with a history of apartheid, ethnic conflict and violence." So he excludes S. Africa since it's an outlier that's 'skewing' the results.

And yet...the US is NOT an outlier (despite being significantly outside the distribution of the data points). Despite our history of slavery, Jim Crow/segregation, eugenics, KKK led lynch mobs, and race riots...somehow it's okay to dismiss S. Africa but keep the US as a data point.

Take the US out of the mix as well...and the correlation globally goes away.

While correlation=/=causation...you cannot have causation without correlation.

The answer to the last question is yes, with tighter regulations, guns off the street cost more, and severely impedes a criminals access to obtain a gun illegally. As a citizen, you benefit from criminals having to spend more to acquire their guns illegally.

There is no evidence that indicates that this thought experiment is reality. In fact, the opposite seems to be true.

The logic I'm talking about is this; more guns in people's hands means more gun deaths. This should be a "no duh", right? do you disagree? because the correlation is clearly there, more guns in peoples hands do mean more gun deaths.

Your logic is sound.

However, that does not mean it reflects reality or truth.

There is little evidence of a strong or causal correlation between legal gun ownership and gun deaths.

In terms of non-criminal gun deaths (accidents & suicides):
Suicides: most of the psychological research I've read point to substitution effects making the use of firearms in suicide inconsequential. Suicide rates are unaffected by gun availability (or lack thereof).

Accidents: since 1904, firearms accidents have declined by about 94%. Annual accidental deaths account for less than 1,000/yr. More people die from falling and walking accidents.

And somehow people still manage to mess this up.

Yep. Because we're people. People mess shit up all the time. Consider cars:
People do stupid things they shouldn't do while driving. Cars kill more people a year than guns do. Furthermore, we have been able to significantly reduce drunk driving without banning cars or booze. People still text and drive and talk on phones w/o hands-free devices.

At 6/13/14 03:05 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: appeasing the gun nutters...

Too bad it's based on a false premise.

If you look, most mass shootings (especially school shootings and military shootings) happen at 'gun free zones' where CC permit holders are NOT allowed to legally carry.

At 6/15/14 11:52 PM, MOSFET wrote: I wasn't taking about crime in general, but gun homicides, but I understand your point. The reason I look at gun homicides is because guns increase the lethality of violence and it seems to me that that is a direct result of allowing people to obtain and use guns with minimal oversight. The correlation between gun ownership and gun homicides is pretty clear. But this should be pretty obvious why, and I hate seeing pro-gun advocates saying it's not true when it not only defies statistics but also logic.

1) My point is that ALL crime has been on a downward trajectory to include gun crimes.
2) The vast majority of gun crime is committed by people who disregard gun oversight. Increasing gun oversight will only effect law abiding citizens who are not at a significant risk of committing violent crime.
3a) You need to make a distinction between legal gun ownership and illegal gun ownership. There is little to no correlation between legal gun ownership and significant correlation with illegal ownership.
3b) Correlation does not equal causation, and therefore public policy should not be made as a knee jerk to any correlation.

The statistical obfuscation is not only on the side of gun-advocates. For example, your own focus on correlation defies statistics. A correlation is meaningless, all it is is an indicator that a relationship MAY exist. Furthermore, there is a term for how we define terms: operationalization. How 'operationalize' something being measured is very important. For example, simply looking at 'gun ownership' does not encapsulate the totality of any possible relationship. One must look at all aspects of gun ownership. Is it different for people who legally buy guns compared to people who buy guns off the street?

As for logic, in all honesty I've seen gun-control advocates having lost all logic. Lately it's been all emotion. Furthermore, a lot of what I've been reading has been the other side not caring about having a dialogue with gun advocates or learn about guns (in fact, I often find them to be ignorant about guns).

I have no problem with citizens acquiring CCW licences or permits in most states, because in most states you need to take a gun safety course and learn to actually use your gun, plus there are extra restrictions and way more vetting of applicants than when just buying a gun. All that and most states keep a record of who has a CCW.

Guns do not require a significant amount of training to "...learn to actually use...". They are VERY simple machines. Gun safety is boiled down to about four simple rules:
1) ALWAYS assume a gun is loaded.
2) NEVER point a gun at anything you are NOT willing to kill/destroy.
3) Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
4) Know what is behind your target.

What is important is gaining proficiency with firearms. However, you are NOT going to get this from formal training. You need to: shoot, shoot, shoot. You're not going to shoot enough in a weekend CC permit class where you only shoot for a total of less than an hour.

Now, there are some good things about CC training. You learn about the law and how to behave around cops IF you need to use it in self-defense. Some even give you rudimentary tactical training. But for the most part it is extremely basic.

As for vetting, it's not all that much more than what's required to buy a gun. Just another background check. In some places there is a requirement for a sheriff's approval...but this is just another background check the same as the other two. The vetting is only marginally more intense...not significantly so.

Interestingly the States with unrestricted or No-issue have the highest level of gun homicide per capita. And DC is one of the worst with No-issue of CCW. Unfettered access to guns and their use is no good, complete bans are worse, but the States where they allow someone to get a gun, but aren't afraid of denying people of the 2nd amendment rights have the least gun homicides per capita.

Personally, I'd like to see Shall-issue licenses for gun purchases. May-issue CCW licenses if they have probably cause to have such a license (increased violence in neighborhood) A gun registry so that law-enforcement can track where criminals get their guns to stop straw-purchasers selling guns to gangs, or make it more prohibitively expensive for them than it currently is.

1) Any 'shall-issue' license for firearm purchase would have to be free and without any sort of training requirement. If there is a training requirement, the government would have to provide it for free and compensate for missed work. The second amendment establishes an individual, civil right for individuals to have access to firearms. If requiring an ID to vote is an extreme violation of civil rights...so would requiring a license to to exercise another civil right.

2) 'May-issue' opens the door to suppression based upon the whims of government officials. If someone passes muster to have a CC, they should not be denied. In fact, living in a 'violent neighborhood' would most likely be used to suppress CC rather than grant it.

3) Canada has had a gun registry for what, 20-30 years? It has cost them $2billion with no discernable impact on gun crime. A registry is a deceptively simple answer, on the surface it looks like it would make a significant dent and help police. In this day of 3D printers...tracking firearms through a registry has just become obsolete.

4) Hilary once said, as SecState, that 97% of firearms traced in Mexico could be traced back to the US. What was missing was that in Mexico only 17% of firearms used in crime could be traced AT ALL. Why is this significant? We have a very porous border that gangs use to supply their drug trade. While I agree that straw purchasers should be prosecuted (and be charged with the same crime the person they bought it for uses it for)...I don't think it's going to significantly impact gun crime. Gangs will just find another supply.

At 6/15/14 10:20 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The specific law in question (it's somewhere above) doesn't prohibit clandestine prisoner exchanges. It only prohibits the use of DoD funds for said exchanges without Congressional approval. The specific Bill cited only specifically mentions fiscal ear 2013 DoD funds, but I bet that's a rolling date the ticks up every fiscal year.

So, if Obama didn't use DoD funds, he didn't break the law in question.

Interesting. I've got to admit that I've had a certain amount of emotional attachment to this story. I'm more interested in the military aspects of this story over the legal technicalities.

At 6/12/14 12:36 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 6/12/14 12:07 PM, Kel-chan wrote: Dont forget he also broke one of his own laws that he signed into place

Do you know what money he used to facilitate the transfer? NO? Then you cannot tell whether he broke the law or not,

What does money have to do with breaking a law about notifying Congress? I mean I don't think it's a long distance call from the WH to the Capital. I'm also fairly certain the govt has sprung for unlimited calling, texts, & data for Obama's Blackberry.

:)

Negotiate w/Terrorists
1) We're talking about the Taliban, NOT al-Qaeda. There is a subtle difference. When we went into Afghanistan the Taliban was the government for about 95% of the country. In fact, I think that in the 1990s G.W. Bush (as Gov of TX) actually brought Taliban trade reps to Texas to talk about the oil business.

2) In the Revolution the British swapped prisoners with the Yankees even though did not believe we were a legitimate government. Likewise, during the Civil War the North swapped prisoners with the South. The Taliban occupies a similar status as the Revolutionaries & Confederates (NOTE: I am NOT supporting the morality or legitimacy of the Taliban regime.)

3) Throughout the history of warfare there has been prisoner swaps...and during this time there has ALWAYS been the expectation that the swapped prisoners (minus any serious injury/illness) would return to the battlefield.

4) These Taliban have been out of the fight for quite awhile. I am fairly certain that they've been replaced. Their replacements have been shown to be effective. Mullah Omar is still in power. I doubt that much will change even if they escape from Qatar.

Bergdahl's POW status
There is a great deal of evidence that suggests that he is a desserter. That this is the reason he became a POW. However, I believe that until he is found guilty by court-martial, he is still a US Soldier. Therefore, we needed to get him home and complete the investigation and allow justice to take its course.

Recently, we had another deserter released from capativity. This guy was along the Korean DMZ in the 1960s and got drunk, wandered away from his patrol and defected to the North. He was released a few years ago. His sentence for desertion: 30 days confinement & dishonorable discharge. IF it can be proven that Bergdahl deserted, he should be stripped of his rank, suitable period of jail time, and a dishonorable discharge.

Violation of Law
Obama signed it into law that Congress should be informed before an Gitmo inmate was released. Whether or not he believed it was Constitutional was a consideration when he decided to sign it into law rather than veto it. By not even picking up his phone to call Diane Fienstein or Harry Reid...he demonstrated a complete disregard for the rule of law. In a free society, even our leaders are bound by law.

He should have least made the attempt/overature/appearance of adhereing to the spirit of the law.

Poli-optics
Describing Bergdahl as someone who served with 'honor & distinction' is spitting in the eye of those of us who have served in the military. It is tone deaf, and I think the administration assumed that soldiers who have served with him would keep quiet.

Had Obama NOT spiked the ball on the WH lawn, pretending that we were welcoming home a hero (instead of someone who, let's face it, the fact pattern appears to point towards him being a deserter).

Had Susan Rice not gone on the Sunday morning news shows and described his service and 'honorable & distinctive', the military would've let it go.

Had press officials not repeated this narrative, the military may have let it go.

====

In the end, I think this situation was handled very poorly. Obama is loosing support amongst his own party in Congress (which is normal for a second term president). Even Senator Feinstein is speaking about her doubts of the veracity of Obama's narrative that he had to move too quickly to consult Congress b/c of Bergdahl's health.

At 6/14/14 12:19 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

its cultural the difference between people, we're a melting pot

That's a load of crap and you know it. I find this a double whammy of pure shit as it not only it a complete garbage argumet, it has serious overtones of racism involved with it. I mean, look at Paris and London. They are some of the most diverse cities in the world, and Paris is known for some really shitty neighborhoods, and yet, they aren't cesspools of senseless violence.

Sorry, but it is not 'complete garbage' nor is it racist (although I will grant you that bigots with racist leanings could twist it).

1) Every urban city has shitty neighborhoods.
2) England and France remain far more ethnically and (more importantly) culturally homogenous than the US. France is about 85% White, England in the mid-90s, and the US is almost 78%.
3) The US has a history of racial strife to a degree that is NOT found in Europe. Yes, there is some racial tension. However, it is not to the level we have here.
4) Currently, we have two significant minorities that are relegated to second-class citizen status. Of these, one race has a significant number (>11 million) who are here illegally and exist in a limbo strata of society which pushes them into the shadows.

In fact, those of us who examine this from a scientific and social aspect are keenly aware of social inequities in our country. It is not merely a defense of gun rights, but an acknowledgement of major instabilities in our society that need to be corrected. These instabilities contribute to the incidence of crime in poor urban areas. This actually jives well with Marxist social theory which is a major component of African-American Studies departments (not so much in KKK circles).

Furthermore, when you look at the history of gun control it is often a means of keeping the poor and people from other races down. Reagan used it to keep the Black Panthers from openly carrying in their own neighborhoods as crime was shooting up in black neighborhoods (it was okay when white people patrolled their own communities). In the South, with the ressurgence of the KKK (that came with the racist policies of the Progressives from 1913-1960 something)...gun control was a weapon used to prevent blacks from defending themselves from lynch mobs.

I want to correct these problems. Gun control does not address these issues...if anything it detracts from the fixes. It makes these problems worse.

At 6/13/14 09:49 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 6/13/14 09:20 AM, MOSFET wrote: I've explained this many times to you Tony. California has a lot of people, so of course they'll have the most homicides in the nation.

This also raises a chicken/egg argument (of which there is an answer, of which I am not motivated to find). The gun rights rallying call is always "see, gun control in high crime areas!! Therefore it fails." This argument sees one correlation and yet fails to see an even more likely one: Gun control exists more strongly in high crime areas BECAUSE crime is high. Oakland, LA, Chicago, New York, D.C. and so on attracted massive amounts of crime before the notion of gun control ever existed. If you look at these cities (with few exceptions), their crime rate and their violent crime rates are ALL on a downward trajectory.

This suggests that gun control actually does work to an extent.

Depends on the gun advocate making the argument. :)

You make a very good point: always look at rival alternative hypothesis.

However, you miss the forrest for the trees. It is not about correlations...it's about finding out causation. See, it's not only the gun advocates who latch on to a single correlation. Gun control advocates latch onto the obvious correlation between guns and gun crime...and then ascribe causality.

Once you start doing statistical analysis on the correlations, the link between guns and crime become tenuous. Socio-economic factors become far more important to the causes of crime than a locale's gun control laws.

Over the past twenty years violence crime in this country has been on the decline. Over the past twenty years there have been tightening and loosening of gun laws. There's been two major types of gun laws: concealed carry and/or assault weapons bans. Pretty much what's been observed:

* Concealed carry: states with concealed carry laws have seen (typically) a faster drop in crime rates than states with tough gun control laws. This suggests that CC does have a desireable effect on crime.
* Assault weapons bans: the laws typically address weapons that are not typically used in crime. Rifles are ill-suited for robbing a liquor store, and pistols & shotguns are far more effective at taking life than military firearms (it's science, not opinion, bias, or marketing by gun manufacturers). Therefore, since they are used in (at most) 1-2% of crimes...criminologists have found that the ONLY marginally effective part of a AWB is limits on hi-cap PISTOL mags.

In the end, it would appear that gun laws are not at the heart of decreasing crime rates.

@ Camaro

A few things:
* There was nothing circular about my reasoning, I was show casing a false dichotomy. Using a previous example is key to writing on-topic and with purpose. It is only circular if A causes B and B causes A. Since I was not making the claim that Left & Right anti-freedom policies cause each other...there is nothing circular about what I wrote. :)

* The overarching point I was trying to make was: the debate is NOT over, and the principles put forth in the ACA are NOT the ONLY options.

* I understand about how pools work. But is government really the first option we should go to? Why not let the free market try to work? Perhaps insurance companies can figure out ways of pooling potential clients akin to the exchanges...minus Obama's web-design savvy.

* We disagree on who is the depressive suicidal patient and who is the sociopathic homicidal psychopath. I trust the person who covets money over the person who covets power. The corporations cannot force me to deal with them. However, those holding government power have the ability to force me to do their will.

* "...looked like cowns in the process whose sole goal is to trash whatever Obama does." This is complete and utter BULLSHIT. This is a cliché. This narrative that there is something special about 'this president' and Republican opposition to him is Left hysteronics and designed only to manipulate the emotions of the Democratic base. Am I going to deny that there are some people who don't think a black man should be president? That would be stupid. I've known a few people who think that way. But guess what? Not all of them are conservative Republicans! One guy I knew was a FDR Dem from WWII!

I came of age during the Clinton presidency.
* Republicans fought Clinton on healthcare.
* Republicans fought Clinton on gun control.
* Republicans shut down government in response to Clinton's agenda (and BOTH Clinton and Congressional Republicans got covered in shit).
* Republicans fucking impeached Clinton.

What's the difference?
* Obama comes from serving in the Illinois Senate which had one party rule. The only coalitions he learned to build there was between blue and lighter blue. Then he did a stint in the Senate where the Dems had pretty strong control. The man does not know how to reach across the aisle.
* Obama got handed a Washington staff of top Democrat aides...he did not have to learn how the institutions work.
* Obama's top executive experience coming into the White House: Editor of the Yale (or was it Harvard) Law Review.
* Following losses in Congress in 1994...Clinton triangulated his agenda.
* Following poll number losses after the shutdowns...Clinton re-accessed his relationship with Newt Gingrich and the two actually was able to get things done.

Perhaps the narrative that Republicans are 'racist' and oppose Obama (in any way different from Clinton or Carter)...is just a cover for Dems picking a crappy candidate for president in 2008.

At 4/12/14 12:12 AM, Kel-chan wrote: Stupid shit.

Hey Idiot-finder...

...found one! :)

At 4/18/14 04:58 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote:
Missouri should embrace its racist nature. All the racists can live there, and everybody else live someplace else.

Missouri is a strange amalgam of just about every region of the US. Our nature is no more or less racist than any other part of the country.

At 4/17/14 09:53 PM, TheKlown wrote: http://news.yahoo.com/armed-robber-never-told-report-prison-195146743.html?bcmt=comments-postbox

Ridiculous that they fuck up and they blame the black man for not showing up to court? This man has clearly changed his life for the better and they still think he should deserve 13 years behind bars. He is a Carpenter and own his own Construction business. From personal experience, Carpenters are some of the hardest workers there are on the planet. They put their bodies through serious pain to build houses for people. I would know because my Father is a Carpenter. Now, does my Father enjoy his job? Yes, it's his Craft but it does bang up the body so I think Carpenters are some of the hardest working people.

1) Seriously...how the FUCK does this make ANY state racist?

2) Seriously...what the FUCK does how hard of a job being a carpenter have to do with jackshit?

You do not make an argument here. You do not support the argument inherent in the title you wrote.

Your personal experience here is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.

Reading this story, I hope Mr. Anderson gets his freedom back. Prison should be about rehabilitation, not destroying a man's life. This guy, living with the specter of prison for thirteen years, turned his life around. He became a family man, business owner, and taxpayer.

He did, on his own, what the prison system (ideally) was set-up to do. I think the man has earned his freedom...no matter his color.

And I'm a white Missourian from the country. :)

At 4/13/14 09:02 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 4/13/14 08:10 PM, TheMason wrote: 1) Since it would cross state lines...it would be totally acceptable for the federal government to take care of whatever regulations would be necessary and proper.

Well, no, that defeats the whole point of deregulating the health insurance industry to allow it to sell across state lines.

Not.
At.
All.

If you have a la carte plans much of the need for regulation (on the state or federal level) disappears. What regulatory needs that are left can be handled by the federal government. This in turn provides ONE standard that insurers have to meet.

* This reduces the number of forms that insurers need to maintain (since forms, be they paper or e-based, are dictated by the states).
* It reduces the personnel required to ensure regulatory compliance.

What mechanism is put into place that would even inevitably result in a la carte markets? What incentive is provided?

The barriers are removed. I believe this is something that many consumers would want.

This may rock your world: but no artificial mechanism is required since the incentive would be customer demand.

Perhaps the closest thing would be employers saying they will pay $X/mth for health insurance and this is tax free income (perhaps companies receive tax breaks for this benefit). The employees are free to log onto the internets (a series of tubes that bring information into home and/or work), shop for insurance and click on what things they want covered.

All without interference by Uncle Sam or their state legislatures.

Hell, perhaps we take employers out of it completely. We allow individuals to deduct (even if they do not itemize) the cost of insurance (up to a certain amount). Yes this is an idea of the ACA...BUT the ACA only covers policies bought over the exchanges.

At 4/13/14 08:42 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 4/13/14 08:15 PM, TheMason wrote: So then...

You negate your argument.

After all, if you do not own or operate a car you are not required to purchase liability insurance.

Everyone has a body and gets sick. Not everyone has a car. Everyone requires health care. That's the difference.

Yes, that is a difference.

Another difference is what we're talking about is how people pay for health care.

And yet another difference is that a person has a right to the product of their labor and (in a free society) to their property. A person's body is a requirement of their existence, a car is personal property that an individual voluntarily partakes in.

At 4/11/14 01:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Yes, and not everyone who drives a car needs liability insurance, but it is a requirement nonetheless. Why? Because the consequences of needing and not having it represent a far bigger tax on society than the cost of having it and not needing it.

Umm...depending on the state you live in you CAN buy surety bonds, CDs, and other things instead of insurance.

Using the thing you're claiming has taken away liberty to show how government involvement takes away liberty in order to show that the thing you're talking about takes away liberty ain't the best way to prove a point.

I was actually making a point that BOTH conservatives and liberals want to grow government which in turn erodes liberty.

Third, this is not economically responsible.

I call total bullshit on that. That's a garbage excuse. Does medicare low ball on some prices? Yes, I won't deny that. Is that why my presecription sugar water costs $1,000 a day? BULLSHIT. Healthcare costs so much because the actual consumers are separated from the actual cost. Rarely does a person know or care how much their bill is going to be because insurance will cover it. Insurance companies don't care too much to lower the cost because they can just pass those costs onto their consumers who are none the wiser.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes. :)

I do not think that government is the TOTALITY of rising healthcare costs. I think there are several factors involved in cost increases. And what you bring up is part of that, after all cost share is a way that Walmart has used to reduce health costs.

Fourth, it is an infringement on people's right to the pursuit of happiness.

I always though a key to owning and explotiing property/happiness was being physically well enough to do so...

Appeal to emotion. I'll count that as a de facto concession.

I see the value in owning health insurance and how it fits in when my financial stability. However, I do not want to use government as a club to make others spend their money as I see fit.

* Tort-reform to reduce the cost of liability insurance for providers.

Malpractice needs to be redefined. Or rather the process for suing on malpractice needs to be adjusted. Instead of allowing malpractice to go straight to court, it should go through an EEOC style agency first. This agency can trash 90% of the cases which involve greedy fucks or idiots who don't realize that a risky procedure involves risk. This would let those who have legitimate claims retain their power to be remunerated properly. Taditional tort reform sacrifices justice to favor a xeophobic fear of corruption.

See this is what happens when there's dialogue. I like that idea, and probably wouldn't have thought of it.

* Deregulation: before ACA each state came up with mandated things to be covered in all healthcare plans. The ACA doubled down on this foolishness. Examples of what I'm talking about: men paying for OB/GYN coverage or women paying for prostate cancer coverage. In the information age, there is no reason why people cannot go online and pick what they want coverage for a la carte.

Actually, a national standard is definitely the best. I'll explain later. I do agree that there should be male plans and female plans. A man doesn;t need child birth coverage the same way a woman doesn't need to turn her head and cough.

If we had a la carte and sold insurance across state lines I think two things would happen:
1) The federal government would legitimately be the level of government responsible for insurance regulation. (This would reduce administrative costs.)
2) The amount of regulation required would be greatly reduced.

* Increasing competition.

Your comments here show a huge lack of understanding of the US health insruance industry. The lack of competition has been EXTREMELY lessened with the ACA. Now consumers can join group insurance not through their employer. Prior to the ACA your options were go individual and get screwed on premiums or go to your employer who has the wide array of options from Company A plan 1 to Company A plan 1.01. Employer based group insurance killed nearly all competition. Those who actually used the insurance were not the ones dictating which insurance they got.

What if we allow employers to subsidize benefits on a tax free basis? $X of my salary is dedicated to buying insurance and is tax-free...I can just choose my plan and coverage. My employer pays.

As far as interstate nsurance, which I think is a good idea, you need standardized regulations. If CA requires such and such for their insurance and MO does not, MO would have to make a CA insurance plan and then the insurance would no longer be truly interstate.

Either way, I think we get to a point where there is one standard set of regulations that reduces the administrative overhead that comes with 50+ (do the territories regulate insurance?) different sets of regulations.

It's called competition. As the government increasingly got involved in healthcare this impacted private insurance negatively and is one of the main reasons why healthcare costs skyrocketed.

Again, no. Government nvolvement didn;t kill competition. The insurance companies did.

Again...there is no ONE thing that killed competition. However, I do think that government is just as responsible as insurance companies. You haven't shown where they are significantly more culpable than government.

I just don't trust either one. They're both inmates in the asylum.

This right here argues directly against your interstate insurance want. For things to work interstate they must trend toward one size fits all. Otherwise, it truly isn't interstate. It would become what we have now which is numerous different arms of the same company working to each state's individual needs.

Not necessarily. I didn't make the point clearly.

If you couple buying insurance across state lines with a la carte policies, you allow individuals (perhaps with some input from someone's doctor) they can tailor their own insurance to their own needs based upon their risk factors (ie: medical history and environmental factors).

And? So just because they had no chance of actually replacing it means they shouldn;t even try to do the right thing? ... The GOP should have offered an alternative at the beginning ...

Again...it's only the right thing to a portion of the population. Not everyone agrees that this was 'the right thing to do'.

I think we need a reset, I think the 'clusterfuck' we had before is preferable to the monstrosity that is the ACA.

The Republicans were in no position to offer alternatives either emotionally or practically. They had suffered a total defeat politically and had absolutely NO power. The Democrats were drunk on a victory that was going to last a generation (James Carvill)...and not interested in Republican alternatives. In fact some of the alternatives I've talked about have been discussed by Republicans but got shouted down by Dems.

You talk about competition, but then you turn around and say the exchanges, the FIRST hint of true competition in consumer based health insruance in pretty much forever, are bad. Which is it? Competition or the talking point?

Yeah...talking points.

Once you look at how the law works (and not just the Democratic talking point that exchanges are 'competition') you see that the exchanges do NOT provide competition. In many places there is only one insurer. Secondly, doctors and hospitals do not have to accept these plans. SO consumers MAY be paying lower premiums...but they are seeing their options for providers decreased (where competition REALLY matters).

At 4/12/14 04:35 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/12/14 09:12 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: If health insurance were akin to automobile liability insurance, we'd all be born with cars attached to our asses.

Using the US healthcare system is entirely voluntary. Any and every capable adult can turn down medical care. So don't give me that crap. It is not different than driving a car.

So then...

You negate your argument.

After all, if you do not own or operate a car you are not required to purchase liability insurance.

At 4/11/14 11:32 AM, Feoric wrote: Selling insurance across state lines is one of the worst ideas to "fix" the health insurance industry...

... which is exactly the sort of situation that encourages the race to the bottom scenario.

I should have been just a little more clear here. First of all, it's a good thing that I'm not a conservative and/or liberal and not bound by either dogma. :)

1) Since it would cross state lines...it would be totally acceptable for the federal government to take care of whatever regulations would be necessary and proper.

2) Not every transaction made between humans needs to be subjected to government regulation. If you allow a la carte coverage (ie: you log onto the website and click what things you want covered), there is no need for the government to dictate what basic plans will cover.

Besides, it won't fuck-up healthcare anymore than the ACA. ;)

At 4/11/14 12:20 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 4/11/14 12:03 AM, MOSFET wrote: Politics.

They really don't want to repeal it, but they want to make a show of it that they do. However their constituents are upset and are aware of the game being played, which in turn gets the law maker a primary challenger. Which is why we get things like the debt ceiling crisis.

The GOP would gladly repeal the ACA and reinstate it unchanged word-for-word. This way they can actually get credit for passing legislation they themselves drafted.

1) I don't think they'd replace it word for word. Their base is slightly too sophisticated to not catch that.

2) Repeal and NOT replace is a much more realistic option. However, this will not happen until 2017 and then only if:
a) they take the Senate this year (about a 60-80% probability)
b) maintain control of Congress through the 2016 election
c) re-take the White House in 2016

3) I see the Republicans offering alternatives like a la carte plans and allowing insurance to be sold across state lines.

4) Furthermore, there are still SCOTUS challenges that could be made now that it is implemented and people can show harm. So we could see the ACA dismantled by the courts.