Mark

u/MarkAB@mastodon.world
0 posts · 16 comments

Recent posts

No posts.

Recent comments

@MicroWave The problem is that even if the House impeaches AND the Senate convicts, we then have JD Vance as President. After Vance comes Mike Johnson. After Johnson comes Chuck Grassley. I went 17 levels down a succession list that includes Tulsi Gabbard and RFK, Jr. Impeachment doesn’t improve the leadership situation unless it includes Congress finally deciding to do its job and rein in the rogue Executive branch.

@GiddyGap There’s a company with a big bird mascot and “only what you need” slogan that uses a similar scam. They use bridge policies originally designed to cover short term gaps in health coverage which do not conform to key ACA requirements (“only what you need”). This makes them cheap and easy to market to people who don’t realize how little coverage they have til their claims are denied. Trump relaxed the limitations on such policies and screwed millions. https://www.kff.org/affordable-care-act/issue-brief/understanding-short-term-limited-duration-health-insurance/

on *Permanently Deleted* · c/politics · 9 pts · 1y

@sylver_dragon @MicroWave I think your conclusions are accurate, particularly in the evangelical view of Trump as a “flawed vessel” that will still carry their religious water. But what always pisses me off is the absolute refusal of those same evangelicals to even begin to entertain the notion that Barack Obama, or now Kamala Harris could also be imperfect in their eyes, but still be the best choice to lead the country. Their minds are closed and locked.

@Awesomo85 Rephrase: “As long as we have voting, a little voter fraud is acceptable”. Obviously voter fraud is NOT acceptable, but any system that covers 200 million or so potential voters cannot be completely foolproof. Like security systems, the goal is to have so many different safeguards that the number of violations becomes vanishingly small. The fruitless efforts to find any widespread voter fraud to date indicate that we have been successful.

on *Permanently Deleted* · c/politics · -1 pts · 2y

@oxjox As a practical matter, if any vote other than one approved by the existing ruler is rendered meaningless, one has lost the right to vote. It’s not a vote if only one choice is allowed. Any other spin is just semantics.

on *Permanently Deleted* · c/politics · 1 pts · 2y

@oxjox @kbin_space_program Aren’t you creating a distinction without a difference? If things are “fixed” so that everything will forever remain the way his audience wants it (so they won’t have to vote), doesn’t this negate the right to vote? It seems to mean that anyone who DOES want something different is SOL, cause their votes would no longer change anything. If you don’t have to vote to reaffirm your agreement, you’re in an autocracy.