IF you are offering to provide information to answer your questions, please proceed. I doubt you'll provide anything which contradicts what we can see reflected in the administration's immigration stratagem.

Hey did you hear that the RW insult "cuck" may have originated from within that racist fear-porn? Is the alt-right just a bunch of dopes who got tricked into live-action role playing the bosses' favorite racist fear-porn?

Mostly because the Democratic health care plans were long processes involving coordination and cooperation with various interest groups that discussed the issues the various groups were concerned about and either wrote in things that appeased them or worked with the groups to allay their fears. When you do that you end up with less push back from the various groups than you would if you were to just rush a bill through as fast as possible.

All links are hyperlinked to the sources

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...he_saints.html

Also Breitbart itself has written about Camp of the Saints, in loving detail, twice.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Site%3A+Breitba...+of+the+saints

I'm not asking about just healthcare. I am talking about companies in general publicly supporting dem ideas and almost never hearing about them supporting repub ideas.

The only exception to the repub rule I can think of is when a bunch of CEOs came out and told people the negative effects of raising MW. They were of course very quickly shouted down and most of them immediately gave a public apology for explaining how businesses run and how the economy works by saying something along the lines of: What the hell do I know I just run a fortune 500 company? I am sure the general public is right and the things I predicted won't happen - I apologize for suggesting something different.

Well a couple of things. When talking about this particular bill I do think that the reason why all these NGOs and various interest groups are coming out against the bill is exactly what I said. That the GOP hasn't put together some larger framework that they could take to the various organizations and tell them, this bill is bad for you but the upcoming bills, printed right here for you, are good, so vote tell your members to vote for this and you'll be ok. They don't have that, they just have some vague platitudes that worry these groups. Which is what happens when you just rush a bill and don't take time.

As to the larger point. Companies are largely apolitical or rather they just political enough to not stir the waters too much. Google takes down sires deemed blasphemous in Pakistan even though they say they're committed to freedom of speech. Why? To make money. At the start of Jim Crow railroad companies resisted segregating their cars. Why? Because it was annoying to have to stop at the border and refit their railway cars to be segregated. But by the 1920's and 30's railways were selling discounted tickets and travel bundles to go to lynchings. Why? Because of increased competition from cars. I posted an article in the Death of the Democratic Party thread about supposed heavy hitters in the Democratic fold who espouse "feminism" but who make concerted efforts to stop unionization of hotel maids, a group almost entirely of women. Why? Because unionization would cut into their company's profits. So what kind of feminism of these Democratic big wigs talking about? The kind that sounds nice, but doesn't rock the economic boat too much. "Lean in" and "Be Bossy" might help women in the board room but it's not going to effect a company's bottom line.

To get to the why Democrats and not Republicans, I'd say that the playing field has largely shifted to cultural concerns rather than economic. LGBT/vs Christian, bathroom bills, immigrants vs non immigrants. On these things the Democratic side is much easier for businesses. It's best for businesses to allow everyone in as to give businesses the largest labor pool possible and most of the Republican concerns aren't employment related (They aren't demanding that LGBT people be disemployed), but rather about cultural standing. Same with immigration. The Republican cultural issues are annoying for businesses, but that doesn't mean that if say hardline nationalism actually did become a cultural zeitgeist in America, Facebook wouldn't be touting themselves as employing (only) Americans. They would, because that would make them money.

Why are you lying?

You know we've read this story before right?

So will the congress critters when even more old folks shut down town halls.

also Corporations probably support Republican policies in private, because its hard to not look evil coming out publicly to screw the middle class and below so they can make extra money..

Yeah. You don't post on your corporate facebook page that you want lower corporate taxes, kill social programs, and eliminate the EPA. You fund think tanks which put out position papers and ALEC which writes the legislation and pay hundreds of millions to lobbyists and donate to superpacs to run fear mongering propaganda.

Speaking of the EPA, Trump's EPA head does not think carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming, putting him at odds with nearly every smart person on the planet

Who knows what Pruitt actually thinks? What he is is a stooge of billionaires in the fossil fuel industry.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-d...-for-the-e-p-a

In Ryancare news:

As the bill passes the Ways & Means committee, some notable Republicans are opposing it, including Tom Cotton (R-AR) who wants to wait for CBO analysis and more debate. Additionally, the chief medical officer of Medicaid is breaking with HHS in opposing it. The GOP specifically rejected Democratic amendments preventing the bill from raising premiums on old people.

Outside of Washington, even Republicans haaaaaaaate this bill:

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is trying to discredit the CBO before they even get a chance to make projections on Ryancare (though at the end, one admin official says it's gonna be a great score, just the best score).

Corporations have an entangled relationship between investors and customers/consumers. Their investors are mostly high earners, while most consumers in general are lower and middle class. In general, corporate interests align with investors, while regulators are concerned with the consumers. The big irony of course is that if the consumers are better protected and empowered, they become better consumers who spend more, so the corporations would benefit greatly if they supported some taxes on their investors that funneled back into the economy. What's the old saying, "take care of your customer and business will take care of itself."

Not going to lie but I think I'm going to start using swampcare

One of those facts alone might not be really strong but combine the two of them (your friend and owning an autographed copy of mein kampf) and the odds increase exponentially.

The highest amount of "food stamps" a single person can get is about $6 a day. (If you add more people to a household the average per person gets even lower than that)

Clearly these abusers are eating steak and lobster every day. Plus there us a huge level of ignorance by those who think people on social programs just being lazy yo. If you are not disabled or have children it is pretty much impossible to stay on food stamps for more than a couple months. I know this doesn't it with monchichi's alleged stories but I have found over the years those with the most vitriol towards social programs are the ones who have not spent any time at all researching how such things actually work and instead just rely on word of mouth about fourth hand information.

Stealing this tweet from alpha. This guy writes for HuffPo, conceded, but he's not wrong:


https://twitter.com/CitizenCohn/stat...84883015118849

Paul Ryan has crossed over to being a complete imbecile. How is the GOP economic savior devoid of any understanding how insurance works?

Ryan has always been a complete imbecile. The lamestream media held him out as some kind of policy wonk, but he has been peddling nonsense the entire time.

It's also amazing the way he talks about "healthy people" and "sick people" as if the latter are a different class from the former, a class who deserve their fate and whose problems shouldn't burden the former, even though sick people were once healthy people and we as a society spread shared risk of this manner around in plenty of other applications.

I love it. Let the lawnmowers fly!

Seems like the biggest difference of the pre-Trump vs post-Trump world is that where today's Trumpkins used to pretend that they cared about things besides pissing off liberals, they no longer bother with that pretense.

A post-policy world for a post-policy people.

Imbecile isn't the word that I'd use, because I think that he's actually pretty clever about effecting his policy goals. The problem is that he's deceitful. So when he says that this program will help people, he's lying because a) it won't, and b) that isn't its intention. His, and the Republican Party's, guiding philosophy is screwing over poor people with the cruel and misguided assumption that the worse you screw them, the harder they'll work not to be poor anymore, so that they can stop getting screwed.

It's dog-whistle code, meaning 'white people' and 'black people'. The same applies when they say 'Why should my taxes pay for poor people's healthcare?' -- 'poor people' meaning 'black people', which is why the US doesn't have a proper healthcare system, because, if it did, that wouldn't keep 'em down.

It saddens me that you think this (if you truly believe this rubbish).