Bullshit, he didn't went along with single payer because he couldn't get it through his own caucus.
Just ask any liberal which they would've preferred.
Obama went with a Heritage foundation-style plan rather than attempt single payer because they wanted it to be bi-partisan and they didn't think single payer would get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. They deliberately modeled their plan around policies that had previously been supported by Senate Republicans in 1993.
Obama's plan was so right-wing friendly even Romneycare was more liberal.
The fact that Obama is still doing things like this even after he doesn't have to worry about reelection is proof that he is either a malevolent being motivated solely by a nihilistic desire to destroy our freedom and, by extension, lives, or he is an utterly incompetent buffoon who has no idea what he is doing. The consistency of his destructive policies indicates that the former is more likely.
pretty sure that this would simply raise the minimum wage to where it was in the past (consider: inflation)
that is really simply maintaining the status quo
edit: i am sure if raw was here, he would make fun of you
The death penalty is just, and should be used more commonly in murder cases that are beyond in certainty. It is bizarre that most murderers, even the ones we know for sure did it, just get life in prison.
"It is bizarre that most murderers, even the ones we know for sure did it, just get life in prison."
The degree of certainty that they "did it" should have no bearing on their sentence.
On the aggregate level, yes, it should.
In what way?
In that when a system consistently convicts some people that it shouldn't, ideally it should punish them in a manner slightly more reversible than death.
Technically, they should be convicted by a jury based on the same level of certainty
Scaled to the macroscopic level, the certainty that you do not convict innocent people degrades considerably - there isn't a way around that.
Macroscopic...come on, it's a saturday
But yes, I think the point is that their shouldn't be some sliding scale of punishment based on how "certain" people are of guilt. Ideally, if someone is convicted the jury should be certain they are guilty (beyond a reasonable doubt). But yes, on the large scale of the criminal justice system innocent people get put in prison or put to death. And it is the later that quite a few people have an issue with.
Although, my personal objection to the death penalty is that I just don't see how it serves any purpose, especially versus the total cost
I agree that people, individually, should not have their sentences vary due to degrees of certainty.
Well that's what I'm talking about, an individual's sentence.
I'm drunk at the moment, but I can only surmise that my initial response might have mistakenly assumed otherwise.
@Serraph105: I assume that's the case given that he's also taking classes.
Yep and worst if it is one of those university jobs, like working at the library, which can be fun but don't pay much.
my school year job is currently at a cafeteria, which is literally the worst job i've had to date
noticeably worse than retail and nigh infinitely worse than blue collar shit
trying to get into the computer library check in/out so i can homework while i work
I worked at the cafeteria during my school tenure. It actually worked out really well. For one, it provided free food. For two, very few take it seriously so I was promoted to supervisor after a semester. Third, I was able to talk our manager into giving supervisors the authority to hire and fire individuals provided we had the documentation to back up our rationale for the decision. It was this authority, in part but in large part, which ultimately got me my first professional job after school.
Making one's way into management here, from what I've seen, is also pretty easy, but food really sucks. Free food is nice, but working with food and customer service both really suck.
Log in to comment