n/t

If SCOTUS rules in favor of the plaintiffs in this case but a.)Most teabaggers will be happy to see the law gutted and will want the law gutted even further. b.)Even if some Republicans might want to fix the law to restore subsidies, teabaggers will savage them if they try (and they listen to the teabaggers more). c.)Progressive voters may or may not GOTV to elect a Congress/POTUS to fix it.

IF it survives the latest assassination attempt at SCOTUS, I'm sure that the RWNJs will come up with another legal avenue to try to doom it and if Republicans hold on to Congress and grabs the WH in 2016, they could do some real damage to the law if not fulfill their wishes to get rid of it and then who knows when somebody will be able to try to do healthcare reform again. I fear that the fight to eliminate will continue for some time and they haven't been punished for their efforts to take it away from people so far. Progressive achievement in this country is a long and frustrating process.

Had Congress stayed Democratic, much more could have been done. There was really nothing much different/wrong about President Obama's policy ideas or what he supported. He really just didn't have much to work with post-2010. The 2010 and 2014 midterms during his Presidency ruined a lot of opportunities to get more progressive stuff done. Bernie nor anybody else will be able to get much done if obstructionist Republicans remain in charge of one or both Houses of Congress.

Then we had no business, staying then, right?

Not to mention that pesky SOFA that Bush negotiated with Iraq in 2008 promising the withdrawal of our troops by the end of 2011. If Republicans think THAT was a mistake, will they care to explain just how long they think we should have been staying in Iraq?

What they seem to want but most won't advocate for is to put troops back into Iraq, which is likely to be a non-starter for most Americans at this point. We spent a lot of years, money, and resources trying to train up Iraqi forces and seem to be seeing little or no return on that investment.

but they made up/believe all of the conspiracy theories about it- but can't prove any of them, taking it from a tragedy to a sinister conspiracy of sorts.

The Republicans were arguing semantics with her, she got irritated, and they got that soundbite from her. Nobody who is being honest would seriously argue that Hillary Clinton just didn't/doesn't care about Ambassador Stevens or the others whom died at the outpost. If there is truly something dark and sinister about Benghazi, it's a marvel that the Republicans, whom have investigated it to death, haven't uncovered this evil conspiracy to do.......something. Talk about beating a dead horse.

Last I checked, he, along with his best friend John McCain, was a BIG supporter of the Iraq War, which helped create a lot of (unnecessary) instability and chaos in the ME.

So, basically, he just wants to appoint a bunch of people and do what they want him to do? No independent thought? No actual decision-making? Why elect him anyway then?

They are certainly spoiling for a fight with Iran and may even want to go back to Iraq since they think that following the terms of SOFA was a mistake.

Bottom line is this: If you don't want a lot of senseless wars and boneheaded foreign policy decisions, don't vote for Republicans because that's what you're get if you pull the lever for one.