From what I understand the committee is closing it’s doors like they are dealing with a National Security bill. Nothing in this is classified, so basically they are saying “we don’t want you to know what things have/have not been proposed” like they could be arguing really shitty stuff that won’t make it into the…

They’ll throw in some ‘additional tax credits’ for the elderly and half-ass ‘states can opt out’ funding for Medicaid that makes the bill look more ‘moderate’ and the 5-6 wavering Senators will come back on board with smiles.

Alright, I’m going to take a deep breath and try to stay rational here while I explain this, because I mostly live in a permanent state of modest outrage these days. Forgive me if I come across crass:

They may or may not, but until the vote happens, any speculation on the matter is worth exactly what it cost you to read those articles.

Remember how they didn’t have the votes in the house and Ryan declared it was basically dead and that the ACA was the law of the land.

The House didn’t have the votes either as of the morning they voted on it. Guess what happened?

Yeah, they say that, and certain republicans will publicly voice concern. But once it’s time to vote, they all kneel before McConnell and kiss his shriveled micropenis as they vote whatever way he wants them to.

They didn’t have enough votes to get their man in the White House right up to the point that they got him in there.

Also, it might be worth noting that Trump has ruined some words for me. I can no longer call things “great” or “tremendous” or “wonderful”, because now it sounds automatically insincere and stupid. See also, a bunch of other adjectives meaning the same thing. Now when I compliment something, I have to reach for a word…

The problem is that about 25% of the population find him lucid.

All Congressional Districts need to be determined by a non-partisan office. Period. neither Democrats nor Republicans or any future political parties should be given the ability to draw the maps for the future elections. This does not benefit the people, only a party.

And she was anything but. You know who did act “HYSTERICAL?” Evil Keebler Elf and racist Stonewall Beauregard Sessions.

I’m glad this got called out. Glad that Sen. Wyden recognized it for the sexist, racist BS that it was. Harris acted like the top-shelf attorney that she is and exposed Sessions for toadying, stupid slime that he is.

Yet she persisted. If Miller meant hysterical as in ‘fricken hilarious’, then yes, it was hysterical watching Leslie Jordan 2.0 sputtering away under her fearless gaze.

Yeah, it’s definitely still gendered, and it’s often used more against women particularly in the media and politics. The exchange in question made it pretty obvious it was used in a gendered way. You should watch it.

Hysterical has a history of gendered use. Just a google search came up with this article from Vogue (and you can google it to see academic sources). Maybe I heard it in my sociology classes, but I thought the gendered accusation of being hysterical was widely known (obviously not): http://www.vogue.com/article/trump-w…

This is just based on my personal observations, but I have to dispute that “hysterical” is becoming a gender-neutral term. I’d guess that 90% of its uses are still directed at women, and in the cases where it is used against men, I think there’s an intended implication of a lack of manliness.

I don’t believe that; nor do a lot of people. That’s the basis of this article.

Except it hasn’t moved past being a gendered word - that’s at least a good portion of the point. Men don’t get called hysterical. Sure, they can absolutely *be* hysterical, but it’s a description used primarily to dismiss a woman’s opinion.

I think you’ll find that liberals are pretty much totally in agreement that we need better practices to identify those people who can’t be responsible with firearms *regardless of political affiliation* as well as more extensive mental health programs to assist those same people in getting better.