I didn't say all his policies or appointees were uncontroversial. There have been some that had bipartisan support yet still were prevented from passing or being confirmed.

Anyway, look here!

You did not say which Policies or appointees were uncontroversial, and the only example given is Obama care, painting the picture of congress rejecting Obama because they don't like him rather of valid concerns, and subsequently state Obama should go around congress more often

If Obama care is uncontroversial, I don't know that will be controversial.

Anyway look here

It's called a monopsony, and it's fucking great.

That's why I would only allow to have one court calling himself supreme. Maybe call it state high court, but not supreme. That way the hierachy would be more clear.

So one could also blame the people who elected him. But anyway, I guess you get some lunatics everywhere. The problems start when they get into power. ...

There is competition between different insurance companies in this system, so not a monopoly and quite complex.And is it a good idea? Yes it is, if you look at how uninsured rate dropped in almost free fall. For the guys who are now insured it's surely good.

Gay marriage and affordable care for everyone - this fights are completely over. I'm absolutely convinced there is no way back.

What is about and coming may include topics like immigration, abortion, drugs and guns. That's something.

Did it occur to you that the uninsured rate drop because the people are forced to?

If you don't have Obama care you are punished by some funny tax to pay other people insurance?

Hey you are right, it is not a monopoly, because you have the option to buy or not to buy in a monopoly business.
I am at a loss of words to describe a system that your only option is buy only because not buying is worse.

Maybe USA should forbid all marriages and this problem will be solved?
Does USA really need marriages? I think if this is the free country then people can live there without marriages.

What do you think?

There's many people that make the argument that the State shouldn't have any business in marriage to begin with. If I'm not mistaken, the 'recognition' of a bonding between a man and a woman was dealt with at the local church under common law. But yeah, once the State got into it, along with it came the lawyers, relationship therapists, social workers, and foster care organizations.

Just privatize it. Get the government out of it. That's usually 90% of any problem. Get the government out of it. Want to get married? Take it up with God or Allah or Yoda or whatever little green alien you choose to worship.

Heh, I wouldn't worry about that. Gay marriage will come through at the end. Its a process that we have to go through. Even in my country where most gay rights and marriage were abolished directly before Christmas 2015 via referendum.

Isn't it kinda silly and ironic to adopt traditional elements of a traditionally heterosexual ritual one is refusing anyway?
Why is there a need to copy rites of the "traditional state sanctioned family"-guys at all if one is not part of it?
It's like not liking what one is and trying to compensate by imitating others.

That's not what I meant. Yes, you are kind of forced to be insured. Maybe you can imagine it, but I have nothing against it and think this is a good idea. What I meant is that you are not forced to be insured at a certain company. You can choose. There is not a single insurance company for everyone and in this sense it's not a monopoly.

So to summarize: we meant different things and additionally have different views. That's why the results differ a lot.
Who says homosexuals are not as conservative as heterosexuals?

Tax advantages and legal implication are also attached to a state sanctioned marriage. Also it's now often called partnership instead of marriage which is kind of less traditional and more focused on these financial and legal advantages.

They can't be or they'd be in complete denial.
I can often see some very conservative elements there though, that's right.

If you're living together with someone you automatically get the financial disadvantaged anyway, so it would be fair to automatically get the advantages too, without marriage.
Seeing how Germany has the lowest birth rate on the planet by now, some tax exceptions should rather be made to people who create and raise children and not to people who indirectly promised to do so via marriage (which originally was an aggreement to start a biologically made family btw.).

Where do you live again? The middle of Screwthatistan?

Copper Harbor Michigan