Warning signs of a Cult/Cult leader:

Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
The group/leader is always right.
The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

Warning signs of Cult Followers:

Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group/leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.
Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens.
Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution".
Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior.
Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement.
Hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supercede any personal goals or individual interests.
A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor.
Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader.
Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful.
Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided.

They learned a lot from the Anonymous raids on Scientology. It was a simple matter to adapt Hubbard's techniques to a partisan cause, strip the party of external religious motivation, and turn the party into a cult. Now they utilize Miscavage's techniques of suppressing dissent and building a mentally coherent, voluntary prison state, where the inmates love their slavery and they're all convinced of the righteousness of their cause.

b-b-but corporist corporate corporations! Right of center! Both bought and paid for parties! Banking system! Chickens in every pot!

And the ACA was a Republican plan, right?

Well no it wasn't, not even close:

http://prospect.org/article/no-obamacare-wasnt-republican-prop osal

Mao had wet dreams about owning this quality of sycophantic talkprop, during which he refused to allow himself to climax lest it deplete his manly substance.

Uh, not meant as a reply.

It is the ONLY reply!

Oh, here's the thing.

They want to pass this with reconciliation so they only need 51% of the vote. The CBO must show the plan reduces the deficit to do that, which this plan does ( by burning poors to keep the wealthy warm apparently ). Pure Evil.

No, reconciliation can't just happen if a bill reduces the deficit. That is A necessary criterion for a reconcilable bill, but it is not sufficient all on its own. In particular, the deficit reduction cannot be merely incidental -- in other words, it doesn't count if the bill is designed to accomplish something else, and deficit reduction is an added bonus.

This is why the public option was never a candidate for reconciliation, even though fucktards like Glenn Greenwald insisted it was. Reconcilable items cannot establish new policy (such as the public option). Nor could they repeal the ACA or establish the AHCA or anything of the kind.

The point of reconciliation bills is that they will not require extended debate because they are so straightforward that they can go to a straight up-or-down vote, so a simple majority is sufficient for cloture. (That's what filibusters and the 60-vote thing is about, you know: deciding when debate is done on a bill. A filibuster is when a minority of Senators declare that they will never end the debate until they get their way.)

Plus Trump doesn't want us to call it Trumpcare. But that's just the kind of guy he is, modest to a fault.

It's implied but okay

A "dick" is someone who you ask politely to do something and they don't, while a "douche" is someone who goes out of their way to hurt other people just to feel better about themselves. The distinction is subtle, but important.

What? No that's the exact opposite.

A douche is someone whose entire persona revolves around constant, aggressive, and entirely undeserved self promotion.

A dick is someone who goes out of their way to screw with someone for no meaningful personal gain.

I can go with that.

I know you're stupid but even that doesn't explain such an inept comparison.

If you want to go the automotive comparison it would be like republicans removing the requirement for cars to have seat belts and airbags and automakers then only offering them on their expensive cars...and idiots like you will prance around saying everyone can have seat belts if they want (to pay $60,000 for them).

If you were a car, you'd be called fart car.