The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whembly**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Or, perhaps they have a very different definition of 'what is best'.

True, but Co'tor Shas is correct in the sense the Republicans can't keep blaming Obama for everything. Sooner or later they're going to have to come up with some ideas and initiatives of their own.

That's a disingenuous argument there...

There've been plenty of Republican ideas and plans... up until recently, they couldn't get their bills past Harry Reid's Senate.... because, reasons.

Then, if it were to pass Congress, Obama does wield the veto pen.

So... yeah, in most cases, Republicans do have a point about blaming it on Obama because he's a potential road block.

If Hillary locks up the Democratic Primary, the Republicans can bring up both Hillary's issues AND Obama's (by claiming she's running for a 3rd Obama Presidency Policy-wise) How that plays in the general election remains to been. Frankly, I'm tired of it... just remember what it was like with outgoing Bush in '08. (at least it worked for Obama).

**CptJake**

Jihadin wrote:
Political Prisoners are still behind bars? Fugitives that are wanted in the US are still walking free in Cuba? Opening up a relationship is a two way street.

And the property rights issues... Many immigrants, especially the first wave escaping the revolution, had businesses and other property/land nationalized or given to the regime's favored sons. They (the folks who lost their property) want a way to re-assert their rights of ownership or some type of fair compensation. The Castro's and crew have refused to address this except to say 'screw off'.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

whembly wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Or, perhaps they have a very different definition of 'what is best'.

True, but Co'tor Shas is correct in the sense the Republicans can't keep blaming Obama for everything. Sooner or later they're going to have to come up with some ideas and initiatives of their own.

That's a disingenuous argument there...

There've been plenty of Republican ideas and plans... up until recently, they couldn't get their bills past Harry Reid's Senate.... because, reasons.

Then, if it were to pass Congress, Obama does wield the veto pen.

So... yeah, in most cases, Republicans do have a point about blaming it on Obama because he's a potential road block.

If Hillary locks up the Democratic Primary, the Republicans can bring up both Hillary's issues AND Obama's (by claiming she's running for a 3rd Obama Presidency Policy-wise) How that plays in the general election remains to been. Frankly, I'm tired of it... just remember what it was like with outgoing Bush in '08. (at least it worked for Obama).

Harry Reid deserves a share of the blame for the deadlock, but the Republicans didn't help things with their unwillingness to compromise, and their my way or the highway approach.

LBJ faced a hostile congress, but he was always willing to horse trade to get things passed.

**CptJake**

You talk about unwillingness to compromise, but look at legislation like the ACA. Reed and Pelosi barely compromised with the blue dog Dems, let alone the Rs.

Boehner on the other hand passed a clean DHS bill that the Dems wanted, and faced leadership challenges in his own party due to it. Did Pelosi ever do something similar? I can't think of an example where she passed something her party was against, using Rs to push the votes to get the needed pass number.

**Easy E**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Cuba is no threat to the USA and opening up the island to US goods, might led to the end of the regime. Once people get a taste of the good life, they tend to ditch Karl Marx in favour of an Amazon wishlist.

A million time sthis. Nothing ends communist regimes faster than a taste of the $$$$ that can be made in Capitalist system.

**Jihadin**

Easy E wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Cuba is no threat to the USA and opening up the island to US goods, might led to the end of the regime. Once people get a taste of the good life, they tend to ditch Karl Marx in favour of an Amazon wishlist.

A million time sthis. Nothing ends communist regimes faster than a taste of the $$$$ that can be made in Capitalist system.

Only works if the general population gets that taste. Castro government totally blocked that taste.
Though I would not say no if allowed a trip to Cuba to go car shopping if the price was not at the government rates of Castro's lol

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

There've been plenty of Republican ideas and plans... up until recently, they couldn't get their bills past Harry Reid's Senate.... because, reasons.

Because the ideas were crap and wouldn't even pass a GOP controlled Senate, or the people backing them had been quite solidly in the the "feth the Democrats!" camp; often both. You can't build a partisan platform around sticking it to the party in power and expect the party in power to go quietly into the night.

**A Town Called Malus**

Jihadin wrote:
Easy E wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Cuba is no threat to the USA and opening up the island to US goods, might led to the end of the regime. Once people get a taste of the good life, they tend to ditch Karl Marx in favour of an Amazon wishlist.

A million time sthis. Nothing ends communist regimes faster than a taste of the $$$$ that can be made in Capitalist system.

Only works if the general population gets that taste. Castro government totally blocked that taste.
Though I would not say no if allowed a trip to Cuba to go car shopping if the price was not at the government rates of Castro's lol

If there is one thing I definitely do not want to see, it is all those beautiful cars disappearing off into the collections of random individuals all over the world. Would be a tragedy to have those cars sitting in big garages gathering metaphorical dust rather than driving amongst their own kind in the wild

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
Political Prisoners are still behind bars? Fugitives that are wanted in the US are still walking free in Cuba? Opening up a relationship is a two way street.

Well the US also has some people which the Cuban government would like to see, too.

There was that one person who bombed the plane with the cuban olympic team on or something like that?

**Jihadin**

Like who do we have in jail that Castro regime wants?

It sure as Hell not Noriega

Edit

Also I am ssoooo with you on the cars Malus. Someone going to go and steal that out from under the general population of car lovers around the world. I say go to War if Castro decides to melt all those vehicles down.

**Frazzled**

Easy E wrote:
Edit:

Now we hhave more than just Paul and Cruz in the race at least!

Anyone wnat to rate Rubio's chances? I think in a general he would be okay, but will have a tough time in primaries.

Barring some gotcha surprise from the media he will be the Republican VP choice.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Easy E wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Cuba is no threat to the USA and opening up the island to US goods, might led to the end of the regime. Once people get a taste of the good life, they tend to ditch Karl Marx in favour of an Amazon wishlist.

A million time sthis. Nothing ends communist regimes faster than a taste of the $$$$ that can be made in Capitalist system.

In East Berlin, they could see the bright lights of the West Berlin cafes. In Communist Estonia, TV signals from Finland gave people a blurry image of a better life.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Easy E wrote:
Edit:

Now we hhave more than just Paul and Cruz in the race at least!

Anyone wnat to rate Rubio's chances? I think in a general he would be okay, but will have a tough time in primaries.

Barring some gotcha surprise from the media he will be the Republican VP choice.

So you agree with my prediction: Clinton Vs Bush?

I don't know about you Frazz, but I miss the 1990s. A man knew where he stood. Joe Commie had been defeated in Russia, Guns and Roses were in their prime, we had twin peaks, x files, Nirvana...I'm getting all misty eyed

**Frazzled**

So you agree with my prediction: Clinton Vs Bush?

No. Walker vs. Clinton. Rubio for Republican VP. Warren for Democratic VP (not 100% sure on that one though).

I don't know about you Frazz, but I miss the 1990s. A man knew where he stood. Joe Commie had been defeated in Russia, Guns and Roses were in their prime, we had twin peaks, x files, Nirvana...I'm getting all misty eyed

"what is these are the Good Old Days?"
- Londo Molari.

**A Town Called Malus**

Jihadin wrote:
Like who do we have in jail that Castro regime wants?

It sure as Hell not Noriega

I think the problem is that the person they want is not in jail

Found the name: Luis Posada Carriles. Orchestrated many terrorist acts against Cuba, including possibly blowing up a civilian airline and killing all 73 people on board.

**Jihadin**

One eh

There's like over 80 American fugitives walking free in Cuba

**dogma**

CptJake wrote:
You talk about unwillingness to compromise, but look at legislation like the ACA. Reed and Pelosi barely compromised with the blue dog Dems, let alone the Rs.

The public option was dropped, too quickly in the opinion of many people, and the ACA has been widely lampooned for including special concessions. You really can't argue that compromises weren't made in the course of ACA passage.

**d-usa**

dogma wrote:
CptJake wrote:
You talk about unwillingness to compromise, but look at legislation like the ACA. Reed and Pelosi barely compromised with the blue dog Dems, let alone the Rs.

The public option was dropped, too quickly in the opinion of many people, and the ACA has been widely lampooned for including special concessions. You really can't argue that compromises weren't made in the course of ACA passage.

We all know the answer will be the same as every other time.

"Here are all the concessions that were made and all the stuff that was included that you guys always wanted."
"Well, we didn't ask for any of it and we weren't talking to you guys at the time, so it doesn't count."

**CptJake**

d-usa wrote:
dogma wrote:
CptJake wrote:
You talk about unwillingness to compromise, but look at legislation like the ACA. Reed and Pelosi barely compromised with the blue dog Dems, let alone the Rs.

The public option was dropped, too quickly in the opinion of many people, and the ACA has been widely lampooned for including special concessions. You really can't argue that compromises weren't made in the course of ACA passage.

We all know the answer will be the same as every other time.

"Here are all the concessions that were made and all the stuff that was included that you guys always wanted."
"Well, we didn't ask for any of it and we weren't talking to you guys at the time, so it doesn't count."

Or more accurately, the concessions/compromises were put in to get the blue dog Ds to vote for it.

**Tannhauser42**

Let's face it, the Republicans secretly wanted the ACA to pass as it is. Because they've been able to use it ever since then as a political tool to try to get votes. If the parties had all worked together to create something wondrous and magical for America, Americans would have forgotten about it in a month. But let something people don't like go through? You can capitalize on that negativity for years.

**Ahtman**

The best part of the ACA is all the people that whined, complained, and fought against it as evil incarnate turning around after its passage and complaining it isn't enough. It went from doing to much and being unwanted to not being enough and to weak. Good times.

**Jihadin**

Premiums rise?

**whembly**

From the NYTs no less..
Hillary Clinton Was Asked About Email 2 Years Ago

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton was directly asked by congressional investigators in a December 2012 letter whether she had used a private email account while serving as secretary of state, according to letters obtained by The New York Times.

But Mrs. Clinton did not reply to the letter. And when the State Department answered in March 2013, nearly two months after she left office, it ignored the question and provided no response.

The query was posed to Mrs. Clinton in a Dec. 13, 2012, letter from Representative Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Mr. Issa was leading an investigation into how the Obama administration handled its officials’ use of personal email.

“Have you or any senior agency official ever used a personal email account to conduct official business?” Mr. Issa wrote to Mrs. Clinton. “If so, please identify the account used.”

Mr. Issa also asked Mrs. Clinton, “Does the agency require employees to certify on a periodic basis or at the end of their employment with the agency they have turned over any communications involving official business that they have sent or received using nonofficial accounts?”

Mr. Issa’s letter also sought written documentation of the department’s policies for the use of personal email for government business. Mrs. Clinton left the State Department on Feb. 1, 2013, seven weeks after the letter was sent to her.

When Mr. Issa received a response from the State Department on March 27, all he got was a description of the department’s email policies. According to the letter, any employee using a personal account “should make it clear that his or her personal email is not being used for official business.”

Mrs. Clinton acknowledged last month that she had exclusively used a personal email account, which was housed on a server that had been specially set up for her, when she was secretary of state. She said that she used the private account for convenience purposes because she did not want to carry more than one electronic device. By using the private account, many of her emails were shielded from inquiries by Congress, the news media and government watchdogs.

The revelation has set off the first major test of her early presidential campaign, as she seeks to assure the public and the news media that she was not seeking to hide her correspondence.

A congressional official provided The Times with a copy of Mr. Issa’s letter and the response from the State Department on the condition of anonymity because the official did not want to jeopardize his access to such information.

A spokesman for the State Department declined on Tuesday to answer questions about why it had not addressed Mr. Issa’s question about whether Mrs. Clinton or senior officials used personal email accounts.

“The department responds to thousands of congressional inquiries and requests for information each year,” said the spokesman, Alec Gerlach. “In its March 2013 letter, the department responded to the House Oversight Committee’s inquiry into the department’s ‘policies and practices regarding the use of personal email and other forms of electronic communications’ with a letter that described those policies in detail.”

An aide to Mrs. Clinton said in a statement Tuesday that “her usage was widely known to the over 100 department and U.S. government colleagues she emailed, as her address was visible on every email she sent.”

Mr. Issa had sent letters to the State Department and other executive agencies after it was discovered that some administration and Environment Protection Agency officials had used private accounts to conduct government business.

In the State Department’s letter back to Mr. Issa, Thomas B. Gibbons, the acting assistant secretary for legislative affairs, described the department’s records management policies and guidelines.

He said “employees may use personal email on personal time for matters not directly related to official business, and any employee using personal email ‘should make it clear that his or her personal email is not being used for official business.’ ”

The State Department offered training on its record management programs to its employees, he said.

... and she didn't respond. What the feth were congress-cirtters doing all this time? Taking their sweet assed time.

**Co'tor Shas**

Taking 2 years to get around to something important, sounds like congress alright.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Honestly, the Clinton have always been a bit slimy. Bill was a good president, but he's a slimeball, and it looks like Hillary might be as well.

All that remains is to find out if she will be as good a president as Bill was. If so, than she's alright in my book, although I still don't really want her to be president.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Jihadin wrote:
Premiums rise?

Depends on locality, yes. I know I've seen many articles now saying, "Nationally, rates have gone down" as an AHA!!! GOTCHA! kind of thing to all the anti-ACA people.

**jasper76**

d-usa wrote:
dogma wrote:
CptJake wrote:
You talk about unwillingness to compromise, but look at legislation like the ACA. Reed and Pelosi barely compromised with the blue dog Dems, let alone the Rs.

The public option was dropped, too quickly in the opinion of many people, and the ACA has been widely lampooned for including special concessions. You really can't argue that compromises weren't made in the course of ACA passage.

We all know the answer will be the same as every other time.

"Here are all the concessions that were made and all the stuff that was included that you guys always wanted."
"Well, we didn't ask for any of it and we weren't talking to you guys at the time, so it doesn't count."

I think we are supposed to pretend that Obama didn't run on Single Payer for the 2008 election, that he didn't win with a mandate for that platform, and that the ACA wasn't a horrible compromise by a naive President meant to appease Republicans.

**whembly**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Premiums rise?

Depends on locality, yes. I know I've seen many articles now saying, "Nationally, rates have gone down" as an AHA!!! GOTCHA! kind of thing to all the anti-ACA people.

Here's a good chart:

That's just going from '14 to '15.

The market is whacked big time.

Here's some trendlines from JAMA:

It's a bloody mess... (fyi, I work in the healthcare industry).

What you're going to see is that the regional caregivers throughout the nation will start merging/colloaborating/partnering with each other in a Accountable Care Organization (ACO)*... with an asterick next to it.

These ACO would also start getting into the insurance market as well, thus cutting out the payor-middle man.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jasper76 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
dogma wrote:
CptJake wrote:
You talk about unwillingness to compromise, but look at legislation like the ACA. Reed and Pelosi barely compromised with the blue dog Dems, let alone the Rs.

The public option was dropped, too quickly in the opinion of many people, and the ACA has been widely lampooned for including special concessions. You really can't argue that compromises weren't made in the course of ACA passage.

We all know the answer will be the same as every other time.

"Here are all the concessions that were made and all the stuff that was included that you guys always wanted."
"Well, we didn't ask for any of it and we weren't talking to you guys at the time, so it doesn't count."

I think we are supposed to pretend that Obama didn't run on Single Payer for the 2008 election, that he didn't win with a mandate for that platform, and that the ACA wasn't a horrible compromise by a naive President meant to appease Republicans.

Pelosi/Reid: This is a compromise. <shuts door to R's face>

Republicans: But, I want to participate in this!!!

Pelosi/Reid: <opens door a crack> The framework is from your Heritage™ buddies! So... get off my lawn!

Republicans: :throws up hands:

~~~ PPACA passes w/o any R's voting for it. ~~~~

Supporters of ACA: It was a Republican idea, but they don't like it because the Democrats passed it. (which isn't anywhere near the same as that Heritage "op-ed" plan back in the 80's). But, again, supporters keeps on fighting to revise history.

**jasper76**

whembly wrote:

Supporters of ACA: keeps on fighting to revise history.

If this was aimed at me, I am absolutely not a supporter of the ACA. I voted for a Single Payer system. What we got was a bad attempt to appease Republicans and the insurance industry, and, as you say, while it seems to have appeased the insurance industry (anything beats extinction), it certainly did not appease the Republicans.

**Jihadin**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Premiums rise?

Depends on locality, yes. I know I've seen many articles now saying, "Nationally, rates have gone down" as an AHA!!! GOTCHA! kind of thing to all the anti-ACA people.

Let's feed into Whembly insanity

**squidhills**

whembly wrote:

~~~ PPACA passes w/o any R's voting for it. ~~~~

Well, that part was true, at least.

The reality is that the Dems weren't ineterested in compromise and neither were the Republicans. The Dems didn't want compromise, because they thought they had the votes to get whatever they wanted through. The Reps didn't want compromise because they were determined to kill Obamacare before it was born. They had already promised to do everything possible to make Obama a one-term President, and they were certainly not going to compromise on anything he proposed or Dems supported. The Dems needed to get concessions put in to appease the "Blue-Dog" Dems, who were representing more conservative districts. That is where the compromises were made, because the Dems wanted a 60 vote fillibuster-proof majority before attempting to hold a vote (they knew no Rep would back the bill, so they were determined to get the votes needed to shoot down a fillibuster). This is what turned the ACA into the mess it became, because Joe Lieberman demanded alteration after alteration after alteration to appease the insurance companies that were funding his campaign. The Dems caved to him to ensure they had the full 60 votes (he was an Independant, but he was also that 60th vote) and the rest is history...

**jasper76**

This ~~Home Depot~~ Hilary Clinton 2016 ad seems to have caused a stir amongst opinion writers, with many articles panning it in the big papers:

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Republicans: But, I want to participate in this!!!

But they really didn't.

There was too much electoral hay to be made after the complete Democratic overtake of the Federal Government. The GOP's best option was to do what it did: sandbag and rally assumed supporters.