Jihadin wrote:
I like Rubio. Not in a gay way mind you

 whembly wrote:

 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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I like Rubio. Not in a gay way mind you

Just what someone who likes someone in a gay way would say.


Way to early to pick someone to be honest, except to say no to Hillary of course. That is timeless.

 whembly wrote:
From the NYTs no less..

Spoiler:

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.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I like Rubio. Not in a gay way mind you

Just what someone who likes someone in a gay way would say.


Way to early to pick someone to be honest, except to say no to Hillary of course. That is timeless.

But he's young. New. Only spent like one term as a Senator. He's Hispanic and speak it fluently. He even has a catchy phrase to, "Yesterday Leaders". I see him teaming up with Walker to. Now getting my vote is entirely different. I rather have him in office then another Bush or Clinton. Has to much like a dynasty with repeats

 Jihadin wrote:
But he's young. New.

 Jihadin wrote:
He's Hispanic and speak it fluently.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
But he's young. New.

He may be younger than some, but he t'aint new by any means when it comes to politics.

 Jihadin wrote:
He's Hispanic and speak it fluently.

That isn't unique to him in any capacity. Hispanic isn't a language either, but I assumed you meant Spanish.

 Jihadin wrote:
You take politics to serious don't you

 jasper76 wrote:

 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.

 dogma wrote:

 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.

The Western Conservative Summit, a gathering of some of the most influential newsmakers on the right, created a firestorm this week when it uninvited a gay GOP group to set up a table at the Denver event.

Members of the Colorado Log Cabin Republicans and gay-rights activists in both major parties say the move sends a wrong message.

The summit is sponsored by Colorado Christian University in Lakewood and its think tank, the Centennial Institute. Summit chairman and institute director John Andrews said Wednesday that the Log Cabin Republicans "advocate contrary to our agenda and our core beliefs."

"The Log Cabin Republicans exists to redefine the family," he said. "Log Cabin Republicans think gay marriage should be the law of the land, and Colorado Christian University doesn't believe it should be."

Log Cabin Republican members have been told they can still purchase tickets and attend the summit, scheduled for June 26- 28 at the Colorado Convention Center.

"It is a pretty common issue we face. They'll take our money but want us in the closet," said Denver resident Michael Carr, a former state Senate candidate and secretary of the state chapter of Log Cabin Republicans.

"This is the most important time for us to be reaching out to all types of groups and people, all types of Republicans, all types of conservatives," Carr said. "Young people especially want to see a robust political debate, and this disinvitation is the exact opposite of that. Being perceived as anti-gay turns young people off even more than it does the general public."

Upon hearing the news, conservative columnist David Harsanyi tweeted "makes no sense."

Among those scheduled to speak at the summit are 2016 presidential hopefuls Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Ben Carson.

Speakers still set

Andrews, a former state Senate president, said so far none of the speakers has backed out because of publicity over the Log Cabin Republicans. Walker is in Europe this week attending a trade summit, and his campaign said he was not immediately available for comment.

The Human Rights Campaign called for Walker to cancel his summit appearance.

"As a potential candidate, Gov. Walker should lead by example and tell the organizers that he will pull out of this event unless they allow equal access to LGBT Republicans," said Fred Sainz, vice president of communications for the national gay-rights group.

Political consultant Eric Sondermann said the outrage over the revoked invitation isn't surprising, as some conservatives "refuse to get the memo" that public attitudes about homosexuality have shifted.

"For so many people who might be receptive to a conservative message on economic issues, on personal liberties, on foreign policy, on regulation, they'll never get that message because they can't get past this issue," Sondermann said.

Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute in Denver, said the decision was made for religious reasons, not political ones, and it's not that surprising considering the summit is an outgrowth of a Christian university. But he said he wished the summit hadn't revoked the GOP gay group's invitation.

"This is one of the reasons our side loses. There's a perception that we're not friendly to alternative lifestyles," Caldara said.

$250 fee refunded

Alexander Hornaday, spokesman for the Colorado Log Cabin Republicans, said the group was invited to participate in the summit at a discount rate by the Center Right Coalition. The summit this week refunded their $250 fee and informed the group it couldn't attend "as a partner, exhibitor or advertiser."

Andrews told Log Cabin Republicans that their "worldview and policy agenda are fundamentally at odds with what Colorado Christian University stands for, so it's just not a fit. I'm sorry it has to be that way."

Hornaday said voters under 40 and especially under 30 need to see Republicans not only tolerating gay conservatives but welcoming them.

"It's just heartbreaking some of these older guard in the movement don't see that," he said.

Andrews said all are welcome, and he pointed to the summit's Facebook page.

"Come one, come all: conservatives, moderates, and liberals; black, white, Asian, or Hispanic; men and women, younger and old, Republican, Democrat, or libertarian; immigrant or DAR; gay or straight," Andrews said on the post, adding that the summit "aims to build a coalition of all ages and all colors around reviving liberty and sharing Judeo-Christian truth and love."

 whembly wrote:
Dread...Colorado Christian University <> Republican Party.

As a conservative, I think the University is being ridiculous and denounce these actions.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Dread...Colorado Christian University <> Republican Party.

As a conservative, I think the University is being ridiculous and denounce these actions.

My apologies, you are correct.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Yeah, I think the root of the problem is that the parties don't know how to handle the growing segment of the population that is "fiscally conservative but socially liberal." I'm in that group, and neither party is truly engaging me.

Hillary Clinton: You know, what I think about the really unfortunate argument that has been going on around Common Core, it’s very painful because the Common Core started off as a bipartisan effort. It was actually nonpartisan. It wasn’t politicized. It was to try to come up with a core of learning that we might expect students to achieve across our country, no matter what kind of school district they were in, no matter how poor their family was, that there wouldn’t be two tiers of education. Everybody would be looking at what would be learned doing their best to achieve that

I think part of the reason Iowa may be more understanding of this is you have had the Iowa core for years. The U.S. had a system plus the Iowa Assessment Test. I think I’m right in saying that I took those when I was in elementary school. The Iowa tests. So that Iowa has had a testing system based on a core curriculum for a really long time. You see the value of it. You understand why that helps you organize your whole education system.

And a lot of states, unfortunately, haven’t had that. They do not understand the value of a core in the sense, a Common Core, yes, of course, you can figure out the best way in your community to try to reach — but your question is a larger one. How do we end up at a point where we are so negative about the most important non-family enterprise in the raising of the next generation which is how our kids are educated?

 jasper76 wrote:
We really do need to start embracing third parties on a national level.

I was really hoping with the mood after the election of Obama that the GOP might fracture into two parties....one party for economoc conservatism , and one for religious conservatism.

I just can't bring myself to consider a GOP politician for my vote because of the religious baggage they bring to the table. I think the GOP would find many people more open to their economic platform if there were less strings attached to things like gay marriage, war on drugs, abortion, and other "values" issues.

 jasper76 wrote:
We really do need to start embracing third parties on a national level.

I was really hoping with the mood after the election of Obama that the GOP might fracture into two parties....one party for economoc conservatism , and one for religious conservatism.

I just can't bring myself to consider a GOP politician for my vote because of the religious baggage they bring to the table. I think the GOP would find many people more open to their economic platform if there were less strings attached to things like gay marriage, war on drugs, abortion, and other "values" issues.

 whembly wrote:

But, I too am curious what's 538's methodology to come up with this...

 whembly wrote:

BS. Educating your child is not a "non-family enterprise". Parents are responsible for their child's education and this whole idea that just because you send your kids to whichever schools the public offers means that parents abdicate their responsibility of their child's education is asinine.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
We really do need to start embracing third parties on a national level.

I was really hoping with the mood after the election of Obama that the GOP might fracture into two parties....one party for economoc conservatism , and one for religious conservatism.

I just can't bring myself to consider a GOP politician for my vote because of the religious baggage they bring to the table. I think the GOP would find many people more open to their economic platform if there were less strings attached to things like gay marriage, war on drugs, abortion, and other "values" issues.

Be careful what you wish for. If we only have parties 1 and 2, each with their own key demographics, and party 2 splits to become 2 and 3 then that leaves party 1 in a very strong position.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

But, I too am curious what's 538's methodology to come up with this...

Here is the source article. It took me seconds to find. And it includes explanations of methodology.

 whembly wrote:

BS. Educating your child is not a "non-family enterprise". Parents are responsible for their child's education and this whole idea that just because you send your kids to whichever schools the public offers means that parents abdicate their responsibility of their child's education is asinine.

When did Clinton state that education is exclusively a "non-family" enterprise?

Her statement was clearly about Common Core, and public education as a whole, not removing the responsibility of parents regarding the education of their children.