2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Black Swan

Wompa1 wrote: »

I've worked for two insurance companies. Profits soared after Obamacare was introduced. Everybody got their full bonuses paid.

Both RomneyCare and ObamaCare were a boon to private-sector-for-profit medical insurance corporations, especially when citizens would be punished by government for not participating in this profit-making healthcare venture. "Follow the money..." and special interests surface, regardless if the health care plan is Republican (RomneyCare) or Democrat (ObamaCare modeled upon RomneyCare).

When challenging ObamaCare during this campaign year leading up to November 2016, how many of the candidates will mention ObamaCare and RomneyCare in the same breath?

Amerika

Wompa1 wrote: »

I've worked for two insurance companies. Profits soared after Obamacare was introduced. Everybody got their full bonuses paid. Then there was a year when the flu shot was useless and they needed a new batch...more $$. ObamaCare will not fail. It might be twisted and molded into whatever the big money interests prefer but it's here to stay. (Unless Sanders gets elected) Why would insurance companies want to revoke something which is effectively forcing everybody to buy insurance....

Obamacare is not social medicine. It's a machine to print money

The other great one, I always hear people raving about are the ObamaPhones....People will question why somebody that doesn't work deserves a phone that they are paying for without asking the big question.. Who's profiting off this?

I don’t know whom you worked for, but my provider requested an increase of 36 percent. Another requested an increase of 58%, and we only have three providers that cover my area. My provider has since cancelled all their Obamacare plans and dropped over 219,000 insured, which was over half the people in Pennsylvania on Obamacare. They cited sicker than expected people enrolling in their plans with “pent up” need for medical care, with a number racking up more than $100,000 in claims and canceling coverage after a few months. I doubt my provider's people got any bonuses.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the Republican controlled US Senate and US House are ineffective in regards to their check-and-balance of the Executive? That seems incredible, and does not speak well for the controlling Republican office holders.

Why does it not speak well? The 114th Congress (2015-2017) Senate is comprised of Republican (54 seats), and Democrat (44 seats). If it takes 60 votes to overcome a Democratic presidential veto, and Democrats vote along party lines on important issues, it absolutely can be ineffective.

(It is important to note though the Democrat party allows a few to vote with republicans if the Democrat is up for election and their seat is in jeopardy of going to a republican candidate... as long as the total vote doesn’t reach 60. Politics!)

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

When challenging ObamaCare during this campaign year leading up to November 2016, how many of the candidates will mention ObamaCare and RomneyCare in the same breath?

None. I even think they'll all run away from ObamaCare faster than a speeding bullet. And I don't believe it was even brought up in the Democratic debates. The media wouldn't want to make Democrats look bad, ya know. But I think Hillary hopes ObamaCare fails, so she can institute a single payer system... HillaryCare 2.0.

Blue Magic

Carson or Trump likely to get Republican ticket??

BoJack Horseman

Blue Magic wrote: »

Carson or Trump likely to get Republican ticket??

Everyone is waiting for them to go away.... but it hasn't happened yet.

Amerika

Blue Magic wrote: »

Carson or Trump likely to get Republican ticket??

I doubt it. I believe Herman Cain was ahead in the polls on the GOP side at this time in 2011.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Why does it not speak well? The 114th Congress (2015-2017) Senate is comprised of Republican (54 seats), and Democrat (44 seats). If it takes 60 votes to overcome a Democratic presidential veto, and Democrats vote along party lines on important issues, it absolutely can be ineffective.

60 votes to overcome a presidential veto? This exemplifies a major problem with the US 2-party system today, in that it goes to extremes to defeat the opposing party most of the time, because it's the opposing party; e.g., Party of No. The art of negotiation and compromise was lost long ago for Democrats and Republicans, where winning for winning sake has been more important than representing the American people. Cheering for your party is very similar in America as cheering for your favourite NFL team; i.e., "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing" (Vince Lombardi).

Of all the Democrats and Republicans running for 2016 president, which ones have a history of success in the art of negotiating and compromise between their party and opposing party to get something done on behalf of the American people? Not 2016 campaign words or promises; such words are cheap; rather past practical experiences that can be verified?

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Of all the Democrats and Republicans running for 2016 president, which ones have a history of success in the art of negotiating and compromise between their party and opposing party to get something done on behalf of the American people? Not 2016 campaign words or promises; such words are cheap; rather past practical experiences that can be verified?

Well definitely not Clinton as she is proud to call Republicans here enemies. Probably Christie and Kasich. Republican governors of Democratic controlled states. But Mitt Romney was best at it, and where did that get him?

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

Well definitely not Clinton as she is proud to call Republicans here enemies. Probably Christie and Kasich. Republican governors of Democratic controlled states. But Mitt Romney was best at it, and where did that get him?

Kasich is not a governor of a Democratic state and given how Republican dominanted Ohio is I highly doubt you did not know that. For the record the Ohio Senate is 23-10 Republican and the Ohio House is 65-34 Republican.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Well definitely not Clinton as she is proud to call Republicans here enemies. Probably Christie and Kasich. Republican governors of Democratic controlled states. But Mitt Romney was best at it, and where did that get him?

Romney lost the progressive moderates by smugly backing Citizens United and his expensive dinner party (at least one that we know of) where he talked down on the "bottom 47% of americans". He may have espoused 'bipartisanship' in his political campaign, but when he thought the wrong people weren't listening let us know where his prejudice lay.

Christie has 3 black marks: hugging the president (which upset staunch partisan conservatives), bridgegate (which I think pissed off everyone to a certain extent), and the pig crates (which didn't sit well with progressives and was in direct conflict with what the voters of New York wanted for the sake of his future candidacy in Ohio/Iowa). I don't think he has the character fit for the office, all rounded together. He's not a bad person, but he's not a world class guy by any means - which is what I think we are looking for here?

Word is that the FBI will continue to investigate the Hillary emails. Something I agree with, the situation is too political to be in the hand of congressional subcommittees, frankly. And the FBI are not (or should not) telegraph a nightly/weekly update about the issue. If they find stuff they find stuff. For now, congress can flailingly try to get back to passing legislation. There's a lot of good stuff on the table right now, like easing restrictions on the medical care that can be dispensed to Veterans, the Protect our Students and Taxpayers Act (POST), and the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act. We need to talk more (rationally) about the national action in Syria. Also if there's going to be more talk of the annual war on christmas, please focus it at businesses that open on thanksgiving (because if you want christmas to remain sanctified, it starts by not bleeding the commercialism into the 2nd most popular holiday).

Also I have a question: what do people feel is the cause for low voter turnout (disenfranchisement, lack of voter infrastructure, etc) seen in modern america. In the 1800s we had turnouts over 80%. Now we struggle to keep above 50% turnout.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Well definitely not Clinton as she is proud to call Republicans here enemies. Probably Christie and Kasich. Republican governors of Democratic controlled states. But Mitt Romney was best at it, and where did that get him?

Christie did have verifiable practical experience constructively working both parties to benefit NJ voters, but it appears that BridgeGate scuttled his 2016 chances for president.

Black Swan

Overheal wrote: »

Also I have a question: what do people feel is the cause for low voter turnout (disenfranchisement, lack of voter infrastructure, etc) seen in modern america. In the 1800s we had turnouts over 80%. Now we struggle to keep above 50% turnout.

The extraordinarily low (mid-teen percentages) for US Congress approval ratings may be one measure for low turnout in recent presidential year elections. The growth of independent voters not belonging to either Democrat or Republican parties is yet another measure. And although anecdotal and not empirical, the constant infighting and one-upmanship atmosphere of past and present presidential candidates and their supporters has been a big turnoff for most of my friends.

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

Kasich is not a governor of a Democratic state and given how Republican dominanted Ohio is I highly doubt you did not know that. For the record the Ohio Senate is 23-10 Republican and the Ohio House is 65-34 Republican.

You’re probably right. I was thinking back to the 2012 and 2008 presidential elections when they went blue. I’ve never forgiven them for that.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Also I have a question: what do people feel is the cause for low voter turnout (disenfranchisement, lack of voter infrastructure, etc) seen in modern america. In the 1800s we had turnouts over 80%. Now we struggle to keep above 50% turnout.

IMO, our move away from self determination and self reliance, to relying on government to take care of us, and the disillusionment that accompanies it.

LuckyLloyd

Amerika wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Neither of those examples stayed at the top of the race through as many polls / debates as Trump or Carson though. I'm not sure those comparisons are relevant anymore. This race seems very different to previous Republican races...

Amerika

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Neither of those examples stayed at the top of the race through as many polls / debates as Trump or Carson though. I'm not sure those comparisons are relevant anymore. This race seems very different to previous Republican races...

You could be right. I read in the Washington Post that some of the GOP party establishment are so desperate to change the Trump/Carson dynamic that they are talking about drafting Mitt Romney, since Jeb Bush can’t seem to move the ball.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/time-for-gop-panic-establishment-worried-carson-and-trump-might-win/2015/11/12/38ea88a6-895b-11e5-be8b-1ae2e4f50f76_story.html

eire4

Overheal wrote: »

Romney lost the progressive moderates by smugly backing Citizens United and his expensive dinner party (at least one that we know of) where he talked down on the "bottom 47% of americans". He may have espoused 'bipartisanship' in his political campaign, but when he thought the wrong people weren't listening let us know where his prejudice lay.

Christie has 3 black marks: hugging the president (which upset staunch partisan conservatives), bridgegate (which I think pissed off everyone to a certain extent), and the pig crates (which didn't sit well with progressives and was in direct conflict with what the voters of New York wanted for the sake of his future candidacy in Ohio/Iowa). I don't think he has the character fit for the office, all rounded together. He's not a bad person, but he's not a world class guy by any means - which is what I think we are looking for here?

Word is that the FBI will continue to investigate the Hillary emails. Something I agree with, the situation is too political to be in the hand of congressional subcommittees, frankly. And the FBI are not (or should not) telegraph a nightly/weekly update about the issue. If they find stuff they find stuff. For now, congress can flailingly try to get back to passing legislation. There's a lot of good stuff on the table right now, like easing restrictions on the medical care that can be dispensed to Veterans, the Protect our Students and Taxpayers Act (POST), and the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act. We need to talk more (rationally) about the national action in Syria. Also if there's going to be more talk of the annual war on christmas, please focus it at businesses that open on thanksgiving (because if you want christmas to remain sanctified, it starts by not bleeding the commercialism into the 2nd most popular holiday).

Also I have a question: what do people feel is the cause for low voter turnout (disenfranchisement, lack of voter infrastructure, etc) seen in modern america. In the 1800s we had turnouts over 80%. Now we struggle to keep above 50% turnout.

My answer to your question would be the fact that the American political system is blantantly corrupted by bought and paid for politicians and the actual elections are rigged in many places by gerrymandering. The result a 2 party monopoly on power in Washington DC that makes sure no other voices or oppostion parties are allowed to develop nationally to challenge their monopoly on power that leaves voters with no genuine alternatoves to vote for and thus many people turn away from voting. Never mind the fact that the majority of congress only represents the small number of wealthy individuals or big business who paid for them to be elected and demand their return on investment after election rather then those politicians actually representing the mass of the people they in theory are supposed to represent.

Manach

eire4 wrote: »

... that the American political system is blantantly corrupted by bought and paid for politicians and the actual elections are rigged in many places by gerrymandering. The result a 2 party monopoly on power in Washington DC that makes sure no other voices or oppostion parties are allowed to develop

Actually that is a feature and not a bug.

According to my reading of a political book on the system by a Prof. Dahl the founders wished to avoid both a multicity of parties as well as creating breaks against unchecked democracy (as per one example of the electoral colleges.)

Manach

I was reading a Linux magazine, where it mentioned that (unfortunately IMHO) that one of the candidates (Jeb Bush) came out against net neutrality. In terms of candidates positions on technical issues and the IT industry, is there one candidate that stands out? As this is an topic that would effect companies here in Ireland both in terms of issues of say data privacy or general IT policy.

my friend

Trumps numbers are going to jump higher based on events in Paris tonight

Thargor

Nevermind...

Black Swan

Manach wrote: »

Actually that is a feature and not a bug.

According to my reading of a political book on the system by a Prof. Dahl the founders wished to avoid both a multicity of parties as well as creating breaks against unchecked democracy (as per one example of the electoral colleges.)

Not all the founders were in agreement about creating a 2-party political system. USA co-founder and 2nd president John Adams was definitely against it:

"There is nothing that I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

Looking at the 2-parties (Democrats and Republicans) infighting, point scoring, mud slinging, gerrymandering, Party of No blocking, and one-upmanship today, John Adams was prophetic.

The Randy Riverbeast

Thargor wrote: »

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/552955167533174785

Wow...

That is from earlier in the year, still a bit pot and kettle for a US presidential candidate to make comments about shootings in other countries.

eire4

Manach wrote: »

Actually that is a feature and not a bug.

According to my reading of a political book on the system by a Prof. Dahl the founders wished to avoid both a multicity of parties as well as creating breaks against unchecked democracy (as per one example of the electoral colleges.)

I have not read that so I have no idea, maybe some founders did and others did not. But nonetheless in todays climate we have the 2 parties acting as a monopoly on power intentionally supressing any other parties emerging nationally to offer alternatives. So whether it was a feature originally or not what we have today is 2 parties acting as a monpoly to maintain their hold on power in a system awash wih politicans who are beholden to the big business donors and wealthy individuals who have bribed them to do their bidding once elected and not do what is in the best interests of the vast majority of the people who they are supposed to represent. If the Washington DC 2 party cartel did not behave as they did there would be alternatives both on the right and left nationally.

alaimacerc

Manach wrote: »

Actually that is a feature and not a bug.

According to my reading of a political book on the system by a Prof. Dahl the founders wished to avoid both a multicity of parties as well as creating breaks against unchecked democracy (as per one example of the electoral colleges.)

I assume you're referring here to How Democratic is the American Constitution?. To which Dahl's broad conclusion seems to be, "not very". So not at all a good source for a "not a bug" argument.

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

You could be right. I read in the Washington Post that some of the GOP party establishment are so desperate to change the Trump/Carson dynamic that they are talking about drafting Mitt Romney, since Jeb Bush can’t seem to move the ball.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/time-for-gop-panic-establishment-worried-carson-and-trump-might-win/2015/11/12/38ea88a6-895b-11e5-be8b-1ae2e4f50f76_story.html

Claimed Bush-blaming not in cited source. Nor, rather curiously, is any mention of Rubio. Isn't he supposed to be the new Establishment candidate?

Interesting that some (others?) of these unnamed GOP insiders aren't worried so much about Trump or Carson losing to Clinton, they're worried about one of them actually winning. Which does speak to there being one or two Republicans left with at least slightly more sense than partisanship. Not that you'd know it, to judge by results...

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

IMO, our move away from self determination and self reliance, to relying on government to take care of us, and the disillusionment that accompanies it.

The US is utterly dependent on the federal government, and thus can't be bothered to vote for it? I can't help but think there's not a great deal of logical connection here, so much as just gluing two rather dissonant talking points together.

In particular, how would this account for US voter participation being low even by the standards of Western democracies? Surely by your reasoning, it would be even lower in supposedly still less "self-reliant" Austria and Denmark? As opposed to vastly higher, as is actually the case.

I think it speaks volumes that the reaction of a certain segment to this lamentable situation is to pass voter suppression measures, which are certain to worsen it, are demographically discriminatory, and are excused by addressing a "voter fraud" issue that seems to be so minimal as to be literally insignificant.

alaimacerc

Black Swan wrote: »

Christie did have verifiable practical experience constructively working both parties to benefit NJ voters, but it appears that BridgeGate scuttled his 2016 chances for president.

Christie appears to be unelectable not for the reasons most of the field are -- to wit, excessive thrall to the extremes of assorted strands within the Republican party -- but that he appears to conform too much to negative stereotypes of New Jerseyans.