American Politics Thread: Orange is the new POTUS (Archive)

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Remember though that you need a significant overall popular vote majority to take back both houses. If 3 million votes didn't do it in 2016 - didn't even come close - hard to say what it'll take in 2018 after GOP has had control in many places for a couple of years and likely taken steps to make it even harder to oust them.

[Flash Walken]

I don't think you are approaching this from all politics are local.

The new Republican talking point about this is that this is "phase 1" of the proposal. They can't share with us what the other phases will be except to assure us that it will be great and will adequately replace the coverage provided by the ACA.

This has worked time and again on all swathes of the electorate, but it works the most on people looking for someone to trust, someone they can abdicate responsibility to.

If you want to believe you can have your cake and eat it too, you're going to vote for someone that assures you the cake will be delicious once it is finished baking. Just look at Albertan voters for an example of buying a rotten bill of goods because it is packaged in delicious pablum.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Ultimately it's a bit of a moot point since I do not think the current bill will actually pass. I actually think they won't even take up any bill on this, since I think the real goal here is to simply let Obamacare fail on it's own, so the GOP can blame the Dems come midterm time.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Ultimately it's a bit of a moot point since I do not think the current bill will actually pass. I actually think they won't even take up any bill on this, since I think the real goal here is to simply let Obamacare fail on it's own, so the GOP can blame the Dems come midterm time.

anyone with a bit of intelligence would say they failed to prevent the failure after talking about it for 6 years, therefore they failed. I know that is too deep for most Republican voters though.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Don't be a jackass...



And to answer Girlysport's question...it has to be pro-abortion. Nobody is pro-limpdick.



But really its anti-hypocrisy as mentioned earlier.

Actually it's likely reproductive rights in general. Funding for contraception is a contentious issue with ACA and is a more direct analogy to Viagra

[Senator Clay Davis]

Speaking of letting Obamacare die and the Dems take the blame, President Spite says...

Jim Acosta‏Verified account @Acosta 14h14 hours ago
Trump told Tea Party groups at WH if GOP health care plan dies, he will let Obamacare fail and let Dems take the blame, I'm told.

https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/839665918754099200

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I'm sure that'll actually work with some people, but I think he'd be surprised to find how many of his voters are actually sort of informing themselves on this issue now that there's personal risk to them of losing benefits. If people start dying because they lost their ACA health care, I'd suspect that even a large chunk of Republicans will be unable to bring themselves around to the notion that it's the fault of someone other than the guys who repealed the ACA itself.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm sure that'll actually work with some people, but I think he'd be surprised to find how many of his voters are actually sort of informing themselves on this issue now that there's personal risk to them of losing benefits. If people start dying because they lost their ACA health care, I'd suspect that even a large chunk of Republicans will be unable to bring themselves around to the notion that it's the fault of someone other than the guys who repealed the ACA itself.

It is interesting that the tactic bitter politicians used of calling the ACA "Obamacare" actually worked on so many people.

It should be a case study on herd mentality and group think. It illustrates perfectly how easy it is to manipulate people who can't think for themselves.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It is interesting that the tactic bitter politicians used of calling the ACA "Obamacare" actually worked on so many people.

Spoiler!

... Yup. Makes you kind of skeptical that the electorate is remotely competent, doesn't it?

I think there's a free rider thing that's been going on for a while and that's gradually increased probably over the past 50 years to the point where it's just assumed that you don't have to know anything or pay attention to politics, because there's a large group of smart people who are paying attention who will make sure everything turns out okay.

[Drak]

Idiocracy is a thing.

[photon]

We already knew he thought this but still sucks to see it confirmed. Head of the EPA says CO2 isn't primary contributor to global warming. This is the actual long term bad stuff, health care will eventually be fixed when the political pendulum swings.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/09/epa-c...tt-pruitt.html

Should be called the PPEA, Protection of Profits from the Environment Agency.

[RougeUnderoos]

Caught the end of Ryan's lecture on healthcare. They've been waiting to repeal and replace Obamacare for decades. Huh. Time flies.

Gotta admit though he was kind of convincing. I don't know if he knows what he's talking about, but at the very least he seemed like he'd done his homework.

[photon]

Trump's so far doing more than 4 times as many drone strikes as Obama (who did many times as many strikes as Bush). Small sample size though.

http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2017/03/0...tion-of-power/

The Intercept has a podcast now and the most recent one they talk a bit about this and how there's people in the military that have wanted military actions that Obama kept control of and restricted or denied, now with Trump they might get delegated authority like with Bush. It was interesting.

Kind of the opposite of the non-interventionalist less-war-supporting campaign.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by photon

Trump's so far doing more than 4 times as many drone strikes as Obama (who did many times as many strikes as Bush). Small sample size though.

http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2017/03/0...tion-of-power/

The Intercept has a podcast now and the most recent one they talk a bit about this and how there's people in the military that have wanted military actions that Obama kept control of and restricted or denied, now with Trump they might get delegated authority like with Bush. It was interesting.

Kind of the opposite of the non-interventionalist less-war-supporting campaign.

I don't think the drone technology was as advanced and proven under Bush though. I suspect as it becomes more advanced, more and more presidents will be using it regardless of affiliation.

In principle, I don't think using drones is bad if used properly.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

In principle, I don't think using drones is bad if used properly.

The counter-argument to that is that even when used in appropriate military circumstances to achieve reasonable, well-considered objectives, it's obvious that military force will be used more broadly and readily if the people using it don't have to worry about the risk of political fallout that comes with dead soldiers. It's much easier to sweep dead foreign civilians under the rug. Horrifying but true.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Remember though that you need a significant overall popular vote majority to take back both houses. If 3 million votes didn't do it in 2016 - didn't even come close - hard to say what it'll take in 2018 after GOP has had control in many places for a couple of years and likely taken steps to make it even harder to oust them.

No, you don't. Popular vote means nothing. You just need to win the specific races. There may be some very house seats that break hard in one direction, skewing the popular vote numbers, but if you win the seats that matter by a thousand votes, that all that matters. There are 57 seats up and 8 are considered safe R and another 6 are considered safe D. That's 43 seats up for grabs. One party could easily steal a big chunk of seats and not win the popular vote, just by how close the leans are right now.

[troutman]

Hawaii and Washington state have already announced plans to challenge new travel ban.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by troutman

Hawaii and Washington state have already announced plans to challenge new travel ban.

We have recently cancelled a planned working vacation in Hawaii due to the uncertainty of a travel ban. The people in Hawaii I spoke with were apologetic and let me know we weren't the only ones.

I feel bad for people in the hospitality industry in the US right now.

[Senator Clay Davis]

This is taking for profit prisons to a whole new level

Alan Wurtzel met Carole Markin on Match.com in 2010. On their first date, he took her to coffee. After their second date, he walked Markin to her door, followed her inside and, she said, forced her to perform oral sex.

Wurtzel later claimed the act was consensual, but in 2011 he pleaded no contest to sexual battery and was sentenced to a year in jail. His victim was disappointed in the short sentence, but she still believed a measure of justice would be served with her assailant locked behind bars at the Los Angeles County Jail.

Instead, Wurtzel found a better option: For $100 a night, he was permitted by the court to avoid county jail entirely. He did his time in Seal Beach’s small city jail, with amenities that included flat-screen TVs, a computer room and new beds. He served six months, at a cost of $18,250, according to jail records.

Markin learned about Wurtzel’s upgraded jail stay only recently, from a reporter. “I feel like, ‘Why did I go through this?’” she said.

In what is commonly called “pay-to-stay” or “private jail,” a constellation of small city jails — at least 26 of them in Los Angeles and Orange counties — open their doors to defendants who can afford the option. But what started out as an antidote to overcrowding has evolved into a two-tiered justice system that allows people convicted of serious crimes to buy their way into safer and more comfortable jail stays.

Like Wurtzel, those defendants were convicted of felonies, which can end in a state prison sentence. But judges have the discretion to order some felony offenders to serve time in county jails. In those cases, judges can also allow a defendant to serve the time in a city jail.

Pay-to-stay jail assignments make up only a small fraction of the tens of thousands of inmates sent to detention centers in Southern California each year. But allowing some defendants to avoid the region’s notoriously dangerous county jails has long rankled some in law enforcement who believe it runs counter to the spirit of equal justice.

The region’s pay-to-stay jails took in nearly $7 million from the programs from 2011 through 2015, according to revenue figures provided by the cities. In attracting paying customers, some cities openly tout their facilities as safer, cleaner and with more modern amenities. The Santa Ana jail’s website, for example, notes that jail is a “highly disruptive experience” and promotes its jail as a place where criminals can serve their time in a “less intimidating environment.”

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-m...to-stay-jails/

[sun]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

I'm in the same boat as stamps2x. Been called out for "not googling" before asking questions. The truth of it is his questions are real questions that he, I, and many Americans have.

Is the media honest? No. Is Trump honest? Definitely not. Trump should be, and he's fighting a bad fight, but he's not wrong about a lot of things he says- he just says them in the worst possible way.

And stamps2x is right to wonder what makes Trump himself so bad when any republican would have done all the same things. Oh, a few alleged Russia scandals? I'll wait to find out some truth about that. Can you trust CNN and Wapo to tell the truth? Or are they pushing their own agenda?

I'm certainly not a huge blind Trump supporter, and it would have been a tough vote for me. I would likely have supported Trump for ####s and giggles. I think he was a better choice than Hillary. Was he a better choice than any other democrat: we'll know in a few years.

I have no issue with any of your questions and I think it lead to some interesting discussion. But the bolded admission is quite damning.

To elect a leader for "####s and giggles" would be indefensible. This isn't John Scott at the All-star Game. This is the PRESIDENT of the USA. Obviously you didn't vote, but others who shared your motivation did. And now look at this entertaining clusterfata we have on our hands. They are certainly getting their ####s and giggles. Hopefully it was worth it.