• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
Chichikov said:
I'm not sure what are you saying then.
Clinton "got shit done" mostly because he caved, he was smart enough to make it look like he didn't (mainly by giving up before hand), but that's nothing to be celebrated.
Also, Obama gave waaaaay more to the GOP than a few olive branches, shit, the ACA is pretty much Clintonian triangulation.

edit: that came out a bit too angry, I'm not angry at you, I'm angry at Clinton.
Click to expand...
I was responding to a post that suggested republicans worked with Clinton yet don't work with Obama due to racial underpinnings. My point was that Clinton got GOP support by accepting GOP talking points and passing their legislation. Obama has been unwilling to do that, outside of a few olive branches like chained CPI and lowering corporate taxes. Hence he has been less successful, although I also pen it on him being a bad DC politician.

Where in this do I support "gutting" welfare?
 
T

thcsquad

Member
PhoenixDark said:
Obama has been unwilling to do that, outside of a few olive branches like chained CPI and lowering corporate taxes.
Click to expand...

What do you think the ACA was? The defining law of his presidency was a Republican idea.

Certainly Bill Clinton was more successful at co-opting Republican initiatives, and I'm sure a big part of it is the fact that Clinton was a better DC politician. But you're ignoring history pretty hard if you think Obama hasn't aggressively compromised his ideals in an attempt at bipartisanship.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
thcsquad said:
What do you think the ACA was? The defining law of his presidency was a Republican idea.

Certainly Bill Clinton was more successful at co-opting Republican initiatives, and I'm sure a big part of it is the fact that Clinton was a better DC politician. But you're ignoring history pretty hard if you think Obama hasn't aggressively compromised his ideals in an attempt at bipartisanship.
Click to expand...
ACA isn't strictly republican ideas, it features a collection of cost containing ideas from both sides. I don't consider government subsidizing healthcare to be a "conservative" principle even if the Heritage Foundation once floated it.

Obama hasn't gone to the level Clinton did. I'm not knocking Obama. Go back and look at Clinton's terms, specifically welfare reform and the shit storm it caused, and then tell me ACA is comparable. Clinton sold out to the right in order to get re-elected. And there are actually parts of welfare reform I agree with, but overall it was a stunning change.

You continue to miss my point. This is about alleged racial underpinnings and the contrast between Obama and Clinton's GOP support or lack thereof. The GOP worked with Clinton because he passed their bills. They don't work with Obama largely because he doesn't pass their bills. Race is a factor, but it is not the dominant factor that separates their presidencies.
 
empty vessel

empty vessel

Member
PhoenixDark said:
You continue to miss my point. This is about alleged racial underpinnings and the contrast between Obama and Clinton's GOP support or lack thereof. The GOP worked with Clinton because he passed their bills. They don't work with Obama largely because he doesn't pass their bills. Race is a factor, but it is not the dominant factor that separates their presidencies.
Click to expand...

I don't think it makes sense to analyze this by asking what the motivation of Republican representatives is, because that motivation is almost always to avoid losing an election. Republicans today face far more pressure from their base not to cooperate than they did in the 1990s. The radicalization of the Republican party has only spread since then. And I am not sure what the "dominant factor" in the base's motivation is, but I don't think race can be easily dismissed.
 
L

Lucky Forward

Member
cartoon_soldier said:
http://www.thewire.com/global/2014/...hy-an-american-plane-ended-up-in-iran/360872/

Taking bets on how much time before conspiracy theorists pop up
Click to expand...

So whose plane is it? The plane’s tail number is N604EP, which records show is owned by the Bank of Utah (it also has a small American flag on its tail). This means almost nothing. As the Times notes, the Bank of Utah is a relatively small community bank with 13 branches in the state. However, the bank is a trustee for 1,169 planes, “more planes than just about any other bank.”

Owning the plane through a trust allows the owner privacy. A bank employee said that the bank has no operation control or financial exposure to the planes. They're owners by proxy.
Click to expand...

Apart from the question of "What's the plane doing in Iran?" I had no idea that ownership of an aircraft could be hidden like this. I wonder if it would take a court order in connection to a criminal case in order to have the bank cough up the ownership info.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
You continue to miss my point. This is about alleged racial underpinnings and the contrast between Obama and Clinton's GOP support or lack thereof. The GOP worked with Clinton because he passed their bills. They don't work with Obama largely because he doesn't pass their bills. Race is a factor, but it is not the dominant factor that separates their presidencies.
Click to expand...

HIS race doesn't matter. The race of the democratic voters does.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
APKmetsfan said:
HIS race doesn't matter. The race of the democratic voters does.
Click to expand...
That goes back to the southern strategy, the idea of hurting "them" more than us.

I think people forget how much anti-Clinton animosity existed on the right throughout his entire presidency. Even after the welfare bill and the budgets. He was accused of rape and murder by elected officials, his wife was attacked, his daughter was attacked, etc. Race is not the only factor here. This is largely about right wing paranoia and hatred.

And let's not forget how JFK was viewed on the right or the celebratory nature of the 1964 RNC where people openly cheered his death.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
That goes back to the southern strategy, the idea of hurting "them" more than us.

I think people forget how much anti-Clinton animosity existed on the right throughout his entire presidency. Even after the welfare bill and the budgets. He was accused of rape and murder by elected officials, his wife was attacked, his daughter was attacked, etc. Race is not the only factor here. This is largely about right wing paranoia and hatred.

And let's not forget how JFK was viewed on the right or the celebratory nature of the 1964 RNC where people openly cheered his death.
Click to expand...
I think they went after Clinton because of race. They've gone after anyone who supports welfare and civil rights because those are substitutes for black people, immigrants and other minorities. Anyone who threatens their power and greater influence on society and the government.

Its not exclusive and there are people that are just Randian nutcases or the financial elite but the base? Their base was the democratic southern base that voted in the New Deal. If theirs is same base tell me what has changed to have them hate government so much in one to two generations?
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
“Even our own intelligence community consensus opinion now is that they’re not a threat. Like my dad [Rep. Ron Paul] says, [the Iranians] don’t have an Air Force, they don’t have a Navy,” said Paul, according to a recording of the interview. “You know, it’s ridiculous to think they’re a threat to our national security.”
Click to expand...

lol rand

“Only what I’ve learned from Alex Jones,” said Paul. “I’m not probably the world expert on it, but I think it’s people who get together, who are very wealthy people, who I think manipulate and use government to their own personal advantage.”
Click to expand...

“[The Bilderberg Group] want to make it out like they just want to help humanity and world government would be good for humanity,” said Paul. “Well guess what—world government’s good for their pocketbook. They’re very wealthy and they use government to make more money for themselves, and that’s where you expose them.”
Click to expand...


Rand PAC head Doug Stafford dismissed the notion that Paul had ever embraced the Bilderberg conspiracy theory, telling the Free Beacon that Paul has always believed “Build a Burger would be a great name for a fast food chain.”
Click to expand...
 
S

Snake

Member
speculawyer said:
What was Obamacare if not triangulation?
Click to expand...

A liberal [but compromised] piece of legislation, fundamentally different from Republican healthcare alternatives of the '90s. Similar, however, to a system designed and passed by one of the nation's most liberal state legislatures after overcoming numerous vetoes and proposed public health benefit cuts from the state's at-the-time moderate Republican governor.

Triangulation in this case would be passing a bill that is simply the mandate. Or turning Medicare/Medicaid into voucher systems. Followed by saying a new era of personal responsibility has come to America.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBREA3H0LY20140418?feedType=RSS&irpc=932

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. State Department will on Friday extend the government comment period on the Keystone XL pipeline, said sources familiar with the plans, likely postponing a final decision on the controversial project until after the November 4 midterm elections.

President Barack Obama has said he will make a final decision on whether to allow the pipeline connecting Canada's oil sands region to Texas refiners but several government agencies were expected to weigh-in by the end of May.

A dispute over the proposed route of the pipeline has stalled the project in Nebraska, though, and officials will cite that uncertainty in its announcement on Friday justifying the delay.
Click to expand...

I hope this is to insulate him when he doesn't approve it.
 
TheLaughingStock

TheLaughingStock

Member
Snake said:
A liberal [but compromised] piece of legislation, fundamentally different from Republican healthcare alternatives of the '90s. Similar, however, to a system designed and passed by one of the nation's most liberal state legislatures after overcoming numerous vetoes and proposed public health benefit cuts from the state's at-the-time moderate Republican governor.

Triangulation in this case would be passing a bill that is simply the mandate. Or turning Medicare/Medicaid into voucher systems. Followed by saying a new era of personal responsibility has come to America.
Click to expand...

Unless Obamacare is socialized medicine or a government takeover of healthcare, then I fail to see to see how it's a liberal but comprised piece of legislation.
 
J

JesseEwiak

Member
TheLaughingStock said:
Unless Obamacare is socialized medicine or a government takeover of healthcare, then I fail to see to see how it's a liberal but comprised piece of legislation.
Click to expand...

Read this and get back to me.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/12/the-aca-v-the-heritage-plan-a-comparison-in-chart-form

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com...-is-not-remotely-similar-to-the-heritage-plan

Also, any Democrat is going to get pushback from the GOP base because a large chunk of them believe any Democratic win is illegitimate. I think it's worse because Obama's black, but Hillary, Edwards, or anybody else would've gotten the same pushback.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
Snake said:
A liberal [but compromised] piece of legislation, fundamentally different from Republican healthcare alternatives of the '90s. Similar, however, to a system designed and passed by one of the nation's most liberal state legislatures after overcoming numerous vetoes and proposed public health benefit cuts from the state's at-the-time moderate Republican governor.

Triangulation in this case would be passing a bill that is simply the mandate. Or turning Medicare/Medicaid into voucher systems. Followed by saying a new era of personal responsibility has come to America.
Click to expand...
That is not triangulation, that is capitulation.
 
S

Snake

Member
speculawyer said:
That is not triangulation, that is capitulation.
Click to expand...

Triangulation is a Democrat taking a Republican goal [that a Republican could not accomplish] and pushing it through to gain political cover against the right. It is not compromise. Clinton got nothing in exchange for welfare reform. He merely passed something that Republicans wanted. So yes, it is a form of ideological capitulation.

If Obama had passed Chained CPI on its own, not as part of any larger deal to raise taxes or increase spending elsewhere, it would have been a clear example of triangulation. Luckily that's not going to happen.
 
TheLaughingStock

TheLaughingStock

Member
JesseEwiak said:
Read this and get back to me.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/12/the-aca-v-the-heritage-plan-a-comparison-in-chart-form

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com...-is-not-remotely-similar-to-the-heritage-plan
Click to expand...

So, first I don't know how you or the other person defines liberal? More than welcome to let me know how you define it. But anyway I've already seen a similar comparisons before via here and here.

As far as I can tell, the ACA is bound by the private sector's role in healthcare. Obamacare does not fundamentally alter the ability of various groups to remain privately owned, employed, and make medical payments. The law also tries to help the private sector insure more people and provide better services. Additionally, private insurance companies play by themselves in the state exchanges with no public competition. If you think a "massive" (according to the blogger) Medicaid expansion offsets what Obama is doing to keep the current system intact, then I don't know what to say except it's not a liberal, but comprised piece of legislation.
 
W

WayneMorse

Banned
thezerofire said:
This whole thread is a gigantic mess, but this comment stood out to me. I can't handle it

http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearn...elt_wanted_a_second_bill_of_rights_an/cgvzg3d

shoutouts to this part in particular:
Click to expand...

Yeah that thread is garbage but you have to realize that the Reddit circlejerk doesn't have any actual ideological convictions, they just want to be the smartest guy in the room. So that means a lot of contrarian opinions are espoused because they want to stand out from everyone else.

And this isn't just exclusive to Reddit, the idea that everyone around you is a sheep and you're the smartest guy in the room, the lone voice of reason, is something that a lot of Americans have.
 
T

thcsquad

Member
JesseEwiak said:
Read this and get back to me.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/12/the-aca-v-the-heritage-plan-a-comparison-in-chart-form
Click to expand...

That link misses the point. The mandate, that one thing that is downplayed as the only similarity between the two? It's the main part that conservatives are complaining about. Nobody complains about staying on parents' health insurance until age 26. Nobody complains about covering preexisting conditions, except insurance companies. The rest of the ACA (save the couple liberal bones they threw in like contraception and subsidies) consists of feelgood proposals that nobody, Republican or Democrat, would want to argue against.

The mandate is what pays for all of the feelgood stuff, and in that sense is the defining feature of the law. More specifically, the mandate is the corporatist part of the law, the one that gets health insurers on board. The mandate is what changes it from a generally moderate/slightly liberal law to a Republican one. That's why it's hilarious to see Republicans single out the mandate as the bad part, because that's the part they came up with.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
APKmetsfan said:
Even if bridgegate is a bridge to nowhere there are a lot more problems for christie

http://pando.com/2014/04/18/chris-c...he-intended-recipient-threatens-to-sue-pando/
Click to expand...

Now THAT is some good old fashioned New Jersey corruption. You can really smell those toxic industrial fumes.

I told you guys Christie would blow himself up, if it wasn't one thing it would be another. Finding a corrupt New Jersey politician is like shooting fish in a barrel, with a grenade launcher.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
ACA_Satire.png
 
A

avaya

Member
TacticalFox88 said:
There is absolutely nothing anyone can say to convince me that the vast majority of the hate Obama gets from the Right isn't race related, either subconsciously or not. You could maybe, MAYBE argue that most of the elected GOP officials don't truly hate him (
KuGsj.gif
yeah right), but their base? Nope. Nope. NOPE.

Their base hates him because he's black and their ignorant, selfish assholes. You've had six (SIX FFS!!!) goddamn years of ridiculous amounts of evidence, dog whistling, dumb as fuck scandals, outright made up shit, yet we still have people in this thread trying to deny it?

Come the fuck on, peeps.

The GOP is a party that's fundamentally built on racism and hatred of non-whites.
Click to expand...

This x 1000.
 
S

speculawyer

Member
thcsquad said:
That link misses the point. The mandate, that one thing that is downplayed as the only similarity between the two? It's the main part that conservatives are complaining about. Nobody complains about staying on parents' health insurance until age 26. Nobody complains about covering preexisting conditions, except insurance companies. The rest of the ACA (save the couple liberal bones they threw in like contraception and subsidies) consists of feelgood proposals that nobody, Republican or Democrat, would want to argue against.

The mandate is what pays for all of the feelgood stuff, and in that sense is the defining feature of the law. More specifically, the mandate is the corporatist part of the law, the one that gets health insurers on board. The mandate is what changes it from a generally moderate/slightly liberal law to a Republican one. That's why it's hilarious to see Republicans single out the mandate as the bad part, because that's the part they came up with.
Click to expand...
This. The mandate is main core thing of the heritage plan, Romneycare, and Obamacare. And that is what they have most whined about. They've called it unconstitutional. But they tend to like the rest of it. Of course much of that is cheap politics because they are just promising the popular stuff while calling the unpopular stuff that actually makes it work as the bad part. Any rational person knows that if they could repeal it they wouldn't replace it at all. You would have to be a fool to take the "repeal & replace" talk seriously when they can never be bothered to propose an actual replacement.
 
R

Retro

Member
bananas said:
Hey, I come up with the thread titles, buddy.

that ones pretty good tho...
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm used to the "Awesome" Fan art thread where comments taken out of context make for absurdly good thread titles:
"Awesome" Fan Art |OT3| The echidna nipples appear to have been blotted out.",
"Awesome" Fan Art |OT3| Mickey got raped and he doesn't know why.",
"Awesome" Fan Art |OT3| A transvestite hedgehog could conceivably have sex with a child.", etc.

And the art those comments elicit are actually worse than you can probably imagine.

speculawyer said:
Is this from the Onion?
Click to expand...

See, here's a perfect example; PoliGAF 2014 |OT2| Is this from the Onion? And I'll be damned if it doesn't work.
 
K

kehs

Banned
Gay people shouldn't be married.



Unless I know them directly.



Prop 8 lawyer changes anti-gay stance


“My views evolve on issues of this kind the same way as other people’s do, and how I view this down the road may not be the way I view it now, or how I viewed it 10 years ago,” Cooper said in the book, “Forcing the Spring: Inside the Fight for Marriage Equality,” written by journalist Jo Becker.
Click to expand...
 
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
JesseEwiak said:
Read this and get back to me.

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2013/12/the-aca-v-the-heritage-plan-a-comparison-in-chart-form

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com...-is-not-remotely-similar-to-the-heritage-plan
Click to expand...

Yeah, I used to be pretty hard against Obama for settling for Obamacare in its current form, but it's light years away from the original Heritage plan. If you look at what the Heritage plan contained, you'd understand why they proposed it to begin with.
 
W

WayneMorse

Banned
The only thing the Heritage plan had that's similar to Obamacare was the mandate. They wanted to voucherize Medicare/Medicaid and there wasn't any subsidies.
 
P

Piecake

Member
Is a Constitutional Convention in the Works?

Leading the charge is the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which has produced a handy manual for state legislators and which held a December conference that debated everything from term limits for members of Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court to a congressional override of Supreme Court decisions.

But because Article V is so brief, no one knows what will happen if a constitutional convention ever convenes. Does a state petition for a convention last forever? (Probably not—the consensus is that resolutions expire after seven years.) Do all state petitions need to call for a convention on the same issue, or is it enough for 34 states to call for a convention on, say, different issues? (They probably have to be on the same issue, most scholars agree.)

And there’s the rub for the convention debate. Liberals are concerned that the conservatives could amend the Constitution to beat back the role of government. Conservatives aren’t sure they could keep liberal amendments off the table. No one knows just how a convention would work, how long it would last, what rules would guide debate and amendments, or what unexpected pieces might emerge.
Click to expand...

I thought this was pretty interesting since I honestly never realized that this was a possibility and obviously did not think that there was movement to get this to actually happen. No idea how it would turn out, but I wouldnt mind seeing it happen just for historic/novelty sake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom