Countdown to 2016

Main discussion area is here. Reply to a message to continue a discussion thread, or create your own new Topics.
User avatar
1Centrist
Posts: 243
Joined: 2015 Mar 07 10:03

Countdown to 2016

Postby 1Centrist » 2015 Mar 24 10:23

The first official candidate gets the first scrub:
Fact-checking Ted Cruz

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz became the first major Republican candidate to declare himself officially in the 2016 presidential race. In announcing his presidential ambition Monday, Cruz repeated a number of dubious claims we have heard before, and a few we haven't.

Some highlights:

• Cruz railed against a "government … that seeks to ban our ammunition." The Obama administration sought to ban a certain type of armor-piercing bullet, not all types of ammunition. The proposal has since been postponed.

• Cruz claimed that as a result of the Affordable Care Act "millions … have lost their health insurance." In fact, about 10 million people on net gained insurance between September 2013 and December 2014, according to the Urban Institute.

• Cruz also claimed that as a result of the law "millions [have been] forced into part-time work." There's no solid figure on how many may have had their hours cut to part time, but one analysis of monthly labor surveys said the number was "likely" a few hundred thousand.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/03/24/fact-check-ted-cruz/70367864/


Not an auspicious start, even when you're just throwing red meat to the base. BTW, there's a lot more to the article.
:potty5:

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: Countdown to 2016

Postby Wise One » 2015 Mar 24 11:51

1Centrist wrote: Cruz claimed that as a result of the Affordable Care Act "millions … have lost their health insurance." In fact, about 10 million people on net gained insurance between September 2013 and December 2014, according to the Urban Institute.

These jerks never mention the larger truth. It was Republicans who insisted on exempting "part time" workers, diabolically setting up the present flawed system that allows employers to escape their responsibilities by reducing the number of hours they allow an employee to work.

And so they do, bastards all.

The law should be amended to require an employer subsidy that is pro-rated according to the number of hours per week worked, rather than zero below 30 hours per week. (The same subsidy per hour worked for every employee, small for real part time workers and full for full time.) That would be fair, and would stop irresponsible employers from gaming the system to deny health insurance, and heaping additional burdens on struggling employees.

:coffee:
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Re: Countdown to 2016

Postby Crux » 2015 Mar 24 17:49

It is pointless to argue with folks who do not know, or will not be honest about the truth.

The numbers of those insured under the ACA ranges WILDLY from 8 million to 16 million. That is point A.
The numbers of uninsured BEFORE the ACA ranged WILDLY from 20 to 50 million uninsured!!!
Lets call it 10 million. Do you know that 2 to 1, we are talking about folks signing up fore medicaid???
Do you know that a very large number, more than 2 million or even 4 million, already had health insurance BEFORE they signed up?
Which brings you to the last point that there WERE millions who lost their private health insurance because of the ACA.
Not a few hundred thousand. The ACA is a big disaster. An expensive big disaster...

I mean why go on. Ammunition? I have already laid out the truth on that here on the forum. All the health care numbers and references have been laid out. Part time workers? Yup. Talked about that already. I will say this. Ted Cruz can give a cogent, well informed and quality speech, without notes or a teleprompter. He would be a fine and capable President. Rand Paul or Scott Walker or Marco Rubio as well.

I would like to tell you it has been real. You all carry on. My zest for this struggle here, is about done. have fun patting each other on the back.

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: Countdown to 2016

Postby Coondog » 2015 Mar 25 02:14

Aw, c'mon crux. You're not going to pull a Sarah Palin on us now are you?

The prospect of a Canadian president should have you all kinds of excited. Think how much fun it will be when President Cruz repeals every word of Obamacare.....and kicks himself off his own health care plan.

Only 20 more months to go! Surely you can hang on for that long.

Just Imagine!

Coondog :dontknow:

User avatar
1Centrist
Posts: 243
Joined: 2015 Mar 07 10:03

Re: Countdown to 2016

Postby 1Centrist » 2015 Mar 25 08:42

Crux, you would have a lot more credibility with everyone if you could cite a reliable source for your rebuttal of what I posted from USA Today, which you're saying is one of the "folks who do not know." Jeez, man! USA Today is about as midstream as they come!

Cruz is a master panderer who learned his schtick at his preacher father's knee. It's not like all politicians don't pander, but some like Cruz have to go the extra mile trying to reach his target audience. Watch Monday's Jon Stewart show skit on the Liberty University event, with particular attention to the audience not being interested and Cruz's possible text message scam to get phone numbers: http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/1n4zvp/democalypse-2016---ted-cruz-is-in

User avatar
1Centrist
Posts: 243
Joined: 2015 Mar 07 10:03

Betwixt and Between

Postby 1Centrist » 2015 Mar 27 08:24

It looks like the leading Republican hopefuls are having a hard time getting their immigration positions straight. The GOP base and donors are really hard to please at the same time! Who's going to win? My bet is the donors.

Jeb and Walker’s Immigration Double-Talk
Jeb has moved from far right toward the center. Walker’s done the opposite. Why can’t anyone just take a consistent position and defend it?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/27/jeb-and-walker-immigration-double-talk.html

Walker Flubs Amnesty Zig-Zag
Roughly 80 percent of the GOP base opposes President Barack Obama’s Oval Office amnesty, which would provide work-permits, Social Security cards, tax rebates and a quick-path to citizenship. Obama’s November amnesty, however, has been stalled by a Texas judge.

Other polls show that very few Americans support an immigration policy that allows companies to hire migrants or guest-workers in place of Americans.

In contrast, business interests strongly support greater illegal and legal immigration, partly because it provides more workers, more government-subsidized customers, and likely nudges up profits.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/26/walker-flubs-amnesty-zig-zag/

The Daily Caller piece is worth a read, including the links. It's good when very conservative media show they get it!
:hello2:

User avatar
1Centrist
Posts: 243
Joined: 2015 Mar 07 10:03

Money, Money, Money

Postby 1Centrist » 2015 Mar 28 10:24

Republicans Expect Long, Expensive Presidential Battle
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas kicked off in recent days what is likely to be the longest, most expensive and perhaps most contentious Republican Party presidential battle in history.

A long campaign will test the ability of contenders to raise money, analysts say.

“There are more than 20 potential contenders, which makes it potentially the largest field in either party in modern times,” said University of Virginia political expert Larry Sabato. “Now the truth is there isn’t going to be enough money to support most of these candidates and so some of them just want to get on the debate stage to make their points or sell their books.”
http://www.voanews.com/content/republicans-expect-long-expensive-presidential-battle/2697925.html


That's all interesting, but when I read this, Crux, I thought of you:

Republicans seem excited by their choices so far but already some conservative activists are talking about banding together with the aim of denying Bush the nomination because they see him as unacceptably moderate. [emphasis added]

User avatar
Juggler
Posts: 710
Joined: 2007 Jun 11 03:51

Re: Countdown to 2016

Postby Juggler » 2015 Mar 28 11:22

Andy Borowitz wrote:Poll: Majority of Americans Support Cruz Running for Prime Minister of Canada.

User avatar
1Centrist
Posts: 243
Joined: 2015 Mar 07 10:03

Re: Countdown to 2016

Postby 1Centrist » 2015 Apr 09 10:24

I had hopes for Rand Paul, but when Wasserman Schultz sounds more libertarian ....
“You go back and go ask (DNC head) Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she’s OK with killing a 7-pound baby that’s just not born yet,” Paul said. “Ask her when life begins, and ask Debbie when she’s willing to protect life. When you get an answer from Debbie, come back to me.”
<snip>
“Here’s an answer,” said Schultz. “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. Now your turn, Senator Paul. We know you want to allow government officials like yourself to make this decision for women — but do you stand by your opposition to any exceptions, even when it comes to rape, incest, or life of the mother? Or do we just have different definitions of ‘personal liberty’? And I’d appreciate it if you could respond without ‘shushing’ me.”
http://wonkette.com/582248/yup-rand-paul-fcked-up-his-second-day-running-for-president-too#2JOzzTFDuI0GVw2F.99

User avatar
1Centrist
Posts: 243
Joined: 2015 Mar 07 10:03

Re: Countdown to 2016

Postby 1Centrist » 2015 Apr 14 12:50

Christie is playing with the "third rail," but some of his ideas sound good to me. As always, the devil is in the details.
Christie to propose overhaul of Social Security benefits :knife:

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Re: Countdown to 2016

Postby Crux » 2015 Apr 14 21:56

Again, it is an ethical issue, the killing of a baby that can at this given point, in the third trimester whether it is 21 or 24 weeks, whatever, it is an issue of right or wrong, killing that baby, if it is healthy, simply as an exercise in "birth control". You see this C?

Even fangz here on this forum had to concede based on information she cited, and by her SILENCE, that thousands of babies are thus killed in a given year. Centrist. You do understand right?

Do you think it a matter open for political discussion? Then possibly legislation to protect innocent life? Distinct Human Lives?

I do not think that any Republicans really, seek to deny an abortion in the case of rape incest or the life of the mother.

You do understand that right? You see the obfuscation and NON ANSWER to the issue at hand regarding the "QUOTE" 7 POUND BABY, right?

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

UPDATE**DWS***7lb baby

Postby Crux » 2015 Apr 15 07:33

DWS and the 7lb baby got a little clearer with Meagan Kelly.

Kelly continued to press.

“It’s not just between a woman and her doctor. That the state has a right to step in on behalf of the fetus and say at some point that fetus does obtain rights,” the Fox News host said. “You would admit that you can’t have women aborting third trimester just on a whim?”

“Certainly. Certainly not on a whim,” Schultz responded.


“So that’s what he is trying to get at,” Kelly said.

“We’ve been very clear,” Schultz shot back. “There is no ambivalence here. We are very clear. We believe that that decision is best left not to government, but between a woman and her doctor. So, I can’t tell you a specific date and time past which we on all cases are certain that choice shouldn’t be made. Because that decision is very unique and individual to the woman and should be in consultation with her conscience and her God and her doctor. That is a decision left to her.”


Not exactly clear as mud, but Kelly got further. WHIM is a bad word to throw out. “You would admit that you can’t have women aborting third trimester just as a means of birth controll?” I get that it is slippery slope material. Rand Paul will have a hard time being exactly clear from his perspective, and DWS will have a hard time from hers. We can be a bit clearer, can we not? It would have a good effect on the public debate...

User avatar
1Centrist
Posts: 243
Joined: 2015 Mar 07 10:03

Re: Countdown to 2016

Postby 1Centrist » 2015 Apr 15 07:37

My personal opinion is we could do with far fewer rug rats. But more importantly, it would be better if the rubric "The GOP — concerned about children from conception to birth" were not so true.

:gun: :baby:

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Re: Countdown to 2016

Postby Crux » 2015 Apr 15 08:16

You just SHOT that baby! You baby killer you! Seriously, do you think it WRONG to kill a viable-outside-the-womb-third trimester-healthy baby-simply as a means of birth control? Hundreds and even a couple few thousand such abortions in the million performed each year are killed... Centrist, does this bother you?

User avatar
1Centrist
Posts: 243
Joined: 2015 Mar 07 10:03

Re: Countdown to 2016

Postby 1Centrist » 2015 Apr 15 08:38

Generally, I think the law should protect fetuses that are viable outside the womb, but "according to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability) So what does viable mean? And might there not be exceptions to any rule?

Crux, as I've mentioned before, the abortion issue is not a fruitful topic for discussion, and at my age I'm more concerned about death with dignity.

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Re: Countdown to 2016

Postby Crux » 2015 Apr 15 10:34

Thanks and I don't want to belabor the point, but the viability of a prematurely BIRTHED baby, and the percentages of survival, really are a bit of a separate issue related to ABORTING a healthy baby that could be carried to term and LIVE. Enough of that...

Die with dignity my friend. My plan is to avoid every medical issue other than a peaceful death in my sleep... :sleepy:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

User avatar
1Centrist
Posts: 243
Joined: 2015 Mar 07 10:03

Re: Countdown to 2016

Postby 1Centrist » 2015 Apr 16 20:32

A good analysis, though not for the GOP. The whole article is worth a read.

Why Hillary Clinton Is Probably Going to Win the 2016 Election

Unless the economy goes into a recession over the next year and a half, Hillary Clinton is probably going to win the presidential election. The United States has polarized into stable voting blocs, and the Democratic bloc is a bit larger and growing at a faster rate.

Of course, not everybody who follows politics professionally believes this. Many pundits feel the Democrats’ advantage in presidential elections has disappeared, or never existed. “The 2016 campaign is starting on level ground,” argues David Brooks, echoing a similar analysis by John Judis. But the evidence for this is quite slim, and a closer look suggests instead that something serious would have to change in order to prevent a Clinton victory.

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: Countdown to 2016

Postby Wise One » 2015 Apr 17 16:00

It's a rational analysis and makes predictions that are credible if present conditions/conventions/beliefs hold stable.

But, having been wrong so many times in my own political predictions, I have great appreciation for uncertainty and respect for inevitable instabilities. Things like these can be expected to muck up the works:

  • Voter turnout, so widely variable and driven by transitory and unpredictable factors
  • Big money, sometimes effectively applied and sometimes pissed down a rat hole
  • Big data, modern digital techniques and social media, applied with enormously variable skill and effectiveness
  • Skills/attractiveness/likeability of a candidate on the campaign trail
  • Actual knowledge and competencies (regrettably, this is always dead last with the electorate)
As candidates/parties compete, the electorate seems to wind up split right down the middle, so every election these days is an arms race with no clear winner. Except big financial institutions, corporation CEOs, and the super-wealthy ... they always win, whatever happens to the candidates.

:coffee:
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
1Centrist
Posts: 243
Joined: 2015 Mar 07 10:03

Re: Countdown to 2016

Postby 1Centrist » 2015 Apr 18 07:18

Couldn't agree more, WO, and wrt your last sentence:
NEW YORK — Hillary Clinton sounded like a woman on a mission after her long drive into the heartland: “There’s something wrong,” she told Iowans on Tuesday, when “hedge fund managers pay lower taxes than nurses or the truckers I saw on I-80 when I was driving here over the last two days.”

But back in Manhattan, the hedge fund managers who’ve long been part of her political and fundraising networks aren’t sweating the putdown and aren’t worrying about their take-home pay just yet.

It’s “just politics,” said one major Democratic donor on Wall Street, explaining that some of Clinton’s Wall Street supporters doubt she would push hard for closing the carried-interest loophole as president, a policy she promoted when she last ran in 2008.

“The question is not going to be whether or not hedge fund managers or CEOs make too much money,” said a separate Clinton supporter who manages a hedge fund. “The question is, how do you solve the problem of inequality. Nobody takes it like she is going after them personally.”

Indeed, many of the financial-sector donors supporting her just-declared presidential campaign say they’ve been expecting all along the moment when Clinton would start calling out hedge fund managers and decrying executive pay — right down to the complaints from critics that such arguments are rich coming from someone who recently made north of $200,000 per speech and who has been close to Wall Street since her days representing it as a senator from New York.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clintons-wall-street-backers-we-get-it-117017.html

But if you really want cynicism:
Hillary Clinton is planning to name Gary Gensler, a former top federal financial regulator and strong advocate for strict Wall Street rules, as the chief financial officer of her campaign, according to a Democrat familiar with the decision.

Gensler, in his role as chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, was a leading player in the drafting and then implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act, the financial rules that President Barack Obama signed into law in 2010 in the wake of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Gensler also served in President Bill Clinton's Treasury Department.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-16/exclusive-hillary-clinton-said-to-hire-former-wall-street-cop-as-campaign-cfo

"Good morning, Jamie, this is Gary, your next Treasury Secretary. Hillary and I were hoping you ...." :hammer:

cheers

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Re: Countdown to 2016

Postby Coondog » 2015 Apr 20 22:23

Seems that there are more conservative mass meetings these days than there are country music awards programs. Most recently, they adopted a whole new platform. They unanimously decided to stop lying about Obama and start lying about Hillary.

Of course, they may have been lying about the Obama part. :pinocc:

Coondog :dance14: