LGP Political Discussion Thread

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

Sorry, ipad issues and it wont let me delete the previous posts. My fault all.

[tifosi77]

The biggest issue you are missing in your reply is you start at the primaries - because he had 100% support of the mandate prior to the primaries! his destruction of it during (which you note above) and his back tracking of it after.

First, I 'start' in the primaries because that's what you've been talking about; how during the primaries Obama said one thing, and then once elected went completely against that. I'm not disagreeing with that statement, just adding context and disagreeing with the characterization of it as a lie.

Second, I have no idea what you mean when you say "he had 100% support of the mandate prior to the primaries". Candidate Obama first presented his ideas for healthcare reform in May of 2007. That was well and truly into primary season, but still fairly early going in the process and I am unaware of any earlier public statements on healthcare policy and reform that contradict this initial position.

You can claim bipartisan all you want on the last part but you can not start a book halfway through and claim the last switch was for bipartisan reasons- I think its pretty clear that it was in his plans all along.....since he actually had said that in his recent past. He didnt switch to garner some right wing support. He switched to go back to his original beliefs and had switched them in the primaries to oust Hillary.

That's an interesting assertion. Can you cite me to anything that documents this?

I confess to making the bi-partisan argument without giving it full context. The real driver of Obama's decision to ditch his campaign position on healthcare was the CBO analysis that suggested there was no real way to accomplish his goals without increasing the pool of participants in the private health insurance marketplace. And the only real way to do that was through a mandate. So in acceding to that, the Obama team needed to find a way to make the mandate argument (which already had majority support among Democrats) palatable to Republicans. So they looked north to the People's Republic of Massachusetts, and retooled what eventually became the ACA in much the same vein as Romneycare.

Also, I make the constant references to the en masse Republican flip-flop largely for my own bemusement, as some of the loudest opposition to the mandate came from Republicans who were all fine and dandy with a mandate prior to January 20, 2009. Some of them were even co-sponsors of healthcare bills that included mandates as late in the game as 2007.

And, to reiterate, I think the ACA is a garbage piece of legislation.

[ExPatriatePen]

Tif, please, clarify something for me will you? You certainly aren't arguing that Obama has reached across the aisle during his administration are you?

I think the Republicans are repugnant for maintaining steadfast opposition to any and all initiatives raised by the Obama administration, but please don't try and paint the Obama administration as an innocent party. Remember this was a President who shortly after his election, citing his 'mandate', said "Elections have consequencies" while justifying his refusal to work with the "R's".

EPP (I thnk we should start a grass roots movement that advocates only one thing: that individuals make a pledge to vote for a "third party candidate" in the next election, that folks promise only that they won't vote for a "D" or an "R")

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

The biggest issue you are missing in your reply is you start at the primaries - because he had 100% support of the mandate prior to the primaries! his destruction of it during (which you note above) and his back tracking of it after.

First, I 'start' in the primaries because that's what you've been talking about; how during the primaries Obama said one thing, and then once elected went completely against that. I'm not disagreeing with that statement, just adding context and disagreeing with the characterization of it as a lie.

Second, I have no idea what you mean when you say "he had 100% support of the mandate prior to the primaries". Candidate Obama first presented his ideas for healthcare reform in May of 2007. That was well and truly into primary season, but still fairly early going in the process and I am unaware of any earlier public statements on healthcare policy and reform that contradict this initial position.

You can claim bipartisan all you want on the last part but you can not start a book halfway through and claim the last switch was for bipartisan reasons- I think its pretty clear that it was in his plans all along.....since he actually had said that in his recent past. He didnt switch to garner some right wing support. He switched to go back to his original beliefs and had switched them in the primaries to oust Hillary.

That's an interesting assertion. Can you cite me to anything that documents this?

I confess to making the bi-partisan argument without giving it full context. The real driver of Obama's decision to ditch his campaign position on healthcare was the CBO analysis that suggested there was no real way to accomplish his goals without increasing the pool of participants in the private health insurance marketplace. And the only real way to do that was through a mandate. So in acceding to that, the Obama team needed to find a way to make the mandate argument (which already had majority support among Democrats) palatable to Republicans. So they looked north to the People's Republic of Massachusetts, and retooled what eventually became the ACA in much the same vein as Romneycare.

Also, I make the constant references to the en masse Republican flip-flop largely for my own bemusement, as some of the loudest opposition to the mandate came from Republicans who were all fine and dandy with a mandate prior to January 20, 2009. Some of them were even co-sponsors of healthcare bills that included mandates as late in the game as 2007.

And, to reiterate, I think the ACA is a garbage piece of legislation.

Just a quick google search has many documented articles and videos, try 2003 alone, of his love of the very parts of the plan plan he bashed in the primaries.

Two often sited reasons are "his words were taken out of context" which is blatantly false if you watch and read he couldn't have been more clear, the second is that he realized how the healthcare system has evolved and made changes accordingly which is bs.

He switched to appeal to a moderate vote which worked and once in office portions of his plan which the public used to hate and basically voted against are now getting him reelected.

I think any assertion that he ran on a plan that could never get passed would be very telling of him anyways.

I get the back and forth and hypocrisy on both sides and agree with you but can't fathom how he gets away with clearly pushing his own party out of the way to push an agenda he clearly wanted from the beginning.

The bipartisan or he evolved or he is always trying to do what is best is just excusing his lying to get elected to push what he really wanted.

[Factorial]

The bipartisan or he evolved or he is always trying to do what is best is just excusing his lying to get elected to push what he really wanted.

Yeah, and don't forget all those giveaways to the blacks, hispanics and young people.

[Tico Rick]

Islamic socialism, baby!

[steelhammer]

Saw this on the news the other day as well: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-14-2012/the-married-vs--single-woman-vote

[DelPen]

So if Congress does nothing we will have tax increases on everyone and some spending cuts. This fiscal cliff is looking better than any other compromise which will just be kicking the can down the road again.

[thehockeyguru]

So if Congress does nothing we will have tax increases on everyone and some spending cuts. This fiscal cliff is looking better than any other compromise which will just be kicking the can down the road again.

This

[Tico Rick]

Yes, indeed.

[tifosi77]

Tif, please, clarify something for me will you? You certainly aren't arguing that Obama has reached across the aisle during his administration are you?

I think the Republicans are repugnant for maintaining steadfast opposition to any and all initiatives raised by the Obama administration, but please don't try and paint the Obama administration as an innocent party. Remember this was a President who shortly after his election, citing his 'mandate', said "Elections have consequencies" while justifying his refusal to work with the "R's".

It's not a question of arguing: Obama and the Democrats completely caved on their positions in an effort to recruit GOP support, but adopting ideas and concepts in the reform that had been long-standing tenets of nearly every GOP proposal on the subject for over a decade. Then, suddenly.... woosh. It's socialism.

When one or two people change their position, that's fine and dandy. But when about every single member of the GOP caucus decides, for politically-motivated reasons of outright obstructionism, to vote against proposals that they themselves supported for years in the past? Obama agreed to allow consumers to purchase healthcare from an insurer in a different state, something he had previously opposed and even supported a provision to allow small businesses to work together (collectively?!) to purchase group-rate insurance.... both key GOP points.

The main issues of contention that Obama was not reaching across the aisle was his refusal to begin work from existing pieces of legislation (bills that had been in Congress for years in some cases) and instead insisted upon a clean-sheet approach, and what Mitch McConnell described as the "arrogance of all this".

In other words, Obama and the Democrats were coming from a position of wanting to get something done, and Boehner and McConnell were coming from a position of not wanting to get anything done.

So to answer your question...... yes, I unequivocally assert that Obama and the Democrats acted with a spirit of bipartisanship - especially early in the process - than did the Republicans. And considering the latter came to the table with the express goal of preventing anything from happening, any amount of bipartisanship at all would have been more than the GOP offered up.

EPP (I thnk we should start a grass roots movement that advocates only one thing: that individuals make a pledge to vote for a "third party candidate" in the next election, that folks promise only that they won't vote for a "D" or an "R")

Are you talking about yourself in the third person?



I'll gladly sign that pledge, and have already did my part by voting for a third-party guy this cycle. So there.

[Sarcastic]

That's not even a question, tif. You're right.

[tifosi77]

I should also clarify that the caving on things like single-payer/public-option were not just to appease Republicans; three years on, it's easy to forget how fractured the Democrats were on this issue, as well. So Obama and the D leadership were faced not just with a self-defeating level of obstruction from the 'loyal opposition', but they had far from a consensus among their own ranks. Compromising was the only way to even get a bill to the floor for an up-or-down vote.

[Gaucho]

Way to preach austerity to your fellow Euopeans, Germany:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/11/13/oukoe-uk-germany-waste-idUKBRE8AC12T20121113

[King Sid the Great 87]

So Susan Rice volunteered to go on television and lie, essentially pointing the finger of blame at an American citizen, all to protect classified information?

What a bull **** lie. How dumb do they think we are? A simple "it is still under investigation" wouldn't have sufficed? Let's take the story as truth. How unethical and wreck less is that?

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

Tif, please, clarify something for me will you? You certainly aren't arguing that Obama has reached across the aisle during his administration are you?

I think the Republicans are repugnant for maintaining steadfast opposition to any and all initiatives raised by the Obama administration, but please don't try and paint the Obama administration as an innocent party. Remember this was a President who shortly after his election, citing his 'mandate', said "Elections have consequencies" while justifying his refusal to work with the "R's".

It's not a question of arguing: Obama and the Democrats completely caved on their positions in an effort to recruit GOP support, but adopting ideas and concepts in the reform that had been long-standing tenets of nearly every GOP proposal on the subject for over a decade. Then, suddenly.... woosh. It's socialism.

When one or two people change their position, that's fine and dandy. But when about every single member of the GOP caucus decides, for politically-motivated reasons of outright obstructionism, to vote against proposals that they themselves supported for years in the past? Obama agreed to allow consumers to purchase healthcare from an insurer in a different state, something he had previously opposed and even supported a provision to allow small businesses to work together (collectively?!) to purchase group-rate insurance.... both key GOP points.

The main issues of contention that Obama was not reaching across the aisle was his refusal to begin work from existing pieces of legislation (bills that had been in Congress for years in some cases) and instead insisted upon a clean-sheet approach, and what Mitch McConnell described as the "arrogance of all this".

In other words, Obama and the Democrats were coming from a position of wanting to get something done, and Boehner and McConnell were coming from a position of not wanting to get anything done.

So to answer your question...... yes, I unequivocally assert that Obama and the Democrats acted with a spirit of bipartisanship - especially early in the process - than did the Republicans. And considering the latter came to the table with the express goal of preventing anything from happening, any amount of bipartisanship at all would have been more than the GOP offered up.

EPP (I thnk we should start a grass roots movement that advocates only one thing: that individuals make a pledge to vote for a "third party candidate" in the next election, that folks promise only that they won't vote for a "D" or an "R")

Are you talking about yourself in the third person?



I'll gladly sign that pledge, and have already did my part by voting for a third-party guy this cycle. So there.

We can agree to disagree. I see a guy with 3 changing positions but......gasp.....the last one just nice and tidy ends up being what he wanted.
And he gets a PR push out of it to. Nice.

I just dont think its fair to paint this one instance as bipartisan when he ends up getting what he wanted all along. Especially
since it has been rumored of much distance from the repubs along with his own party since he took office.

And if it did play out the way you stated, then shouldnt we all apologize to Hillary Clinton for her being right all along?

[bhaw]

2 major world political issues:

1. Israel considering invading Gaza after rockets from Hamas start hitting areas around Jerusalem and Tel Aviv
2. I don't know all the info on this, nor is it being reported on major news stations, but the men who were primarily responsible for the genocide of Serbs in Croatia were released. I saw the news 2nd hand from a former co-worker on FB who is 1st generation Serbian-American.

[Tomas]

Nate Silver has an article on his website about the importance of gay voters for Obama. Basically, it can be summarized by this picture:


Now, I am not that impressed that in a relatively close election, you can create a graph showing that a small electorate segment carried the winner over the top (there are probably 50 different ways that can show who "broke the tie.") I am, however, quite surprised that a conservative republican ticket attracted 22% of LGBT vote (I would have predicted 5% at best).

[Gaucho]

2. I don't know all the info on this, nor is it being reported on major news stations, but the men who were primarily responsible for the genocide of Serbs in Croatia were released. I saw the news 2nd hand from a former co-worker on FB who is 1st generation Serbian-American.

Last year they were sentenced to 18 and 24 years, respectively. All of a sudden they are completely innocent? Strange.

[Gaucho]

Now, I am not that impressed that in a relatively close election, you can create a graph showing that a small electorate segment carried the winner over the top (there are probably 50 different ways that can show who "broke the tie.") I am, however, quite surprised that a conservative republican ticket attracted 22% of LGBT vote (I would have predicted 5% at best).

I guess it means there are indeed a lot of homosexual people that are *gasp* conservative and probably care way more about other things than about same-sex marriage. There's a lesson to be learned for the GOP.

[columbia]

Why is the DoD never considered to be discretionary spending?

[Gaucho]

"for"?

[Gaucho]

Things in the Middle East are not looking good. With any luck they'll all just blow each other up and be done with it.

[columbia]

I started paying attention to "the news" when I was about 11 and feel like nothing has changed in Israel.
At a certain point, I just have to shrug and say have at it.....it people are determined to blow each other up, they probably will.

Maybe I'm past the point of caring?

[Gaucho]

Seeing that a man like Yitzak Rabin is assassinated by his own people while Benjamin Netanyahu can hardly wait to bomb Iran back to the stone age, there is very little reason to hope for a permanent peace in the region (which isn't to say that there is only the one side to blame).