Jump to content
southsider2k5

2016 Democratic Thread

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 19, 2016 -> 03:10 PM)
This makes a lot of sense, but many would still say it's bending over too far to accommodate the private insurance companies' profit margins...that threat of the private insurance market collapsing has been used as a "threat" for years and year, just like "death panels" as a scare tactic.

 

How did the Romney/Massachusetts plan account for this issue?

 

Except we saw exactly how this played out without the mandate in the US Territories which were not accounted for in the initial rollout and saw their plans skyrocket.

 

Romneycare had a mandate.

 

Also - even with the mandate, insurers are pulling out of some states because there are not large enough pools - see alaska.

 

There could not be more evidence for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ May 19, 2016 -> 02:36 PM)
Huh? Of course it is. How would you deduce that from what I said?

 

Then how could you have been against securing his release? At the time the negotiations were taking place he was not a criminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ May 19, 2016 -> 02:43 PM)
I said "even if he's a criminal" meaning "even if he comes back and is put on trial and convicted," I wasn't straight out calling him a criminal.

 

"even if he's a criminal" means after he is put on trial? How would you straight out call him a criminal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have felt better about Bergdahl had they not paraded him home as a hero. They still shold have done what it takes to bring him home (as they do with other americans who break laws in foreign countries by and are disappeared)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (bmags @ May 19, 2016 -> 04:07 PM)
Just wanted to point out, I read this. I have had the times where I've sat down to write down my thoughts for this board. I enjoyed this and appreciated it, but that Elizabeth Warren thing is not an accurate representation of Hillary Clinton.

 

When that bill was sent to Bill Clinton it was done so with a republican majority congress. He pocket vetoed it. Then Hillary Clinton was elected to the senate as part of a +4 pickup of the dems.

 

The senate makeup was then 50/50 split, with a Republican president. The house was majority republican. At the time, democrats did not run the senate as it is today with requiring 60 votes, so the bankruptcy bill would have been reintroduced and signed.

 

Clinton then used her influence to say she would sign the bill to make it bi-partisan, and watered down the bill to still allow single mothers to collect cihld payments evn after the father declares bankruptcy (seriously, this would have been part of the Republican bill).

 

So yes, this is an example of how clinton rules. She saw a fight coming that would hurt people, and engaged in the fight to make it hurt as little as possible. I'm sure Sanders probably abstained and can keep his purity. But a whole of people are better off because she took this fight.

 

Clinton's remarks on the floor:

Senator Clinton: I rise today in support of final passage of S. 420, the Bankruptcy Reform Act. Many of my colleagues may remember that I was a strong critic of the bill that passed out of the 106th Congress.

While we have yet to achieve the kind of bankruptcy reform I believe is possible, I have worked with a number of people to make improvements that bring us closer to our goals, particularly when it comes to child support. Women can now be assured that they can continue to collect child support payments after the child’s father has declared bankruptcy. The legislation makes child support the first priority during bankruptcy proceedings.

 

This year, we have made more progress. The Senate agreed to include a revised version of Senator Schumer’s amendment to ensure that any debts resulting from any act of violence, intimidation, or threat would be nondischargeable.

 

Earlier today, this body agreed to include a cap on the homestead exemption to ensure that wealthy debtors could not shield their wealth by purchasing a mansion in a state with no cap on homestead exemption.

 

In addition, I was concerned about competing nondischargeable debt so I worked hard with Senator Boxer to ensure that more credit card debt can be erased so that women who use their credit cards for food, clothing and medical expenses in the 90 days before bankruptcy do not have to litigate each and every one of these expenses for the first $750.

 

Let me be very clear—I will not vote for final passage of this bill if it comes back from conference if these kind of reforms are missing. I am voting for this legislation because it is a work in progress, and it is making progress towards reform.

 

With all due respect, Hillary supporters always have a comeback when something cut-and-dried atrocious is pointed out about her. I stand by Warren's short, LOLish explanation of the Hillary flip flop. She is the most crooked candidate we've ever had IMO.

Illini ... you say Hillary over walking disaster Trump. You forgot ... Bernie is still breathing. Just give it to Bernie this time and see how he does. Hillary and Trump are evil; at least Bernie isn't evil.

Edited by greg775

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't ask people to defend Hillary all the time and then dismiss it out of hand when they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (greg775 @ May 19, 2016 -> 04:52 PM)
With all due respect, Hillary supporters always have a comeback when something cut-and-dried atrocious is pointed out about her. I stand by Warren's short, LOLish explanation of the Hillary flip flop. She is the most crooked candidate we've ever had IMO.

Illini ... you say Hillary over walking disaster Drumpf. You forgot ... Bernie is still breathing. Just give it to Bernie this time and see how he does. Hillary and Drumpf are evil; at least Bernie isn't evil.

 

I'd ask if this is a joke, but you're completely irrational on this topic so who cares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (shysocks @ May 19, 2016 -> 09:57 PM)
You can't ask people to defend Hillary all the time and then dismiss it out of hand when they do.

I read his long reply and do appreciate it. Very well written and thought out, but it just screams "Hllary supporter" to me. I mean Elizabeth Warren was exposing something simple and important about Hillary. BTW I have resisted getting into the Christina Aguilara thing with Hillary out of respect to the woman's career. I'm not all evil even though I truly feel Hillary needs to just go away not be our most visible American the next 8 years for gosh sakes. Eight years!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Quinarvy @ May 19, 2016 -> 10:03 PM)
I'd ask if this is a joke, but you're completely irrational on this topic so who cares.

Did you read the Baltimore story I posted? Hillary supporters/lovers just skip past all the crap she's done. Like Hillary, just laugh it off with one laugh. I never said Trump was Saint Nick. He may be a scumbag, but Bernie ... he's another story. He may have a shred of integrity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (bmags @ May 19, 2016 -> 10:07 AM)
Just wanted to point out, I read this. I have had the times where I've sat down to write down my thoughts for this board. I enjoyed this and appreciated it, but that Elizabeth Warren thing is not an accurate representation of Hillary Clinton.

 

When that bill was sent to Bill Clinton it was done so with a republican majority congress. He pocket vetoed it. Then Hillary Clinton was elected to the senate as part of a +4 pickup of the dems.

 

The senate makeup was then 50/50 split, with a Republican president. The house was majority republican. At the time, democrats did not run the senate as it is today with requiring 60 votes, so the bankruptcy bill would have been reintroduced and signed.

 

Clinton then used her influence to say she would sign the bill to make it bi-partisan, and watered down the bill to still allow single mothers to collect cihld payments evn after the father declares bankruptcy (seriously, this would have been part of the Republican bill).

 

So yes, this is an example of how clinton rules. She saw a fight coming that would hurt people, and engaged in the fight to make it hurt as little as possible. I'm sure Sanders probably abstained and can keep his purity. But a whole of people are better off because she took this fight.

 

Clinton's remarks on the floor:

Senator Clinton: I rise today in support of final passage of S. 420, the Bankruptcy Reform Act. Many of my colleagues may remember that I was a strong critic of the bill that passed out of the 106th Congress.

While we have yet to achieve the kind of bankruptcy reform I believe is possible, I have worked with a number of people to make improvements that bring us closer to our goals, particularly when it comes to child support. Women can now be assured that they can continue to collect child support payments after the child’s father has declared bankruptcy. The legislation makes child support the first priority during bankruptcy proceedings.

 

This year, we have made more progress. The Senate agreed to include a revised version of Senator Schumer’s amendment to ensure that any debts resulting from any act of violence, intimidation, or threat would be nondischargeable.

 

Earlier today, this body agreed to include a cap on the homestead exemption to ensure that wealthy debtors could not shield their wealth by purchasing a mansion in a state with no cap on homestead exemption.

 

In addition, I was concerned about competing nondischargeable debt so I worked hard with Senator Boxer to ensure that more credit card debt can be erased so that women who use their credit cards for food, clothing and medical expenses in the 90 days before bankruptcy do not have to litigate each and every one of these expenses for the first $750.

 

Let me be very clear—I will not vote for final passage of this bill if it comes back from conference if these kind of reforms are missing. I am voting for this legislation because it is a work in progress, and it is making progress towards reform.

 

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 19, 2016 -> 02:39 PM)
I'll try to explain it the best I can, but the "individual mandate" isn't about "finding people who can't afford insurance." It's an disincentive/stick for people who would otherwise choose to not have insurance; now, in practice, there's going to be a healthy mix of people who 'choose' not to have health insurance because they can't afford it or could only marginally afford it and choose to spend that money on something else, and then there's a lot of younger, generally healthy people who would just otherwise choose to go without insurance and hope for the best. When you are going to institute regulatory requirements like guaranteed issue that mean you can get insurance regardless of any current or previous illnesses, there's a big economic incentive to not carry insurance until you need it and then purchase it when you do. The problem is that this creates a death spiral in the insurance market place since insurance companies are left without a large pool of insurance premiums being paid by people who don't necessarily need to draw on their insurance.

 

What the law attempts to do is to eliminate or minimize the people who would fall into "can't afford insurance and would be fined" category a few of ways. The first is the massive expansion of Medicaid, which was unfortunately gutted by Roberts in the 2012 Obamacare ruling over the individual mandate. Several million more people who are marginally above the poverty line would have Medicaid coverage today instead of needing to pay for private insurance or pay the fine. The second way to was require parental policies to cover children to the age of 26--this keeps lots of young adults who would be the most likely to voluntarily forego insurance on more affordable employer-sponsored family plans. The third way is through the subsidies available through the federal and state exchanges. This provides an incentive/carrot for people to choose insurance over the fine, even if the insurance is a little more expensive.

 

I'm sure there are better write-ups out there, but that's the basic logic behind the individual mandate. Without that but with the other regulatory improvements, the private insurance market would collapse.

 

I really appreciate both of you guys taking the time to try and explain some of this stuff. Its great when we can have civil conversations about things we disagree on since there are a lot of very smart people on this forum. I have such huge concerns with all of the candidates on both sides. There are 2 other things Ive seen online that kind of blew my mind about both Sanders and Clinton but since it never picked up traction in the media I assumed it had to be fake to some degree. First for Hillary, another thing I read was that the Clinton Foundation pays female execs much lower than they pay men. I know that source is trash but it links to their IRS forms so who knows. Could that really be true? If it is it looks pretty bad imo.

 

Then my issue with Bernie is I read he only paid 13.5% federal income taxes. I want to reiterate Im not claiming either of these as facts. Im just curious if someone who knows a little more about this stuff can shed some light on it. If either is true it really exposes hypocrisy in both of the core foundations of their campaigns.

 

Trump has enough detractors but I did getting a kick out of hearing him say something along the lines of "You know I have the best math, people always tell me how great my math is." Great Presidential quote imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (greg775 @ May 19, 2016 -> 05:05 PM)
Did you read the Baltimore story I posted? Hillary supporters/lovers just skip past all the crap she's done. Like Hillary, just laugh it off with one laugh. I never said Drumpf was Saint Nick. He may be a scumbag, but Bernie ... he's another story. He may have a shred of integrity.

 

I did.

 

I also know US history.

 

More corrupt off the top of my head include Aaron Burr, Andrew Jackson, Al Smith, Franklin Pierce and Richard Nixon. The first three were all associated with Tammany Hall, Pierce essentially tricked his way into the presidency and hastened the road to the civil war and Nixon, well, that needs no explaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (bmags @ May 19, 2016 -> 03:57 PM)
I would have felt better about Bergdahl had they not paraded him home as a hero. They still shold have done what it takes to bring him home (as they do with other americans who break laws in foreign countries by and are disappeared)

The most recent season of the Serial Podcast was all about Bergdahl and thats what REALLY soured me on the whole trade. It seems like there was so much shady back door stuff going on to be able to get this trade to go through including bypassing the mandatory vetting that is conducted by numerous government agencies to determine if a gitmo prisoner is released if they will be a threat down the road. According to the podcast it sounded like whoever was running this show knew the 5 guys wouldnt be cleared so they just skipped the whole process and pushed the deal through.

 

I also think it sets a bad precedent. Youd think any Americans over seas could be more appealing to capture knowing that we will do unbalanced prisoner exchanges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ May 19, 2016 -> 10:09 PM)
I really appreciate both of you guys taking the time to try and explain some of this stuff. Its great when we can have civil conversations about things we disagree on since there are a lot of very smart people on this forum. I have such huge concerns with all of the candidates on both sides. There are 2 other things Ive seen online that kind of blew my mind about both Sanders and Clinton but since it never picked up traction in the media I assumed it had to be fake to some degree. First for Hillary, another thing I read was that the Clinton Foundation pays female execs much lower than they pay men. I know that source is trash but it links to their IRS forms so who knows. Could that really be true? If it is it looks pretty bad imo.

 

Then my issue with Bernie is I read he only paid 13.5% federal income taxes. I want to reiterate Im not claiming either of these as facts. Im just curious if someone who knows a little more about this stuff can shed some light on it. If either is true it really exposes hypocrisy in both of the core foundations of their campaigns.

 

Trump has enough detractors but I did getting a kick out of hearing him say something along the lines of "You know I have the best math, people always tell me how great my math is." Great Presidential quote imo.

I also appreciate their explaining some important issues. I appreciate both posts.

 

QUOTE (Tony @ May 19, 2016 -> 10:14 PM)
Once again, ironic you can have such strong feelings about something, yet admit you haven't seen Hillary speak once in months.

She had her chance. I can't listen/watch her. I know my limitations. I can't take it. Just as I now can't take Chris Matthews anymore. Cant' believe anybody would be a guest on his show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Quinarvy @ May 19, 2016 -> 05:13 PM)
I did.

 

I also know US history.

 

More corrupt off the top of my head include Aaron Burr, Andrew Jackson, Al Smith, Franklin Pierce and Richard Nixon. The first three were all associated with Tammany Hall, Pierce essentially tricked his way into the presidency and hastened the road to the civil war and Nixon, well, that needs no explaining.

Before I head down the wikipedia rabbit hole, wasn't Tammany Hall pretty much done by the time Al Smith rolled around?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Quinarvy @ May 19, 2016 -> 05:13 PM)
I did.

 

I also know US history.

 

More corrupt off the top of my head include Aaron Burr, Andrew Jackson, Al Smith, Franklin Pierce and Richard Nixon. The first three were all associated with Tammany Hall, Pierce essentially tricked his way into the presidency and hastened the road to the civil war and Nixon, well, that needs no explaining.

Teapot dome was pretty great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (greg775 @ May 19, 2016 -> 05:04 PM)
I read his long reply and do appreciate it. Very well written and thought out, but it just screams "Hllary supporter" to me. I mean Elizabeth Warren was exposing something simple and important about Hillary. BTW I have resisted getting into the Christina Aguilara thing with Hillary out of respect to the woman's career. I'm not all evil even though I truly feel Hillary needs to just go away not be our most visible American the next 8 years for gosh sakes. Eight years!

If you can't get past anyone supporting Hillary then just stop asking people to defend her. You see how stupid that is right?

 

Greg: Say 3 things good about Hillary!!!!

Poster: Ok, 1...2...3...

Greg: That's just a Hillary's supporters non-sense!!!

 

I mean come on man, just stop posting about her already and let everyone have some sanity back in their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (farmteam @ May 19, 2016 -> 05:46 PM)
Before I head down the wikipedia rabbit hole, wasn't Tammany Hall pretty much done by the time Al Smith rolled around?

Nah, double checked it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ May 19, 2016 -> 05:16 PM)
The most recent season of the Serial Podcast was all about Bergdahl and thats what REALLY soured me on the whole trade. It seems like there was so much shady back door stuff going on to be able to get this trade to go through including bypassing the mandatory vetting that is conducted by numerous government agencies to determine if a gitmo prisoner is released if they will be a threat down the road. According to the podcast it sounded like whoever was running this show knew the 5 guys wouldnt be cleared so they just skipped the whole process and pushed the deal through.

 

I also think it sets a bad precedent. Youd think any Americans over seas could be more appealing to capture knowing that we will do unbalanced prisoner exchanges.

I don't disagree with you but prisoner exchanges are historically pretty common and compared to Iran Contra seems like small potatoes of dealing with undesirable groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about Warren Harding and Grant? Just inept?

I can't claim to be a big investigator of their presidencies, but they have always been rated in the Bottom 5. There was definitely corruption/cronyism with the Grant years.

 

 

 

Saw where there was SOME talk about Sanders running under the Green Party banner, which would guarantee him ballot access in at least 20 key states.

 

That should be a sign to Debbie Wasserman-Schulz, along with the letter defending the actions of his supporters in NV...they better figure out some way to placate him or this will get really nasty, especially if the Clinton campaign starts to completely ignore him going into states like NJ and California that will embarrass her campaign if she keeps losing them in the face of a strengthening/consolidating Trump.

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (bigruss22 @ May 20, 2016 -> 12:23 AM)
If you can't get past anyone supporting Hillary then just stop asking people to defend her. You see how stupid that is right?

 

Greg: Say 3 things good about Hillary!!!!

Poster: Ok, 1...2...3...

Greg: That's just a Hillary's supporters non-sense!!!

 

I mean come on man, just stop posting about her already and let everyone have some sanity back in their lives.

I'm trying to get people to see the light.

p.s. I can't believe they closed the bathroom dilemma thread; can't adults on a message board discuss an issue that is ongoing?

Edited by greg775

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/04/07/why-i...-to-the-toilet/

 

You can try.

 

One of the themes coming out of this week have been all the confrontations where "butch" lesbians have been stopped from entering restrooms by private citizens who were convinced that the person "must be a dude or dangerous." That's going to end up making a lot of people uncomfortable if that starts to occur, because as Americans we believe in a general right to privacy, and going to the bathroom SHOULD theoretically be as private as it gets.

 

What happens to those people who start to feel so persecuted or shamed/embarrassed/humiliated going to the bathroom that one of them inevitably will commit suicide...have you considered that? Is it worth people dying over?

Edited by caulfield12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (Tex @ May 19, 2016 -> 04:38 PM)
"even if he's a criminal" means after he is put on trial? How would you straight out call him a criminal?

im honestly not trying to debate semantics. I said what I said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ May 19, 2016 -> 06:16 PM)
The most recent season of the Serial Podcast was all about Bergdahl and thats what REALLY soured me on the whole trade. It seems like there was so much shady back door stuff going on to be able to get this trade to go through including bypassing the mandatory vetting that is conducted by numerous government agencies to determine if a gitmo prisoner is released if they will be a threat down the road. According to the podcast it sounded like whoever was running this show knew the 5 guys wouldnt be cleared so they just skipped the whole process and pushed the deal through.

 

I also think it sets a bad precedent. Youd think any Americans over seas could be more appealing to capture knowing that we will do unbalanced prisoner exchanges.

Nah, they already wanted to do this, what are they gonna do, like super duper extra wanna do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

greg you are not going to change anyone's mind about who to vote for, so if that's your goal just give it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×