• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 98 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
That Santorum clip is amusing. I think he was just stuttering, probably, but agree it's too bad he didn't blurt it out. That would have made for some interesting news!

I too am surprised that Zimmerman hasn't been charged with anything, nothing. Not manslaughter, not discharging a firearm, reckless endangerment, nothing. For me the key element is that he was told by the police dispatcher to not follow Martin, but took it upon himself to do so anyway. We have to wait for the investigation to be complete, but I don't see how Zimmerman will walk away from this.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,280
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
That Santorum clip is amusing. I think he was just stuttering, probably, but agree it's too bad he didn't blurt it out. That would have made for some interesting news!

I too am surprised that Zimmerman hasn't been charged with anything, nothing. Not manslaughter, not discharging a firearm, reckless endangerment, nothing. For me the key element is that he was told by the police dispatcher to not follow Martin, but took it upon himself to do so anyway. We have to wait for the investigation to be complete, but I don't see how Zimmerman will walk away from this.
i thought the dispatcher was pretty weak. the only audio i heard was the operator telling him "we don't need you to follow him" which is a far cry from an order not to engage.
 
Meanwhile, lots of stuff on the ACA and possible ruling. One item brought to my attention is the fact that the government isn't actually forcing you to buy health care, you can still refuse to purchase it, you'll just have to pay a fine. So, is this fine constitutionally legal? Is it a tax?

Also, here's a very good analysis from Slate showing just how the health care laws and taxes in the country work already.

"...You might be surprised to learn that this seemingly controversial idea—that (keeping your) money and (refusing to buy) health insurance should be penalized—is already at the core of the American health care system and has been for decades."

Link here.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
patricknd said:
i disagree. i think chrisE could fight his way out of a paper bag, especially one that had the milk and juice and stuff and was softened by the condensation.
Only my uber charm and mad interpersonal skills keep me from getting my azz kicked on a regular basis.
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Meanwhile, lots of stuff on the ACA and possible ruling. One item brought to my attention is the fact that the government isn't actually forcing you to buy health care, you can still refuse to purchase it, you'll just have to pay a fine. So, is this fine constitutionally legal? Is it a tax?

Also, here's a very good analysis from Slate showing just how the health care laws and taxes in the country work already.

"...You might be surprised to learn that this seemingly controversial idea—that (keeping your) money and (refusing to buy) health insurance should be penalized—is already at the core of the American health care system and has been for decades."

Link here.
What I don't get is all the bytching by the right wingers. If somebody doesn't have health insurance, the rest of the population ends up paying the bill because they cannot be refused treatment. It seems to me the personal responsibility position is to at least try to make people get health care that can afford it.

It seems to me the right wingers should be for this. Of course, if Obama said they sun rose in the east they would hold demonstrations chanting that it rose in the west.
 
ChrisE said:
What I don't get is all the bytching by the right wingers. If somebody doesn't have health insurance, the rest of the population ends up paying the bill because they cannot be refused treatment. It seems to me the personal responsibility position is to at least try to make people get health care that can afford it.

It seems to me the right wingers should be for this. Of course, if Obama said they sun rose in the east they would hold demonstrations chanting that it rose in the west.
First let me say welcome back from Gaul.

Second, the right wingers don't want poor people to have anything. Clear?
 
May 18, 2009
3,492
0
0
rhubroma said:
First let me say welcome back from Gaul.

Second, the right wingers don't want poor people to have anything. Clear?
But that is not what it is about.....the crux being whether or not the govt. can penalize people for not buyng insurance. The alternative is "poor people" get healthcare basically paid for by the rest of the population. The wingnuts should be for this because it gets the "poor people" off the dole.
 
ChrisE said:
But that is not what it is about.....the crux being whether or not the govt. can penalize people for not buyng insurance. The alternative is "poor people" get healthcare basically paid for by the rest of the population. The wingnuts should be for this because it gets the "poor people" off the dole.
However their interests in getting people off the dole are, apparently, not as strong as those from prohibiting the State.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
I have a simple solution that will satisfy both parties. We give the poor jobs in the military industrial complex. The Dems get to take care of the poor, and the Repugs get to grow the military. It's a win-win plan.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
rhubroma said:
Status quo.
Nope. Right now the only way the poor get jobs in the MIC is if they are dumb enough to sign up for the military, where politicians pursuing their own personal interests will send them overseas to risk having an arm or leg blown off. The big money in the MIC has nothing to do with the actual act of fighting. Those jobs are not too open for the poor.
 
BroDeal said:
Nope. Right now the only way the poor get jobs in the MIC is if they are dumb enough to sign up for the military, where politicians pursuing their own personal interests will send them overseas to risk having an arm or leg blown off. The big money in the MIC has nothing to do with the actual act of fighting. Those jobs are not too open for the poor.
The architects of war aren't the ones who die.

Dumb enough or without other enticing possibilities?
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
BroDeal said:
I have a simple solution that will satisfy both parties. We give the poor jobs in the military industrial complex. The Dems get to take care of the poor, and the Repugs get to grow the military. It's a win-win plan.
Knowing how to live on a dime, they'd probably be able to cut some fat at dod.

They also can't possibly make any worse decisions, so...

Po'tagon
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,307
1
0
BroDeal said:
Nope. Right now the only way the poor get jobs in the MIC is if they are dumb enough to sign up for the military, where politicians pursuing their own personal interests will send them overseas to risk having an arm or leg blown off. The big money in the MIC has nothing to do with the actual act of fighting. Those jobs are not too open for the poor.
thanks a mill. bro!
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
thanks a mill. bro!
If it was about signing up to defend the country then that would be one thing, but the sad truth is that if you sign up for the military then you are signing up to be a pawn for other people's political careers. I feel sorry for those dumb bastards who signed up after 9/11. They ended up fighting the Taliban, a group that had nothing to do with 9/11 other than having tenuous control over a territory where arab ex-pats had taken up residence, because that was an easy way for Dubya to show a quick and big victory as opposed to the long slog of dealing with a shadowy group of revolutionary cells. Then it was on to Iraq...
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,924
0
0
It seems like the brilliant tactic of picking on women is coming back to bite them in the azz.:D

I feel some shame for all those 50+ men.....:eek:

MILWAUKEE – President Obama has opened the first significant lead of the 2012 campaign in the nation's dozen top battleground states, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, boosted by a huge shift of women to his side.

In the fifth Swing States survey taken since last fall, Obama leads Republican front-runner Mitt Romney 51%-42% among registered voters just a month after the president had trailed him by two percentage points.

The biggest change came among women under 50. In mid-February, just under half of those voters supported Obama. Now more than six in 10 do while Romney's support among them has dropped by 14 points, to 30%. The president leads him 2-1 in this group.

Romney's main advantage is among men 50 and older, swamping Obama 56%-38%.

Republicans' traditional strength among men "won't be good enough if we're losing women by nine points or 10 points," says Sara Taylor Fagen, a Republican strategist and former political adviser to President George W. Bush. "The focus on contraception has not been a good one for us … and Republicans have unfairly taken on water on this issue."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-04-01/swing-states-poll/53930684/1
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
The Republicans have become the party of old angry white men. It is why their strategists are all saying Romney needs to pick a Hispanic running mate to have a chance. Their base will be forced to vote for a Mormon dude and a non-white dude. That is some funny karma.
 
gooner said:
mm Rubio is a very interesting character. He could be playing a very intelligent game here.

I originally dismissed him as another idiot from the tea party. But it is clear he has a way with words.

And he seems to be by far the strongest republican candidate in the GOP for a future presidential run. The strong conservatives will like him. The religious will like him. The rhinos won't mind him. independents wont be as repulsed by him as they are by the likes of Santorum. He would eliminate the need for the gop to spend a penny on turning Florida and he would bring with him (if he is the first latino candidate) a significant % of Latino voters even if most did stay with the Dems.

And hes already upset the odds by beating a popular governor just to get to the senate.

So not accepting veep of a likely losing campaign could be clever. Lay low and when the tea leaves are slightly more favourable to the GOP some years down the line, go for the big job.

As for Romney he handled himself well there. Considering he has said some dumb things when a mike has been given to him, in the past.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
The Hitch said:
mm Rubio is a very interesting character. He could be playing a very intelligent game here.,,

...So not accepting veep of a likely losing campaign could be clever. Lay low and when the tea leaves are slightly more favourable to the GOP some years down the line, go for the big job.
I do not agree. He won't be blamed if Romney loses unless he turns out to be a complete screw-up like Palin. Romney has enough baggage that responsibility will fall on him alone. Rubio would get national exposure, paid for by Romney's campaign. He and his inner circle would gain experience. Issues that can be used to attack him will be dealt with and be old news by the time he runs for the top job. He would make connections with the moneymen surrounding Romney. A run for V.P. would lay the foundation for a run for prez.
 
Statistically that isn't how it's been, but I agree with that. This is going to be Romney who will take all responsibility, stand for fall. It's his nomination.

Talk today that the GOP will push hard for the evangelical vote for Romney in hope of countering Obama's huge lead among women, and to keep from only getting the bitter white male and super wealthy vote.

I think Rubio and Christie are potential big future names in the GOP. Both are very conservative (especially Rubio) and favor the small/no government path that the Tea Party has stricken fear in the GOP with, and both are very connected to big money donors (Rubio the #1 recipient of Koch Brothers money). And honestly, I think both guys are very good speakers, and generally thoughtful, especially Christie. I just happen to think that the thrust of the current GOP shown by the TP and Ryan plan is madness and never going to appeal to more than about 20% of the population (those aforementioned).
 
BroDeal said:
I do not agree. He won't be blamed if Romney loses unless he turns out to be a complete screw-up like Palin. Romney has enough baggage that responsibility will fall on him alone. Rubio would get national exposure, paid for by Romney's campaign. He and his inner circle would gain experience. Issues that can be used to attack him will be dealt with and be old news by the time he runs for the top job. He would make connections with the moneymen surrounding Romney. A run for V.P. would lay the foundation for a run for prez.
On the one hand yes and it would seem tempting to be launched into the national scene so quickly

But while he won't get blamed for losing the election he might get tainted by it.

He will be portrayed as inexperienced this year and that might stick with people until 2016.

opponents will ask . why did you run with a rino like romney. How can you be most electable if you.lost half of the major elections your life. why would latinos vote for you now if they didn't vote for you then.

But most importantly what he would lose would be the novelty factor. something that with his background and with his debating skills will be very very handy.

Novelty as the new face of the gop. No one will be surprised by his quality debating skills 4 years down the line if he wastes it on bringing romney back 2% in an election he is losing by 5 this year.
Novelty as the first latino candidate. All those latino voters getting excited by the prospect of a Hispanic president and a south American first lady.

Keeping quiet so that any mistakes he makes over the next 4 year are not high profile. so he isn't first in line to get tough questions thrown at him


Blow them away and sweep the election before the bubble bursts. politics these days is regrettably like celebrity magazines. people get bored quickly and want something else. candidates rise and fall.overnight.

This year the republicans launched into national poll leads every candidate that speculated they might run. Huckabee romney palin Cain bachman Gingrich trump santorum all went up only to fall back

All the candidates turned out to have major flaws and fell but the republican voters would stay behind someone with qualities like rubio.
Its how he got into the senate in the first place.

A top speech at the convention may be the best way to go. kind of like obama
only unlike obama rubio already is a sitting senator.

And of course failed veep candidates haven't really performed in future elections. i think Bob dole is the only one to even make the nomination in recent decades and that was 20 years later.
 
gooner said:
I wonder if Rubio doesnt take it will Chris Christie do it. He was on Piers Morgan show recently and he was vehemently behind Romney. He was in Jerusalem and he met with Netanyahu on Monday and he is also scheduled to meet Shimon Peres and also go on to Jordan to meet King Abdullah later sometime this week as well.

I just wonder is he doing this to build up his foreign policy credentials. Is he doing this for the VP role or is he also going to wait until 2016 to have a tilt at his own presidential campaign.
Chris christie made himself a major player with the Mccain endorsmen in 2008 but lost it big time over the next 3 years.

Mccain should have picked him as the vp though so not entirely his fault.

Funny enough the 3 favourites for the 2012 nomination are all from Florida. Rubio, Christie and Jeb.

That would be a fierce battle.

A much stronger field than this year.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts