LMAO..."voting irregularities?"

I can't deal with you sometimes.

Did you stop and read the poll questions??


Not saying Crimea/Ukraine isn't in Russia's sphere of influence, but to try to pretend that the vote wasn't a farce is just stupid.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

See below.

Demographics of Crimea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.economist.com/blogs/easte...a-votes-secede

FiveThirtyEight | Many Signs Pointed to Crimea Independence Vote — But Polls Didn’t


I'll see your economist article and raise you an actual poll with actual numbers from this actual year.



I'll ask you again: Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

It's also hilarious that you bolded that one sentence and not the one like two after it that briefly alludes to the propaganda+intimidation that blanketed Crimea since this whole thing came to a head.

Wouldn't that be answering NO to both questions?

Nyet.

Let me make sure I understand your point of view so we can have a proper discussion.

I think you are saying either

(1) Crimea vote was unfair and if a fair election was held, Crimea would vote to remain in Ukraine vs joining Russia

(2) Crimea vote was unfair and if a fair election was held, Crimea would probably have voted to join Russia regardless

I am saying (2).

For everyone of your FiveThirtyEight I would counter with a GlobalResearch and their argument.

What the Western Media Won’t Tell You: Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians Also Voted to Join Russia | Global Research

Crimea: Timeline and Legality of Referendum

Interesting timeline that says the Ukrainian government shadily moved away from EU agreements to a "free" loan from Russia to pay off it's national debts. Garnering a lot of protest from the EU and the USA.

Ukrainian People protested (% of people that were against this is unclear).

Ukrainian President flees to Russia. (Apparently it's was pretty sizeable)

Ukraine Congress takes over.

Ukraine President says he's in charge and authorizes Russia to occupy Crimea.

Now Putin says he has no more designs on Ukraine, except for the care of "ethnic Russians".

Not sure how real the unrest is in eastern Ukraine.

On sanctions, talking heads said may not be effective as China will do business with Russia.

Top commander held after base stormed, Ukraine's interim president says | Fox News

So, there's a revolution and the opposition party takes over your elected government, and you're surprised that those who supported the deposed president no longer want to play ball?

I'm certainly no Obama fan, and his saber-rattling over this issue seems ill-thought out, but East Ukraine/Crimea belongs with West Ukraine about as much as Shias belong with Sunnis. This is far more than a red-state/blue-state conflict.

We need to stop taking sides and romanticizing these revolutions. Anyone want to make the argument today that Egypt is better off than it was five years ago?

Well Egypt is better off than it was a year ago ;). And in that calculation, 5 years is way too short of a comparison - the question is what gave Egypt a chance at a better future, the current situation or the military status quo? I'd go with the current situation.

However, Egypt isn't Ukraine - the deposed government was democratically elected after all (and fairly too - all the international observers said it was on the up and up).

Reminds me of Rumsfeld's "old Europe" comment. The next series of exchanges should be entertaining.

Obama says military force will not be used to dislodge Russia from Crimea - The Washington Post

Haha - nicely done Obama.

Except Rumsfeld was dissing people we actually needed as allies, at a time when other diplomatic channels were trying to court them.

Wow. Mitch Mconnnell released an ad that briefly shows a clip of a basketball team in blue and white celebrating a championship.

Problem is, the team was Duke.

That's a pretty big unforced error for a candidate battling out of touch charges in a basketball mad state.

He then doubled down by replacing the ad with footage of Kentucky that contained a current player, causing UK to send a cease and desist due to a player appearing in an advertisement violating NCAA eligibility rules.

Don't think its a resounding successful enrollment but I'll take this result vs what it could've been after the first month.

Obamacare tops 6 million signups - Mar. 27, 2014

Nice little bio on Putin.

I remember Gorbachev, the wall coming down, Yeltsin, the coup attempt. It was messy. I do think Russia needed a strong leader then but wish Putin turned out nicer.

BBC News - Vladimir Putin: The rebuilding of ‘Soviet’ Russia

I hate hearing how the big GOP donors are apparently starting to coalesce around Jeb Bush. Can the country really do no better than Clinton vs. Bush? 24 years out of 32 with either a Bush or a Clinton as president? Why don't we just declare a monarchy and get it over with?

You'd think the country would've learned it's lesson after the first two Bushes.

Yeah it's funny these politcial dynasties are things we laugh about when they happen in other countries. On a similar note I was over at my parents house and they were talking about how Putin is ex-KGB... I guess the implication meaning the Russians are run by their spy agencies and are "crazy". Somehow GHW Bush is just different because he's one of us.

To be fair, the first Bush was actually pretty good. He actually raised revenues (taxes!) to help keep the debt in check, built a true world coalition to fight Saddam, basically started the ISS, reauthorized the Clean Air Act, signed the ADA and signed START 1. And I liked his "thousand points of light" program and he was pretty pragmatic about guns. Of course, he wasn't perfect. He appointed Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court (what a fucking disaster), waffled on Somalia, pardoned the Iran-Contra conspirators and had the misfortune of being both uncharismatic and having an economic downturn. But overall Bush 1 is one of the better Presidents of the last 50 years.

Bush II, on the other hand, was a frigging disaster.

Bush I is easily the most underrated president of my lifetime.

Wouldn't be surprised if there is some 'aggressive' counting but good progress nevertheless.

Obamacare On Track To Hit 7 Million Sign-Ups On Deadline Day: Sources

Obamacare has led to health coverage for millions more people - latimes.com

According to the LA Times, 9.5 million Americans are now insured due to the ACA - either through exchanges, private companies or Medicare. That can't be seen as anything less than a pretty massive success. I wonder how many more millions would be signed up if some of the Republican-controlled states actually didn't actively try to hinder it (ex. North Carolina, whose "exchanges" are purposely an unmitigated disaster).

Off the Charts Blog | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities | Ryan Budget Gets 69 Percent of Its Cuts from Low-Income Programs

This is a rather simplistic response. It sounds good, but it still has brought big challenges and situations that still hamper the "success." I think it'll be 2 or 3 years before we see how the law impacts things. What kind of premium hikes will we see? Change in insurance coverage? Who will pay for it? Will employers shift even more (or drop it all together) burden on to their employees? What about the overall increase in Medicare/Medicaid spending? Overall health care spending? How will the middle class be pinched? Most importantly, will Americans actually live healthier? A lot of unanswered questions, and as I said, still a few years off, I think. As noted in the article:

"Long-term stability could be undermined if newly insured people do not pay their bills or if they drop coverage in coming months because they are unhappy about the high deductibles or narrow doctor and hospital networks some plans offer.

Some people have had to pay higher premiums to replace old plans that did not comply with the law's consumer standards.

More ominously, some insurance industry officials are warning they may raise rates substantially next year. Major rate hikes could push out healthy consumers, undermining the law's marketplaces and recharging political opposition."

The millions of people that now have access to healthcare are already better.

As someone who was unable to get even mediocre health insurance for almost 5 years, hooray for a badly timed misdiagnosis, I dont think its a coincidence that I was suddenly able to after obamacare was announced. Thankfully I now have a union thats currently providing for me but I can rest easier knowing that I have an option once my COBRA runs out if I lose that. Even after getting my diagnosis fixed I still have an awful family history that would scare companies into exorbitant rates otherwise.

No, no, no - people have Paul Ryan all wrong. All these programs which help the most needy of Americans do nothing more than stand in the way of those Americans pulling themselves up by the bootstraps and succeeding, said no one who ever had to depend on these programs ever.


Such as?


I think it was 2010, when the Pre-Existing Condition interim insurance plan went into effect, offering coverage for people who could never get non-employer group / non-Medicaid coverage.

Or it could have also been 2010, when adult dependents up to 26 could be covered under their parents' insurance (a change both citizens and insurance companies loved by the way).

Or also 2010, when the law required that plans cover preventative care.

Or this year, when pre-existing conditions were no longer allowed to be used to deny coverage or hike up premiums.

But your definition of success might be different. I accept that.


Whatever the market will bear. But now that the plans are commodities (in the sense that they're all defined the same with the same coverage levels - though other differences do exist, of course), plans that want to hike their rates run the risk of being undercut and losing membership. I guarantee you the actuaries have already thought of this, and actuaries tend to have a lot of power in health insurance companies.


Fine with me. The more we decouple health insurance from employment the better off we are as a country.


Call me when we get serious about cutting defense and security spending, and we'll talk.


An issue regardless of ACA.


Yeah, right. People who now have insurance, who used to fear any medical issue whatsoever because it could bankrupt them, due to their not having insurance, are going to drop coverage because of deductibles or networks? Is this author of this article serious?

"Yeah, I'm dropping my coverage because I had to pay $500 when I broke my leg and had to go to the ER. I'd rather not have insurance and have to pay the full $26,000. Thanks Obama!"


We've been over this. In this thread. The number of people who had to do this is vanishingly small, and most of them got a reprieve anyway.


Newsflash: "insurance industry officials" say this every year. Now, it's a different reason each year, and this year's reason happens to be ACA, but still....


This is the bottom line. Almost 10 million people have coverage who didn't. That's 10 million people who no longer have to live in fear of getting injured or sick and how it will ruin them financially (or kill them should they decide not to seek care due to cost).

Good luck to you and wish you the best in electing the right President.

BBC News - Afghans set to vote in historic presidential election

I saw something in one article I read earlier that 85% of people have already paid their premiums for the first month or something. (I don't recall the actual number and time measurement to be honest).

If we could get somebody in the White House to run these queries, we could stop speculating. :)

SELECT count(users), registered FROM national_health_care_database WHERE registered='yes';

SELECT count(users), paid FROM national_health_care_database WHERE paid='yes';

SELECT count(users), prev_uninsured FROM national_health_care_database WHERE prev_uninsured='yes';

Does healthcare.gov keep track of who pays? I thought it was just basically a matchmaker: here are your options, buy from one of these guys.

SI

It certainly could keep track or insist that providers report numbers, but I'm guessing since nobody can do anything beyond speculate that it doesn't. We won't really know anything until next year's tax season (when we have to show proof with our tax returns).

Wrong. I told you I read something with approximately those statistics. It wasn't a speculation of "85% vs. 0%" it was me approximating so that someone else didn't go out and find the article and see that it said "84%" and give me shit for that.

Do you really want me to waste my time going out and finding it? :p

Looks like it applies just to CA enrollees, but that's a significant % of the overall, so it's likely fairly representative.

http://www.mercurynews.com/health/ci...es-increase-by

I guess its pretty good all things considered.



Karzai called our bluff and I won't be surprised if we stay.

Its strange how Palestinian-Israeli issue isn't the front and center anymore as other issues in Syria, Kiev, Egypt etc are more pressing.

Doesn't look as if anything is going to happen in the Obama presidency. Abbas seems to have the West Bank under control and wondering what Hamas is up to in Gaza ... assume the Egyptian re-revolt has helped.

Log In - The New York Times

Hooray freedom.

Just another data point.

Uninsured Rate Falls To Lowest Since 2008: Gallup

Everything I read today is depressing.

A question on the 1 in 6... I am aware the Ukraine is in Eastern Europe and a former part of the USSR. Not sure on a blank map if I would know what is Belarus, Ukraine, Lithania, etc... Are we talking that sort of mix-up or they think Ukraine is France or in South America?)

(Of course I also don't favor military intervention :) )

It's directly East of Poland. You might get it confused with Belarus (which is right above it), but if you stop and think "well it has to have Black Sea access in order to have Crimea) then you'd make the deduction that it's the southernmost (and larger) of the two.

Um, I'm almost certain that the reason for the discrepancy is that the Obama administration is counting enrollments from the beginning of open enrollment for the exchanges (10/1/2013) through 3/31/2014.

Am I misinterpreting the article, or is that just a big error they made?

Which would be surprising as HuffPo is usually slanted leftwards.

agreed.
I could easily place Lithuania/Latvia and Estonia but I might have confused it for Belarus.

Just play Victoria 2 a few times and you'll be an expert on placing countries and cultures around the world.

Shoot, play Risk.

Exactly. I mean, I've heard Ukraine is very weak in that game ;)

Ukraine not weak! How about I smash your board to pieces?!