The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by molson

Edit: The stereotypical conservative Republican moral hostility that we oppose so much is towards stuff like homosexuality, gay marriage, divorce, adultery. You guys are throwing in child abuse into that mix. Don't you see how that's different? Don't you see how that's weird and actually offensive to throw child abuse in there? Is child abuse really another one of those weird Republican hang-ups like gay marriage?

I disagree. There is a loud conservative narrative that homosexuality is related to pedophilia. They put both groups under the same pervert umbrella. Thus, when someone from that group commits a perverted child act, I feel a little hope in that their sick narrative of connecting homosexuals to pedophiles will go away.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by bob

Looks like some potentially big stuff could be included in this hack:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/politi...ent/index.html

Not that I'm advocating it here, but I wonder at what point a country will consider hacking as an act of war? Will it require some physical destruction caused by the hack (like a power plant being sabotaged) or will the simple theft of classified material do it?

If espionage was a good enough reason to go to war then every country in the world would be declaring war on the US right now.

[bob]

I understand that, just wondering if there is a line somewhere.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

If espionage was a good enough reason to go to war then every country in the world would be declaring war on the US right now.

Eh, only the ones with a big enough hammer to make it stick.

[Schmidty]

The "Adventure" game from Atari. It'a still magic to me.

By the way, shut up.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

The "Adventure" game from Atari. It'a still magic to me.

By the way, shut up.

Am I missing something here or was this post suppose to go in the Random Thoughts thread.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Domestic policy is still important but unless the economy takes a drastic downturn again, I am putting more weight on a President that can do a "better" job on Foreign policy this time around.

Hillary obviously has a lot of experience but I don't remember a lot of production (and no, I don't think she gets the blame for Benghazi).

FWIW, polls say

John Kerry rated worst secretary of state in 50 years - MarketWatch

I love how the survey was about effectiveness, but the article title is about "worst". Those are two very different things, or at least they can be. Also, I could have sworn we had a similar discussion about a similar survey a few years ago.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I disagree. There is a loud conservative narrative that homosexuality is related to pedophilia. They put both groups under the same pervert umbrella. Thus, when someone from that group commits a perverted child act, I feel a little hope in that their sick narrative of connecting homosexuals to pedophiles will go away.

This.

Look, there's a 20-year-old GOP narrative that liberals are evil, filthy creatures with loose morals who engage in all sorts of acts that right-thinking people abhor.

When someone who spouts that kind of rhetoric gets caught engaging in acts that right-thinking people abhor it is absolutely more hypocritical than if someone who spouts no rhetoric engages in such an act. Both acts, in and of themselves, are abhorrent. The hypocrisy is a separate thing. Does it make the act, itself, more abhorrent? No.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

When someone who spouts that kind of rhetoric gets caught engaging in acts that right-thinking people abhor it is absolutely more hypocritical than if someone who spouts no rhetoric engages in such an act.

Democrats also oppose and abhor child abuse. Democrats are just as against child abuse as Republicans are. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

[Edward64]

Didn't quite realize (or remember) that we have 3,000 trainers/advisers in Iraq. Adding another 400 ... seems to be a lot of trainers.

Log In - The New York Times

WASHINGTON — In a major shift of focus in the battle against the Islamic State, the Obama administration is planning to establish a new military base in Anbar Province and send 400 American military trainers to help Iraqi forces retake the city of Ramadi.

Although a final decision by the White House has yet to be announced, the plan follows months of behind-the-scenes debate about how prominently plans to retake another Iraqi city, Mosul, which fell to the Islamic State last year, should figure in the early phase of the military campaign against the group.

The fall of Ramadi last month effectively settled the administration debate, at least for the time being. American officials said Ramadi is now expected to become the focus of a lengthy campaign to regain Mosul at a later stage, possibly not until 2016.
:
The United States now has about 3,000 troops, including trainers and advisers, in Iraq. But the steps envisioned by the White House are likely to be called half-measures by critics because they do not call for an expansion of the role of American troops, such as the use of spotters to call in airstrikes.
:
The United States is not the only country that is expanding its effort.

Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron, said this week that his country would send up to 125 additional troops to train Iraqi forces, including in how to clear improvised bombs.

Italy is also expected to play an important role in training the Iraqi police.

[Edward64]

Not a good day for Obama and busy weekend for his strategists.

Obama trade push runs aground as House Democrats derail key bill | Fox News

In a dramatic defeat for the White House, President Obama's trade agenda ran aground in the House on Friday as Democrats banded together in opposition despite a personal plea from the president.

In a 302-126 vote, the House killed a worker aid bill that was tied to the president's main agenda item -- legislation that would give Obama "fast-track" authority to negotiate trade deals. Without it, the trade push withers for now. The vote marked a stunning blow for the president at the hands of his own party, with Nancy Pelosi and labor unions helping drive the stake into the legislation in the end.

Minutes before the vote, Pelosi took to the floor to appeal for a "better deal" for American workers.

Afterward, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest called the vote a "procedural snafu," downplaying the drama and voicing hope that a bipartisan majority could eventually be reached. "These kinds of entanglements are endemic to the House of Representatives," Earnest said.

But the margin of defeat Friday was already raising questions about how Obama might be able to persuade more Democrats.

The key vote Friday was on the so-called Trade Adjustment Assistance bill, a program that retrains workers displaced by trade. The bill was originally put on the table as a sweetener to help get Democrats on board and ultimately move the "fast-track" bill. But Democrats are so opposed to that legislation, all but 40 opposed the sweetener.

The biggest defection for Obama came when Pelosi joined the rebellion in opposing TAA. Though she supports the worker aid, she said voting against it was the only way to "slow down the fast track."

She said the main trade bill would be "stuck in the station" without TAA.

[JPhillips]

The media is constantly clamoring for politicians to be less bound by party ID, but when politicians do something that is evidence of not being bound by party ID, the media goes crazy.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The media is constantly clamoring for politicians to be less bound by party ID, but when politicians do something that is evidence of not being bound by party ID, the media goes crazy.

The media is great at generating noise...buzz...when there isn't any.

[Edward64]

Jeb made it official today.

Jeb Bush enters 2016 White House race, ending the long wait | Fox News

Jeb Bush jumped off the sidelines and into the Republican presidential race on Monday, kicking his campaign-in-waiting into gear after spending months raising money and lining up support.

The former Florida governor formally announced his 2016 bid at a rally in Miami, vowing to use his executive experience to make Washington work again.

"I'm a candidate for president of the United States of America," Bush said. "We will take command of our future once again in this country."

In formally announcing his bid, Bush seeks to recapture the momentum he initially generated, only to watch several other GOP candidates seize the spotlight while he made preparations.

No longer the unquestioned front-runner, Bush has to contend with 10 other candidates who already have declared and several more expected to enter in the coming weeks. Lately, he's been bunched at the top of national Republican polls with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has not yet declared, and home-state rival Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who has. Yet Bush remains an undeniable force in the race and still leads the field by a slim margin, according to the RealClearPolitics average of polling.

[Thomkal]

Hey Jeb! We are not going to forget your last name just because you took it off your campaign logo.

[JPhillips]

PING: Texas folks

We're on day two of Jade Helm. Have you been rounded up and processed at your local WalMart-FEMA camp?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

PING: Texas folks

We're on day two of Jade Helm. Have you been rounded up and processed at your local WalMart-FEMA camp?

Don't they have to go through the mandatory gay marriage process first?

[ISiddiqui]

And the toupeed one enters the race officially.. what a clown car LOL!

[NobodyHere]

Trans fat is not safe and must be removed from food: US

[NobodyHere]

The democratic primary might actually be interesting

2 shocking polls show a Democratic challenger picking up steam against Hillary Clinton

Hilary Clinton only has a mere 10 point lead against Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire. Granted that's Bernie's backyard but if he has a couple of impressive debate performances he might actually win the thing.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

PING: Texas folks

We're on day two of Jade Helm. Have you been rounded up and processed at your local WalMart-FEMA camp?

Now that the public know about the master plan with all the publicity, its been updated and likely deferred for another time.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Now that the public know about the master plan with all the publicity, its been updated and likely deferred for another time.

62-Year-Old With Gun Only One Standing Between Nation and Full-Scale Government Takeover

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

The democratic primary might actually be interesting

2 shocking polls show a Democratic challenger picking up steam against Hillary Clinton

Hilary Clinton only has a mere 10 point lead against Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire. Granted that's Bernie's backyard but if he has a couple of impressive debate performances he might actually win the thing.

The media is soooo desperate to create a story for the Dem nomination. In three polls Clinton is up +40, +40, and +10. I think she's fine.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And the toupeed one enters the race officially.. what a clown car LOL!

[Edward64]

Ready to get this over with. Wish the Supremes would make a decision already. If it goes for Obama, great. If against, it'll be great political drama until election day.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/politi...ate/index.html

Opponents are asking the Supreme Court to determine a critical question: does the text of the law authorize tax subsidies for 6.4 million Americans who have already received help to afford health coverage?

As the justices work toward a self-imposed June deadline, they will seek to answer that question, knowing that if they side with the challengers the ruling could severely destabilize the structure of the entire law.
:
:
Challengers say those four words - "established by the State" - in a section of the law make clear that subsidies are only available to those living in the 16 states that set up their own exchanges.

Michael Carvin, the lead lawyer representing the Virginia plaintiffs, argued in Court that the IRS—an agency charged with implementing the ACA—was wrong to interpret it as offering subsidies to more than 5 million people living in states that have federally run exchanges. He said that Congress limited the subsidies in order to encourage the states to set up their own exchanges, but when only a few states acted the IRS tried to "fix" the law.
:
:
A ruling against the government wouldn't nullify the law, but absent a fix by Congress or the States, it would destabilize it. If millions of American were to lose the tax subsidies and as a result not buy insurance, it would cause premiums to skyrocket in the individual market because there would be less healthy people in the pool.
:
:
Some 6.4 million enrollees in the affected states could lose their subsidies as soon as Aug. 1, depending on how the court rules. The subsidies are what make Obamacare plans affordable for most enrollees. Some 87% of those participating receive this government assistance, which comes to an average of $272 a month.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Ready to get this over with. Wish the Supremes would make a decision already. If it goes for Obama, great. If against, it'll be great political drama until election day.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/politi...ate/index.html

And millions will lose their healthcare and the whole insurance industry will be at risk.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

And millions will lose their healthcare and the whole insurance industry will be at risk.

I love it. When these programs are proposed it's always why worry about this it doesn't even effect you what about the people it effects! But when somebody wants to take them away a major industry is always going to collapse.

[JPhillips]

Because of how this would play out. Take the subsidies away without any alternative and things will fall apart. It doesn't have to end this way, but the GOP won't pass the one sentence bill that would keep this from happening.

[panerd]

Just so we are clear though when fiscal conservatives (not all the GOP obviously) oppose these grand plans because they realize it creates another monster government program they are labeled as racist, hating the poor, and tin foil conspiracists. But then when they try to remove the programs they can't for exactly the reasons they predicted.

[JPhillips]

Well your choice of words is overly grand, but I'll grant you that for me wanting to keep millions from having adequate health insurance and taking away adequate health insurance from millions are both objectionable.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Well your choice of words is overly grand, but I'll grant you that for me wanting to keep millions from having adequate health insurance and taking away adequate health insurance from millions are both objectionable.

Nice attempt at flipping the question. So again... when myself or another poster (or a legit conservative politician) says this will create another huge program that we will never be able to cut down or remove the response is some sort of allusion to the fact that we are just window dressing racism and are overselling the scale of the program. Now just a few years later that entire insurance industry will collapse if changes are made to the health care system? Seems like we can't ever cut back on any of these programs without some widespread calamity.

[JPhillips]

Since never called you out as racist, I don't need to address that strawman.

And again, as I said above, it isn't about any change, it's about this specific change. If you can change healthcare and make it better I'm willing to listen. If your goal is to make sure millions lose coverage with no plan on replacement, yeah, I object to that.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm not sure how its that difficult to follow that if the court removes a big piece of a bill, the rest of the bill may not function as well as it is supposed to (you know, due to all parts of a bill supposed to work together and stuff)

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Since never called you out as racist, I don't need to address that strawman.

And again, as I said above, it isn't about any change, it's about this specific change. If you can change healthcare and make it better I'm willing to listen. If your goal is to make sure millions lose coverage with no plan on replacement, yeah, I object to that.

My apologies. Your use of the term "tea bagger" for anything related to fiscal responsibility a few years ago was just part of the discussion and had no other implications whatsoever.

[ISiddiqui]

Um... ok. I mean you may not be a racist, but you are definitely an idiot.

[spleen1015]

ROFL.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Um... ok. I mean you may not be a racist, but you are definitely an idiot.

What enlightened discourse! Thanks for taking part in a back and forth between myself and JPhillips. You have really changed my mind to your more "open minded" way of thinking. (The funny part is a lot of liberals like you think they are so much better than everyone else and throw out the insults left and right)

[Edward64]

Alright, trying to bring this back to a less personal discussion ...

I guess this is better than the alternative, its a stop gap for the immediate situation ... and kicking the can down the road.

Senate GOP floats 2-year Obamacare fix - Jennifer Haberkorn and Burgess Everett - POLITICO

Senate Republicans are coalescing around a plan to extend Obamacare subsidies for up to two years if the Supreme Court strikes them this month.

The court is due to rule within days on whether the president’s health care law allows people using HealthCare.gov to get insurance subsidies. If the court rules against the White House and strikes the subsidies, Republicans say they want to be ready to protect the more than 6 million people who could lose their subsidies.

In a closed-door meeting Wednesday, Republicans crafted the outline of a plan that would extend the subsidies for a period of time — potentially through 2017 — and couple it with a delayed repeal of big-ticket pieces of Obamacare, such as the individual and employer mandates.

Democrats are unlikely to embrace any plan that derails the health law and President Barack Obama has said he would veto any bill that hurts his signature domestic policy achievement.

Republicans plan to frame the extension as a way to help people who would lose subsidies because of the law’s flawed construction, not as an extension of Obamacare. Sources said they may even call it a “grandfathering” of the existing subsidies.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

What enlightened discourse! Thanks for taking part in a back and forth between myself and JPhillips. You have really changed my mind to your more "open minded" way of thinking. (The funny part is a lot of liberals like you think they are so much better than everyone else and throw out the insults left and right)

What discourse? I see JPhillips trying to engage in discourse and you trying to claim he called you a racist. In his most recent post, he denied calling you a racist and tried to continue a substantive discussion about the health care law. Your response ignored the substantive parts of the discussion (either because you don't want to discuss it or are simply unable to) and reverted to a bizarre accusation from years ago about how using the term teabaggers = calling you racist.

I have to admit that calling ISiddiqui a liberal was pretty funny, though. Good one.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Alright, trying to bring this back to a less personal discussion ...

I guess this is better than the alternative, its a stop gap for the immediate situation ... and kicking the can down the road.

Senate GOP floats 2-year Obamacare fix - Jennifer Haberkorn and Burgess Everett - POLITICO

This is just politics. There's no way Obama will sign a bill killing the individual mandate and if he did the insurance industry would collapse as everyone would cancel insurance until they needed it. Completely repealing the ACA is a much better option.

[molson]

My state has finally started getting aggressive on going after this kind of fraud after ignoring it forever, it's really nice to see the federal government get a takedown like this. And this just scratches the surface how much fraud there are in these systems. There's always been really easy money available for health care providers if they want it.

FBI — Health Care Fraud Takedown

[JPhillips]

The Governor of Maryland announced today that he has "very advanced" and "very aggressive" non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Fuck cancer.

[cartman]

King v. Burwell is upheld, 6-3. The ACA subsidies are ruled legal.

[ISiddiqui]

The decision:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...4-114_qol1.pdf

I think this is the operative part from the Chief:

The combination of no tax credits and an ineffective coverage requirement
could well push a State’s individual insurance market into
a death spiral. It is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate
in this manner. Congress made the guaranteed issue and
community rating requirements applicable in every State in the Nation,
but those requirements only work when combined with the coverage
requirement and tax credits. It thus stands to reason that
Congress meant for those provisions to apply in every State as well.
Pp. 15–19.

Which... yeah, of course. But conservatives thought they got a gotcha - as if they assumed every conservative on the court was more of a textualist (hint, Roberts and Kennedy definitely are not)

[Kodos]

Excellent.

[SirFozzie]

Or shorter version, from the decision:

"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them."

[JPhillips]

I was reading someone last week that argued Kennedy and maybe Roberts would use the same logic as they did with Medicaid expansion, you can't force states to make a decision that could cause great harm. Were there any specific references to that in the decision? It certainly seems like that's what the decision boils down to, Congress can't say establish an exchange or we'll kill the insurance market in your state by withholding subsidies.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I was reading someone last week that argued Kennedy and maybe Roberts would use the same logic as they did with Medicaid expansion, you can't force states to make a decision that could cause great harm. Were there any specific references to that in the decision? It certainly seems like that's what the decision boils down to, Congress can't say establish an exchange or we'll kill the insurance market in your state by withholding subsidies.

Nope. Nothing about federalism at all. Just straight you have to read the statute in a way that it would make sense, and Congress wouldn't intend to have a rule where the federal subsidies don't go to a non-state run exchange (added to that the federal subsidies never seem to be an incentive to create a state run exchange).

In a way, as Reason's blog indicated, it's a very judicial restraint type of decision - give a great degree of deference to Congress in their drafting of the law (even though Roberts constantly says it was a very poorly drafted law).

[Butter]

Found it interesting that in Obama's interview on the WTF podcast, he talked about this very subject, and even addressed one of the arguments from above, that while maybe he and many of his supporters would ultimately like a single-payer system and were disappointed when it didn't work out, switching to that in one fell swoop would have a result of putting millions that are employed in the health insurance industry out of work and definitely have a very negative impact to the economy short-term.

Referred to making course changes of 2 degrees instead of 50 degrees all at once.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Found it interesting that in Obama's interview on the WTF podcast, he talked about this very subject, and even addressed one of the arguments from above, that while maybe he and many of his supporters would ultimately like a single-payer system and were disappointed when it didn't work out, switching to that in one fell swoop would have a result of putting millions that are employed in the health insurance industry out of work and definitely have a very negative impact to the economy short-term.

Referred to making course changes of 2 degrees instead of 50 degrees all at once.

That's been my problem with single payer. I think it's a better system, but we've got such a deeply entrenched private system that we can't just walk away from it in one swoop.