2016 Presidential Campaign

[Townsend]

Wrong thread.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Wrong thread.

[AquaMan]

Seriously? You are blaming persons other than the crafters of the ACA for this bullcrap nightmare? It's the GOP's fault the website was/is all f'd up? That enrollments numbers are screwed?  

As for repealing it, by all means focus on the number of times that the House voted to "repeal" the Act vs. the number of waivers given from its enforcement. Here's an article addressing the number of repeal attempts by the House meme. http://washingtonexaminer.com/no-house-republicans-havent-voted-50-times-to-repeal-obamacare/article/2545733

Bullcrap nightmare. Your words, not mine. GOP's fault the website f'd up? Your thought and words, not mine. Enrollment numbers screwed? I didn't expect the numbers you did apparently having viewed the process in a different manner. Don't care or see the relationship between waivers and attempts to repeal therefore any links to numbers of attempts elude importance.

Read for comprehension rather than speed.

[AquaMan]

Gueed, You have to realize that any attempt by congress to fix Obamacare will always be perceived as a threat to Obamacare, because it would be an admission that the law is deeply flawed, and that it's provisions were simply campaign promises not meant to stand up to reality.

Of course, repeal at this point is not possible, nor is any meaningful repair.  The law will simply have to die slowly as provisions, work-arounds, and new exemptions are passed that chip away at the various mandates and public burdens imposed by the law. Eventually it will just be another ridiculous law on the books, just like the Oklahoma law that makes it illegal to wear boots in bed.

It was an expensive lesson though.

Fix? That's cute. Apparently the words of anti-O's and anti-ACA's are not matching their actions. Even though their leaders admitted recently that they cannot repeal the act their minions are busy trying to make sure it can never meet expectations through funding, campaigning and propaganda. Candidates continue to run on the platform of repealing or underfunding the ACA. The latest conservative senate candidate with a capital C is from Oklahoma and says just that in his campaigning.

Sounds to me like the same description you would give to Social Security. Is that the law you're writing about?

[guido911]

Candidates continue to run on the platform of repealing or underfunding the ACA.

And why do you think that is? And why are the dems NOT running on the ACA? Keep lobbing the softballs...

[Gaspar]

And why do you think that is? And why are the dems NOT running on the ACA? Keep lobbing the softballs...

Duh! Because the GOP and Tea Party have been so outrageously successful at marketing the imaginary problems with the otherwise perfect Obamacare program.

[Conan71]

I mean no offense, but that's all balderdash. Use my analogy. You are blaming the director of the play for a traffic tie up from a freak snowstorm where the Mayor of the city failed to plan for snow removal and the governor of the state blocked traffic from nearby suburbs. So, the director must have failed because he chose the city and the state.

Your remarks imply that we don't have a balance of powers, that states rights are dead and that politics plays no part in history. I am surprised at that from you.  When the legislative branch is dominated by opponents who fail to even approve of your appointments for judicial positions, argue over your cabinet positions, who spend their time yelling out "job killer!" at proposals past Congress's have bipartisan approved, who set up confrontations to shut down government with little reason other than politics and selfish interest, then you have to be disingenuous to believe that this president, or any president in this time period could set an agenda and simply push it through with a slim majority in a single house. Then throw in backwoods, Harley riding governors (princes) who refuse to co-operate with federal programs even for their own constituents benefit and you have a mighty witches brew to lay on the back of one executive.

Do you ever accidentally come across one of your posts from years back and wonder who wrote that? I do. Sometimes I am surprised by my thought process, but generally stay fairly consistent. You will be embarrassed by those above remarks when you emerge from this time period of severe politicization and see how this country survived some very disastrous events that were handled with aplomb and intelligence. We are literally in a state of ignorance where information is carefully channeled and framed. Oklahoma.

I never have to question anything I've written a few years back.  I've always been a consistent fiscal conservative.  If anything, my social views have softened over the years, but I'd find nothing I'd written on gay marriage ten years ago that would cause great remorse now.

Not sure how you segued into municipal and state government when we are discussing the president and how he has failed on campaign promises.  He's not a director and his minions are not actors.  They are charged with running the country.  This isn't a Broadway production.

This particular president has taken to executive order to usurp the function of Congress in their oversight.  He views an opposition Congress as opposed to him and his policies simply for the sake of spite.  He believes it's either because they are racist, tea baggers, or what ever other bogeyman he and his handlers choose to call them.  What's forgotten in the checks and balances of power is those representatives are charged with representing those who elected them from their home districts.  Those from conservative-leaning districts are expected to vote along those lines.  Those from more liberal districts are expected to vote along those lines.

His signature piece of legislation would not even exist if done on straight up or down voting, it was done by reconciliation.

[AquaMan]

So, when TU wins, its a team effort. But when they lose, its that great new coach.

Balance of powers means that it takes a team to run the government, not an emperor. I learned from an executive at Cities Service years ago that government is run by the heads of bureaus, commissions, agencies etc and its their politics that matter. Their careers are measured in decades. A president and his appointments are temporary, at most 8 years, and can be obfuscated for quite some time before their interests are met. Its amazing we get anything done at all.

For such an inept, incompetent, cronyist, spiteful, racist, naive politician he sure seems to have gotten some big ones past the good guys.

[Gaspar]

When you pass legislation based on doing what you feel is best for the people, rather than doing what the people want, you get bad legislation.

Our government is based on individual liberty, including the liberty to choose poorly. Regardless of the perceived need for a law, people will not accept legislation if they feel their participation (their choice) in the process was circumvented or otherwise bypassed.  More than 50% of Americans oppose Obamacare.  That is not because of the GOP, or the Teaheads or the Illuminati. They oppose Obamacare, because Obamacare is not what they were promised when the president and Pelosi asked for their trust.  

It must be obvious that liberty necessarily means freedom to choose foolishly as well as wisely; freedom to choose evil as well as good; freedom to enjoy the rewards of good judgment, and freedom to suffer the penalties of bad judgment. If this is not true, the word "freedom" has no meaning. – Ben Moreell

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. – C. S. Lewis

[AquaMan]

When you pass legislation based on doing what you feel is best for the people, rather than doing what the people want, you get bad legislation.

Our government is based on individual liberty, including the liberty to choose poorly. Regardless of the perceived need for a law, people will not accept legislation if they feel their participation (their choice) in the process was circumvented or otherwise bypassed.  More than 50% of Americans oppose Obamacare. That is not because of the GOP, or the Teaheads or the Illuminati. They oppose Obamacare, because Obamacare is not what they were promised when the president and Pelosi asked for their trust.  

It must be obvious that liberty necessarily means freedom to choose foolishly as well as wisely; freedom to choose evil as well as good; freedom to enjoy the rewards of good judgment, and freedom to suffer the penalties of bad judgment. If this is not true, the word "freedom" has no meaning. – Ben Moreell

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. – C. S. Lewis

I know perception is important to you as a release from reality. But the text in purple up there is ludicrous. Opinion at best. Spin for sure. Fox worthy my friend. It must truly gaul you to know such an inept administration will last 8 years and has passed such historic legislation in spite of your best efforts.

[Gaspar]

I know perception is important to you as a release from reality. But the text in purple up there is ludicrous. Opinion at best. Spin for sure. Fox worthy my friend. It must truly gaul you to know such an inept administration will last 8 years and has passed such historic legislation in spite of your best efforts.

Ok, I'll help you.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/11/cnn-poll-support-for-obamacare-edges-up/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167756/number-americans-saying-aca-hurt-inches.aspx
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/now-some-unions-upset-over-obamacare/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/

[Townsend]

Ok, I'll help you.

Which link supports your claim?

[RecycleMichael]

I could have swore that this thread was about the 2016 Presidential Campaign. Just as I thought, it was just another in an unending TulsaNow campaign by gaspar to attack Obama.

Does anyone have anything to say about the 2016 Presidential Campaign?

[Hoss]

I could have swore that this thread was about the 2016 Presidential Campaign. Just as I thought, it was just another in an unending TulsaNow campaign by gaspar to attack Obama.

Does anyone have anything to say about the 2016 Presidential Campaign?

I noticed last week that one of the talking heads at MSNBC was imploring Hillary not to run, because her and other Dems have a better candidate in mind -- Elizabeth Warren.  She implored Hillary to stay out because she knew that if she got in, Warren could not beat her.  I like Warren, but I don't think she has the temperament to be a Commander in Chief.

Myself?  It's still far too early.  I think Rand Paul and Marco Rubio will toss their hats in the ring on the right.  The left?  I think is presumptive to think Hillary will run, but now she has the pressure on her to do so.  Biden will run as well.  And of course, we'll see the Green candidates like we always do.

The right will have two candidates -- one that appeals to the far right fringe of the party, and one that appeals to the moderates.

It doesn't really look...to me anyway... that this cycle will be much different than the last for the Republicans.  Christie will likely not run, as his brand might be a little too damaged, and the hard line right wingers still blame him for Obama's re-election.  I might be wrong though, and he might get there if he joins late to distance himself from all this bridge stuff.

It will be interesting to watch.

What will be more interesting is to watch to see if the Republican Party doesn't implode on itself before the 2014 midterms.

[Gaspar]

I noticed last week that one of the talking heads at MSNBC was imploring Hillary not to run, because her and other Dems have a better candidate in mind -- Elizabeth Warren.  She implored Hillary to stay out because she knew that if she got in, Warren could not beat her.  I like Warren, but I don't think she has the temperament to be a Commander in Chief.

Myself?  It's still far too early.  I think Rand Paul and Marco Rubio will toss their hats in the ring on the right.  The left?  I think is presumptive to think Hillary will run, but now she has the pressure on her to do so.  Biden will run as well.  And of course, we'll see the Green candidates like we always do.

The right will have two candidates -- one that appeals to the far right fringe of the party, and one that appeals to the moderates.

It doesn't really look...to me anyway... that this cycle will be much different than the last for the Republicans.  Christie will likely not run, as his brand might be a little too damaged, and the hard line right wingers still blame him for Obama's re-election.  I might be wrong though, and he might get there if he joins late to distance himself from all this bridge stuff.

It will be interesting to watch.

What will be more interesting is to watch to see if the Republican Party doesn't implode on itself before the 2014 midterms.

Can't believe I'm saying this, but good analysis.

I think Warren may be too polarizing though. She is far to liberal for the DNC to field.