US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2080

On July 03 2015 12:02 Bagration wrote:


Lol

I'm guessing you're under the age of 18? It seems like you don't quite remember the days of the Bush Administration



I don't know if Bush has such an easy road anymore. He has good fundraising and establishment connections, but he's not doing so well in Iowa, and New Hampshire is getting more competitive by the day as moderate candidates are making it a do or die state. I still think he's the favorite, but it won't be an easy fight.

Right now it's a bit too early to conclude anything definitive from the polls, so Trump coming in 2nd could just be the recent media buzz. Remember Herman Cain won some polls as well back in 2012, but he wasn't really a serious candidate either (albeit more serious than Trump).

On July 03 2015 14:42 Velocirapture wrote:
I think it is too early to think of polling as indicating electability but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people on this site are more beholden to polls this time around. A huge part of the conservative narrative last time around was that the polls were using an outdated model and the race was a lot closer than they showed. This delusion held out up until Obama took Florida and proceeded to win almost exactly as the polls predicted.

I like Bernie on almost everything although I am a little wary of his 300 billion a year tax on speculation. I am also curious how he would use the presidency to inspire millions of Americans to march on Washington to demand congressional compromise. This all said, you don't get do lead unless you win and Hillary seems way more electable. My perception is that she would be a "do nothing" president but that is way better than a Republican rolling back Obama's signature policies before they have time to bear fruit.

If it came down to a Clinton vs Bush general, I would probably (barring a revelation) vote Clinton with a clear conscious.

On July 04 2015 03:19 Yoav wrote:

Can I be clear? We hate that shit. Why? Every fucking assignment would be too long if we were "adequately addressing the topic."

"You have 2 days, get me a paper on the existence of God in 3 pages." It's bullshit, but less bullshit than "You have 2 days, get me a paper that adequately discusses whether God exists." Because half the assignments they give you in college and most they give you in high school (thankfully less in grad school due to less strict assignments, allowing narrowing) deserve full books written on them to "adequately address the topic." Fuck that.

On July 04 2015 05:29 Surth wrote:
So don't force them to write about the existence of god. Let them choose their own topics and you'll get them to write about stuff they actually care about too.

In what could prove the largest-ever merger in the insurance industry, Aetna has announced a $37 billion deal to acquire rival Humana.

The agreement, announced by the Hartford, Conn.-based Aetna, "would bolster Aetna's presence in the state- and federally funded Medicaid program and Tricare coverage for military personnel and their families," according to The Associated Press.

Word of the cash and stock agreement comes a day after Centene said it would pay $6.3 billion to buy Health Net. According to the AP, the Centene-Health Net merger "would help Centene expand in the nation's biggest Medicaid market, California, and give it a Medicare presence in several Western states."

Reuters notes that the deal between Aetna and Humana "will push Aetna close to Anthem Inc.'s No. 2 insurer spot by membership and would nearly triple Aetna's Medicare Advantage business," but adds that the agreement still faces antitrust scrutiny.

Diplomats said Saturday that Iran and six world powers have reached tentative agreement on sanctions relief for Tehran, among the most contentious issues in a long-term nuclear agreement that negotiators hope to clinch over the next several days.

Experts have hammered out an annex, one of five meant to accompany the agreement, outlining which U.S. and international sanctions will be lifted and how quickly.

The diplomats told The Associated Press on Saturday that the document has been agreed on by experts for both sides, who have been working on details of the outline to implement the preliminary agreement reached in November 2013.

The senior officials in the talks, which include U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, still had to sign off on the package, a senior administration official said.

"Even if and when issues get resolved at an experts level, there will remain some open issues that can only be decided by ministers,” said the official, who asked not to be named.

Still, the word of significant progress indicated that the sides were moving closer to a comprehensive accord that would set a decade of restrictions on Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for tens of billions of dollars' in economic benefits for the Iranians.

Officials had described sanctions relief as one of the thorniest disagreements between Iran and the United States, which has led the international pressure campaign against Iran's economy. The U.S. and much of the world fears Iran's enrichment of uranium and other activity could be designed to make nuclear weapons; Iran says its program is meant only to generate power and for other peaceful purposes.

The diplomats, who weren't authorized to speak publicly on this past week's confidential negotiations in Vienna, said the sanctions annex was completed this week by experts from Iran and the six world powers with whom it is negotiating: the United States, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia. They did not provide details of the agreement.

A senior U.S. official did not dispute the diplomats' account, but said work remained to be done on "Annex II" before the issue could be described as finalized.

Negotiators are striving to wrap up the deal by July 7.

On July 05 2015 12:30 Danglars wrote:
The current religious fervor surrounding Bernie doesn't make him any less a nut in that vein, dathfoley. Just because you disagree with what Trump and Santorum represented doesn't make that comparison moot. You might think his chances higher, I would expect no less from a supporter, but that guy was a no-name before 6 months ago and his splash is just from the newness of an unrepentant socialist.

Donald Trump continues to stand by controversial comments he made about Mexican immigrants as his standings in Republican primary polls improve despite increasing criticism.

The presidential hopeful placed ahead of perceived front-runner Jeb Bush in a new aggregated 'poll of polls' with 13.6 per cent support compared to the former Florida governor's 13.3.

The rise comes as public figures and businesses continue to admonish Trump because of the comments saying that those crossing the border from Mexico illegally were 'rapists'.

Former Republican candidate Mitt Romney told CNN Saturday that the businessman 'made a severe error in saying what he did about Mexican-Americans'.

On July 05 2015 16:56 CapnAmerica wrote:
I'm pretty sure his point is just more that the "electability" of those right-wing candidates and Bernie are similar. They're both going to be on the party fringes and as a result have a huge uphill battle to secure the primary and later on the presidency. It's a lot easier for a 'neutral' candidate to run than someone who is strongly in favor of certain political values.

Also, Bernie Sanders has been representing what he represents as a senator for years, so it's not really that his politics are new at all. He just hasn't tried to run for President.

On July 05 2015 17:04 GreenHorizons wrote:


They really aren't though. Sanders appeals to far more people than conservatives and some democrats give him credit for.

Sanders has life long republicans supporting him because they feel abandoned by the party. The only Republican that could win a national election (Bush) is second only to Trump in negatives.

The Republican wave is over, they are already behind again in party identification, and most of their positions are just atrocious rhetorical word vomit (at best) and won't stand up in real debates.

On July 05 2015 21:39 CapnAmerica wrote:


What I mean isn't that he can't have broad appeal but that by leaning to the left he is moving away from part of the Democrat party base. For instance, someone who might approve of his social views might disagree with his pro-Union views, or take issue with some other more liberal element of his political platform.

Yeah, the Republican party has some awful white-guy-who-hopefully-won't-set-us-back-20-years candidates, but THEIR strong voting base is with conservatives -- whether fiscal or religious. Santorum as an individual appeals strongly to the latter. I'm not saying that they're equal in terms of the vote they could draw, but that they are both appealing to certain elements politically of their voting base that don't necessarily include all party members. It's just the nature of our two party system.

Just to clarify here, though, without being too partisan... I loved what Bernie did as Senator while I was still living in VT and he definitely has what I see as the right ideas for our country (or at least the right direction to move in) but I also don't see him as a presidential candidate who will win (at least not yet). It's less about systematically evaluating his traits and views and more about how many people may vote by name. A Bush vs. Clinton election is a battle of 'historic' presidential names that less educated voters will recognize, and even without knowing the merits of the candidates some people will vote for the name. Bernie Sanders doesn't have that advantage. He's not the running leader in the party.

As for your last comment... there are good Republicans on a local level, but few on a state and none on a national level that do truly show a comprehensive understanding of what their party used to represent. I do think that the party as a whole has lost its head, but it takes time for the electorate to change and a number of people do vote purely on party lines. Time will tell what happens and what percentage of the population is actually reached by the campaigns each person runs.