US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2171

On August 07 2015 22:28 Acrofales wrote:
Reading this excerpt from an article by the NYT:


Are the majority of republicans really still so vehemently against gay marriage? Hasn't that ship sailed, and public opinion turned?

The Obama administration continued its winning streak Friday when yet another appeals court ruled in favor of the accommodation offered to religious organizations seeking to opt out of the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate. A panel for the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that requiring religious objectors write a letter to the government declaring they seek to opt out contraceptive coverage does not constitute a substantial religious burden.

"In the process, eligible organizations are provided the opportunity to freely express their religious objection to such coverage as well as to extricate themselves from its provision," the decision, written by Justice Rosemary Pooler, said. "At the same time, insured individuals are not deprived of the benefits of contraceptive coverage."

Currently, certain religious organizations that say covering contraceptives for their employees' insurance plans violates their faith have two options to opt out: they can file a Department of Labor form to a third-party administrator or they can send a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services expressing their objection. From there the HHS notifies a third-party administrator, which in turn, sees to it that the employees still get contraceptive coverage but that it is not paid for by the objecting employer. That latter route was created in response to a Supreme Court order after its Hobby Lobby decision in 2014 and finalized last month.

In Friday's case -- as well as other cases across the country -- the challengers say that just even notifying the government of their objections violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, arguing that employers are still complicit in providing employees birth control they object to as it triggers a process to see to it that employees' contraceptive care is still covered.

But the 2nd Circuit panel disagreed, becoming the latest in a series of appeals courts to rule against that line of logic.

If you simply tally the number of warheads, the United States’ nuclear stockpile looks like a shadow of what it once was. The number of warheads held by the U.S. peaked in 1967 at over 31,000, but has been steadily declining, mainly through a series of treaties with nuclear rival Russia. By February 2018, the deadline for the most recent treaty, the U.S. will have pared down its active strategic arsenal (warheads ready to launch) to 1,605, the lowest number since Dwight Eisenhower was president.

And yet, American taxpayers will soon be spending more on nuclear weapons in real dollars than they have since the end of the Cold War. In October 2013, just four months after calling for yet another one-third reduction in the stockpile, President Barack Obama announced plans to “modernize” the entire nuclear arsenal over the next 30 years, arguing that updating and replacing the so-called nuclear triad — the submarines, jets and ballistic missiles designed to deliver warheads — will help create a leaner, sleeker nuclear fleet. But leaner doesn’t mean cheaper, at least not in the short term. According to a recent study by two researchers at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, Jeffrey Lewis and Jon Wolfsthal, Obama’s modernization program could carry a price tag of over $1 trillion, vaulting nuclear weapons spending relative to the overall defense budget to a level comparable to the 1980s.

It’s a common misconception that the declining stockpile of warheads means a corresponding decrease in costs, says Tariq Rauf, Director of the Disarmament and Arms Control program at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which tracks nuclear programs across the globe. Not only is dismantling and decommissioning warheads expensive, but what’s left of the aging U.S. arsenal requires more maintenance, Rauf explains. “The military doesn’t want warheads on its planes and subs that have the possibility of accidental detonation,” he said. At the same time, the push for “modernized” hardware that can reliably and efficiently produce the explosive power that the military wants incurs new costs. “This is a complex technological challenge that costs a lot of money,” Rauf said.

Watchdog groups say the lack of transparency behind Obama's ambitious nuclear weapons spending is worrying. Except for an unprecedented data release on the nuclear stockpile in 2010, the government doesn't provide comprehensive budget estimates for its nuclear weapons programs. Instead, the budget for nuclear weapons spending is spread across two different departments, Defense and Energy, and it often overlaps with conventional military spending. A regular bomber, for example, can be “nuclear certified” to carry nuclear warheads, meaning that its cost might be hidden in the conventional military budget. In other cases, research and design programs for nuclear weapons modernization are classified and therefore don’t show up in spending estimates at all.

On August 07 2015 22:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


It really did come off like they were out to get him, and it just made him look better imo. Just like his past interviews with people who couldn't handle him.

On August 08 2015 00:31 Yoav wrote:


Well, it's not quite true--but its close--to say Republicans are the most conservative 40% of people in the country. About 40% of the country is against gay marriage. You can see how it would be the overwhelming majority of the GOP. Admittedly, Kasich is technically among them, so the numbers are a little misleading. If everybody who was against gay marriage attributed that to their being "old-fashioned" and emphasized the universal and overriding imperative of Christian love and acceptance for everybody irrespective of sexual orientation, this would be an obsolete issue. Unfortunately, the entire GOP is not made of people who agree with Kasich. That said, he got a really loud cheer with that line. So clearly there are at least some GOPers on board with him.

On August 08 2015 02:48 LimpingGoat wrote:
I usually hate to sort of buy into the whole it's all a conspiracy and the real nominee is going to be picked behind closed doors. But the real nominee is going to be picked behind closed doors. Fox News clearly has decided that Trump is out. It looks like Fiorina, Kasich, and obviously Bush are the republicans real pool of candidates. I think it'd be funny if they went with Bush, I think Kasich would be scary for Hillary, assuming she gets nominated, he is really likable.

On August 08 2015 02:21 Danglars wrote:

Kasich also raised the ire of gun rights supporters (Clinton 1994 bill), likes expansion of sales tax to your banks and entertainment venue while nominally opposed to tax increases, has the clueless RINO evolved stance on immigration, and generally disagrees with conservative positions, period. He might be slightly to the right of Bush-Christie-Graham, but that's really splitting moderate hairs. I don't think he has anything good about him that will create an enduring appeal needed after debates.

I doubt anybody would notice if every gay marriage opponent spent 99 minutes on Christian love and compassion to every 1 minute on ramifications of state imprimatur of gay unions. Simply take a look at your modern progressive activist. It doesn't matter what you say beforehand if the end stops short of the full embrace of the marriage change. The only attention you'll receive is hate-filled bigoted religious nutcase. You don't get bonus points for wanting the issue in state legislatures. It doesn't matter how eloquently you state your case of Jesus's open arms for everyone. You're gone if you aren't glad it was done. To some, you must also want your pastor to marry gays, be open to churches losing non-profit status for the refusal, and desire your denomination to accept gay couples as pastors. I think its remarkably novice to think your mentioned tactics obsoletes anything at all. The acceptance of social issue nuance is a casualty on the modern politics battlefield.

On August 08 2015 02:24 Gorsameth wrote:
Some things that stood out to me from the Republican debate
- These governors being proud of balancing budgets without raising taxes, wonder what critical things they cut to make that happen

On August 08 2015 04:23 Yoav wrote:
On the God question, the problem is they asked the wrong guys the wrong question. Here's how you do a religion question:

-Governor Bush, you claim your pro-life and anti-marriage opinions are rooted in your faith. Beyond political convenience, how do you justify ignoring Catholic ideas on other important points, like taxes, poverty, war and the death penalty?

-Mr. Trump you say you consider yourself religious, but say you've never asked God for forgiveness. Do you ask other people for forgiveness? Do you think you ever make mistakes?

On August 08 2015 02:48 LimpingGoat wrote:
I usually hate to sort of buy into the whole it's all a conspiracy and the real nominee is going to be picked behind closed doors. But the real nominee is going to be picked behind closed doors. Fox News clearly has decided that Trump is out. It looks like Fiorina, Kasich, and obviously Bush are the republicans real pool of candidates. I think it'd be funny if they went with Bush, I think Kasich would be scary for Hillary, assuming she gets nominated, he is really likable.

On August 08 2015 04:26 Gorsameth wrote:
And Trump would just say he made mistakes because he is human. Your not going to pin anything on him like that.

On August 08 2015 06:03 Sermokala wrote:
The Bush family has a fundraising war machine unlike anything seen in modern history. they've got old money contacts from the nixon-reagen days that they've been able to use as credibility to relate to more modern heavy money men.

And to be fair he was the prince that was promised to the republican party George the mad was not the ruler his father intended to take the crown.

On August 08 2015 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:


Bush is trapped by it being commodity money (oil,NG, etc...) Sheldon could change the campaign financing picture overnight.

On August 08 2015 06:25 Sermokala wrote:

The thing about commodity money in america is that it goes into other industries like telecommunications and housing. Immigrants want to buy phones too.