|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 23 2016 07:22 Atreides wrote:
I am quite certain I do not qualify for any <1k yearly traditional insurances. Close though. Last time I looked into it was ~116/month or something.
My specific case is really besides the point anyways, there is no way that we should be forcing people to have insurance just to hold up the system in its current state. People always use the catastrophic cases as examples. I'm fine with those, I'm fine with doing my part to pay for those. I'm not fine with holding up a system where every time someone sneezes they go spend 200$ because it's not actually their money they are spending.
Anyways. I'm about to head back to my little hole with no internet besides my phone where I cant be bothered to post on forums. Excuse my one day interruption.
Yeah, the tax penalty is not necessarily more expensive than someone's cheapest/worst insurance options. And there's a problem because the prices of basic things don't translate sensibly to out-of-pocket costs without health insurance coverage. There's way too much administration and bureaucracy - people in the healthcare industry doing things besides healthcare. It's similar to the problem US universities have being flooded with administrators driving up tuition fees.
|
On February 23 2016 07:31 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 06:51 Plansix wrote:
The main issue with prescription and checkups is they cost a lot and there is no way for me to “shop around” for lower costs. I could, but if my doctor sends my blood work off to the lab and they dump a $350 lab bill on my lap four months later, there is no way to plan for that.
Seriously, I got a lab bill from a year check up a year ago because my insurance refused to cover all of it. After 5 phone calls, I yelled at them and told them they need to bill within 90 days of the service or I’m reporting them to the attorney general. Until they overhaul the system, no normal person can be expected to deal with this non-sense.
One of the unfortunate things about our system is you really have to be your own advocate. You ALWAYS have to ask "is this specific test being performed at this specific lab covered by my insurance" and the like. There are a lot of patient advocacy and protection regulations that would do regular people a lot of good. If you do your research, you can oftentimes find a lower cost prescription alternative. I went to the doctor awhile ago because of an infection/ allergic reaction in my right eye and initially got prescribed something that had a $30 out of pocket. Checked my phone for a generic, got a prescription for something that cost me under a dollar.
I don't mind being my own advocate and the blood work was 100% necessary. I mind that they can't tell me the price or if it is 100% covered. Or that they can attempt to bill me a year later for that garbage. And its not like it wasn't bad before the ACA. In many ways its was worse.
|
On February 23 2016 07:23 Plansix wrote:
Once again, we cite the Senate majority leader saying they will reject all of Obama’s nominees one hour after a Supreme Court Justice died. And that has been the story for the last 3 years. It so bad, Harry Reid used the nuclear option on the senate just to get other judges confirmed because the senate refused to even vote on the issue.
It is rich saying its all his fault the Republicans don’t want to work with him. This coming from a group of people that think compromise is a dirty word.
The SCOTUS stuff is a perfect example of the Republican party currently.
RParty: "Obama is weak!"
Reporter: "What about him pushing to replace Scalia?"
RParty: "Obama shouldn't do that!"
Reporter: "Would you do it?"
RParty: "Of course I would, I'm not weak"
What concerns me the most about this election is that there will still be so many people that support Trump and his ideas even if he loses.
For example, even if Trump loses, SC republicans are still going to want to ban religion a specific religion.
|
On February 23 2016 07:25 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 07:15 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2016 04:36 ticklishmusic wrote:
xDaunt:
"Obama is overstepping his bounds with executive orders and is a tyrant"
"He's a weak leader" Two things. First, I haven't really criticized Obama for his use of executive orders. As long as he's acting within his constitutional authority, I don't have a problem with it. That said, he has clearly overstepped his bounds at times and gotten slapped for it (like with immigration). Second, "leadership" doesn't mean going it alone. It necessarily getting other people to follow you. This is what Obama has not done and is the object of my criticism. Fair enough, my argument was pretty shitty upon 10 seconds looking at it. Like others have said, your definition of leadership gives Obama a shitty score, kind of like how BMI would say a world-class Olympic weightlifter is obese (he's just swole). Obama has tried to meet the Republicans halfway, but they've more often than not just burnt the bridge in an attempt to kill his administration. He's had plenty of meetings with leaders of Congress from both parties, both separately and apart.
He deserves a shitty score. If people want to argue that his failure to get anything done is largely a function of the republicans, that's fine. However, with those considers, at best, Obama is a medicore leader. Suggesting that he was "good" simply doesn't fly.
I forget, but what was your opinion about the Republicans declaring Obama shouldn't be allowed to even nominate someone for the Supreme Court? And what about them snubbing the guy he sent to talk about the budget (I forget the precise naming, but hopefully you know what incident I'm referring to).
I don't know what you're talking about with the budget, but I'm not on board with the republicans saying that Obama can't nominate someone. Of course he can.
|
Oh ya, on the topic at hand as someone who will vote for trump in the general if he gets there. Hes an idiot, he says idiotic things, and has idiotic ideas. Still it might be better than putting another career politician up there. I think there should be term limits on congress and that in general congressmen make HORRENDOUS presidents.
|
@xDaunt
Just grabbing first link I found:
Congressional Republicans went to new lengths to extinguish any such expectations. Breaking with a 41-year-old tradition, the Republican chairmen of the House and Senate budget committees announced that they would not even give the president’s budget director, Shaun Donovan, the usual hearings in their panels this week.
Source
I guess I can agree with your assertion he's a poor leader based on that particular definition of leadership-- but I would contend (again with the analogies), that's like saying Usain Bolt is slow when wearing 20lb weights or a blindfolded Messi is bad at football.
EDIT: and it's OK you don't take the bet. Shout out to all the Sanders supporters who refused to take my bet about NV and SC going Hillary's way.
|
On February 23 2016 07:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 04:18 kwizach wrote:On February 23 2016 04:02 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2016 03:59 Nyxisto wrote:On February 23 2016 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2016 03:52 Plansix wrote:
By what metric? The second Bush was "stronger" by leading us a 5 trillion dollar war based by bad intelligence? Of being able to pass his agenda with his party in control of both houses of congress? By failing to respond to a natural disaster on US soil and letting an entire city rot?
The only way W. Bush is a strong leader is if we change the metric to "most money spent on the military to blow up other countries." All of those presidents got shit done (regardless of whether you like what they did). All of them demonstrated an ability to work with the other side to pass grand legislation. All of them demonstrated an ability to work foreign relationships to accomplish real things on the global stage. Obama can't hold a candle to any of them on any of these fronts. That isn't really Obama's fault though. The Republican position on pretty much any topic is not functional on the international stage, be it climate change, working with Russia or Iran or Cuba. Blaming the republicans is a total copout. All Obama had to do was invite a republican to co-author an initiative to split the party and get it passed. However, Obama refused to do this. He's too arrogant and too much of an ideologue. He poisoned the process from the outset by announcing to the republican legislators that "he won," ergo he was not going to compromise. That's on him. I can't help but notice you have chickened away from the Clinton vs Trump bet I suggested. Color me unsurprised :-) I'm not ducking anything. I gave my reason for making the bet at this point already. Your asking second and third times isn't going to change my answer.
Your reason for not making the bet is why I can say you're ducking it. It's all good though, I wasn't expecting you to agree to it, since I think that deep down you know Clinton would trash Trump handily. How about responding to the 95% of my post which you omitted, about the documented fact that it was Republicans who decided on day 1 not to reach across the aisle and to be obstructionists instead?
|
Hillary Clinton wants to bring back the public option, offering a competing vision to Bernie Sanders’ support for a more progressive health care system.
Clinton's campaign has updated its website to note her continued support for the government-run health plan that was dropped from Obamacare during the law's drafting. The idea was popular among progressives who prefer a single-payer plan -- like the one Bernie Sanders is touting.
Clinton supported the public option in her 2008 presidential campaign, and during the drafting of the Affordable Care Act a year later, Congress debated allowing a government-run plan to compete with private insurers. However, the public option was eliminated from the legislation because of objections from moderate Senate Democrats who opposed a greater government role in providing health care.
But Clinton has hardly referenced her previous support for the idea during the 2016 campaign, and instead has called for building on President Barack Obama’s health care law.
Source
|
On February 23 2016 07:47 Atreides wrote:
Oh ya, on the topic at hand as someone who will vote for trump in the general if he gets there. Hes an idiot, he says idiotic things, and has idiotic ideas. Still it might be better than putting another career politician up there. I think there should be term limits on congress and that in general congressmen make HORRENDOUS presidents.
This is the type of reasoning that gets very bad people elected to office, like Rob Ford in Canada. At best they are incompetent and ignored by the rest of government. And that is at the very best.
|
On February 23 2016 07:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 07:25 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 23 2016 07:15 xDaunt wrote:On February 23 2016 04:36 ticklishmusic wrote:
xDaunt:
"Obama is overstepping his bounds with executive orders and is a tyrant"
"He's a weak leader" Two things. First, I haven't really criticized Obama for his use of executive orders. As long as he's acting within his constitutional authority, I don't have a problem with it. That said, he has clearly overstepped his bounds at times and gotten slapped for it (like with immigration). Second, "leadership" doesn't mean going it alone. It necessarily getting other people to follow you. This is what Obama has not done and is the object of my criticism. Fair enough, my argument was pretty shitty upon 10 seconds looking at it. Like others have said, your definition of leadership gives Obama a shitty score, kind of like how BMI would say a world-class Olympic weightlifter is obese (he's just swole). Obama has tried to meet the Republicans halfway, but they've more often than not just burnt the bridge in an attempt to kill his administration. He's had plenty of meetings with leaders of Congress from both parties, both separately and apart. He deserves a shitty score. If people want to argue that his failure to get anything done is largely a function of the republicans, that's fine. However, with those considers, at best, Obama is a medicore leader. Suggesting that he was "good" simply doesn't fly. Show nested quote +I forget, but what was your opinion about the Republicans declaring Obama shouldn't be allowed to even nominate someone for the Supreme Court? And what about them snubbing the guy he sent to talk about the budget (I forget the precise naming, but hopefully you know what incident I'm referring to). I don't know what you're talking about with the budget, but I'm not on board with the republicans saying that Obama can't nominate someone. Of course he can.
I think you're too focused on the Senate/House and have overlooked how much Obama has accomplished through other channels. Just this past year he's normalized relations with Cuba and arranged a major diplomatic deal with Iran.
The fact of the matter is Obama has been accomplishing things despite an obstructionist opposition. He's failed to accomplish some of his goals (e.g. gun control, closing Guantanamo Bay) but no president worth their salt accomplishes everything they set out to do.
|
On February 23 2016 07:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 07:47 Atreides wrote:
Oh ya, on the topic at hand as someone who will vote for trump in the general if he gets there. Hes an idiot, he says idiotic things, and has idiotic ideas. Still it might be better than putting another career politician up there. I think there should be term limits on congress and that in general congressmen make HORRENDOUS presidents. This is the type of reasoning that gets very bad people elected to office, like Rob Ford in Canada. At best they are incompetent and ignored by the rest of government. And that is at the very best.
Well the people that I think might actually make good presidents, can't even get the nomination. Age old issues of course. I do think Trump would likely do a better job for my personal values, interests, and issues than Hillary but he is hardly my first choice. A year ago I scoffed at the very notion like all the rest of you. 
(I am more interested in voting for him than either McCain or Romney as stated previously.)
|
On February 23 2016 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 07:23 Plansix wrote:
Once again, we cite the Senate majority leader saying they will reject all of Obama’s nominees one hour after a Supreme Court Justice died. And that has been the story for the last 3 years. It so bad, Harry Reid used the nuclear option on the senate just to get other judges confirmed because the senate refused to even vote on the issue.
It is rich saying its all his fault the Republicans don’t want to work with him. This coming from a group of people that think compromise is a dirty word.
The SCOTUS stuff is a perfect example of the Republican party currently. RParty: "Obama is weak!" Reporter: "What about him pushing to replace Scalia?" RParty: "Obama shouldn't do that!" Reporter: "Would you do it?" RParty: "Of course I would, I'm not weak" What concerns me the most about this election is that there will still be so many people that support Trump and his ideas even if he loses. For example, even if Trump loses, SC republicans are still going to want to ban religion a specific religion.
The thing that baffles me is it doesn't even make sense from a strategic perspective. Republicans are aware that Obama has the constitutional right to appoint another Supreme Court justice, but only with their consent. All they have to do is reject the judges they don't like, which would likely be all of them, until a Republican president is hypothetically elected in November. If Hillary is elected, they can either keep rejecting them for another 4-8 years or come to terms with the fact that the Supreme Court needs to be whole.
What they have done, is paint themselves into a corner for when Clinton is elected and they have been spouting off about how the next president should get to choose, as well as make themselves look like hypocrites for trying to circumvent Obama's constitutional responsibilities. It makes no sense. The only logical explanation I can come up with is that congressional Republicans have absolutely no faith in their ability to vote down Obama's choices, so they feel their only option is to try to get him to not put them up. But the chances of that happening are probably less than zero.
|
On February 23 2016 07:59 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2016 07:23 Plansix wrote:
Once again, we cite the Senate majority leader saying they will reject all of Obama’s nominees one hour after a Supreme Court Justice died. And that has been the story for the last 3 years. It so bad, Harry Reid used the nuclear option on the senate just to get other judges confirmed because the senate refused to even vote on the issue.
It is rich saying its all his fault the Republicans don’t want to work with him. This coming from a group of people that think compromise is a dirty word.
The SCOTUS stuff is a perfect example of the Republican party currently. RParty: "Obama is weak!" Reporter: "What about him pushing to replace Scalia?" RParty: "Obama shouldn't do that!" Reporter: "Would you do it?" RParty: "Of course I would, I'm not weak" What concerns me the most about this election is that there will still be so many people that support Trump and his ideas even if he loses. For example, even if Trump loses, SC republicans are still going to want to ban religion a specific religion. The thing that baffles me is it doesn't even make sense from a strategic perspective. Republicans are aware that Obama has the constitutional right to appoint another Supreme Court justice, but only with their consent. All they have to do is reject the judges they don't like, which would likely be all of them, until a Republican president is hypothetically elected in November. If Hillary is elected, they can either keep rejecting them for another 4-8 years or come to terms with the fact that the Supreme Court needs to be whole. What they have done, is paint themselves into a corner for when Clinton is elected and they have been spouting off about how the next president should get to choose, as well as make themselves look like hypocrites for trying to circumvent Obama's constitutional responsibilities. It makes no sense. The only logical explanation I can come up with is that congressional Republicans have absolutely no faith in their ability to vote down Obama's choices, so they feel their only option is to try to get him to not put them up. But the chances of that happening are probably less than zero.
Ya I completely agree with this. They have been quite stupid. Of course Obama should nominate some replacement. If they don't like them shoot them down. Saying he shouldn't make the appointment is incredibly head shake inducing.
|
On February 23 2016 07:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 07:47 Atreides wrote:
Oh ya, on the topic at hand as someone who will vote for trump in the general if he gets there. Hes an idiot, he says idiotic things, and has idiotic ideas. Still it might be better than putting another career politician up there. I think there should be term limits on congress and that in general congressmen make HORRENDOUS presidents. This is the type of reasoning that gets very bad people elected to office, like Rob Ford in Canada. At best they are incompetent and ignored by the rest of government. And that is at the very best.
As Kwark said, it all makes perfect sense when you see his attitude towards health insurance. He is the quintessential head strong American who would rather fuck up his own life and that of everyone around him then admit that maybe he is wrong and there is another way.
It is also yet another reason why the American Healthcare is so expensive. In the Netherlands 99.99...% of people are insured. A hospital knows that it will always get its money from the insurance company and is never left footing the bill. In America that is utterly not the case. so prices need to go up by X% because X% of the time there will be no one to pay the bills.
saying "I am healthy" is a moronic statement. there are a 1001 ways a completely healthy young adult can be struck by crippling medical bills from one day to the next. And costs are high enough that there is no way anyone is going to be able to pay those costs on their own.
|
On February 23 2016 07:59 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2016 07:23 Plansix wrote:
Once again, we cite the Senate majority leader saying they will reject all of Obama’s nominees one hour after a Supreme Court Justice died. And that has been the story for the last 3 years. It so bad, Harry Reid used the nuclear option on the senate just to get other judges confirmed because the senate refused to even vote on the issue.
It is rich saying its all his fault the Republicans don’t want to work with him. This coming from a group of people that think compromise is a dirty word.
The SCOTUS stuff is a perfect example of the Republican party currently. RParty: "Obama is weak!" Reporter: "What about him pushing to replace Scalia?" RParty: "Obama shouldn't do that!" Reporter: "Would you do it?" RParty: "Of course I would, I'm not weak" What concerns me the most about this election is that there will still be so many people that support Trump and his ideas even if he loses. For example, even if Trump loses, SC republicans are still going to want to ban religion a specific religion. The thing that baffles me is it doesn't even make sense from a strategic perspective. Republicans are aware that Obama has the constitutional right to appoint another Supreme Court justice, but only with their consent. All they have to do is reject the judges they don't like, which would likely be all of them, until a Republican president is hypothetically elected in November. If Hillary is elected, they can either keep rejecting them for another 4-8 years or come to terms with the fact that the Supreme Court needs to be whole. What they have done, is paint themselves into a corner for when Clinton is elected and they have been spouting off about how the next president should get to choose, as well as make themselves look like hypocrites for trying to circumvent Obama's constitutional responsibilities. It makes no sense. The only logical explanation I can come up with is that congressional Republicans have absolutely no faith in their ability to vote down Obama's choices, so they feel their only option is to try to get him to not put them up. But the chances of that happening are probably less than zero.
This is what I don't understand. If it is as simple as the senate saying no, where's the issue? If the senate has a republican majority, can't they block every single attempt? Why do people seem confident that Obama will end up replacing Scalia? Seems simple and easy to prevent it forever essentially.
|
On February 23 2016 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:@xDaunt Just grabbing first link I found: Show nested quote +Congressional Republicans went to new lengths to extinguish any such expectations. Breaking with a 41-year-old tradition, the Republican chairmen of the House and Senate budget committees announced that they would not even give the president’s budget director, Shaun Donovan, the usual hearings in their panels this week.
SourceI guess I can agree with your assertion he's a poor leader based on that particular definition of leadership-- but I would contend (again with the analogies), that's like saying Usain Bolt is slow when wearing 20lb weights or a blindfolded Messi is bad at football. EDIT: and it's OK you don't take the bet. Shout out to all the Sanders supporters who refused to take my bet about NV and SC going Hillary's way.
You ready for the nomination bet or do you realize the results in NV and projections on SC are actually really bad news for Hillary?
Sanders was never supposed to win either of them, he wasn't supposed to even be close. The narrative was basically that we would see NH like numbers in Hillary's favor in NV and SC, she may be able to hold onto a win, maybe even a big one, but it won't be the blowout she needs and has been predicted since Bernie got in the race.
Not to mention her camp had to pull every dirty trick they could in both IA and NV. Both had countless reports about caucuses going astray, particularly the counting of people who weren't at the caucus at the time of the counting.
You can pass it off as just quality cynicism if you'd like, but that's exactly what gets Sanders supporters fired up and ready to work.
|
On February 23 2016 08:03 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 07:59 ZasZ. wrote:On February 23 2016 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2016 07:23 Plansix wrote:
Once again, we cite the Senate majority leader saying they will reject all of Obama’s nominees one hour after a Supreme Court Justice died. And that has been the story for the last 3 years. It so bad, Harry Reid used the nuclear option on the senate just to get other judges confirmed because the senate refused to even vote on the issue.
It is rich saying its all his fault the Republicans don’t want to work with him. This coming from a group of people that think compromise is a dirty word.
The SCOTUS stuff is a perfect example of the Republican party currently. RParty: "Obama is weak!" Reporter: "What about him pushing to replace Scalia?" RParty: "Obama shouldn't do that!" Reporter: "Would you do it?" RParty: "Of course I would, I'm not weak" What concerns me the most about this election is that there will still be so many people that support Trump and his ideas even if he loses. For example, even if Trump loses, SC republicans are still going to want to ban religion a specific religion. The thing that baffles me is it doesn't even make sense from a strategic perspective. Republicans are aware that Obama has the constitutional right to appoint another Supreme Court justice, but only with their consent. All they have to do is reject the judges they don't like, which would likely be all of them, until a Republican president is hypothetically elected in November. If Hillary is elected, they can either keep rejecting them for another 4-8 years or come to terms with the fact that the Supreme Court needs to be whole. What they have done, is paint themselves into a corner for when Clinton is elected and they have been spouting off about how the next president should get to choose, as well as make themselves look like hypocrites for trying to circumvent Obama's constitutional responsibilities. It makes no sense. The only logical explanation I can come up with is that congressional Republicans have absolutely no faith in their ability to vote down Obama's choices, so they feel their only option is to try to get him to not put them up. But the chances of that happening are probably less than zero. This is what I don't understand. If it is as simple as the senate saying no, where's the issue? If the senate has a republican majority, can't they block every single attempt? Why do people seem confident that Obama will end up replacing Scalia? Seems simple and easy to prevent it forever essentially.
There's bad press then there's really bad press. The Republican party has certainly been obstructionist but the last thing it wants is wall to coverage showing them being that. The Government shut down burned them and burned them badly. Now imagine holding a SCOTUS nominee for over a year.
|
On February 23 2016 07:59 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2016 07:23 Plansix wrote:
Once again, we cite the Senate majority leader saying they will reject all of Obama’s nominees one hour after a Supreme Court Justice died. And that has been the story for the last 3 years. It so bad, Harry Reid used the nuclear option on the senate just to get other judges confirmed because the senate refused to even vote on the issue.
It is rich saying its all his fault the Republicans don’t want to work with him. This coming from a group of people that think compromise is a dirty word.
The SCOTUS stuff is a perfect example of the Republican party currently. RParty: "Obama is weak!" Reporter: "What about him pushing to replace Scalia?" RParty: "Obama shouldn't do that!" Reporter: "Would you do it?" RParty: "Of course I would, I'm not weak" What concerns me the most about this election is that there will still be so many people that support Trump and his ideas even if he loses. For example, even if Trump loses, SC republicans are still going to want to ban religion a specific religion. The thing that baffles me is it doesn't even make sense from a strategic perspective. Republicans are aware that Obama has the constitutional right to appoint another Supreme Court justice, but only with their consent. All they have to do is reject the judges they don't like, which would likely be all of them, until a Republican president is hypothetically elected in November. If Hillary is elected, they can either keep rejecting them for another 4-8 years or come to terms with the fact that the Supreme Court needs to be whole. What they have done, is paint themselves into a corner for when Clinton is elected and they have been spouting off about how the next president should get to choose, as well as make themselves look like hypocrites for trying to circumvent Obama's constitutional responsibilities. It makes no sense. The only logical explanation I can come up with is that congressional Republicans have absolutely no faith in their ability to vote down Obama's choices, so they feel their only option is to try to get him to not put them up. But the chances of that happening are probably less than zero.
There's a pretty simple explanation for it. McConnell was intentionally undermining the tea party folks who wanted to do what you describe as a shield for what McConnell said they were doing.
By exposing their strategy he was trying to force their hand and give himself cover for when he eventually holds hearings and votes.
So now when Obama nominates someone and tea party folks try to reject and claim it's on substance, everyone can point to McConnell's quote and say "no it isn't"
Oh and Ted Cruz fired his Communications Director.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On February 23 2016 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:@xDaunt Just grabbing first link I found: Congressional Republicans went to new lengths to extinguish any such expectations. Breaking with a 41-year-old tradition, the Republican chairmen of the House and Senate budget committees announced that they would not even give the president’s budget director, Shaun Donovan, the usual hearings in their panels this week.
SourceI guess I can agree with your assertion he's a poor leader based on that particular definition of leadership-- but I would contend (again with the analogies), that's like saying Usain Bolt is slow when wearing 20lb weights or a blindfolded Messi is bad at football. EDIT: and it's OK you don't take the bet. Shout out to all the Sanders supporters who refused to take my bet about NV and SC going Hillary's way. You ready for the nomination bet or do you realize the results in NV and projections on SC are actually really bad news for Hillary? Sanders was never supposed to win either of them, he wasn't supposed to even be close. The narrative was basically that we would see NH like numbers in Hillary's favor in NV and SC, she may be able to hold onto a win, maybe even a big one, but it won't be the blowout she needs and has been predicted since Bernie got in the race. Not to mention her camp had to pull every dirty trick they could in both IA and NV. Both had countless reports about caucuses going astray, particularly the counting of people who weren't at the caucus at the time of the counting. You can pass it off as just quality cynicism if you'd like, but that's exactly what gets Sanders supporters fired up and ready to work.
IIRC she was supposed to win by like 20 in Nevada and 30+ in SC. The latter is looking like it might be closer to that number, but not much.
I don't think Sanders is particularly likely to get the nomination from this point, but it definitely remains a possibility.
|
On February 23 2016 08:14 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2016 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 23 2016 07:48 ticklishmusic wrote:@xDaunt Just grabbing first link I found: Congressional Republicans went to new lengths to extinguish any such expectations. Breaking with a 41-year-old tradition, the Republican chairmen of the House and Senate budget committees announced that they would not even give the president’s budget director, Shaun Donovan, the usual hearings in their panels this week.
SourceI guess I can agree with your assertion he's a poor leader based on that particular definition of leadership-- but I would contend (again with the analogies), that's like saying Usain Bolt is slow when wearing 20lb weights or a blindfolded Messi is bad at football. EDIT: and it's OK you don't take the bet. Shout out to all the Sanders supporters who refused to take my bet about NV and SC going Hillary's way. You ready for the nomination bet or do you realize the results in NV and projections on SC are actually really bad news for Hillary? Sanders was never supposed to win either of them, he wasn't supposed to even be close. The narrative was basically that we would see NH like numbers in Hillary's favor in NV and SC, she may be able to hold onto a win, maybe even a big one, but it won't be the blowout she needs and has been predicted since Bernie got in the race. Not to mention her camp had to pull every dirty trick they could in both IA and NV. Both had countless reports about caucuses going astray, particularly the counting of people who weren't at the caucus at the time of the counting. You can pass it off as just quality cynicism if you'd like, but that's exactly what gets Sanders supporters fired up and ready to work. IIRC she was supposed to win by like 20 in Nevada and 30+ in SC. The latter is looking like it might be closer to that number, but not much. I don't think Sanders is particularly likely to get the nomination from this point, but it definitely remains a possibility.
Pretty much on the numbers, the issue is Bernie has shown he can last through the whole process and grow support in every demo, Hillary has shown no ability to increase support in any demo, but has bled support from every single demo. Counting on maintaining a 80-20 split on black voters is a tenuous strategy, to say the least.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
