US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7145

On March 18 2017 13:56 Nevuk wrote:
At least as of yesterday where I live in Trump country (Kentucky) my coworkers aren't really dismayed, they're just playing Rush Limbaugh at ever increasing volumes.

On March 18 2017 14:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:


did they at least realize that the health care system they use is part of the Affordable Care act by now?

NASHVILLE — Soon after Charla McComic’s son lost his job, his health-insurance premium dropped from $567 per month to just $88, a “blessing from God” that she believes was made possible by President Trump.

“I think it was just because of the tax credit,” said McComic, 52, a former first-grade teacher who traveled to Trump’s Wednesday night rally in Nashville from Lexington, Tenn., with her daughter, mother, aunt and cousin.

The price change was actually thanks to a subsidy made possible by former president Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, which is still in place, not by the tax credits proposed by Republicans as part of the health-care bill still being considered by Congress.

It has been difficult for many Americans to keep up with the changes brought by Obamacare and exactly how the Republican proposal, if enacted, would affect their lives. But for Trump’s most dedicated supporters, it’s simply easier to trust the president is making things better and will follow through on his promise to provide “insurance for everybody” and “great health care for a fraction of the price.”

McComic said she’s not worried about her disability benefits changing or her 3-year-old granddaughter getting kicked off Medicaid or her 33-year-old son’s premiums going up.

“So far, everything’s been positive, from what I can tell,” she said, waiting for Trump’s rally here to begin Wednesday night. “I just hope that more and more people and children get covered under this new health-care plan.”

On March 18 2017 14:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:

thi
did they at least realize that the health care system they use is part of the Affordable Care act by now?

On March 18 2017 14:57 Nevuk wrote:

They're on medicare so I don't think they really care about the ACA

On March 18 2017 14:04 a_flayer wrote:
How about European countries collectively lead Europe, the US leads the US, Russia leads Russia, the African Union leads Africa, people in the Middle East find a way to get along... Why would any one nation have to be the dominant "leader" nation of anything besides itself, let alone the world? Lets move away from this ridiculous notion, for crying out loud.

On March 18 2017 05:05 KwarK wrote:

Is there a conceivable democratic outcome so bad in an election so filled with intervention that you would be willing to give it one more nudge for the common good? If so, we simply disagree over our interpretations of Trump. If not, 1933 Germany?

Obviously Trump isn't Hitler but if you agree that there is a justifiable scenario then at that point our only difference is interpretations of scenarios.

On March 18 2017 13:56 Nevuk wrote:
At least as of yesterday where I live in Trump country (Kentucky) my coworkers aren't really dismayed, they're just playing Rush Limbaugh at ever increasing volumes.

On March 18 2017 15:31 Maenander wrote:

The "Germany is dominating the EU"-meme really gets on my nerves. Germany is the most populous country in the EU, so of course it should have more influence than other countries in the EU. That doesn't mean that the other countries are dominated by Germany, it's not like Germany has enough influence to be able to achieve anything on its own in the EU: In reality, Germany has less of a voice in the political institutions of the EU than its population numbers would suggest.

For example, the ECB has gone to zero interest rates despite the protestations of the German representants. That was one of the most important economic decisions in recent times and Germany just got overruled. That doesn't look like dominance to me.

Sure, Germany was sent to the fore to handle the Greek debt crisis. Why? Because it was an unpleasant business and no one wanted to pay for it. What dominance!

But even when every member of the EU except Poland votes to re-elect Tusk as President of the European Council, Kaczynski comes up with something like "The (EU) is an organisation dominated by one country. We cannot hide this, this country is Germany."

Germany is not dominating the EU. Others are hiding behind Germany whenever it is politically convenient.

On March 18 2017 11:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Shit show of an Administration

"Environmental Protection Agency: We absolutely do not need this. Clean rivers and breathable air are making us SOFT and letting the Chinese and the Russians get the jump on us. We must go back to the America that was great, when the air was full of coal and danger and the way you could tell if the air was breathable was by carrying a canary around with you at all times, perched on your leathery, coal-dust-covered finger. Furthermore, we will cut funding to Superfund cleanup in the EPA because the only thing manlier than clean water is DIRTY water.

Agriculture Department: NO MORE OF THIS NAMBY-PAMBY “GATHERING” NONSENSE. We will be HUNTERS again. This is also why we are cutting the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children: Let them FIGHT for their meat or have NONE."

On March 18 2017 12:28 Ghostcom wrote:


Or, you know - maybe no one wants be neighbor to a superpower because superpowers tend to fuck over everything? The German-victim complex really needs to go.

Clinton: 'I'm ready to come out of the woods'

Hillary Clinton spoke at the Society of Irish Women's 19th Annual St Patrick's Day dinner in Scranton, Pa., Friday and encouraged people not to let politics divide them.

"I am ready to come out of the woods and to shine a light on what’s already happening around kitchen tables at dinners like this to help draw strength to enable everyone to keep going, that's the spirit of Scranton," she said.

The statement that she is ready to "come out of the woods" appears to allude with the viral posts of Clinton being spotted hiking in the woods near her Chappaqua, N.Y., home shortly after the election, which was also the subject of a "Saturday Night Live" skit.

It also suggests Clinton, who has remained relatively low-profile since the election, is ready to get back into the spotlight.

Earlier this week it was reported that Clinton is considering a run for New York City mayor.

This is not the first time talk of a Clinton mayoral run has circulated since the former Democratic presidential nominee's defeat last November.

A Quinnipiac University poll from January found that Clinton would beat current New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) if she ran as an independent.

Donald Trump earned more than $30 million from the TV show “The Apprentice” in 2005, a huge payday that rivals the sums paid to the biggest stars on screen. That payment helps explain why Trump made a large federal income-tax payment that year, as revealed in the recently leaked tax documents that shed new light on Trump’s income and wealth.

Yahoo Finance has obtained financial data for “The Apprentice,” the reality show that first aired on NBC in 2004, showing costs, profits and payouts from 2004 through 2007, which were peak years in ratings and profits for the show. During that time, Trump, now president, earned $65 million in “participations,” which are like royalty payments based on the amount of revenue the show took in for product placements and international distribution. Trump earned millions more in salary during that time, for total earnings during those 4 years that likely neared or exceeded $100 million, or $25 million per year, on average.

On March 18 2017 23:15 zlefin wrote:
that's a mighty big if. I'd wait to see it actually happen before judging. hillary's been a long-time democrat, it seems unlikely she'd choose to run as an independent.

On March 18 2017 23:57 zlefin wrote:
I don't think your point re: manchin applies.
the point of don't primary joe manchin isn't that one generically shouldn't primary; but that you shouldn't push someone in a primary who, while more compatible with the party at large, won't be able to win the general in that location. i.e. if it's a very right-leaning district, you need a centrist or right-leaning dem in order to win. primary winning with a heavy left candidate in a very right district simply means the general is lost.
nyc is a pretty liberal area, so hillary winning the primary would still be quite able to win the general, if she were to run.