• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

I was #73 at my polling place this morning.

First I refused to show picture ID and opted to sign the affidavit of identification instead and the old lady working at the desk had no idea how to handle that.

Then after finally making it to the booth I complained aloud that my right to vote was being infringed because all of the pens in all of the booths were tied up on the right hand side making it difficult for us lefties to vote and that next time I was bringing an election observer with me. I think I could audibly hear the eyes rolling behind me.

I figured the old people and high school kids working there needed some amusement.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
I figured the old people and high school kids working there needed some amusement.
Click to expand...
Last election my wife asked the poll worker to point out who the old rich white guys were, so she didn't vote for them :D

Planit said:
WOW
The NC Senate race keeps getting nasty



http://fortressamerica.gawker.com/n...at-votes-to-republic-1654048010/+laceydonohue
Click to expand...

I had to do a double take of the actual link address. "laceydonohue" is a writer for gawker, and a good friend of mine.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
I was #73 at my polling place this morning.

First I refused to show picture ID and opted to sign the affidavit of identification instead and the old lady working at the desk had no idea how to handle that.

Then after finally making it to the booth I complained aloud that my right to vote was being infringed because all of the pens in all of the booths were tied up on the right hand side making it difficult for us lefties to vote and that next time I was bringing an election observer with me. I think I could audibly hear the eyes rolling behind me.

I figured the old people and high school kids working there needed some amusement.
Click to expand...

Dammed trouble maker! :D

I will vote on my way home, leave too early to vote before work. I would pull the affidavit too, but the guy who would check it is in the condo next door. Don't want him to think I am a lousy neighbor.
 
We spend more on beer than was spent on Midterm Elections. (LINK)

As least with beer, the hangover goes away by mid afternoon, whereas with elections, you need to wait years to vote another joker into office.






I did not vote straight ticket voting yet again. :not: Although, out of the 10 of us voting at the same time, I was in a suit and tie and everyone else looked like a hipster. Perhaps it is time to move.
 
I was amused last night by many of the comments made by newly elected (or re-elected) GOP'ers along the lines of 'after this election we're looking to work together and reach across the aisle'

Yeah right. How, specifically? :r:

One thing we certainly can depend on is seeing the GOP waaay overplaying their hand the next couple years. Historically that's been the MO following midterm gains. Depend upon no "compromise" legislation seeing the light of day. Two years of gridlock is a-coming.
 
Maister said:
I was amused last night by many of the comments made by newly elected (or re-elected) GOP'ers along the lines of 'after this election we're looking to work together and reach across the aisle'

Yeah right. How, specifically? :r:

One thing we certainly can depend on is seeing the GOP waaay overplaying their hand the next couple years. Historically that's been the MO following midterm gains. Depend upon no "compromise" legislation seeing the light of day. Two more years of gridlock is a-coming.
Click to expand...

There I fixed it for you
 
michaelskis said:
We spend more on beer than was spent on Midterm Elections. (LINK)

As least with beer, the hangover goes away by mid afternoon, whereas with elections, you need to wait years to vote another joker into office.






I did not vote straight ticket voting yet again. :not: Although, out of the 10 of us voting at the same time, I was in a suit and tie and everyone else looked like a hipster. Perhaps it is time to move.
Click to expand...

Ha haw! (can we get a Nelson emoticon?) your vote was canceled out by nine hipsters!

I'm just hoping the GOP doesn't go nuts with the house and senate. Try to do something for the country and the states and lets not focus on party specific agenda items like health care is bad. If you're going to repeal it, replace it. I don't really care how, just not a flat repeal. If not you just sound like the spoiled kid who taking his toys and going home.
 
dvdneal said:
I'm just hoping the GOP doesn't go nuts with the house and senate. Try to do something for the country and the states and lets not focus on party specific agenda items like health care is bad. If you're going to repeal it, replace it. I don't really care how, just not a flat repeal. If not you just sound like the spoiled kid who taking his toys and going home.
Click to expand...

Haha! Good one!
 
BREAKING NEWS!!!!!............................

Texas is still very much a red state. In fact, even redder than usual. Behold the interactive map of election results:

http://www.politico.com/2014-election/results/map/governor/texas/#.VFo7hck_lhc

Wendy Davis not only lost, but she only won in two of the non-border metro areas: Dallas & Austin. Even bad democrat candidates have historically carried Austin, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Houston, Beaumont, San Antonio and the border region.
 
dvdneal said:
Ha haw! (can we get a Nelson emoticon?) your vote was canceled out by nine hipsters!
Click to expand...

In some ways yes, but there were several local things that I am quite confident that I voted the same way as the hipsters. (like being in opposition to term limits) I know they didn't vote for the Libertarian candidate for Governor and Senator though.

dvdneal said:
I'm just hoping the GOP doesn't go nuts with the house and senate. Try to do something for the country and the states and lets not focus on party specific agenda items like health care is bad. If you're going to repeal it, replace it. I don't really care how, just not a flat repeal. If not you just sound like the spoiled kid who taking his toys and going home.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I think that there are so many lobbyists involved that we won't see much change. Personally, I would like to see the healthcare thing taken out of the federal arena and let each state make a decision for themselves. But hey, that's only what the Constitution of the United States calls for.
 
Maister said:
I was amused last night by many of the comments made by newly elected (or re-elected) GOP'ers along the lines of 'after this election we're looking to work together and reach across the aisle'

Yeah right. How, specifically? :r:

One thing we certainly can depend on is seeing the GOP waaay overplaying their hand the next couple years. Historically that's been the MO following midterm gains. Depend upon no "compromise" legislation seeing the light of day. Two years of gridlock is a-coming.
Click to expand...

20 years of gridlock is coming. I see no end to the hyper-partisan garbage of the last decade.
 
As Jon Stewart put it "Money won the election"

IN NC alone I can think of at least 25 better things $100 million could have spent on rather than the trash adverts on TV for the senate race. I think I heard the national figure was in the $3 billion range for campaigns. What a waste of money...
 
WSU MUP Student said:
. . . Then after finally making it to the booth I complained aloud that my right to vote was being infringed because all of the pens in all of the booths were tied up on the right hand side making it difficult for us lefties to vote and that next time I was bringing an election observer with me. I think I could audibly hear the eyes rolling behind me.

I figured the old people and high school kids working there needed some amusement.
Click to expand...

In the progressive state of Montana ;) , they trust us enough to leave the markers untethered so I did not experience problems voting left-handed. I also enjoyed voting within five minutes of arriving. No lines. It took the lady longer to find my name on the roster than to actually vote.

Maister said:
I was amused last night by many of the comments made by newly elected (or re-elected) GOP'ers along the lines of 'after this election we're looking to work together and reach across the aisle'

Yeah right. How, specifically? :r:

One thing we certainly can depend on is seeing the GOP waaay overplaying their hand the next couple years. Historically that's been the MO following midterm gains. Depend upon no "compromise" legislation seeing the light of day. Two years of gridlock is a-coming.
Click to expand...

dvdneal said:
Ha haw! (can we get a Nelson emoticon?) your vote was canceled out by nine hipsters!

I'm just hoping the GOP doesn't go nuts with the house and senate. Try to do something for the country and the states and lets not focus on party specific agenda items like health care is bad. If you're going to repeal it, replace it. I don't really care how, just not a flat repeal. If not you just sound like the spoiled kid who taking his toys and going home.
Click to expand...

It does kind of peeve me that so many people expressed a desire to punish incumbents for the gridlock in Congress by voting a majority to the very party that was primarily responsible for the partisanness and do-nothingness.

So, yeah, I guess for the next two years at least it will be easier for Congress to pass legislation. Whether or not it will be legislation that is good or what we need is another story entirely.
 
Well......

My job is now directly threatened by the results from last night. Not immediately.....but in 2015 for sure.

Obama has tried to get rid of CSBG funding at least twice......saved only by a rag tag effort by a few blue types in the Senate......now gone.
2015 leads into the election year stuff and ALSO Federal Budget negotiations.......The GOP is already on record for wanting to shut it down and will not only repeat previous demands.....but go two steps further knowing that any negotiations from Obama will be soft at best......:not::-|:(

Ugggh.....
 
Last edited:
Hey now, the GOP is creating jobs! Just not the kind you're qualified to do. I'm sure they'll fund some job education and we can get you into a certified welding program or maybe truck driving.
 
I think that these maps show a bit of a shift:

2008 Election when Obama took office
Screen-Shot-2014-11-05-at-94334-PM.jpg


2014 Election (last of Obama's term)
cdn-medianationaljournalcom_.jpg


Having said that, I think that there is a very small fraction of GOP that will actually follow the constitution. The rest will follow lobbyist money... just like the Democrats.
 
The President made a hilarious comment after the elections. Something to the effect of "the results tell us that people want us to get things done." No, Mr. President. If that were the case people would have voted Democrat. They voted for the GOP so YOU won't get things done. He just doesn't get it. Yes the stock market is booming and gas is cheaper than before Katrina but the reality is folks are scared for their jobs, many make less than they did a few years ago, our infrastructure is falling apart and our foreign policy seems to be on a "du-jour" basis. I'm all for gridlock in Congress that way they will hopefully stay out of my pocket as much as possible.
 
One of the reasons Kansans didn't for the D's candidate for governor was because he went a strip joint when he was 26. Seriously? I guess my hope for a political is over.:r:
 
MD Planner said:
The President made a hilarious comment after the elections. Something to the effect of "the results tell us that people want us to get things done." No, Mr. President. If that were the case people would have voted Democrat. They voted for the GOP so YOU won't get things done. He just doesn't get it. Yes the stock market is booming and gas is cheaper than before Katrina but the reality is folks are scared for their jobs, many make less than they did a few years ago, our infrastructure is falling apart and our foreign policy seems to be on a "du-jour" basis. I'm all for gridlock in Congress that way they will hopefully stay out of my pocket as much as possible.
Click to expand...

People didn't vote for the GOP because they didn't want the President to get things done. I think the idea that the democratic policies are these things that nobody supports is proven wrong pretty quickly when you look at what issues passed - legalizing weed, minimum wage increases, etc. These are democratic positions that people support. Yet people voted for the GOP. Why? To me it is simple. The democrats went out and found poor candidates. Most weren't even average. I can tell you in Ohio, the Governor's race was a joke. Kasich has killed local government, and yet he still won by 10 points. Why? Because the democrats got a guy who drove without a license.

The republicans got seats because 1. They didn't support the crazy tea party, and they went more mainstream with their candidates. And 2. They took this race MUCH more seriously than the democrats. That is a good thing for the republicans. The sooner the R's realize that all they need to do is stop trying to shrink their tent, the sooner they might actually get some support. They also did as much as they could to get away from the social issues that they are losing horribly with. That will continue to help them.

P.S. I think in the end though this will bode well for the democrats in 2016. A Mitch McConnell led Senate with a John Boehner led House will be hilarious. Their failure to get anything done will be the downfall of 2016 for them. Blaming the President for not rubber stamping their ignorance won't work twice. Unless they can center their crazy ideologues (Cruz, Paul, Gohmert, etc.) they aren't going to get any serious business done because of the internal fighting. Focus on the economy, the tax code, and things that you can "fix" in 2 years. Then you might have a chance. But I bet they go after Obamacare.... :r:
 
The Republicans entire campaign strategy across the country was "We don't support President Obama and my opponent does" Plain Simple Effective.


Well everything will be perfect now that the Rs are in charge. That's the rhetoric I'm hearing.
 
Hink said:
People didn't vote for the GOP because they didn't want the President to get things done. I think the idea that the democratic policies are these things that nobody supports is proven wrong pretty quickly when you look at what issues passed - legalizing weed, minimum wage increases, etc. These are democratic positions that people support. Yet people voted for the GOP. Why? To me it is simple. The democrats went out and found poor candidates. Most weren't even average. I can tell you in Ohio, the Governor's race was a joke. Kasich has killed local government, and yet he still won by 10 points. Why? Because the democrats got a guy who drove without a license.

The republicans got seats because 1. They didn't support the crazy tea party, and they went more mainstream with their candidates. And 2. They took this race MUCH more seriously than the democrats. That is a good thing for the republicans. The sooner the R's realize that all they need to do is stop trying to shrink their tent, the sooner they might actually get some support. They also did as much as they could to get away from the social issues that they are losing horribly with. That will continue to help them.

P.S. I think in the end though this will bode well for the democrats in 2016. A Mitch McConnell led Senate with a John Boehner led House will be hilarious. Their failure to get anything done will be the downfall of 2016 for them. Blaming the President for not rubber stamping their ignorance won't work twice. Unless they can center their crazy ideologues (Cruz, Paul, Gohmert, etc.) they aren't going to get any serious business done because of the internal fighting. Focus on the economy, the tax code, and things that you can "fix" in 2 years. Then you might have a chance. But I bet they go after Obamacare.... :r:
Click to expand...

In some context I completely agree that in many cases, but I think that there is a political shift happening, not so much to the right, but for something different. Yes, the economy is up, but the only ones that are really prospering from it are the banks and the major corporations. Jobs are but but actual income is still way down. This is all things that Obama said that he would fix. When he first got elected he talked about how it was important to get bi-partisan support, yet we are more divided on a two party system than ever before. People are not happy with the situation at various levels of Government. Hell, even Chris Mathews has turned onto Obama. Even 5 years ago, Mathews had a man crush on the President. Democratic candidates also saw the writing on the wall when many of them turned down offers to have Obama campaign for them.

The other part is the youth vote. Six years ago, that was massive for Obama. But those same people are now questioning that decisions because they have graduated from college and are not landing the dream jobs that they anticipated, government interference is still at an all time high, and the middle class continues to disappear into irrelevance. This election, the youth did not get out to vote the way they did in the past. Heck, I have been talking to some of my hipster neighbors since the election, and found that in some cases they voted for a 3rd party as well, IF they even showed up to vote.

As for Obamacare, I too think (and hope) that they go after it. I have heard several replacement options being tossed out and in the end, I do think that there will be a compromise.
 
Whose Yur Planner said:
One of the reasons Kansans didn't for the D's candidate for governor was because he went a strip joint when he was 26. Seriously? I guess my hope for a political is over.:r:
Click to expand...

And this is one of the reasons I would vote for him. He's a regular guy, not trying to hide the fact he likes the ladies.

Planit said:
The Republicans entire campaign strategy across the country was "We don't support President Obama and my opponent does" Plain Simple Effective.


Well everything will be perfect now that the Rs are in charge. That's the rhetoric I'm hearing.
Click to expand...

Part of why I'm not happy with the GOP today is the platform. Today the D platform revolves around lets try to make the world a better place or some crap like that. The R platform, like you said, my opponent is a turd sandwich. During the Bush/Kerry campaign I remember the whole thing being reversed. The R platform had a little substance to it, not much, and the D platform was pretty much the turd sandwich stance.

Talking to the wife last night I mentioned the the GOP has a chance to come out as some shining beacon of how government should work. They could unroll some grand plan to end hunger or create jobs or something, anything and it would get passed since they have all the power (okay most). They would be heroes and make Mr. O look bad, which is their goal I believe, but instead we'll just pull some stupid crap like restrict voter ID laws, bash the gays, or do some other far right wing move on abortion or something. Why solve the real problems when I can solve fake ones (or at least ones that shouldn't be decided by the feds).
 
dvdneal said:
Talking to the wife last night I mentioned the the GOP has a chance to come out as some shining beacon of how government should work. They could unroll some grand plan to end hunger or create jobs or something, anything and it would get passed since they have all the power (okay most). They would be heroes and make Mr. O look bad, which is their goal I believe, but instead we'll just pull some stupid crap like restrict voter ID laws, bash the gays, or do some other far right wing move on abortion or something. Why solve the real problems when I can solve fake ones (or at least ones that shouldn't be decided by the feds).
Click to expand...

Its the shell game or distraction. Look at this stupid crap, so we can pas other corporate friendly regs without being noticed.
 
Planit said:
Its the shell game or distraction. Look at this stupid crap, so we can pas other corporate friendly regs without being noticed.
Click to expand...

Yup. You know Trans-Pacific Partnership is coming, and with it there go more jobs and wealth offshore.
 
Wow, the tin foil hats are flying in MI. People are saying that the republicans gerrymandered the whole thing to win the elections. They used total state wide voter turn out to show that the boundaries are not dawn 'fairly'.

Let's see, in 2 places, the Democrat candidate blew the Republican's out of the water because they have been historically democratic strong holds and no republican is going to run in those districts with a real chance of winning. Does that mean those votes should transfer to West Michigan too.

I would love to see what they think is 'fair'. Perhaps just run an all or nothing, nope that would go Republican too. County by County, nope, republican majority there too.



The other vote is the wolves. Those in the UP (where the wolves are) voted for it, but those in the Detroit area voted against it... umm, there are no wolves in Detroit. There are more people in the Detroit area than all of the UP.


On a side note...Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber bragging about deceiving the American people, who he thinks are stupid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G790p0LcgbI
 
Last edited:
If you play the gerrymander game, you either spread the Dems so thin they can't win anything which seems to be the Texas way (i could be wrong) or you narrow it down to just a couple pockets of Dem support so they only get 1 or 2 reps and would never be able to hold a majority the way Arizona did and it sounds like Michigan did (don't know). I'm sure the blue states just flip the script. What ever happened to just dividing the population evenly without looking at political support? Maybe that's something that only gets done at the local level like my last city redistricting, although not with my current county redistricting.
 
dvdneal said:
If you play the gerrymander game, you either spread the Dems so thin they can't win anything which seems to be the Texas way (i could be wrong) or you narrow it down to just a couple pockets of Dem support so they only get 1 or 2 reps and would never be able to hold a majority the way Arizona did and it sounds like Michigan did (don't know). I'm sure the blue states just flip the script. What ever happened to just dividing the population evenly without looking at political support? Maybe that's something that only gets done at the local level like my last city redistricting, although not with my current county redistricting.
Click to expand...

I agree... but no matter what, it seems that one side will claim the other side is not playing 'fair' and will blame the losses on something other than policy. I support the idea of a map being drawn fairly. I think think it should be based on regions that correlate with county lines.
 
dvdneal said:
If you play the gerrymander game, you either spread the Dems so thin they can't win anything which seems to be the Texas way (i could be wrong) or you narrow it down to just a couple pockets of Dem support so they only get 1 or 2 reps and would never be able to hold a majority the way Arizona did and it sounds like Michigan did (don't know). I'm sure the blue states just flip the script. What ever happened to just dividing the population evenly without looking at political support? Maybe that's something that only gets done at the local level like my last city redistricting, although not with my current county redistricting.
Click to expand...

Your description of Texas gerrymandering is accurate. In fact, the Austin MSA is the largest city in the country without any type of anchor congressional district (it is split into 5 heavily gerrymandered districts). It was done specifically to kill off Lloyd Doggett, but he has somehow managed to survive two rounds of redistricting through some very hard grassroots campaigning. Henry Cuellar was also a target.

Gerrymandering was made much easier by the growing ease of spatial analysis through GIS--they could basically manipulate boundaries on the fly to see how it might affect results. It is a great example of a well-meaning tool like GIS used to promote representative governance and ensure voting rights protection instead being used for evil.
 
Yep. Blue states gerrymander just as nastily as the red states.

My home state of Maryland has very impressive congressional districts which were specifically drawn to limit the Republican vote insomuch as possible. The various redistricting maps have been challenged in court and some of the district lines cross the Chesapeake Bay!. The state went from having 4 Republican congressmen and 4 Democratic congressmen to 7 Democratic congressmen and 1 Republican congressman due to redistricting. The last redistricting combined very conservative western and central Maryland with just enough of the deep blue DC suburbs to give it a slight democratic majority, despite that regionally speaking, it's much more Republican and far western Maryland is hours away from DC.

Here's the current districting map:
http://www.mdp.state.md.us/PDF/Redistricting/2010maps/Cong/Statewide.pdf

Here's the previous districting map:
http://planning.maryland.gov/msdc/Redist/congd02/cong02_md.htm

You can see how the original District 6, which spanned western and upper central Maryland, was reworked to move southwards to pick up parts of the DC suburbs. And District 1, which used to be primarily only the eastern shore with a sliver of northeast Maryland, was further extended into parts of the old district 6 to remove Republican voters from it, so instead of two heavily Republican districts, we now have one even more heavily Republican district and one district with a slight Democratic majority. And in the process, a new District 8 ripped out a chuck of heavily Republican District 6 and combined it with the liberal DC suburbs despite the enormous cultural differences.

I think congressional districts should be eliminated entirely to get rid of the stupid gerrymandering. What I propose is the following, which is somewhat based on proportional representation:

1. A state has a given number of congressmen. In the case of Maryland it's 8.

2. Each party creates its own district map, covering the entire state. Each party knows realistically what their share of the statewide vote should be and how many seats it should translate into, in the case of Maryland the Democrats know they get, on average, around 55-60% of the statewide vote, so they should get 5 seats. The Republicans know they will get, on average, around 40-45% of the statewide vote, which translates to 3 seats.

3. In advance of the election, the Democrats divide Maryland into 5 districts and the Republicans divide the state into three districts. Their candidates will campaign in the district allotted to them by the state party/regional primaries. The candidates won't campaign against each other insomuch on specific policy issues, because everyone in the state will technically have both a Republican and Democratic representative.

4. Both parties create backup district maps and a list of surplus candidates in case they win a higher than anticipated share of the vote, enough to gain an extra congressional seat away from the opposite party. They will also have backup maps in case they lose more votes and need to reduce the number of anticipated congressmen.

In places like Maryland this will rarely happen but in very large states a slight shift in the statewide vote can juggle the final number of congressional seats awarded to each party. But sticking with Maryland as an example, if the Democrats manage to gain a higher share of the vote to justify having 6 instead of 5 candidates, then their backup district map comes into place. There will be another statewide primary for registered Democrats to select the 6th candidate. In the meantime the Republicans eliminate the congressman with the lowest share of the vote from the initial three expected congressmen and redraw their district map into just two congressional districts.

It's not a perfect system and does sound complicated, but I think it's a good way to balance the desire for regional districts reflecting the character of the region while eliminating the gerrymandering and also by giving everyone both a Democratic and Republican congressman, it may do a lot to reduce the tensions among the parties and a sense of voter disenfranchisement if you happen to have an ideology opposite that of your district. The poor democrats in Texas versus the unlucky Republican in California, and we'd probably see a lot more truly purple states instead of red/blue.

dvdneal said:
If you play the gerrymander game, you either spread the Dems so thin they can't win anything which seems to be the Texas way (i could be wrong) or you narrow it down to just a couple pockets of Dem support so they only get 1 or 2 reps and would never be able to hold a majority the way Arizona did and it sounds like Michigan did (don't know). I'm sure the blue states just flip the script. What ever happened to just dividing the population evenly without looking at political support? Maybe that's something that only gets done at the local level like my last city redistricting, although not with my current county redistricting.
Click to expand...
 
I will say one thing for Kansas, they have a never say die attitude, they just don't know which fights to pick though. After the recent marriage equality ruling by the courts Kansas lost it's marriage act. So a few couples tried to get married and get denied because the court wasn't specific to Kansas (bs). They sue their local county and of course they win. Now the AG is saying the ruling only applies to those counties, not the entire state. He's really go to make someone drag this up to the state court to get the same ruling the big court already made.
 
My sole blog post on Cyburbia is all about gerrymandering in Illinois. The Dems are just as brutal. They essentially created two Republican "sink" districts in the Chicago area: one for Peter Roskam and one for Randy Hultgren. The rest are all Dem. They also even managed to gerrymander heavily Republican downtstate Illinois and squeeze out a safe Dem district for Cheri Bustos and a couple competitive districts, but those competitive districts are looking very Republican these days (one is Rodney Davis' and the other was just picked up by Mike Bost). In doing this, the Dems got greedy and wound up screwing themselves and therefore no longer have a foothold in the East St. Louis area. Also, the Republicans managed to take back the North Shore district, which was drawn to be safer for the Dem.

I agree...I would much rather have districts drawn by geography/region and not by political makeup and let the cards fall where they may. In downstate Illinois, districts should be drawn on the county/regional level (Rockford area, western Illinois, Peoria area, Champaign area, Springfield area, southern Illinois, Metro East area), while in the Chicago metro area, they should be grouping like suburban areas and sides of the city (i.e. northern suburbs, northwest suburbs, far northwest suburbs, west suburbs, Aurora/Naperville area, Joliet area, southwest suburbs, north side of the city, west side of the city, central city, south side of the city, southern suburbs, etc.). But instead, as it stands, you have sprawling tentacle like districts, cities split into multiple districts (many suburbs and cities are in 2 different districts, and I think Elgin is in like 3), and districts shaped like "U"s and other odd shapes. People don't even know what district they're in anymore. Even as a geography nut, it's hard for me to immediately know what district some place is in.
 
michaelskis said:
Has your opinion of Obama changed from wat it was 6 years ago? And if so, how?
Click to expand...

He's lost a lot of the fire that got him elected. For me I see him as an ineffectual president. Part of the job of being president is making things work between parties and leading the country to better things. He hasn't been able to do that as well as other presidents. At the same time I have to blame the GOP for some of that. They have been stubborn and outright refused to work with him on anything. I just think we need to look the president and Mitch in a room with some whisky until one kills the other with the empty bottle or they figure something out.
 
dvdneal said:
He's lost a lot of the fire that got him elected. For me I see him as an ineffectual president. Part of the job of being president is making things work between parties and leading the country to better things. He hasn't been able to do that as well as other presidents. At the same time I have to blame the GOP for some of that. They have been stubborn and outright refused to work with him on anything. I just think we need to look the president and Mitch in a room with some whisky until one kills the other with the empty bottle or they figure something out.
Click to expand...

I like the whiskey idea. As for being effective, is first two years were almost a blank check as the dems had control of both the house and senate. Now he feels that he needs to do an executive order to grant amnesty. If he felt so strong about it, why didn't he do it in the first two years.

He also told enough lies to get Obamacare passed.

I think there could be things they can agree on, but I doubt it will be anything good.
 
michaelskis said:
Has your opinion of Obama changed from wat it was 6 years ago? And if so, how?
Click to expand...

I think he is better than Bush, but not as good as Lincoln.

You know the sweet spot.

Honestly, I think he happened to be the President at one of the more divisive times in the County's history. He was black, and that mattered, unfortunately, for many people. He was pretty progressive, which was cool when he was elected, but didn't quite pan out the way lots of people thought it might.

He passed a healthcare bill, that everyone wanted to pass (both R's and D's at some point), and again all hell broke loose.

He was too weak on foreign policy, then too strong.

He was too weak on immigration, then too strong.

He never found his leadership groove.


I don't know who will win in 2016, but my guess (and hope) is that they are a one term President.
 
I'll second the one term president. The parties need to sort themselves out and reestablish a platform that isn't just vote against the other guy (have they ever done that?). It's either that or we need a true leader like Lincoln or FDR (or insert your favorite), maybe Teddy, to set this country straight. Sadly I don't see that person on the horizon in either party.

Just for the fun of argument (don't get nasty now), who do you see as contenders for either party and why are they good or bad - and of course why is the last person wrong, but keep it nice.
 
Hink said:
He passed a healthcare bill, that everyone wanted to pass (both R's and D's at some point), and again all hell broke loose.
Click to expand...

Which Republicans voted to approve Obamacare?

I agree that insurance is a good thing, and I will go as far to say that if a State Government wanted to implement something like this, but for me, it comes down to a constitutional issue that is way outside of the boundaries of the roll of federal government. It took SOTUS calling it a tax to allow it to stand, despite repeated statements by the President and his party that it was not a tax.

Heck, Obama had to make deals like the Stupak-Pitts amendment to get it passed, which on face value was a ban on federal funding for abortions, however he announced his retirement right after it got passed because 1, he knew that he would never get reelected in that district (Michigan's Upper Penninsula) and 2, many people had thought that there was a sweetheart deal in the works. Oh look, he now works for Havard.
 
michaelskis said:
Which Republicans voted to approve Obamacare?

I agree that insurance is a good thing, and I will go as far to say that if a State Government wanted to implement something like this, but for me, it comes down to a constitutional issue that is way outside of the boundaries of the roll of federal government. It took SOTUS calling it a tax to allow it to stand, despite repeated statements by the President and his party that it was not a tax.

Heck, Obama had to make deals like the Stupak-Pitts amendment to get it passed, which on face value was a ban on federal funding for abortions, however he announced his retirement right after it got passed because 1, he knew that he would never get reelected in that district (Michigan's Upper Penninsula) and 2, many people had thought that there was a sweetheart deal in the works. Oh look, he now works for Havard.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the Affordable Care Act was based on Republican concepts right? I didn't say Obamacare I said a healthcare bill. Republicans passed the Medicare Part D bill. Republicans passed Romneycare (which is essentially Obamacare). The idea that this alone is going to kill our country is just uninformed silliness. Or more likely political garbage that is being used to win points, not help the American people.


As a note, Hilary Clinton would be the worst thing that the Democrats could do. She could be a fine candidate, but she isn't the right candidate for the County. I would say that same for Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and any other right wing ideologue. The idea that the Republicans just need to put someone more "Republican" instead of finding someone that actually has the ability to work with the Democrats is a joke. If Ted Cruz wins the primary, the Republicans are looking a pretty dark hole.

Personally, I think that the D's will put up Hilary, but she won't win. I think Joe Manchin, Joe Biden, John Hickenlooper, or Elizabeth Warren have more likely of a chance.

As for the R's, they will end up with the crazy candidates like Paul, Cruz, Ben Carson, Herman Cain, and Huckabee. But I think more likely it will candidates like Mike Pence, Rob Portman, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, and even Paul Ryan will be the leaders.

My guess is Manchin v. Portman with Portman winning. A moderate social republican who focuses solely on economics will pull this off, especially if Hilary is the candidate. And maybe I want a President from Ohio.... ;)
 
michaelskis said:
He also told enough lies to get Obamacare passed.

.
Click to expand...

I enjoy tracking how The Noise Machine dupes the faithful and how the agitprop gets spread. This is the new ebola and Bengazi. Grubghazi? BenGruber?

Anyhoo, the Weekly Benghazi is gonna be waaaaaaay worse in the next two years as the GoOPers look for cover to break everything in sight.
 
Hink said:
You do realize that the Affordable Care Act was based on Republican concepts right? I didn't say Obamacare I said a healthcare bill. Republicans passed the Medicare Part D bill. Republicans passed Romneycare (which is essentially Obamacare). The idea that this alone is going to kill our country is just uninformed silliness. Or more likely political garbage that is being used to win points, not help the American people.
Click to expand...

Last I checked, the only Republicans who voted for Romenycare were in MA.

The big difference here is this:
Amendment 10 said:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

If a state wants to pass something like that, fine. I personally don't agree with it, but it is something that is expressly permitted by the US Constitution. I am not a fan of Romney either, so I you won't see me defending the principle of it.

As for Obamacare, healthcare (as a whole) has become more expensive, people were not able to keep their doctor, people were not able to keep their plan, it included abortive contraception, and young people are not signing up, thus old, sick, and under-insured people are paying more, when the President said that they would pay less.

Hink said:
As a note, Hilary Clinton would be the worst thing that the Democrats could do. She could be a fine candidate, but she isn't the right candidate for the County. I would say that same for Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and any other right wing ideologue. The idea that the Republicans just need to put someone more "Republican" instead of finding someone that actually has the ability to work with the Democrats is a joke. If Ted Cruz wins the primary, the Republicans are looking a pretty dark hole.

Personally, I think that the D's will put up Hilary, but she won't win. I think Joe Manchin, Joe Biden, John Hickenlooper, or Elizabeth Warren have more likely of a chance.

As for the R's, they will end up with the crazy candidates like Paul, Cruz, Ben Carson, Herman Cain, and Huckabee. But I think more likely it will candidates like Mike Pence, Rob Portman, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush, and even Paul Ryan will be the leaders.

My guess is Manchin v. Portman with Portman winning. A moderate social republican who focuses solely on economics will pull this off, especially if Hilary is the candidate. And maybe I want a President from Ohio.... ;)
Click to expand...

If it is Clinton V. Bush, I am going to vote for a 3rd party. Personally, my favorite of the potential contenders is Rand Paul. But being that I lean libertarian for federal issues, that should not be a surprise.


ColoGI said:
I enjoy tracking how The Noise Machine dupes the faithful and how the agitprop gets spread. This is the new ebola and Bengazi. Grubghazi? BenGruber?

Anyhoo, the Weekly Benghazi is gonna be waaaaaaay worse in the next two years as the GoOPers look for cover to break everything in sight.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that these news stories are lies? Is the information in them irrelevant? I think that the Benghazi story will be quiet until after the Democrats nominate Hillary to run. Then the GOP will use it as one of may tools to try to bury her.
 
michaelskis said:
Last I checked, the only Republicans who voted for Romenycare were in MA.
Click to expand...

Sigh. And they aren't Republicans?

michaelskis said:
As for Obamacare, healthcare (as a whole) has become more expensive, people were not able to keep their doctor, people were not able to keep their plan, it included abortive contraception, and young people are not signing up, thus old, sick, and under-insured people are paying more, when the President said that they would pay less.
Click to expand...

Says someone that isn't looking at the numbers. Although I don't like the Affordable Care Act, I do believe that the intent (and in many ways the actual implementation) have helped many people who could not have otherwise received insurance, get insurance. The idea that healthcare costs went up isn't exactly surprising. My premiums have gone up every year for the last 8 years. The ACA had nothing to do with that. I get the point about the President saying they would go down. He is a cheerleader for it, of course he is going to be positive.

My frustration is the idea that Obama is the actual Act. He is not. He is the champion of the Act. Look it over. Much of it is good stuff. Much of it has made the insurance industry better, and the stronger regulations, have made access for many more possible. The idea that the ACA is killing Americans, or that we are worse off than when it was implemented is laughable. Could we have been better off than we are now? Yep. But that would have required the Republicans to actually stand for something. Which they do not.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/real-lessons-gruber-gate
This makes my point. It is the New Yorker though, so you have a point about the angle, before you even make that point. The concept is still clear:

New Yorker Article said:
This level of interest came as no surprise. Despite the disastrous launch of Healthcare.gov, this time last year, surveys show that the exchanges are now operating largely as advertised. In the past twelve months or so, about 7.3 million Americans have used them to take out insurance plans. An estimated 8.7 million people have obtained coverage through Medicaid, which saw its income-eligibility thresholds raised under the A.C.A. With so many people getting coverage, a lot of them for the first time, the number of uninsured Americans has fallen sharply. And, moreover, most people who have purchased insurance policies on the new exchanges are happy with them.

You don't believe me? A recent article in the Times cites surveys carried out by the Rand Corporation, the Commonwealth Fund, and Gallup, all of which indicated that the percentage of working-age Americans without health coverage has fallen by about a quarter, from somewhere around twenty per cent to somewhere around fifteen per cent. And, on Friday, Gallup published the results of a new survey, which asked people who bought policies through government exchanges what they thought of them. Seventy-one per cent of respondents rated the quality of their coverage as good or excellent. Nineteen per cent said it was fair. Nine per cent said it was poor.

If your goal were to demolish large parts of Obamacare, or even to repeal it entirely, would you want voters to dwell on figures such as these? Or would you prefer that they focus on the videos of Gruber? Conservative commentators and activists, having already promoted "Grubering" as a new verb (meaning: trying to deceive people), are now pinning a new nickname to the professor: the Six-Million-Dollar Man. According to Deroy Murdock, a contributor at National Review online, that's about how much money various government entities have paid Gruber in consulting fees during the past few years for his advice and for the use of his computer models. John McCain, in remarks to the Washington Post, summarized, with commendable honesty, what purpose the Gruber saga is playing: "This gives us ammunition to make fundamental changes to the law."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
What??

Of Course Republican's "stand" for something........wait for it........

Continued double digit increases in health care costs, less opportunities to vote for certain specific groups of the unwashed public, increased military spending, Canada's energy conveyance and protection of nearly tax free hoarded wealth capital gains.

I just outlined the GOP strategy.
 
michaelskis said:
Last I checked, the only Republicans who voted for Romenycare were in MA.
Click to expand...

Meet Obamacare's Republican ancestor: Health Equity & Access Reform Today Act of 1993

It was never voted on, but includes many of the key provisions found in ObamaCare and had 20 Republican co-sponsors (all of them big names). It included an individual mandate, creation of purchasing pools, standardized benefits, vouchers for the poor to buy insurance and ban on denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition. The only differences were that it did not expand Medicaid, had a slightly different employer mandate, included tort reform and, perhaps most significant and reflective of GOP approaches to all government programs, offered no means of paying for it. But make no mistake: the root of ACA was fundamentally a Republican approach.
 
Snicker......

Suburb Repairman said:
Meet Obamacare's Republican ancestor: Health Equity & Access Reform Today Act of 1993

It was never voted on, but includes many of the key provisions found in ObamaCare and had 20 Republican co-sponsors (all of them big names). It included an individual mandate, creation of purchasing pools, standardized benefits, vouchers for the poor to buy insurance and ban on denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition. The only differences were that it did not expand Medicaid, had a slightly different employer mandate, included tort reform and, perhaps most significant and reflective of GOP approaches to all government programs, offered no means of paying for it. But make no mistake: the root of ACA was fundamentally a Republican approach.
Click to expand...

All gibberish...authentic frontier gibberish...at least this is how fact is met by the GOP.
 
Hink said:
Sigh. And they aren't Republicans?
Click to expand...

Sigh... So a small group of republicans in MA vote for something that only applies to their state, and you take that as a blanket "He passed a healthcare bill, that everyone wanted to pass (both R's and D's at some point)" viewpoint of the party.

Hink said:
Says someone that isn't looking at the numbers. Although I don't like the Affordable Care Act, I do believe that the intent (and in many ways the actual implementation) have helped many people who could not have otherwise received insurance, get insurance. The idea that healthcare costs went up isn't exactly surprising. My premiums have gone up every year for the last 8 years. The ACA had nothing to do with that. I get the point about the President saying they would go down. He is a cheerleader for it, of course he is going to be positive.

My frustration is the idea that Obama is the actual Act. He is not. He is the champion of the Act. Look it over. Much of it is good stuff. Much of it has made the insurance industry better, and the stronger regulations, have made access for many more possible. The idea that the ACA is killing Americans, or that we are worse off than when it was implemented is laughable. Could we have been better off than we are now? Yep. But that would have required the Republicans to actually stand for something. Which they do not.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/real-lessons-gruber-gate
This makes my point. It is the New Yorker though, so you have a point about the angle, before you even make that point. The concept is still clear:
Click to expand...

If the numbers your talking about is just the number of people insured, despite the cost, then you are correct. More people are insured today than they were before obamacare started to be implemented. The numbers I was referencing was the cost out of pocket. The intent of the bill was to make healthcare affordable, thus the name, Affordable Healthcare Act. In a few locations, it did go down. But as a whole, the average U.S. county saw a rate increase of 49 percent. LINK 1. In Michigan, it is 66%

But it is not just about that, in fact we won't know the full effects of Obamacare for some time because of the implementation timeline and how Obama has been using Executive Orders to extend out that time line (which many say he does not have the constitutional authority to do since the timelines are in be bill... and he is changing the bill without congressional approval)

Once again, this bill has not made healthcare more affordable, it is become more expensive, it as sold by, to quote Gruber, "Stupid American Voters" to get passed, is only being classified as constitutional by SOTUS as a tax, and was based on a foundation of lies that is slowly crumbling.


The One said:
Of Course Republican's "stand" for something........wait for it........

Continued double digit increases in health care costs, less opportunities to vote for certain specific groups of the unwashed public, increased military spending, Canada's energy conveyance and protection of nearly tax free hoarded wealth capital gains.

I just outlined the GOP strategy.
Click to expand...

You forgot destruction of the environment and paving the way for global domination by multinational corporations. Oh, and they don't follow the constitution either.

It's not an R v D thing anymore because both parties are so entrenched in a "Do what the lobbyists tell us" and "follow the money" that neither of them are worth a damn. It is like the Keysone pipe line situation. I would love to see the pipeline get built. My union brother in law is a pipefitter and he said that there would be a lot of guys that would be employed to build and maintain it, and that it would create a lot of refinery jobs. That oil will flow out of Canada it is just a question if we will be involved or not. But the bill that was recently passed by Republicans would have given TransCanada permission to build without getting many of the other permits that we require any other company to get, many of them environmental. Everyone should follow by the same rules, not those with unsuccessful lobbing efforts.



Edit: I would still be against Obamacare if it was introduced by the Ghost of Ronald Reagan himself. It is a bad bill, it is at the wrong level of government, and it is far from 'affordable', so the whole "But the Republicans wanted it" argument is worthless to me.
 
Back
Top