You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
I have to admit when I'm wrong, and it was brought up to me that the high premiums of Obamacare were not because of the bill but there was a provision in the bill that was repealed by republicans called risk corridors, that was to kep all premiums down, but it was repealed specifically to raise everyone's premiums to sabotage the bill, and give Republicans a leg up in the election, which was the brain child of Rubio and pushed by right wing lobbying groups. My apologies for not knowing all the facts before criticizing it. Still, we have to cap big pharma and the medical industries.
Just read this article and is exactly my thoughts on Bernie Sanders:
As the 2016 presidential election inches closer and closer, I can’t help but feel a bit overwhelmed by everything that’s going on. Even as someone who’s passionate about politics, I’m already a bit exhausted and we’re still well over a year away from election night. But it’s not been keeping up with Donald Trump and the whole GOP circus that’s been exhausting (if anything that’s been the most entertaining part), it’s that I’m seeing liberals making too many of the same mistakes they’ve made in the past that ultimately ended up with Republicans gaining more power in our government. Right now it’s abundantly clear that either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders is going to win the Democratic nomination. Sorry Joe Biden fans, that’s just not happening. But it’s the Sanders supporters who’ve concerned me the most. While I appreciate passion, I strongly oppose irrationality; what I’ve come across from far too many Sanders supporters is that they’re not only irrational, but extremely unrealistic as well. What I’m seeing now reminds me of what I witnessed prior to Barack Obama’s election in 2008. And while that night was historic, the unreasonable and unrealistic expectations of many liberals ultimately screwed over Democrats just two years later during the 2010 elections. Let’s say Sanders were to knock off Clinton and go on to win the presidency. I would be absolutely thrilled because that meant Republicans failed to occupy the White House for at least four more years. While I am a Clinton supporter, I’ve maintained from day one that my main goal is to see Republicans lose – I’m perfectly fine with either Clinton or Sanders as president. But let’s say in January of 2017 this nation ushers in President Bernie Sanders. Liberals all over the country will be beside themselves with joy that the “anti-establishment” Sanders won and is here to bring about a political “revolution” that only those who “#FeeltheBern” can understand.
He’s almost everything many liberal Americans have dreamt about. Sanders is going to bring about a wave of change in this country that’s never been seen before. Except – he’s not. The truth is, no president can really do any of that. It requires incredible cooperation from Congress, which Sanders is not going to get. Which brings me back to 2008 and the unrealistic expectations many liberals had for Barack Obama. I remember meeting liberals back then who honestly seemed to think he was going to come in, wave his magic liberal wand and change everything they hated about our government. He was going to pass universal health care; close Guantanamo Bay; end the wars; fix income inequality; raise taxes on the rich; and usher in never-before-seen “liberal awesomeness” to the United States. Then reality quickly set in.
While I believe that President Obama has been a great president, the biggest complaint I’ve seen from his liberal critics has generally been their disappointment that he couldn’t live up to their unrealistic expectations about what he could do as president. As a president, in a very simplistic way, you really have two choices if your party doesn’t have a super-majority in Congress: Stick to your hardcore ideological principles and get practically nothing done. – or – Learn to compromise with the other party and tick off your “base” but at least accomplish something. Well, Obama has been about 60-70 percent committed to his ideological principles and about 30 percent compromise to get at least some things done. Naturally, being that the base of either party typically whines about those compromises made by members of their own party, many on the far-left turned on the president, accusing him of selling out his liberal promises. As we all know now, that played a part in Republicans seizing control of the House in 2010 as liberals apathetically sat out Obama’s first midterm elections. However, I don’t see Sanders compromising on his beliefs, which brings up a whole other issue: Being labeled as an ineffective president. If Sanders were to get elected next year, then proceeded to fail in his first four years to: Raise taxes on the rich to 50 percent. Make public college free. Pass universal health care. Expand Social Security and Medicare. Raise the minimum wage. Reduce income inequality. You know, most of the key points on which he’s running – what would he then run for re-election on? It’s difficult to energize people for the same message twice when in your initial four years you accomplished almost nothing you promised to do the first time. Not only that, but quite a few of these same liberals who turned on President Obama for not fixing everything with the snap of his fingers would do the very same thing to Sanders.
At least when President Obama was first elected he had a Congress that was controlled by Democrats (even though Republicans gained filibuster power after Ted Kennedy’s death), something Sanders will not have. That could hand Republicans the White House in 2020. And for those who think Democrats are going to take full control of Congress again in 2016, think again. At best Democrats might gain a slight advantage in the Senate next year, but the House is most likely going to remain in Republican control until at least 2020 when congressional lines are redrawn. Any legislation that’s passed over the next few years is going to be built on compromise, which is something I don’t know if Sanders can do. If he compromised on his far-left beliefs, which is really the basis for why so many people support him, then many liberals would turn on him for “selling out” – just like they did President Obama. If liberals want to bring about true change in this country, it starts by: Having realistic expectations about what the next Democratic nominee for president can actually accomplish. Voting for that nominee, no matter who it ultimately turns out to be. Voting for most of the Democrats running for Congress (after assessing their opponents and records). Show up again in 2018 in huge numbers to, once again, vote for most of the Democrats running for Congress. Repeat that process again in 2020. Understanding that change takes consistent (and strong) voter turnout over many elections spanning years/decades – not just during presidential election years. No president, not even Bernie “Revolution/FeeltheBern” Sanders will be able to snap his or her fingers and fix everything. If liberals show up to vote, Republicans can’t win. When liberals lose – like they did in 2010 and 2014 – it’s because they let Republicans win by not showing up in large numbers at the polls.
However, if liberals repeat some of their same mistakes from the past (unrealistic expectations mixed with apathy), the progress and changes we want to see happen in this country will take much longer to accomplish – if those changes ever happen at all.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
This here is frightening. This is why its time for someone like Trump. If not now....very, very soon.
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough asks Sen. Rick Santorum to name Marco Rubio's top accomplishments as a senator. Santorum announced his support for Rubio after dropping out of the presidential race this week.
JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC: Can you name his top accomplishment, in the Senate, actually working in the Senate, doing something, that tilted your decision to Marco Rubio?
SEN. RICK SANTORUM: Well, here's what I would say about that, Marco is someone who has tremendous potential and tremendous gifts. If you look at being in the minority for four years where nothing got done, I guess it's hard to say there are accomplishments. What happened during that four years that was an accomplishment for anyone? It was complete gridlock.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI, MSNBC: This is a little disturbing.
JOE: Republicans have actually been in the majority for the past two years, can you name one thing that he's passed. Just one, maybe a bill that he passed in the last two years.
SANTORUM: Joe, look, the Republicans have been in the majority for one year and one month, most of the time he was running for president. The first four years he was in the minority and nothing got done. and by the way, what happened this year?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ … ments.html
-----
Now check this out.....
Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton Accepted Almost the Same Amount of Prison Lobbyist Donations
One little-known fact this year is that Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio have benefited from prison lobbyist money. In fact, they've taken almost the same amount of contributions from major prison lobbyists. Clinton's campaign has received $133,246while Rubio's campaign accepted $133,450 from the prison lobby.
According to a Vice News piece titled How Private Prisons Are Profiting From Locking Up US Immigrants, Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio have taken virtually the same amount of donations from the two most influential prison lobbyists in the U.S.
VICE reviewed federal campaign disclosures and found that lobbying firms linked to GEO and CCA have already contributed more than $288,300 to three of the leading candidates.
Clinton's Ready for Hillary PAC received $133,246 from lobbying firms linked to GEO and CCA. Rubio's PACs and campaign have taken a total of $133,450 from private prison companies or groups that lobby on their behalf. Bush's campaign and his Right to Rise Super PAC have received $21,700 from lobbying groups affiliated with GEO and CCA.
"These companies are investing their money for a reason," said Bob Libal, the executive director of Grassroots Leadership, a group that fights to end for-profit incarceration. "That reason is to maintain policies that benefit them."
Rubio's home state of Florida has recently faced a crisis with its corrections system and has the 11th highest incarceration rate in the nation.
While Hillary Clinton expects to receive the majority of the African American vote among Democrats, mass incarceration has targeted African Americans at a higher rate than any other demographic. Thus, Clinton's willingness to accept money from the prison lobby runs contrary to the interests of a core constituency. According to theNAACP, national statistics show black citizens targeted at alarming rates by the prison system:
African Americans now constitute nearly 1 million of the total 2.3 million incarcerated population
African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites
Together, African American and Hispanics comprised 58% of all prisoners in 2008, even though African Americans and Hispanics make up approximately one quarter of the US population
According to Unlocking America, if African American and Hispanics were incarcerated at the same rates of whites, today's prison and jail populations would decline by approximately 50%
One in six black men had been incarcerated as of 2001. If current trends continue, one in three black males born today can expect to spend time in prison during his lifetime
1 in 100 African American women are in prison.
Nationwide, African-Americans represent 26% of juvenile arrests, 44% of youth who are detained, 46% of the youth who are judicially waived to criminal court, and 58% of the youth admitted to state prisons (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice).
5 times as many Whites are using drugs as African Americans, yet African Americans are sent to prison for drug offenses at 10 times the rate of Whites
African Americans represent 12% of the total population of drug users, but 38% of those arrested for drug offenses, and 59% of those in state prison for a drug offense.
What's most startling is that African Americans on average vote around 90% Democratin presidential elections, yet Hillary Clinton accepted money from major prison lobbyists, even as "African Americans are incarcerated at nearly six times the rate of whites."
As for the reaction from Latino and African American civil rights organizations, these groups pressured Clinton to stop taking the prison lobby's money, as illustrated in a Huffington Post article titled Hillary Clinton Says She'll End Private Prisons, Stop Accepting Their Money:
Lobbying firms that work for two major private prison giants, GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America, gave $133,246 to the Ready for Hillary PAC,according to Vice. Those companies operate a number of criminal and immigrant detention facilities, some of which have been plagued by allegations of abuse and poor treatment of detainees.
Immigrant and civil rights groups have urged Clinton to stop accepting contributions from donors with ties to GEO and CCA. Earlier Thursday, in announcing its co-founder Cesar Vargas was moving to the campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the advocacy group Dream Action Coalition singled out Clinton for accepting those contributions.
Sanders recently introduced a bill to ban government contracts for private prisons, including immigrant detention centers.
It's unknown if Clinton would have still accepted prison lobbyist contributions had these groups not pressured the former Secretary of State. What's also surprising is that Jeb Bush actually received less money ($21,700) than Clinton, from the same interests that target a key voter base among Democrats.
In contrast to Clinton, Rubio, and Bush, Senator Bernie Sanders has been outspoken in his desire to ban private prisons, as stated in a USA Today piece titled Bernie Sanders seeks to ban private prisons:
Sen. Bernie Sanders said he hopes to end the "private, for-profit prison racket" with the introduction Thursday of bills to ban private prisons, reinstate the federal parole system and eliminate quotas for the number of immigrants held in detention.
The Vermont independent, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, introduced the "Justice is not for Sale Act" with Democratic Reps. Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, Keith Ellison of Minnesota and Bobby Rush of Illinois. It would bar the federal government from contracting with private incarceration companies starting two years after passage.
"The profit motivation of private companies running prisons works at cross purposes with the goals of criminal justice," Sanders said. "Criminal justice and public safety are without a doubt the responsibility of the citizens of our country, not private corporations. They should be carried out by those who answer to voters, not those who answer to investors."
In 2016, Bernie Sanders has been the leading voice among presidential candidates on the issue of banning private prisons.
With the Democratic race heating up and both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton close in the polls, the issue of prison lobbyist donations will factor into the Democratic primaries. Bernie Sanders has never taken money from the prison lobby, while The Intercept wrote last year that Private Prison Lobbyists Are Raising Cash for Hillary Clinton. In addition, Bill Clinton's recent apology for his role in making mass incarceration "worse" will also be a key issue in the 2016 Democratic Primary. The Los Angeles Times writes that "The federal and state prison populations rose more under former President Bill Clinton than under any other president." This year, Hillary Clinton could be linked not only to her acceptance of prison lobbyist money, but also Bill Clinton's role in mass incarceration.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodm … 91868.html
--------------------------
This one REALLY takes the cake. Hillary supposedly hates lobbyists and wants to shame them. Oh really?
DNC rolls back restrictions on lobbyist donations
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has dismantled the last of its prohibitions on receiving donations from lobbyists and political action committees.
The ban has been in place since 2008, when President Obama became the party’s presumptive nominee.
"The DNC’s recent change in guidelines will ensure that we continue to have the resources and infrastructure in place to best support whoever emerges as our eventual nominee,” Mark Paustenbach, deputy communications director for the DNC, told the Washington Post, which first reported the news.
The national committee confirmed the policy change to The Hill but also said that lobbyists and those running PACs are still not able to attend events with the president, vice president, first lady Michelle Obama or Dr. Jill Biden.
The DNC, which is chaired by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz (D-Fla.), opened the door to K Street donations earlier this summer, when it announced that lobbyists and corporate PACs would once again be allowed to make donations to the annual nominating conventions. That change was made primarily because Congress in 2013 nixed federal financing for conventions, depriving the parties of roughly $20 million to pay for the events.
With the DNC now accepting all lobbyist and PAC donations, it has reversed the policies that were adopted in 2008, when Obama vowed to curb the influence of special interests in Washington.
"We are going to change how Washington works," Obama said at the time. Lobbyists and corporate PACs “will not fund my party. They will not run our White House. And they will not drown out the voice of the American people when I'm president of the United States of America.”
While Obama still limits lobbyist participation in his administration, many of the policies he put in place have been eroded over time. Several waivers were provided that allowed lobbyists to work in the administration.
Campaign finance watchdog group Democracy 21 chided the DNC's decision, calling it "a major step in the wrong direction."
The reversal in policy "is in direct conflict with the American people’s deep concerns about the role of influence-money in Washington," said the group's president, Fred Wertheimer.
"The DNC is acting as if the party is blind to the anger and frustration with Washington that is being expressed by voters in both parties as the presidential nominating process unfolds."
"President Obama should immediately instruct the DNC to re-impose the lobbyist contribution ban he had established," he added.
The issue of money in politics has indeed loomed large in this year’s presidential race.
Hillary Clinton’s Democratic rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), has boasted that his contributions have come in at amounts averaging $27 a pop. He says the corporate world and a rich donor class fund Clinton’s campaign.
On the Republican side, business mogul Donald Trump has bragged about how his wealth liberates him from bowing to special interests as he seeks the White House.
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/ … -donations
--------------------
No one on either side of the aisle gives a damn about the American people anymore. Its why I laugh when you've got the blue team arguing against the red team. While both sides are arguing they both have the same coach sitting in the background laughing at the two sides. Politics isn't what it used to be folks.
The system is going to require a Trump type character to come in eventually and expose it for what it really is.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Politics has always been this way. Money has always been involved. The planter class was to the 18-19 century america what corporate america is today, and to get right down to it, the early 20th century was worse, where a few rich men ran this country like Rockefeller, etc. Can a candidate take money and still be effective? Yes. There are some good lobbying groups, BTW. I don't blame Rubio or Clinton too much here, because the way things are set up, you have to take that money.
I don't think a billionaire will have a massive impact, it's the same thing as the Bernie article, he has to have support in congress and the senate. I think Trump is a liberal, anyway. He's just very good at showmanship. I guarantee he will turn more liberal in a general election.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Yeah I know it has always been corrupt and you're right...the 19th century was really bad. Having said that, they don't even bother to hide it anymore. If you really pay attention, its there for all to see and I wish most Americans would realize this.
Years ago, there was a difference between the two sides. Now there isn't. They're both bought off by the exact same people and owe the same favors once getting into office.
I don't think a billionaire will have a massive impact, it's the same thing as the Bernie article, he has to have support in congress and the senate. I think Trump is a liberal, anyway. He's just very good at showmanship. I guarantee he will turn more liberal in a general election.
Of course he's a liberal. That's not in doubt. I think he basically flipped a coin on which side he'd run on.
What I like about him is he's not running on a liberal or conservative platform......he's discussing real issues that needed to be discussed 20 years ago. If he's running on a platform, it's an American platform. I really hope he at least makes it to the general because the American people are going to "see the light" on what is going on and how this country is being slowly destroyed by both sides of the aisle who are actually in cahoots with each other.
He can have a massive impact by showing Americans how this country is truly being governed.
I am absolutely stupified with the money Bush has spent, though. Like a hundred million for fifth place. Holy shit, I never saw that coming.
Its deplorable how much money went into his campaign. That money(what's left of it) should have to go to charity.
Just the sight of him makes me want to vomit.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Bush is improving actually. But won't win nomination.
- Mama's Good Boy
- Rep: 25
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
So what is everyone's take on the aftermath of Justice Scalia's death?
The left is saying, nominating a justice is the President's job and Scalia should be replaced as soon as possible. If President Obama chooses his replacement, he will almost certainly be far to the left of Scalia, who was probably the most conservative vote on the Supreme Court.
The right is saying that the nomination should not occur until after the election and be done by the next President. They are obviously banking on a Republican winning the nod, but if it were to be Sanders, he would clearly nominate someone more progressive than Obama would.
I don't see any reason why President Obama should not do the job he was elected to do and fill the vacancy on the court. Republicans are playing dirty politics here in basically refusing to approve anyone the President nominates.
This is why the election matters and why I will never vote Republican. The judges that a right wing President choose will set this country back on issues like women's health, gay rights, campaign finance, etc.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Yeah, it's Obama's right. They can run their gums as much as they want, but Republicans had this same debate at the end of Bush's presidency that a sitting president has the right to nominate a justice no matter where they were in their term.
- Mama's Good Boy
- Rep: 25
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Justice Scalia's death was a present for the left. To say we did not like him, is an understatement.
Condolences to his family and loved ones, but certainly no tears here. Perhaps this is a consequence of lifetime appointments. If the President can get someone to fill his place, this will really change things. The balance of the court will no longer be conservative. Its huge.
Republicans will look really bad if they spend an entire year blocking nominees.. just reinforces the left's narrative that they are the Party of No. They don't govern, they obstruct.
The rumors are the nominee will be Judge Sri Srinivasan.. certainly not the progressive the left wants, but will no doubt more reasonable than Scalia. The senate approved his last appointment in 2013 unanimously 97-0.. so rejecting him now will expose the petty politics for what it is..
