US Politics: Common Ground Between Democrats and Republicans

[ThinkerX]

Alaska huh? Enjoy that 37% rate increase for your government healthcare.

Verses about a 100% increase under the old system...if the insurance companies didn't simply decide you were too big a risk and say 'so long sucker! You're not covered anymore!'

Happened to my parents. Dad saw his insurance bill triple in a three year span under the old system, then one fine fall day, they told him he wasn't covered anymore, so he went on Medicare or Medicaid or whatever it's called.

Plus we have a governor who believes that subsidies are evil...unless you're an oil company. He turned down the Medicare expansion, calling it a 'hot mess,' then rammed through a giant tax giveaway for the oil companies in exchange for doing nothing.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

I know, right? Think about the 2016 conventions of the two major parties. At the Democratic convention you'll see Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton

This is funny. Really good stuff. All these people are clowns. No one wants to play with Barry right now. You would think he has Ebola. Senators in his own party are calling him irrelevant! Biden is a proven fool, a walking gaffe. Al Gore...only the far left finds this guy credible these days. Probably the biggest hypocrite of them all. Probably. Kerry and Clinton, the worst back to back secretary of state duo in our history. This is your claim to fame! I think you'll be surprised that this list will be the reason you lose the senate and white house.

[ThinkerX]

This is funny. Really good stuff. All these people are clowns. No one wants to play with Barry right now. You would think he has Ebola. Senators in his own party are calling him irrelevant! Biden is a proven fool, a walking gaffe. Al Gore...only the far left finds this guy credible these days. Probably the biggest hypocrite of them all. Probably. Kerry and Clinton, the worst back to back secretary of state duo in our history. This is your claim to fame! I think you'll be surprised that this list will be the reason you lose the senate and white house.

And the GOP contenders, past and present are far worse. Bush II, a proven 'true conservative hero' bankrupted the US with two unwinnable wars, gave corporate crooks free reign to plunder, and laid the groundwork for a totalitarian state (with no good reason at all) with the Patriot Act.

Then there was the psycho Bachman, and the even more psycho Palin (apologies from the frozen north for unleashing her upon the world).

And currently...well, we got the undeniably corrupt and self centered Governor Christie in Jersey, the Koch boy's toady Walker in Wisconsin, a literally insane idiot in line to become lieutenant governor of Texas, and a whole slew of southern, racist vote suppressing politicians scattered throughout the old confederacy.

But it doesn't matter. No matter who wins, of whichever party, will put Wall Street first.

[HairBearHero]

This is funny. Really good stuff. All these people are clowns. No one wants to play with Barry right now. You would think he has Ebola. Senators in his own party are calling him irrelevant! Biden is a proven fool, a walking gaffe. Al Gore...only the far left finds this guy credible these days. Probably the biggest hypocrite of them all. Probably. Kerry and Clinton, the worst back to back secretary of state duo in our history. This is your claim to fame! I think you'll be surprised that this list will be the reason you lose the senate and white house.

By what criteria are Kerry and Clinton the worst back to back secretary of state duo in history?

[Shryke]

An interesting look at a new study that confirms what you already knew:

Electing Judges is Fucking Stupid

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Justice__For_Rent

In states with more advertising and perhaps more competitive electoral environments, elected judges are more likely to be electorally sensitive to being seen as “soft on crime” and therefore less sympathetic to criminal defendants when they decide criminal appeals. At the margin, whether consciously or unconsciously, they prefer to avoid a judicial vote in a criminal case that can be the basis for attack advertisements funded by independent expenditures.

Indeed, the analysis set forth above demonstrates that as television advertising in a state goes up, state’s judges are more likely to decide criminal appeals against criminal defendants. The analysis also demonstrates that Citizens United exacerbated the influence of money in judicial elections influence on judicial decision making. In the 23 states that had bans on corporate or union independent expenditures, Citizens United’s lifting of these bans is associated with a decrease in justices voting in favor of defendants.

These findings are likely to be only a preview of escalating trends in judicial campaign finance and elections. There has been only one presidential election cycle since Citizens United. Outside groups, whether funded by corporations, unions and wealthy individuals have only begun to professionalize their operations and will only grow more sophisticated in the years to come.

TLDR => Electing judges biases them against defendants, as does independent expenditures on judicial elections.

[Frog Eater]

Shryke:

Here in South Carolina, judges are appointed by the legislature, not voted in. There is a movement by our attorney general to change this and move judges to be elected by the populace. I disagree with this, as I think it opens judges up to the perils of campaign finance, but your point is an equally dangerous aspect.

I think that appointing judges and not having them elected is a bipartisan issue, and have communicated so to the attorney general

[Commodore]

An interesting look at a new study that confirms what you already knew:

Electing Judges is Fucking Stupid

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Justice__For_Rent

TLDR => Electing judges biases them against defendants, as does independent expenditures on judicial elections.

the problem is the power they have (and the electorate that gives it to them)

making them unelected doesn't make them more virtuous

[aceluby]

By what criteria are Kerry and Clinton the worst back to back secretary of state duo in history?

Lol, you speak as if he uses logic and facts to back his opinion.

[aceluby]

the problem is the power they have (and the electorate that gives it to them)

making them unelected doesn't make them more virtuous

Actually it does, as they aren't campaigning to keep their jobs, getting money from outside groups to run those campaigns, and corrupting their judging based off of losing/winning campaign contributions.

Or are you naïve enough to believe that money doesn't corrupt?

[TrackerNeil]

This is funny. Really good stuff. All these people are clowns.

I am sure you know about clowns. Yep.

[HairBearHero]

Lol, you speak as if he uses logic and facts to back his opinion.

I live in hope.

[Suttree]

Alaska huh? Enjoy that 37% rate increase for your government healthcare.

Yet another topic in which you seem to have little to no understanding of context.

And while some Alaskans will see an increase in health care premiums — premiums have actually grown by double digits in the state since before the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, rising as much as 32 percent in 2008– the vast majority of the 16,000 residents who signed up for coverage will see little change in how much they pay for insurance.

Though this fact is missing from the GOP’s press release, close to 90 percent of newly enrolled Alaskans receive subsidies from the federal government and and are thus shielded from any significant spike. In Alaska, tax credits reduced the costs of premiums more than in any other state that does not operate its own exchange, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) pointed out. “Ninety-five percent of silver plan enrollees received financial assistance, which cut the average silver plan premium by 85 percent, to $82 per month,” HHS Press Secretary Benjamin Wakana said.

Indeed, even the Division of Insurance Commissioner Lori Wing-Heier explained in the very article the RNC quoted that those individuals receiving subsidies are “not going to see very much in change.” She went on to attribute the hikes to the unique features of the Alaskan insurance mareket: the small number of enrollees and the limited number of competition among insurers.

In a statement responding to the higher rates, Begich slammed state leaders. “After leaving millions of dollars of federal funding on the table and refusing to accept the Medicaid expansion to cover tens of thousands of Alaskans, it is frustrating to now see the State and Governor Parnell try and pass the buck on to consumers,” he said. It is equally disappointing to see the Republican committee omit key facts in order to score a political hit and frighten insurance beneficiaries.

[Commodore]

Actually it does, as they aren't campaigning to keep their jobs, getting money from outside groups to run those campaigns, and corrupting their judging based off of losing/winning campaign contributions.

Or are you naïve enough to believe that money doesn't corrupt?

Unelected people can be corrupted by money.

Hard to believe I know, but there have been instances in history of corrupt people in power who are unelected.

When you are elected, your power is checked by the need for votes.

[James Arryn]

Bush had a period of political consensus and bipartisan support that has not been replicated under Obama, but that was because of 9/11. I don't like it either - some very serious damage was done to the country during that period where Bush had nearly free reign. But whining that poor Obama is now entitled to the same treatment is silly

Yeah, this, sadly.

Gridlock prevents to right guy from doing the right thing, but also prevents the wrong guy from doing the wrong thing. Bush happening was such a complete clusterfuck of compounded disaster that I think it's very, very unlikely that an unshackled Obama would have done more to help than Dubya did to harm.

It's a shame it's defining Obama's administration, but long-term I suspect health care will be the bell you can't unring. I wonder if we'll see a pattern of popular Dems basically sacrificing their Presidencies to get one major thing done rather than survive by failing to get a lot of things begun.

[TrackerNeil]

It's a shame it's defining Obama's administration, but long-term I suspect health care will be the bell you can't unring. I wonder if we'll see a pattern of popular Dems basically sacrificing their Presidencies to get one major thing done rather than survive by failing to get a lot of things begun.

I still don't know why one would think Obama "sacrificed" his presidency on the ACA. Liberals got a good many things done over the past six years -- Dodd-Frank, Lily Leadbetter, the stimulus, two Supreme Court justices and lots of other judges -- and if that's what we got for the Obama presidency, then I'd say it was a bargain.

[aceluby]

Unelected people can be corrupted by money.

Hard to believe I know, but there have been instances in history of corrupt people in power who are unelected.

When you are elected, your power is checked by the need for votes.

Unelected people corrupted by money is bribery, and is illegal.

Elected people corrupted by money is called campaign finance.

[James Arryn]

I still don't know why one would think Obama "sacrificed" his presidency on the ACA. Liberals got a good many things done over the past six years -- Dodd-Frank, Lily Leadbetter, the stimulus, two Supreme Court justices and lots of other judges -- and if that's what we got for the Obama presidency, then I'd say it was a bargain.

Sure, I meant mostly in terms of his serious unpopularity going out, with many Democrats campaigning on how they disagreed with him about everything.

[Fez]

Yeah, this, sadly.

Gridlock prevents to right guy from doing the right thing, but also prevents the wrong guy from doing the wrong thing. Bush happening was such a complete clusterfuck of compounded disaster that I think it's very, very unlikely that an unshackled Obama would have done more to help than Dubya did to harm.

It's a shame it's defining Obama's administration, but long-term I suspect health care will be the bell you can't unring. I wonder if we'll see a pattern of popular Dems basically sacrificing their Presidencies to get one major thing done rather than survive by failing to get a lot of things begun.

I'd rather it be the other way. Let elections have consequences, and the winning party get a chance to enact its agenda. There still needs to be some protections of course, but the current gridlock is way too extreme. And I worry that it does slowly disillusion voters with democracy altogether, and could lead them to eventually supporting an alternative.

[Commodore]

The lack of interalization/introspection from the left is notable, especially compared to the right after 2006/2008.

After those elections, there was some bemoaning about an electorate of idiots/freeloaders. But most of the recriminations were aimed at their own party. Too much foreign adventurism. Too much spending/debt. Too much crony capitalism/bailouts. An inability/unwillingness for leaders to make the case for limited government and individual liberty.

When you lose elections, you ask the basic questions. Are our ideas wrong? Did our policies match those ideas? Were the outcomes positive? If they were positive, why didn't the electorate see that? How could we have made that case more effectively?

This time it's blame Bush, blame Koch, blame Voter ID laws, blame gerrymandering, blame the other party. The bitching and moaning is counterproductive and pathetic.

Internalization is the key to changing outcomes.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Actually this time it's Democrats won the last election.