Obama General Discussion, vol. 3

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Florida going for Bama was a fluke last time. It will not see blue again for a very long time.

such a stupid state
 
GOP does have a pretty good hold on Florida

and we know from 2000, they know how to work all the angles.


I don't think Romney need Rubio on the ticket, having him stump up and down the state is just as good. Also, the Jewish vote for Obama will not be s strong this time around.
Of course we could give Israel all the intel they need to bomb Iran, that could be Obama's October surprise. :sexywink:
 
Right, because the two situations are so similar as to invite comparison.

There are in one regard.

Cheerleaders for OWS are claiming victory because Bank of America dropped its plan for a $5 debt card fee. I think it only fair to point out that political change can still be achieved in this country without giving up bathing.
 
There are in one regard.

Cheerleaders for OWS are claiming victory because Bank of America dropped its plan for a $5 debt card fee. I think it only fair to point out that political change can still be achieved in this country without giving up bathing.
Typical American conservative rhetoric from you, INDY.

  • Claim moral outrage at something trumped up and overblown by right-wing media
  • Be called out on it by someone with fairly sensible, middle-of-the-road political views rooted in reality
  • Attempt petty/strained comparison to justify original position in a gutless retreat

That's the modus operandi of the GOP hype machine in general. Outrage, hyperbole, publicity, quiet retreat back to reality on the issue.

The voting public does not bother doing their research, so only the original hysterical talking point is remembered.

Swiftboat.
Death panels.
Obamacare.
Etc.

You disgust me, sometimes.
 
Typical American conservative rhetoric from you, INDY.

  • Claim moral outrage at something trumped up and overblown by right-wing media
  • Be called out on it by someone with fairly sensible, middle-of-the-road political views rooted in reality
  • Attempt petty/strained comparison to justify original position in a gutless retreat

That's the modus operandi of the GOP hype machine in general. Outrage, hyperbole, publicity, quiet retreat back to reality on the issue.

The voting public does not bother doing their research, so only the original hysterical talking point is remembered.

Swiftboat.
Death panels.
Obamacare.
Etc.

You disgust me, sometimes.





Typical liberal/progressive rhetoric from you, Canadien1131.


Take care
 
No surprise you fail to provide any kind of cogent argument or explanation with one of your posts.

God be with ya :wave:




I was just expressing my opinion.



You posted this:

"That's the modus operandi of the GOP hype machine in general. Outrage, hyperbole, publicity, quiet retreat back to reality on the issue."


Is that your idea of stating a cognent argument and explaination?
 
Typical American conservative rhetoric from you, INDY.

  • Claim moral outrage at something trumped up and overblown by right-wing media
  • Be called out on it by someone with fairly sensible, middle-of-the-road political views rooted in reality
  • Attempt petty/strained comparison to justify original position in a gutless retreat
Mind if I ask what the hell you're talking about? Called out on what? My point all along is, for all its faults, politics in America still works if you engage the system rather than trying to undermine it. Now Dieman is a fair MOD and intelligent and reasoned but "middle-of-the-road" politically? Even Dieman would not admit to that I'd guess.
Swiftboat.
Death panels.
Obamacare.
Etc.
Mediscare. (see Throw granny over the Cliff ad)
Republicans want "dirty air, dirty water, and fewer people with health insurance." (see Obama on the campaign trail)
Daisy Girl. (see Democratic ad against Goldwater)
Reagan's finger on the button.
George W Bush is "shredding the Constitution" on civil liberty.
Etc.

What's your point? Surely not that only the GOP uses such tactics.
You disgust me, sometimes.

Really? In a world of Penn St, Darfur, terrorism, honor killings and haggis... my words defending capitalism, American Exceptionalism and tenets of conservatism disgust you? :sad:
 
Many states' electoral votes have changed due to the 2010 census with states gaining votes being blue states and those losing votes being Obama states. So factor that into your numbers. Some states may have adopted the Colorado rule of doling out electoral votes by district, not winner take al,l as well but I'm not sure about that.

12 Electoral votes swapped places.
2012 electoral vote in parenthesis.
Bolded are supposed toss-ups.

Texas +4 (38)
Florida +2 (29)
Arizona +1 (11)
Georgia +1 (16)
Nevada +1 (6)
South Carolina +1 (9)
Utah +1 (6)
Washington +1 (12)

New York -2 (29)
Ohio -2 (18)
Illinois -1 (20)
Iowa -1 (6)
Louisiana -1 (8)
Mass. -1 (11)
Michigan -1 (16)
Missouri -1 (10)
New Jersey -1 (14)
Pennsylvania -1 (20)

There are thought to be (by most pundits) twelve toss-up States.
Although some of the more biased "pundits" have said eight, I think twelve is at least a more wide net and people can make up their own minds from there.

Here are the 2012 electoral votes for those states.
Nevada (6), Colorado (9), Iowa (6), Florida (29), Michigan (16), Pennsylvania (20), New Mexico (5), Wisconsin (10), New Hampshire (4), North Carolina (15), Ohio (18), Virginia (13).

Minnesota (10) is considered by some as a 13th swing state.

If MN goes to Obama, then the split is Obama-196 Republican-191.
With those 151 votes from the 12 swing states up for grabs.
 
Minnesota (10) is considered by some as a 13th swing state.

If MN goes to Obama, then the split is Obama-196 Republican-191.
With those 151 votes from the 12 swing states up for grabs.

Short of a Penn State-type scandal in the White House, Minnesota goes Obama in 2012 by a wider margin than in 2008. I am confident in that.
 
Lots of ways to look at it.

But I can't imagine any scenario where Ohio isn't the Belle of the Ball.

It won't be gay marriage and the like this time.

It's going to be union shit.
 
All the puzzle pieces for an interesting 2012 race are falling into place:

The SCOTUS has agreed to hear the appeal of the Affordable Care Act (that's Obummerkare for all you Fox News viewers). Ruling is expected before July 2012.

Then again, it's all down to the economy. This should still be interesting, though.
 
The SCOTUS has agreed to hear the appeal of the Affordable Care Act (that's Obummerkare for all you Fox News viewers). Ruling is expected before July 2012.



and on that note:

CNN Poll: Support rises for health insurance mandate
politicalmugshot
Posted by
CNN Political Unit

Washington (CNN) - The public is divided over the idea of requiring all Americans to have health insurance, according to a new national survey. But a CNN/ORC International Poll also indicates that support for the proposal, a cornerstone of the 2010 health care reform law, has risen since June.

The survey's Monday release comes as the Supreme Court has agreed to decide the constitutionality of the sweeping health care reform law that was passed by a Democratic Congress and championed by President Barack Obama. The justices made their announcement in a brief order issued on Monday. Oral arguments would likely be held in late February or March, with a ruling by June, assuring the blockbuster issue will become a hot-button political issue in a presidential election year.

According to the poll, 52% of Americans favor mandatory health insurance, up from 44% in June. The survey indicates that 47% oppose the health insurance mandate, down from 54% in early summer.

"The health insurance mandate has gained most support since June among older Americans and among lower-income Americans," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "A majority of independents opposed the measure in June, but 52 percent of them now favor it."

The poll was conducted for CNN by ORC International Poll from November 11-13, with 1,036 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

CNN Poll: Support rises for health insurance mandate – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
 



possibly.

but the last poll in that RCP was late October, it's been a few weeks, and Obama's numbers have continued a gradual rise, wouldn't surprise me if this issue follows suit.

also, people might be discovering that having more people with insurance is a good thing, that a pre-existing condition can no longer disqualify you from having insurance is a good thing, and that kids being able to remain on their parent's health care is also a good thing.

i really can understand the philosophical objection to the idea of a "mandate." i might not agree, but i can understand it.

i can't understand the total unwillingness of those opposed to the Affordable Care Act to acknowledge that, yes, there are some very, very good and important improvements in the bill.
 
either way, the Supreme Court could make this a non-issue


also, I think most people that see themselves as not being affected by it, they are guessing they are against it.

as more and more people are impacted with higher and higher co-pays and insurance costs, they would rather have some controls, vs no controls.
 
The interesting possibility for Summer 2012 will be both President Obama and Eventual Nominee Romney both having to face down their own brand of legislation being declared unconstitutional. Both of them pushed through healthcare legislation requiring the mandatory purchase of health insurance to get the provisions to work.
 
Here is CA many are getting rebates, there is a state law that something like 70 % of money collected must go for health care, if audits show that is not the case premiums are lowed or rebates. There really are only a couple of big insurance companies here, Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Anthem. Kaiser.

The State Insurance Commissioner has not allowed some rate increases, or lower them after audits show they were not justified.

Keep in mind the insurance companies have a lot of control on these numbers, and still they are making/showing huge profits.
 
I also do accept that there are credible arguments to be made for free markets in health care

look at the costs of breast augmentations, the costs in a free market have come down drastically over the years

the same could be said for laser eye surgeries, these costs are probably at 25% of the they were first offered at. And I do attribute that to market factors. Because those are paid by the consumer and not paid for by insurance coverage. If they were covered by insurance, the costs would be much, much higher.

Those services do better in a free market, like cell phones. Ability to enter the market and compete drives the costs down with better products/ services.

Unfortunately, many or most health need requirements are not as open to free markets.
 
You can argue that breast augmentations and eye surgery for vision correction are non-essential services, though, and depend on discretionary income.

Setting a broken arm is not an optional expenditure for an individual.
 
The interesting possibility for Summer 2012 will be both President Obama and Eventual Nominee Romney both having to face down their own brand of legislation being declared unconstitutional. Both of them pushed through healthcare legislation requiring the mandatory purchase of health insurance to get the provisions to work.

The constitutionality of the Massachusetts law isn't in question as it pertains only to citizens of Massachusetts. States can compel its citizens to buy car insurance for example. At question is the authority of the federal government to compel the purchase of insurance using the Commerce Clause.
 
You can argue that breast augmentations and eye surgery for vision correction are non-essential services, though, and depend on discretionary income.

Setting a broken arm is not an optional expenditure for an individual.

Setting a broken arm was also quite affordable until third party payers and defensive medicine entered the picture.
 
INDY500 said:
Setting a broken arm was also quite affordable until third party payers and defensive medicine entered the picture.

So setting a broken arm in 1920 was less expensive than in 2011? that's your argument? On the surface that's a pretty true statement, beyond the surface it's one of your most ridiculous arguments I've ever seen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom