American Politics

Status
Not open for further replies.
PedroMendez said:
splitting the republicans into two parties wouldnt solve anything. It would ensure that the democrates win every presidency in the near future without any contest at all. I know that dem-voters vision themselves as shining lights in a time of darkness, but its a ridiculous view, that doesnt match reality at all.
Click to expand...

Ideally Dems should break off into two parties as well. The core constituency behind Obama is actually the one not happy with his presidency so far. I am talking about the proper American left. Doubt they would push for a establishment candidate like Hillary as well, though women probably would see getting a Woman in white house as a Prez as the bigger goal. Some one like Warren is their wet dream for a Prez right now.
 
crappycraperson said:
Ideally Dems should break off into two parties as well. The core constituency behind Obama is actually the one not happy with his presidency so far. I am talking about the proper American left. Doubt they would push for a establishment candidate like Hillary as well, though women probably would see getting a Woman in white house as a Prez as the bigger goal. Some one like Warren is their wet dream for a Prez right now.
Click to expand...

Doubt either party will split in the future, in fact both will make concerted efforts to widen their political bases to appeal to a broader set of constituents. The Republicans know they can't survive at the Presidential level with the changing US demographics, immigration trends, and social views.
 
Raoul said:
They actually could if someone like Jeb Bush runs. If they run a right wing nut like Cruz, they will get trounced in a landslide.
Click to expand...

I can't fathom the majority public desiring a third Bush, seeing the wrecked presidencies of the previous two. Of course, the white party supporters, err Republican voters, will vote for whomever wins the GOP nom. But I can't see the independents voting for a third Bush at a large enough rate to swing the vote. Furthermore, we all know if another Bush is voted in, it will be neocons like Cheney and Rumsfield running the country again. Which means be prepared for another Iraq intervention and probably conflicts in Syria and wherever the defense contractors desire.
 
Last edited:
Ubik said:
Pretty sure Perry will. Hows about Santorum? The Santorum Surge was one for the ages.
Click to expand...
Santorum already has thrown his hat in. He did an interview I was hired for as camera guy on for the day. Totally unrelated to the question he pretty much started going on about what voters can expect of his policies if he wins the primaries. This was a couple of months ago now. No one talked about it or cared.
 
MrMarcello said:
. Which means be prepared for another Iraq intervention and probably conflicts in Syria and wherever the defense contractors desire.
Click to expand...

Well the US is already sending troops into and bombing targets in Iraq. The US has already started mucking about in Syria. Then there was the overthrow of the government in Libya aided greatly by US bombs and missiles and "advisors" on the ground. So I don't think we need to wait for another Republican to make these things happen.
 
JustAFan said:
Well the US is already sending troops into and bombing targets in Iraq. The US has already started mucking about in Syria. Then there was the overthrow of the government in Libya aided greatly by US bombs and missiles and "advisors" on the ground. So I don't think we need to wait for another Republican to make these things happen.
Click to expand...

We'd be far deeper into all of those places and probably embroiled in a military standoff with Russia over Ukraine if a Republican was in office. And that's not factoring in the removal of troops from Iraq an Afghanistan in 2011 and 2014 - they would still be there.
 
Raoul said:
We'd be far deeper into all of those places and probably embroiled in a military standoff with Russia over Ukraine if a Republican was in office. And that's not factoring in the removal of troops from Iraq an Afghanistan in 2011 and 2014 - they would still be there.
Click to expand...

Oh well that makes everything we are doing in Syria, Libya, and elsewhere just fine then, how silly of me. (Just kidding)

Of course I could point out that the withdrawal of troops from Iraq happened based on an agreement in place before Obama took office, and thankfully Obama kept to the agreement (for which he deserves credit). And of course we could debate whether Romney would have kept to the agreement or whether Bush only agreed to it to try and make himself look better (what a joke) or to try and keep Obama from being the one who negotiated the agreement (I could actually see that being the case).

Also, lets give him and his administration credit for getting the intelligence community back focused on finding OBL and taking care of him. He never should have had to do that, it should have been job one all along and clearly falls on Bush for not making it the priority.

Look I am no FOX news watching, right wing, Republican. I did not vote for Bush either election. But I am not willing to give Obama a pass for things that are clearly his responsibility just because we can "what if" the situations into being worse if a Republican had been President. Syria, Libya fall squarely on his shoulders.

Point being we have continued to be very willing to use military force in the Middle East either directly or indirectly (arming rebels).
 
So, apparently a guy that wrote a book claiming that climate change was a hoax (Inhofe) is in line to lead the most powerful Senate Environment panel. And of course he's from my home state.

You keep fighting the fine fight, James...
 
Obama's coming out with some executive action concerning immigration. These next two years should be delightful.

WASHINGTON — Up to four million undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States for at least five years can apply for a program that protects them from deportation and allows those with no criminal record to work legally in the country, President Obama is to announce on Thursday, according to people briefed on his plans.

An additional one million people will get protection from deportation through other parts of the president’s plan to overhaul the nation’s immigration enforcement system, including the expansion of an existing program for “Dreamers,” young immigrants who came to the United States as children. There will no longer be a limit on the age of the people who qualify.

But farm workers will not receive specific protection from deportation, nor will the Dreamers’ parents. And none of the five million immigrants over all who will be given new legal protections will get government subsidies for health care under the Affordable Care Act.

These new details about the broad reach of Mr. Obama’s planned executive action on immigration emerged as he prepared to speak to the nation in a prime-time address on Thursday night. On Friday, the president is to travel to Las Vegas to rally public support for his plan in a state where Hispanics are a growing and politically powerful constituency.

Republicans on Capitol Hill sharply rebuked the president for his executive actions even before the speech on Thursday, accusing him of vastly exceeding the authority of his office. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, in an opinion article Tuesday on the Politico website, assailed the president for embracing “the tactics of a monarch.”

At the same time, immigration advocates rallied behind Mr. Obama’s actions, describing them as a much-delayed victory for millions of people.

Administration officials have said the president’s actions were designed to be “legally unassailable,” which activists said led the White House to make some tough choices.

Farm workers, for example, will not be singled out for protections because of concerns that it was difficult to justify legally treating them differently from undocumented workers in other jobs, like hotel clerks, day laborers and construction workers.

The White House decision to deny health benefits also underscores how far the president’s expected actions will fall short of providing the kind of full membership in American society that activists have spent decades fighting for. The immigrants covered by Mr. Obama’s actions are also unlikely to receive public benefits like food stamps, Medicaid coverage or other need-based federal programs offered to citizens and some legal residents.

The health care restriction may be the most immediate concern for many immigrants and for activists who have urged Mr. Obama to act to prevent deportations. Advocates for immigrant rights were infuriated in 2012 when the White House ruled that Dreamers would not get subsidized insurance coverage.

But the restriction reflects the political sensitivities involved when two of the most contentious issues in Washington, health care and immigration, collide. It also suggests that the White House has decided not to risk angering conservative lawmakers who have long opposed providing government health care to illegal immigrants and who fought to deny immigrants coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

Some advocates said this week that they saw a paradox in the president’s policy. On one hand, they said, Mr. Obama plans to provide relief to millions of undocumented immigrants so that they can come out of the shadows and be better integrated into American society. On the other hand, they said, the administration is shutting them out of the health care system that would help them become productive members of society.

“We would all benefit if more people had access to health care services,” said Angel Padilla, a health policy analyst at the National Immigration Law Center, an advocacy group for low-income immigrants.

Stephen W. Yale-Loehr, who teaches immigration law at Cornell, said he believed the president had the legal authority to decide whether the immigrants included in his executive actions qualified for health benefits.

“Just as the president has broad discretion to decide whether to allow undocumented individuals to get a temporary reprieve from deportation,” Mr. Yale-Loehr said, “he also has broad authority to decide whether to grant them work authorization and health benefits.”

“In this case, it appears he is willing to grant the former,” he added, “but not the latter.”

Senator Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican who has vehemently opposed giving benefits to undocumented immigrants, disagreed with that assessment.

“It is plain that President Obama has no authority to grant lawful status to those declared unlawful by the duly passed laws of the United States,” he said. “Nor does the president have any authority to declare such individuals eligible to receive health benefits that have been restricted to lawful residents.”

The White House decision on health benefits may be intended to undercut one line of attack by Mr. Sessions and other Republicans. In recent days, as it became clear that Mr. Obama was preparing to announce an executive order, conservative commentators and radio hosts suggested that the president wanted to give health coverage to millions of immigrants who would be given legal status.

The question of whether illegal immigrants should have access to health care benefits has long been a central part of the immigration debate. Legislation passed in the Senate in 2013 would also have denied undocumented immigrants access to federal health benefits, including the Affordable Care Act, for as long as 13 years. But in that legislation, immigrants could eventually qualify for full legal status and for federal benefits.

Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the secretary of health and human services, was asked about health care coverage in a webcast with Latina bloggers last week.

She confirmed to the bloggers that immigrants who were covered by Mr. Obama’s 2012 executive actions could not receive subsidies from the HealthCare.gov marketplace. She called that decision “more than a health care issue” and said it had to be resolved in the context of immigration laws.

“I think everyone probably knows that this administration feels incredibly strongly about the fact that we need to fix that,” Ms. Burwell said. “We need to reform the system and make the changes that we need. It will lead to benefits in everything from health care to economics.”

However, she said that federal aid, including health care benefits, could be available to children who are United States citizens but living with parents who are illegal immigrants. Such so-called mixed families “should not be scared,” she said, because they may be eligible for coverage and financial assistance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/us/politics/obamacare-unlikely-for-undocumented-immigrants.html
Click to expand...
 
adexkola said:
Obama's coming out with some executive action concerning immigration. These next two years should be delightful.
Click to expand...

It will be especially nutty if he has to make a Supreme Court nomination in the next couple of years. They will try everything in their power to stall and block it until the next Presidential election.
 
Does Obama have powers to do this through executive action ?

And if he does would be a precedent for future when presidency changes.
 
American news is even worse than India one. Every channel just pays service to their own agenda without any concern of getting all view points in. Fox, MSNBC, CNN... all garbage.
 
crappycraperson said:
American news is even worse than India one. Every channel just pays service to their own agenda without any concern of getting all view points in. Fox, MSNBC, CNN... all garbage.
Click to expand...
here our news and anchors go with whoever pays them highest. mostly ideology goes for a toss. whereas there it is very apparent that a channel has an ideological bias
 
sajeev said:
here our news and anchors go with whoever pays them highest. mostly ideology goes for a toss. whereas there it is very apparent that a channel has an ideological bias
Click to expand...
I am in US right now so was watching the news channel today after Obama's big announcement and the difference in coverage with regards to how each was spinning the story was bizarre. No as devious as the propaganda on Russian or any other state TV but devious nonetheless.
 
crappycraperson said:
I am in US right now so was watching the news channel today after Obama's big announcement and the difference in coverage with regards to how each was spinning the story was bizarre. No as devious as the propaganda on Russian or any other state TV but devious nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Welcome Crappy, where have you landed?
 
This action, which I agree with, has basically blocked any hopes of the parties working together. I somewhat wish he would have said this is what will happen in 2 months. Pass a bill before then. Repubs just stall and then blame him for inaction. Laughable.
 
Interesting move by Obama. First delaying action till after the election because his party members were afraid it would cost them in the election. But finally goes through with it. Since it is an executive order, it means that the next President will either have to extend the order to keep it in place or let it die. The fact that the process each person will have to go through will be lengthy means many will still be waiting to complete the process come 2016. So Obama has essentially planted this as a HUGE issue in the next Presidential election. Smart move politics wise.
 
Maybe Obama has finally removed his head from his ass and realized the Republicans are not going to play ball with him no matter what. Too bad it's pretty much too late to get anything really done!
 
Should be an entertaining final two years, especially with the Presidential election looming. The GOP will be more right wing than ever since they will be able to run against Obama's policies and unwillingness to compromise. The Dems will probably completely distance themselves from him as well, much like McCain and Bush in 08.
 
It was naive to think Obama was going to get anything done, even from day one. A 'nothing' president, another clown of the corporate sector, who control the two corporate parties.

crappycraperson said:
American news is even worse than India one. Every channel just pays service to their own agenda without any concern of getting all view points in. Fox, MSNBC, CNN... all garbage.
Click to expand...

Is even worst when you realize the agenda is basically the same for all networks.
 
Raoul said:
Should be an entertaining final two years, especially with the Presidential election looming. The GOP will be more right wing than ever since they will be able to run against Obama's policies and unwillingness to compromise. The Dems will probably completely distance themselves from him as well, much like McCain and Bush in 08.
Click to expand...

I think the Dems will embrace the immigration issue in 2016. A great way to bring out the Hispanic vote. I think the will embrace issues, but try very hard to remove the issues from any link to Obama, he will of course get a speech at the Dem convention, but they will quickly shift focus to their candidate. I doubt very much you will see Obama stumping for his eventual replacement.
 
I remember when, post 2012-election, even the likes of Hannity were saying the GOP would have to tackle immigration reform in order to win again. I'm guessing they put that in the "tomorrow" box about a month later and never got it back out?

I also don't think there'll be anywhere near as much distancing from Obama as there was with Bush - Obama won both his elections fairly convincingly with a broad base of support that will be needed again to win. He won 90%-odd of the african-american vote (whilst greatly increasing its turnout), which was pretty important in winning states like Virginia and Florida. Then the fact that Hillary was his Secretary of State for a term, she can't exactly cut herself apart from the administration. And he's far and away at his best in campaign-mode. Silly resource to waste in my view.
 
Avatar said:
So why is Chuck Hagel leaving ?
Click to expand...
Probably two reasons. 1) he was brought in to oversee a force draw down. That's not happening any longer. 2) Probably also philosophical or strategy differences.

Seeing as he was the only Repub in the staff probably makes it a little easier too.
 
"Let's bomb (insert country)."

"Secretary Hagel, this is not what my administration wants to do."

"Bomb the shit out of them!"

"Tell Dick (Cheney) to stop pulling your puppet strings. Is that you, McCain?"
 
Personally, I'm not disappointed he's leaving. Good SecDef but there's just too much tension having GOP people in Dem administrations and vice versa. Let the ruling party have their people in the key positions.
 
Raoul said:
Personally, I'm not disappointed he's leaving. Good SecDef but there's just too much tension having GOP people in Dem administrations and vice versa. Let the ruling party have their people in the key positions.
Click to expand...
The problem with this administration is the famous inner circle of advisors from Obama which they don't let "outsiders" in. In 6 years they had 3 secretaries and looking for the fourth one with one candidate -Michele- which already told Obama she's not interested (she's Hilary Clinton friend).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.