2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

marienbad · 24-10-2016 09:12PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Bit late in the day though -

''What we are laying out today is a first-time-in-six-years consensus by the Republicans in the House on what we replace Obamacare with.”

and that was six years utterly wasted in silly repeal notions , but suddenly with an election on the horizon this is unveiled .

marienbad · 24-10-2016 09:15PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Obamacare despite its many imperfections was an essential step on the road to health care reform . It has opened the door on a long overdue process.

Overheal · 24-10-2016 09:21PM

I'm just laughing at the idea that the GOP finally has cobbled a plan together. Perhaps if they spent more time being constructive than obstructive?

In other news FL Gov Rick Scott's refusal to extend the states voter registration deadline as Hurricane evacuations were underway proved to be a costly mistake for him. His attempt at suppression backfired and a federal judge forced him to extend the deadline. During that extension over 100,000 voters were added to the rolls.

http://slate.me/2f9thIv

I suspect that Trump will not be winning Florida.

AbusesToilets · 24-10-2016 09:28PM

Overheal wrote: »

I'm just laughing at the idea that the GOP finally has cobbled a plan together. Perhaps if they spent more time being constructive than obstructive?

In other news FL Gov Scott Walker's refusal to extend the states voter registration deadline as Hurricane evacuations were underway proved to be a costly mistake for him. His attempt at suppression backfired and a federal judge forced him to extend the deadline. During that extension over 100,000 voters were added to the rolls.

http://slate.me/2f9thIv

I suspect that Trump will not be winning Florida.

Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin?

Think you mean Rick Scott

Permabear · 24-10-2016 09:33PM

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan · 24-10-2016 09:33PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is what we call an elaboration of the obvious. Odds are rather good that Obamacare will change "its present forum" in some way, regardless who wins the White House or US Senate 8 November 2016. Democrat Obamacare, modeled on earlier Romneycare (which the Republicans conveniently forget), were both poorly designed health care plans, and both ended up more expensive than originally proposed when put into effect for various reasons. Romneycare singed into law by former MA governor and 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney turned out to be extraordinarily expensive for MA, and was repealed after Mitt Romney was no longer governor.

Billy86 · 24-10-2016 10:01PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

Naturally the right wingers hate it but they havent offered any realistic alternatives. Its a bit rich to call it a "complete failure" when conservatives have done nothing but block any attempts to reform the mess that american healthcare had become.

Now that there's a possibility of a democrat in the white house along with a Democratic party controlled senate, they will be working to improve and refine Obamacare. No doubt the republicans will continue to obstruct.

Actually many of them did offer something, and something extremely similar to Obamacare... back in 1993. They did so in an effort to block a different health care plan. Some of those were amongst the most vocally opposed to Obamacare, which again, they in large part proposed all the way back in 1993.

'The party of no' reputation stretches back before 2008.

Permabear · 24-10-2016 10:09PM

This post has been deleted.

Billy86 · 24-10-2016 10:12PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Fully aware she was, I was only a kid at that time so wouldn't know the full context and doubt she did a wonderful job... but then again, if there is something Newt Gingrich does not ever deserve, it is the benefit of the doubt.

K-9 · 24-10-2016 10:16PM

I think we are assuming Republican opposition to Obamacare is based on policy, logic and critical analysis, when permabear has just shown it's personal and political and goes back to the 90's and Hillary as first lady.

Permabear · 24-10-2016 10:19PM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 24-10-2016 11:09PM

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan · 24-10-2016 11:35PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

First Lady Clinton attempted to champion universal health care for all Americans, and failed due to lack of Democrat and Republican congressional support. She did champion the passage of CHIP that provided federal funds for the health care of 8 million previously uncovered children, which was greatly helpful to the bipartisan legislation led by Senator Ted Kennedy (D) and Senator Orrin Hatch (R) when Republicans controlled congress. So she failed to achieve universal health care for all Americans, but succeeded in helping 8 million children.

Billy86 · 24-10-2016 11:45PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Huh...

Like I said, that man deserves no benefit of the doubt. Ever. Not unless his plan was to 'help' Clinton by in his very own words "introducing a monstrosity".

aloyisious · 25-10-2016 12:08AM

You've just gotta hand it to Don. According to a speech made Sunday, he's still going ahead with the wall that Mexico will build to keep Mexicans illegals out of the US, will deport illegals but will also give Mexican illegal prison terms in US prisons of between two and five years, depending on how many times they had entered the US illegally. Now that's what I call saving the US taxpayer money, though the prison costs may come from this saving: Federal funding for sanctuary cities, which shelter illegal immigrants, would no longer exist, a promise that prompted loud cheers from the crowd in Pennsylvania. though I'd call it giving the illegals a different US postal address (if they - as illegals - had one in the first case).

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/north-america/us-election-2016/trump-draws-up-todo-list-for-first-100-days-in-power-35153609.html

Black Swan · 25-10-2016 12:38AM

It appears that the Clinton campaign is running ads that tie Republicans running for office to Trump, and some of those Republicans are threatening to sue the telly stations that air them, not wanting to be tied to Trump.

Overheal · 25-10-2016 03:48AM

His campaign manager, Kellyanne, is starting to differentiate herself from Trump himself, trying to reconcile being his manager and not, explicitly, endorsing the things he seems to believe and say.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/ok-honey-then-well-win-trump-responds-to-kellyanne-conway-telling-him-hell-be-victorious/

She's trying to save herself from an early retirement..

Black Swan · 25-10-2016 05:47AM

Hey DONALD TRUMP, if you are reading our [US Politics] forum in Eire (or one of your close campaign workers or spokespersons), please, PLEASE bring a lawsuit against the New York Times in the next few days (as you claim you may), and certainly before the 8 November 2016 election. If you do, then the New York Times under legal discovery may obtain all the off-air hot mic videos, recordings, and transcripts from 11 seasons of Celebrity Apprentice, depose all the staff and cast, the entire Trump family, all the contestants of Miss Teen USA, Miss USA, and Miss Universe, and the 11 women who have claimed that you (allegedly) sexually abused them, including all those that may be discovered leading up to the trial of Trump vs Times case.

Igotadose · 25-10-2016 09:27AM

“Her history is far from being over, I’d like to answer that question in another 15 year from now. I think she’s going to go down at a minimum as a great senator. I think she is a great wife to a president and I think Bill Clinton was a great president… Hillary Clinton is a great woman and a good woman." - Donald J. Trump discussing Hillary Clinton 2008. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/24/watch_donald_trump_absolutely_gush_over_hillary_clinton_in_2008_interview.html

Cool! He (was) with her!

johnp001 · 25-10-2016 10:55AM

The third of the Project Veritas videos is less shocking than the first but compiles a strong case that the Clinton campaign has broken campaign finance laws.

Zubeneschamali · 25-10-2016 10:58AM

Black Swan wrote: »

Republicans are threatening to sue the telly stations that air them, not wanting to be tied to Trump.

In one case, Republican Congressman Coffman claims it is defamation to say he supports the Republican Party's nominee for President.

Defamation!

I hope he wins the case - the headlines write themselves.

TheDoctor · 25-10-2016 10:59AM

Todays 538 update - Iowa flips back blue but still is basically a tie.

Billy86 · 25-10-2016 11:04AM

johnp001 wrote: »

The third of the Project Veritas videos is less shocking than the first but compiles a strong case that the Clinton campaign has broken campaign finance laws.

Interesting that the guy who is the subject of notorious bullsh*t artist James o'Keeffes latest escape has come out and asked that the full video be released, yet O'Keeffe - who claims to be ever so interested in transparency - seems entirely uninterested in doing so, don't you think?

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_580a5ee1e4b000d0b1568093

alastair · 25-10-2016 11:10AM

johnp001 wrote: »

The third of the Project Veritas videos is less shocking than the first

Even less shocking? Is it possible to go below damp squib levels of shock?

B0jangles · 25-10-2016 11:23AM

So the 3rd Project Veritas video is heavily edited clips about duck costumes, this is somehow scandalous?

Meanwhile in Trumpland, the Telegraph has published a story about how a Trump PAC was willing to accept 2 million dollars from a fictitious Chinese businessman in exchange for access to President Trump.

Now that's illegal

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/24/exclusive-investigation-donald-trump-faces-foreign-donor-fundrai/

Senior figures involved with the Great America PAC, one of the leading "independent" groups organising television advertisements and grassroots support for the Republican nominee, sought to channel $2 million from a Chinese donor into the campaign to elect the billionaire despite laws prohibiting donations from foreigners.

In return, undercover reporters purporting to represent the fictitious donor were assured that he would obtain “influence” if Mr Trump made it to the White House.

Last week Eric Beach, the PAC’s co-chairman, confirmed to the reporters at an event in Las Vegas that their client's support would be "remembered" if Mr Trump became president.

aloyisious · 25-10-2016 12:42PM

Igotadose wrote: »

“Her history is far from being over, I’d like to answer that question in another 15 year from now. I think she’s going to go down at a minimum as a great senator. I think she is a great wife to a president and I think Bill Clinton was a great president… Hillary Clinton is a great woman and a good woman." - Donald J. Trump discussing Hillary Clinton 2008. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/24/watch_donald_trump_absolutely_gush_over_hillary_clinton_in_2008_interview.html

Cool! He (was) with her!

This link might provide the answer. He switched parties several times, incl from Democrat (2001 to 2009) to Republican in 2009 so his support statement might have been just before he switched.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi-7peC7vXPAhXoCMAKHXJfBpUQFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2Fnews%2F2015%2Fjun%2F16%2Fdonald-trump-changed-political-parties-at-least-fi%2F&usg=AFQjCNHuw1CqnrMIX0f_Xh2AxMxF_L859A

Zubeneschamali · 25-10-2016 12:47PM

aloyisious wrote: »

This link might provide the answer. He switched parties several times, incl from Democrat (2001 to 2009) to Republican in 2009 so his support statement might have been just before he switched.

So Trump changing from Democrat to Republican made Hillary change from "great" to "crooked" without Hillary actually doing anything crooked.

TheDoctor · 25-10-2016 12:58PM

Just makes up his political views as he goes along.

Right now it suits him to be Republican.

Amerika · 25-10-2016 01:22PM

alastair wrote: »

Even less shocking? Is it possible to go below damp squib levels of shock?

The three recent Project Veritas videos underscore the democrats propensity to lie to us just to get elected, the inciting of violence in the campaign, and their disregard for campaign laws. Yet with a straight face tell us on the stump that they are against all three. Liar, liar, pants on fire! And our lovely mainstream media ignore them for the most part, refuses to seek the truth of the matter, and keys only on the fact that they MAY have been edited. Every one of the main characters in these videos should be facing criminal charges.

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/10/24/project-veritas-part-three-illegal-coordination-clinton-campaign-outside-groups/

Billy86 · 25-10-2016 01:25PM

Amerika wrote: »

The three recent Project Veritas videos underscore the democrats propensity to lie...

You have to wonder if the irony in these kinds of posts is intentional or not, considering the well known and proven lies of James O'Keeffe (among others..........) and their unwillingness to release the full video despite the person they are trying to smear saying they should.

Why does James o'keefe/Veritas not want anyone to see the full video?

Why indeed. :rolleyes:

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments