Politics

[Circa]

Such a beautiful song! haa
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://swf.tubechop.com/tubechop.swf?vurl=Nn_Zln_4pA8&start=810.02&end=1106.92&cid=5705331"></param><embed src="http://swf.tubechop.com/tubechop.swf?vurl=Nn_Zln_4pA8&start=810.02&end=1106.92&cid=5705331" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Reagan of course later changed his view on abortion (as did, say, Ted Kennedy, who as late as 1972 was comparing abortion to murder). Even in the 1960s, most Republicans were against abortion and most Democrats were in favor of it: when the NY legislature approved a liberal abortion law in 1970, for example, across both chambers over 60% of Republicans were against it and over 60% of Democrats were in favor of it. The 1976 GOP platform takes the same basic view on abortion as does the GOP today: "The Republican Party...supports the efforts of those who seek enactment of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children." Meanwhile, the Democrats simply said "it is undesirable to attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court decision in this area." Nothing about safe, legal, and rare (of course "rare" has now been abandoned; how long until "frequent" is put in its place?) nor indeed any demands for public funding of abortion, as we got implicitly in the 2012 platform.

Wasserman Schultz stated unequivocally last week that the DNC favors no restrictions on abortion at all. Which is an extreme stance since a super-majority of Americans is opposed to it.

 

[IrishLax]

Zero Republican votes had nothing to do with it being liberal or not, it had to do with denying Obama a signature policy victory. As had already been discussed many times, the ACA was basically one of the conservative plans that was given as an option vs. Clinton's universal healthcare (and if you still think that it is "liberal" then doesn't that say how far right the Republicans have moved, that one of their own policy ideas 20+ years ago is now "liberal"). Sorry.

One of the biggest lies out there is that the ACA == old Republican plan. There are some clear similarities... there is also a TON that is different.

 

[connor_in]

Buster has already covered the facts. Also I have said that Democrats have moved to the left just not as much as the Republicans have moved to the right.

Which is just a matter of opinion and what R's you choose to list as it would be with what D's someone else would pick.

More is the pity that anyone truly center left or center right is demonized by the further wings of their party.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TIL?src=hash">#TIL</a> that the Jeb in Jeb Bush is his initials (John Ellis Bush). Did everyone already know this?</p>— Eleanor Barkhorn (@eleanorbarkhorn) <a href="https://twitter.com/eleanorbarkhorn/status/587754790148538369">April 13, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

TIL that Jeb is the GOB of the Bush family. This election just became much more amusing for me:

 

[Bluto]

Reagan of course later changed his view on abortion (as did, say, Ted Kennedy, who as late as 1972 was comparing abortion to murder). Even in the 1960s, most Republicans were against abortion and most Democrats were in favor of it: when the NY legislature approved a liberal abortion law in 1970, for example, across both chambers over 60% of Republicans were against it and over 60% of Democrats were in favor of it. The 1976 GOP platform takes the same basic view on abortion as does the GOP today: "The Republican Party...supports the efforts of those who seek enactment of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children." Meanwhile, the Democrats simply said "it is undesirable to attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court decision in this area." Nothing about safe, legal, and rare (of course "rare" has now been abandoned; how long until "frequent" is put in its place?) nor indeed any demands for public funding of abortion, as we got implicitly in the 2012 platform.

As for immigration, there is no question the GOP usually bows to corporate interests, which support unlimited mass immigration for obvious reasons. Given the way the 1986 amnesty has ruined California, though, I wonder if Reagan would still think it was a prudent policy.

The 86 amnesty didn't "ruin California". In fact that helped fuel the housing booms of the 90's and 2000's. If you're looking for something that has had a lasting negative impact on California look no further than Prop 13. If you're going to engage in stupid xenophobic rhetoric at least try to get your facts somewhat straight.

 

[pkt77242]

One of the biggest lies out there is that the ACA == old Republican plan. There are some clear similarities... there is also a TON that is different.

Thee is a ton of similarities. Here is a great link

Summary Of A 1993 Republican Health Reform Plan | Kaiser Health News

While I agree that they aren't exactly the same the both had individual mandates, insurance exchanges, etc.

 

[ACamp1900]

Last page full of comments brought me here: it fascinates me how pretty clear issues in politics can be viewed so differently by seemingly intelligent people, all while every side forgets that opinions do exist and talk or act solely in absolutes...

 

[Buster Bluth]

The 86 amnesty didn't "ruin California". In fact that helped fuel the housing booms of the 90's and 2000's. If you're looking for something that has had a lasting negative impact on California look no further than Prop 13. If you're going to engage in stupid xenophobic rhetoric at least try to get your facts somewhat straight.

It's moot though, in twenty years we'll be able to go in there and take the Mexican right out of their genetics before they're born.

 

[GoIrish41]

It's moot though, in twenty years we'll be able to go in there and take the Mexican right out of their genetics before they're born.

LOL!!!!!!

 

[Circa]

I will grant you Kerry would have been better than Obama. However, I would still vote Bush over him knowing what we know today.

WOW! <iframe src="//giphy.com/embed/1unWthRtNnzkA" width="480" height="260" frameBorder="0" style="max-width: 100%" class="giphy-embed" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe>

 

[Bluto]

It's moot though, in twenty years we'll be able to go in there and take the Mexican right out of their genetics before they're born.

Or make them twice as Mexican so they'll work twice as hard for twice as less! Lol

 

[GoIrish41]

I will grant you Kerry would have been better than Obama. However, I would still vote Bush over him knowing what we know today.

You really must hate Dems or really like wars began on phony premises, tortue, spying on citizens, and financial disaster.

The whole party abandoned Bush and he went on to paint insultingly bad portraits of world leaders and animals. This is truly an incredible statement.

 

[Buster Bluth]

You really must hate Dems or really like wars began on phony premises, tortue, spying on citizens, and financial disaster.

The whole party abandoned Bush and he went on to paint insultingly bad portraits of world leaders and animals. This is truly an incredible statement.

If Kerry takes office in January 2005, I'm not sure much changes. The crash was happening regardless of the President, no? The surge probably happens too, perhaps not though, but I don't think the Pentagon would be ignored on matters of war. I think the spying happens, so does the drones.

I think McCain would be president today, having won in 2008.

 

[IrishLax]

Thee is a ton of similarities. Here is a great link

Summary Of A 1993 Republican Health Reform Plan | Kaiser Health News

While I agree that they aren't exactly the same the both had individual mandates, insurance exchanges, etc.

The confusion is that I'm referring to the one most people cite as being "the same" and that's the Heritage Foundation plan from the same time.

I agree with you that the Chafee one is much closer to the ACA than the one I thought you were talking about, but some people also fundamentally reject the Chafee plan as not being representative of anything "Republican" for a number of reasons but I don't give a shit about party politics (and especially GOP party politics) so let's just not even get into the philosophical question of "what is 'Republican'?".

Even then, there are key dissimilarities from the Chafee bill and the ACA, but I do understand making surface comparisons on a number of levels (intentionally using your source here). And here's a good article on the two.

In short, my bad for misunderstanding which bill you were referring to.

 

[GoIrish41]

If Kerry takes office in January 2005, I'm not sure much changes. The crash was happening regardless of the President, no? The surge probably happens too, perhaps not though, but I don't think the Pentagon would be ignored on matters of war. I think the spying happens, so does the drones.

I think McCain would be president today, having won in 2008.

Most of the accounts I have read over the past 5 or six years were that the administration clearly pushed for the war in Iraq. His reactions to 9-11 led to the spying and the drones. Certainly we can agree that the false war in Iraq contributed significantly to the economic problems. So to me knowing what we know now was the part of the statement that was an eye opener. Many reactions that drove policy were made under Bush. So choosing the known over the probability that things might be better seemed pretty partisan. Maybe it's just me ...

 

[Circa]

Neither of which was that liberal. The ACA was pretty much a version of one of the Conservative plans for healthcare in the 1990's. Care to explain how that is so liberal?

The Stimulus plan was.. a Bush plan (2001, 2008 were the cheap ones he could give to up approval ratings and boost the economy) @009 was needed to avoid all the things they consider the end of our AAA rating. Thanks Bush! Dog shit and stimulus all wrapped in 1.Stimulus Discrimination definition | Psychology Glossary | alleydog.com

 

[IrishJayhawk]

The confusion is that I'm referring to the one most people cite as being "the same" and that's the Heritage Foundation plan from the same time.

I agree with you that the Chafee one is much closer to the ACA than the one I thought you were talking about, but some people also fundamentally reject the Chafee plan as not being representative of anything "Republican" for a number of reasons but I don't give a shit about party politics (and especially GOP party politics) so let's just not even get into the philosophical question of "what is 'Republican'?".

Even then, there are key dissimilarities from the Chafee bill and the ACA, but I do understand making surface comparisons on a number of levels (intentionally using your source here). And here's a good article on the two.

In short, my bad for misunderstanding which bill you were referring to.

The part that frustrates me is that many republicans supported an individual mandate in the Chafee plan and in other versions. That same concept was universally rejected as unconstitutional and evidence of Obama being a socialist when he triangulated that position. The same is true of things like cap and trade.

 

[IrishLax]

The part that frustrates me is that many republicans supported an individual mandate in the Chafee plan and in other versions. That same concept was universally rejected as unconstitutional and evidence of Obama being a socialist when he triangulated that position. The same is true of things like cap and trade.

Yup. Kind of like how suddenly many anti-war people don't say shit about ramped up drone strikes, thousands of troops engaged in a perpetual Middle East conflict, etc. because it's "their guy" doing it. If there is one truism of politics it's hypocrisy.

Here's a pertinent snippet from an op-ed I thought was an interesting read if only for its honest review of the options one has in voting for the next President...

Sadly, people at UC Berkeley are more interested in protesting Bill Maher than condemning a conflict George McGovern stated weakens our country in the same manner as Vietnam. Hundreds of airstrikes, over 3,000 soldiers deployed, and a request for $5.6 billion is a war, folks.

Had President Mitt Romney just doubled our military presence in the Middle East and launched airstrikes that even the Kurds and the Free Syrian Army have criticized, the reaction would have been entirely different from liberals throughout the country. We once again have over 3,000 American boots on the ground in Iraq (without a peep from the anti-war left)

I'm a Liberal Democrat. I'm Voting for Rand Paul in 2016. Here Is Why.Michigan|MichiganH. A. Goodman

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Yup. Kind of like how suddenly many anti-war people don't say shit about ramped up drone strikes, thousands of troops engaged in a perpetual Middle East conflict, etc. because it's "their guy" doing it. If there is one truism of politics it's hypocrisy.

Fair enough.

 

[connor_in]

It's moot though, in twenty years we'll be able to go in there and take the Mexican right out of their genetics before they're born.

It's ok dude...after all, we'll all be dead by then due to global warming

 

[Circa]

Yup. Kind of like how suddenly many anti-war people don't say shit about ramped up drone strikes, thousands of troops engaged in a perpetual Middle East conflict, etc. because it's "their guy" doing it. If there is one truism of politics it's hypocrisy.

Here's a pertinent snippet from an op-ed I thought was an interesting read if only for its honest review of the options one has in voting for the next President...


I'm a Liberal Democrat. I'm Voting for Rand Paul in 2016. Here Is Why.Michigan|MichiganH. A. Goodman

ISIS sure has done it's job. Hey, I better not say much about this tho. They may come arrest me for recruiting... 3000 is a needle in that hay

 

[NDgradstudent]

The 86 amnesty didn't "ruin California". In fact that helped fuel the housing booms of the 90's and 2000's. If you're looking for something that has had a lasting negative impact on California look no further than Prop 13. If you're going to engage in stupid xenophobic rhetoric at least try to get your facts somewhat straight.

Well, let's examine just a few of California's current problems: those housing booms you mention were followed promptly by busts, concentrated among the amnestied populations; public schools have to forbid wearing clothing with the American flag on it simply to keep the peace; overpopulation leads to water rationing; Asians and Hispanics fight over the quotas at public universities; and people who are neither rich nor poor enough to make due flee the state. Its remarkable dysfunction has made it a national laughingstock.

Seeing what the state's politicians have been able to do with Prop 13, I shudder to think how high California's taxes would be without it!

 

[NDgradstudent]

It's moot though, in twenty years we'll be able to go in there and take the Mexican right out of their genetics before they're born.

There are far fewer incentives for parents to want to change the kid's race, even if it were possible. Nor is one's race a disorder. A better solution would be to simply control the border.

I think anybody who wants to lecture us about race and immigration should have to disclose their zip code so that it can be examined for its "diversity."

 

[Bluto]

Well, let's examine just a few of California's current problems: those housing booms you mention were followed promptly by busts, concentrated among the amnestied populations; public schools have to forbid wearing clothing with the American flag on it simply to keep the peace; overpopulation leads to water rationing; Asians and Hispanics fight over the quotas at public universities; and people who are neither rich nor poor enough to make due flee the state. Its remarkable dysfunction has made it a national laughingstock.

Seeing what the state's politicians have been able to do with Prop 13, I shudder to think how high California's taxes would be without it!

Way to post a bunch of radom links. Without Prop 13 the State would have a much more stable tax base based on real property values like most other states. This would eleviate some of the need for all the smoke and mirror fees, increased sales tax and high income tax rates. I'll pretty much ignore the stupid attempt to diagnose the States water issues. However, here's a hint. It has little to do with the current population size and much more to do with corporate AG, not charging enough for water and crony capitalism.

As to the dysfunction statement, poorly thought out public policy from right wing jerks like Howard Jarvis (ie Prop 13) usually results in such things. Inspite of all that California still rules.

Anyhow, for a supoosed ND grad student you're pathetic and your Rush Limbaugh meets Joseph Mengele rhetoric sucks. Lol

 

[Buster Bluth]

There are far fewer incentives for parents to want to change the kid's race, even if it were possible. Nor is one's race a disorder. A better solution would be to simply control the border.

I think anybody who wants to lecture us about race and immigration should have to disclose their zip code so that it can be examined for its "diversity."

Something about this post has me envisioning your commute across campus going something like this:

 

[NDgradstudent]

Way to post a bunch of radom links. Without Prop 13 the State would have a much more stable tax base based on real property values like most other states. This would eleviate some of the need for all the smoke and mirror fees, increased sales tax and high income tax rates. I'll pretty much ignore the stupid attempt to diagnose the States water issues. However, here's a hint. It has little to do with the current population size and much more to do with corporate AG, not charging enough for water and crony capitalism.

As to the dysfunction statement, poorly thought out public policy from right wing jerks like Howard Jarvis (ie Prop 13) usually results in such things. Inspite of all that California still rules.

Anyhow, for a supoosed ND grad student you're pathetic and your Rush Limbaugh meets Joseph Mengele rhetoric sucks. Lol

Has unlimited mass immigration had any bad effects on California?

 

[NDgradstudent]

Something about this post has me envisioning your commute across campus going something like this:

To the contrary, my bike is far more comfortable than that!

Why do high schools in California feel that they must forbid their students from wearing American flag colors? I am not aware of any high school in South Bend, Granger, Mishawaka, etc. that has a similar policy.

Completely unrelated to immigration, right?

 

[Bluto]

Has unlimited mass immigration had any bad effects on California?

So, first it hasn't been unlimited. The immigration patterns of Mexican nationals have historically been pretty fluid. For decades it was a fairly consistent ebb and flow. Then NAFTA happened and there was a huge surge due in part to the Mexican agrarian economy centered around corn being decimated by a flood of cheap US corn. So there's the background. What that did was provide a huge pool of cheap labor for the US service economy and the construction industry.

Negative effects? Of course there have been some. One would be a significant population now resides in the State that is dependent on that same service economy model and many might not posses the skills to transition out of that type of economy. That says more about the craptastic economic model we have adopted in the US more so than anything else. The flip side of all this is that migration from Mexico came to a screeching halt during the US economic collapse and I'm pretty sure net migration actually reversed for the first time in a long time. The bottom line is that Mexicans come here to work. When there is no work they stop coming and many go home. If we had a more sensible border policy and labor was able to flow to where demand is with the same ease as corporations we probably wouldn't need to have this conversation.

Saying illegal immigratuon "ruined the State" is simply rediculous.

If you are genuinely interested in this topic here is a great source of info:

Pew Research Center's Hispanic Trends Project - Chronicling Latinos Diverse Experiences in a Changing America

 

[Redbar]

Oh and I think ultimately the parties' corporate donor daddies are keeping corporate regulation and tax reform off the agenda completely so even while both parties move further apart they're basically identical at the same time. In 2004 Bush/Kerry were the same thing, and I think Clinton/Bush in 2016 will basically replicate that.

Such a true statement. At the top they are the same, all of the bickering and enmity as you move down from the top are part of the drama to give the illusion of choice. At the top they are steering us to the same place, because it is the same money, same think tanks, same policy experts, same media magnates, same lobbyist representing the same big interests the only thing that changes in Washington is the actors. They come and go, the other stuff I listed is part of the brick and mortar of the town.