Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Dec 6, 2012.
Good grief. Government for the wealthy by the wealthy.
Repugnant. That's a good word for this.
Let's be clear on what this says btw. I cannot give more than 2600 bucks to a single candidate. I can give 2600 bucks to however many condaidates I wish, and to whatever and how many and how much I wish to whatever superpac I wish. It's still not good. Not good at all.
Mark Sanford will be unopposed in our district for re-election. Seems to be doing a good job, no Democrats that I would really prefer to him in the area. Have to give it to the guy, he sure has rebounded well.
The government fails to understand that money can't buy happiness.
It is, however, fantastic at buying the important things in life. Like votes.
It would also get me a yacht.
And I guess, a PS4 for me.
Oh BRING. IT.
Court challenge could topple North Carolina's Evilmendment One
I am throwing a party and inviting people who voted against this horrific embarrassment in the first place.
Herman and Grandpa would be so disappointed.
A judge in Ohio is saying he's throwing out Ohio's Same Sex marriage ban.
The dominos are falling fast and furious.
Kathleen Sebelius is apparently resigning. Probably a good decision. I never was on the "Fire Sebelius!" bandwagon during the actual Healthcare.gov train wreck, since it seemed to me it would merely be a symbolic move that would actually just exacerbate the lack of cohesion the whole program was suffering, but now that the dust has largely settled, it's probably time for some accountability.
I, on the other hand, don't see how it makes a lot of sense. I guess I've not seen anyone make a convincing case that the "failure" extends much beyond the particulars of website construction. The truth is that the federal contract procurement process has been terrible for a long time now, and especially so where technology is concerned. While this really marred the ACA's roll out, it was by no means historically bad for a government website, especially given the capacity and functionality it was supposed to have. If Sebelius is leaving just so people can have a scalp, whatever. But I think that one the whole, she's done a reasonable job at HHS, and I see no reason why she should be ashamed of her record there.
doesn't really matter - she's the head of the dept. and the face of the rollout. her staying on would likely cause more friction than having someone new step in, even if the thing suddenly become wildly successful. it might not be fair, but that's life.
I think you need to look at something like this from the perspective of John Q. Citizen and not as an educated policy wonk. About the sum of many average voter's knowledge of the ACA thus far is that 1)The website rollout was a total disaster, 2)Kathleen Sebelius was in charge of the rollout, 3)Kathleen Sebelius, nevertheless, still has her job. It's poor optics, in my opinion.
plus she's probably a nervous wreck
"John Q. Citizen" has no idea who Kathleen Sebelius is.
Will give Democrats a scapegoat in midterms, and insulate the administration a bit. I don't think it will do much to reverse the wave that likely will give the GOP control of both houses of Congress, though.
Somebody mistook Hilary for George W. Bush and threw a shoe at her at an event today.
it was daenerys
And help seal a Democratic victory in 2016. Republicans absolutely must go through wholesale, fundamental changes if they are ever going to win the presidency again, along with acting like a functional party capable of governing. Winning the Senate and keeping the House keeps those changes from happening and ensures yet another Democratic victory at the presidential level. At this point, I really don't see anyone we could reasonably call a typical Republican today winning the presidency again. By the time the GOP wins the presidency again, its nominee will have embraced things once thought unthinkable and helped force the party to evolve, much as David Cameron did for the Conservatives in Britain. It's either that or the Republicans cease to be a national party, which I think is less likely for the time being.
The Democratic nominee starts with not much less than the required number of electoral votes to win, and a basic holding action combined with winning Florida seals the election. That's true of 2016, probably 2020, and beyond. There are many other paths to victory, of course, but just winning Florida means the GOP cannot win the presidency.
Not to mention that the Senate seats up for re-election in 2016 favor Democrats much like the seats up for re-election this year favor Republicans. I think you're right that voters will be really put off by whatever legislative agenda a Republican-controlled Congress throws together.
that somebody throwing something at meeee?
is that part of cirque de solayeeeeeeee?
*throws a chunk of tofu at duende*
Actually wait, no. Can I have that tofu back?
i already ate it. how did daenerys stormborns get into that event?