The 2016 United States Presidential Election

Well noted. The time to start fixing this stuff is over this and the next couple of elections. And to emphasize the difficulty, it is necessary to start working on state races in states that are already gerrymandered. Forget the presidential race. And probably forget those states in the deep south as irrevocably lost. States like NC and others must begin taking back state houses and governor's races now.

My prediction is that they won't get a chance to do that. If Hilary wins, I expect her and Obama to agree to let Hilary make the pick. I know that Obama has said that he won't do that, but he must say that. I expect that Garland's name will be withdrawn.Beyond that, there is a 100 percent chance that Hillary, if elected, will have the opportunity to select at least one more Justice.

I suspect that a large percentage of Americans cannot name the Supreme Court justices. Not much of a thing to inspire pride.ABE:Here is a 2012 Survey:Most Americans Can't Name a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Survey Says - WSJMost Americans Can’t Name a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Survey SaysAll of that said, a quick google suggests that there is plenty of politics surrounding the voting of certain Canadian Justices. I don't know what to make of folks not knowing those Justices names. Apathy perhaps?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes. In fact the senator from North Carolina has made a campaign promise to not allow Hilary to fill the current vacancy.

quote:

---

The next few months will tell us a lot about whether Mr. Trump and Trumpism were an anomaly or are now the new norm of the party that Lincoln helped create.

---

Party of Lincoln...At one point in history, the Republican party dominated through a coalition that included blacks and whites in a way that allowed them to dominate the politics of even the Southern states. That entire dynamic was kicked to the curb in the early 1970s, and what's left is a party that may have some life left but is seemingly on its last legs.

quote:

---

Republicans need to wrestle with more fundamental questions first: Will their party choose as its leaders people who respect democratic institutions and traditions, or not;

---

In my opinion, the Republican party has already given up on the twenty first century and are pining away for early half of the 20th. That time period is not coming back. Coal mining and textile manufacturing isn't coming back. A lily white nation isn't coming back. Not sure what these guys can do other than make the rest of us miserable.

The civil war killed 600,000 folks out of a population of about 30 million. Yeah, the country did survive, but if this is an example intended to minimize concern over Trump, I personally find the argument wanting.

The federal government may not be able to bring forth an abortion bad in the next 4 years, but they can arrange to allow individual states make many women's lives hell, or even end their lives simply by creating a Supreme Court that disrespects women they way 3.5 current Supreme Court already do. (Kennedy occasionally sees a limit on abortion he doesn't like, but the others never have). I agree. Perhaps giving the republicans a little rope will be great for generating interest in the 2018 midterm elections. Nothing else seems capable of waking up Democratic voters.

Don't republicans generally refer to systems like the ones we find through out the rest of the Western world as socialism? There is no way that the Republicans could be planning to enact any kind of single payer system. I hope they feel differently post-ACA. If they do we can chalk up the change to be based on the legacy of Obamacare. But I do recall prior to the ACA that republicans actually cheered the idea that folks not having coverage be allowed to just die.Tea Party Debate Audience Cheered Idea of Letting Uninsured Patients Die - ABC News

quote:

---

NN moderator Wolf Blitzer’s hypothetical question about whether an uninsured 30-year-old working man in coma should be treated prompted one of the most boisterous moments of audience participation in the CNN/Tea Party Express.

​

What he should do is whatever he wants to do and assume responsibility for himself, Paul responded, adding, That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risk. This whole idea that you have to compare and take care of everybody

​

The audience erupted into cheers, cutting off the Congressman’s sentence.

​

After a pause, Blitzer followed up by asking Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die? to which a small number of audience members shouted Yeah!

---

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Doesn't this calculation ignore the subsidy for folks making a certain amount. Also if your state adopted the federal offer, which was intended to be mandatory, then the hairdresser would have been covered and would not need to pay the penalty. Most of the reasons the ACA did not work as intended was due to republican obstructionism.

1) You did not mention the subsidy in your post. Thanks for clarifying.
2) The subsidy for a person with spouse making 40,000 in my neck of the woods is about $500 dollars per month in my neck of the woods, which suggests that something is not all that general about your calculation. I'm not sure exactly where you live, but checking the amount for a person with spouse in New Bedford MA generated a 173 dollar subsidy amount for a similarly situated person.
3) You still did not mention the original mandate to cover the uninsured that most republican governors simply refused to adopt after the Supreme Court ruled that adoption was up to states.I maintain that the ACA, while clearly less effective than a public option, was designed to be far more effective than what we see today, and that republic recalcitrance is largely the reason why things turned out much different. How the heck could Obamacare work with folks chipping away at it from day two of its introduction? As things were originally intended, there ACA insurance market was supposed to be such a large portion of the total market that companies could not avoid taking on the sickest folks with their pre-existing conditions.Link to subsidy calculator:Health Insurance Marketplace Calculator | KFFEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

For some folks, reading somebody saying something you want to believe constitutes evidence. To wit:http://www.infowars.com/...l-election-cast-by-illegal-aliens

quote:

---

We have verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens, tweeted Phillips after reporting that the group had completed an analysis of a database of 180 million voter registrations.

---

Of course the article cites no evidence. Just quotes a wingnut saying that he determined from his analysis that 3 million people voted illegally.

I believe the hard date for this is December 13th which is six days before the electoral college actually carries out the voting function. There will be a soft deadline somewhat before this date because states won't want to futz around with having no electors ready on the due date.

True. And of course, ignorance of the issues is curable. Kareem mentioned that the ultimate problem was folks not doing the minimal amount of work to become informed on the issues and called that ignorance a disservice to democracy. No question that he is right about that.Nonetheless, what constitutes being informed enough to cast a vote is an extremely low hurdle. You don't have to be informed on every issue in order to cast a vote. Accordingly there is room for having a nuanced discussion about the issue of who should be encouraged to vote.

His current stance was not the subject of Taq's post, but Trump clearly indicated during the campaign that waterboarding was the least of the measures he would approve. Turns out that his promise on that issue, like his promises on immigration and investigating Clinton have gone by the board. Trump has indicated that his conversation with General Mattis may have persuaded him against waterboarding and presumably whatever worse idea Trump had in mind.But you certainly cannot rely on those statements as any indication of what Trump has in mind. Nobody knows what's in that man's head.At any rate, you are correct. Biden was wrong. Cruz was the discredited candidate who endorsed carpet bombing. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Revealed? I suppose if you take reveal mean asserted repeatedly without much connecting of those assertion to verifiable facts, then 'reveal' indeed.Somebody is claiming to know that something on the oder of two million illegal votes were cast, essentially all of which were for Hillary. However, the person making the claim is in absolutely no position to know diddly squat. The claim is preposterous on its face, yet you and apparently Trump himself are absolutely sure the claim is correct.I'd really like to hear you explain your vetting process for accepting or rejecting these types of claims. Do they just ring true?