• Warren Buffett donates $25,000 to pro-Hillary Clinton 2016 group, "She's going to win"
    73 replies, posted
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;46651034]The launch of the website is shit, it got hacked shortly after launched, there is no "opt out" of doing health care still less than 10 million have actually signed up for it. If the republicans give an option where you can waiver all healthcare and not get taxed because you do not have healthcare they win my vote.[/QUOTE] The website works great now, actually. And it has lowered rates for low income workers. Its a pretty successful healthcare project imo. Sure there could be things that could be fixed.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;46651039]Yeah, I've seen people on here talking complete shit about "Obamacare" and half of what they spew is flat out lies, and this is a left-leaning forum. Plain and simple the Republicans have won the propaganda war on making Obamacare look bad, while the Democrats have failed in every conceivable way to make it look good. The thing the GOP has going for it is its public relations. Despite the stereotype of being greedy old white guys, their party has always had more success with appealing to the public image. Just look at Reagan. He was more of a GOP celebrity than a president. [editline]6th December 2014[/editline] Take this comment for example. I don't know where the fuck you got your figures, but a quick look for sources turned up [URL="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMhpr1405667"]20 million people enrolled or provided with insurance under the ACA.[/URL] That is twice your highest estimate bucko.[/QUOTE] Yeah the number I was using was actually from may, went back and checked my source [QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;46651056]The website works great now, actually. And it has lowered rates for low income workers. Its a pretty successful healthcare project imo. Sure there could be things that could be fixed.[/QUOTE] They could add an option for people who just simply do not want health care, and not be taxed because you refuse healthcare.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;46651039]Yeah, I've seen people on here talking complete shit about "Obamacare" and half of what they spew is flat out lies, and this is a left-leaning forum. Plain and simple the Republicans have won the propaganda war on making Obamacare look bad, while the Democrats have failed in every conceivable way to make it look good. The thing the GOP has going for it is its public relations. Despite the stereotype of being greedy old white guys, their party has always had more success with appealing to the public image. Just look at Reagan. He was more of a GOP celebrity than a president. [editline]6th December 2014[/editline] Take this comment for example. I don't know where the fuck you got your figures, but a quick look for sources turned up [URL="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMhpr1405667"]20 million people enrolled or provided with insurance under the ACA.[/URL] That is twice your highest estimate bucko.[/QUOTE] well reagan literally was a celebrity long before he really even cared about politics also 20 million is still a totally shit figure considering there's another 295 or so million people in this country
[QUOTE=hydrated;46651084]well reagan literally was a celebrity long before he really even cared about politics also 20 million is still a totally shit figure considering there's another 295 or so million people in this country[/QUOTE] 316 million people currently registered with another how many ever million being added because of the illegal immigrant amnesty.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;46650879]rush limbaugh?[/QUOTE] that would be a turd wearing a suit, actually a big fat wet turd
[QUOTE=The Duke;46650259]You could replace most politicians with potatoes and more would get done, though they may make the consumption of french fries punishable by death.[/QUOTE] Potatoes generate electricity, which is more useful than anything the current Congress has done.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46651128]Potatoes generate electricity, which is more useful than anything the current Congress has done.[/QUOTE] cars powered exclusively using potato batteries I've seen the future
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;46650938]The democratic party is going to have a very hard time winning after the immigration reform, pipeline axed, obamacare's failure, and no real address on where the economy is actually heading. I would be VERY surprised if the dems win this next election[/QUOTE] Democrats have an advantage in sheer demographics. If they lose, it'll be because the Democratic base is shitty at getting off their asses and turning out. Which is what's going to happen, because Democrats don't like Hillary enough to take time off work to vote for her.
This election's gonna suck.
the cool thing about immigration reform is that in my experience a good majority of hispanics vote republican
[QUOTE=hydrated;46651239]the cool thing about immigration reform is that in my experience a good majority of hispanics vote republican[/QUOTE] You mean democrat, right? Democrats wouldn't be pro-immigration if they knew it wouldn't benefit them.
[QUOTE=hydrated;46651239]the cool thing about immigration reform is that in my experience a good majority of hispanics vote republican[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Political Party Affiliation. Overall, 56% of U.S. Hispanics either identify with the Democratic Party or are independents who lean Democratic, while 21% identify with or lean toward the Republican Party. About a fifth of all Hispanics (22%) do not lean toward either party.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.pewforum.org/2014/05/07/chapter-9-social-and-political-views/[/url]
[QUOTE=Atlascore;46651185]Lol, where are you guys pulling this bullshit from? The next election is up in the air until we see the real candidates, no one is guaranteed to win shit.[/QUOTE] The last time a party won a third consecutive presidential election, it was Bush Senior and it was 1988, following the presidency that saw the biggest landslide reelection in modern political history. Our campaign finance system heavily supports incumbent candidates, and barring some kind of spectacular act of god fuckup, they almost invariable win reelection. By the end of 8 years, the American people are fatigued and blame every one of the country's problems on the incumbent president, and his party gets punished for it. The GOP has retaken Congress based on getting people to blame the president's party for the problems Congress causes. Well have two more years of deadlock fatigue, which will be parlayed into casting Democrats as business-as-usual and Republicans as the party of change. Putting a tired old white woman from the 90s at the head of the party will only support that narrative when the GOP is sure to run somebody like Paul or Rubio. The system has settled into the alternating 8 year pattern and there is no reason to believe that 2016 will be different. Unless one party can steamroll through Congress and enact a sweeping agenda that is perceived as actually solving problems, Americans will routinely get tired and switch parties in the hope that something, somehow, will get better. Which it won't.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46651158]Democrats have an advantage in sheer demographics. If they lose, it'll be because the Democratic base is shitty at getting off their asses and turning out. [/QUOTE] Just like the house and senate elections right?
All my hopes for the future right now lay in benevolent corporations becoming so powerful they effectively rule the world and drag humanity forward.
Pls no
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;46651321]Just like the house and senate elections right?[/QUOTE] That's a little different. The GOP has a massive baked-in advantage in the House and Senate. House districts have been gerrymandered to preserve GOP dominance into the forseeable future, and the Senate naturally favors them because there are a bunch of western states that have approximately seventeen people living in them that still get 2 Senate seats. Democratic voters congregate in cities and along the coasts, so it's easy to draw maps that marginalize them even though the hold the numerical advantage. Republicans got 57% of House seats, despite only getting 52% of Congressional votes. The Congressional election system is simply skewed in their favor and consistently rewards them with more seats than the voters say they deserve. [url]http://www.thenation.com/article/188801/republicans-only-got-52-percent-vote-house-races[/url] Presidential elections are slightly fairer, but still operate on a state-by-state, winner-take-all basis (except for, like, Maine). That's why the Presidential election is actually decided by five or six states, everywhere else is considered safe territory for one party or the other.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46649020]God, I hope not. A GOP win is probably inevitable, but Hillary will ensure it. Dems despise her for her Iraq war vote and coziness with Wall Street, and Republicans hate her for...everything, really. She's only a contender because she's been around long enough to assemble a massive fundraising base of rich plutocrats. She might as well have "status quo" tattooed on her forehead.[/QUOTE] Dude, no. Hillary beats literally everybody in the polls by a [i]huge[/i] margin. Not a single candidate from either the Democratic or Republican party could come close to the political clout of Hillary Clinton in 2016, not to mention Bill Clinton's influence as well. The election would probably end up being a lot closer than those projections, but the GOP will practically be on their knees if Hillary is the democratic nominee.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;46649020]God, I hope not. A GOP win is probably inevitable, but Hillary will ensure it. Dems despise her for her Iraq war vote and coziness with Wall Street, and Republicans hate her for...everything, really. She's only a contender because she's been around long enough to assemble a massive fundraising base of rich plutocrats. She might as well have "status quo" tattooed on her forehead.[/QUOTE] If I absolutely had to choose I'd rather maintain the status quo than let the right ruin what little progress we have made. [QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;46649040]Well is there anybody better who has a realistic chance of winning?[/QUOTE] Not really. If you're not the GOP or Dem candidate you get no airtime on debates, you can't get your advertising in edgewise, the electoral college won't pay attention to you.
When are we going to get a pessimistic rating icon? I lost most of my hope in humanity years ago, and it only took me until 13 to realize that.
Democrats will win the votes in the cities, republicans will win the vote in rural parts of the country. It happens every year.
[QUOTE=hydrated;46651084]well reagan literally was a celebrity long before he really even cared about politics also 20 million is still a totally shit figure considering there's another 295 or so million people in this country[/QUOTE] yes and the majority of those 295 million people already have insurance through either their employer, private insurance, or medicare/medicaid. we don't need to worry about them. we need to worry about the uninsured. the rate of uninsured people [URL="http://www.gallup.com/poll/178100/uninsured-rate-holds.aspx"]has dropped to its lowest level since the 1990s this year.[/URL]
This is probably gonna end up being one of his not so great investments.
[QUOTE=Calam1tous;46651644]Dude, no. Hillary beats literally everybody in the polls by a [i]huge[/i] margin. Not a single candidate from either the Democratic or Republican party could come close to the political clout of Hillary Clinton in 2016, not to mention Bill Clinton's influence as well. The election would probably end up being a lot closer than those projections, but the GOP will practically be on their knees if Hillary is the democratic nominee.[/QUOTE] Only because she's the [I]only[/I] credible candidate at this point, and everyone else is holding their cards and waiting for the right time to step up. People will be so fatigued by the unstoppable, inevitable Hillary juggernaut that they'll flock to a new candidate when a credible one finally shows up.
[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;46650452]The US needs real change, and Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who seems to be able to do that. Hopefully he'll go for the Democratic nomination and kick her ass in the primaries.[/QUOTE] Wow though. He's 73, reagan was seen as old as fuck when elected at 63 I believe, if bernie ran he'd be 75. tbh it's probably past his time for this stuff
Wow only 25k? That's probably a couple seconds of revenue for Mr. Buffet. I thought these type of donations are usually much larger.
[QUOTE=Monkah;46650572]Am I the only person here somewhat interested in the new Bush? He seems more like the Bush v1, and honestly he didn't do all that bad of a job. He might just have my attention.[/QUOTE] I agree. I think it would also be good for the GOP since they would look less like the party of far-right religious extremist if they choose Jeb who seems to be a moderate. At the very least, the Republican primaries will be hella interesting (Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, oh my!) to watch unlike the clown show in 2012.
What an asshole.
Isn't this the richest guy in the world? I mean $25,000 must be the price of a Fredo relative to him.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;46655061]Isn't this the richest guy in the world? I mean $25,000 must be the price of a Fredo relative to him.[/QUOTE] Third richest actually, but yes, it's nothing for him. His net worth is 73.7 billion USD.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.