2016 Democratic Thread

[farmteam]

This drives me crazy, the Iraq war was in no comparable to any of Bush's foreign policy. That was a WAR, we had hundreds of thousands of troops there, almost 2 whole years of my life was dedicated solely to it. The "wars" that they talk about in the comments sections of Mother Jones articles or Glenn Greenwald talks about are not the same thing.

They aren't the same thing, but Obama's drone policy was still pretty awful. That and surveillance are probably my two least favorite parts of his presidency.

 

Overall, we're better off than we were when he started. I think he could have been a better leader, but at the same time, I'm not sure if anyone could have been a successful leader with that god awful Congress in place.

[greg775]

Tough tough night for me. Bernie blistered Hillary in Oregon but lost by a meager .5 in Kentucky. The sweep might finally have gotten the pundits to admit momentum. You realize how close that was to a sweep??

 

 

P.S. In a CNN article tonight: "In total, Bill and Hillary Clinton gave 28 speeches in 2015 for $6,725,500."

Hot damn that's a lot of money. I wish CNN would go to all the speech organizers and see if Hillary gave 'em hell at any of those speech sites, as in was she difficult? The Clintons can thank America for putting them in a lap of luxury since Bill left office. My gawd, just for giving speeches they earned that kind of jack. Hillary has to be nuts to want to be president instead of just continuing to rake in the $$$ giving speeches in her latter years. If Bill keeps giving speeches though, the $$$ will continue to roll in the Clinton coffers. WOnder what Chelsea gets and will get the next eight years??? Wow Chelsea is gonna have so much $$$. It can't be illegal for her to go off on her own and give speeches.

 

I wonder if anybody is gonna ask Bill, Hillary or Chelsea if they admit their privilege? Talk about easy money compared to the hard working 99 percenters! I know I know ... they earned that speech money by gosh and it's Hillary's turn. She deserves to be queen, oops I mean President.

Edited May 18, 2016 by greg775

[caulfield12]

Greg, I advise you to look at the board of a collapsing unicorn start-up called THERANOS.

 

If you look all around the world, there are former politicians working as hugely paid K Street lobbyists, on the "prestige" list for the most famous law firms in the world even though they haven't practiced since leaving office, making speeches, serving on corporate boards, tv/radio shows like Mike Huckabee/Alan Keyes/Ben Carson, etc.

 

It was a good night for Bernie in the sense that winning KY doesn't mean anything because delegates were split 25/25, he ran away with Oregon and most already expected Clinton to win KY because she contested it the last two weeks, it was a closed primary (no independents or Republicans could cross over to vote for Sanders), etc. The results tonight pushed the campaign at least to California and potentially to some type of movement/disruption/protest at the Democratic Convention.

 

The lead in ACTUAL delegates is still a spread of something like 300. That's not counting all the superdelegates where the Clintons control 90%+ of them, with only 40 something for Sanders. There's no way he can win at this point.

 

However, Clinton now has to fight a "two front" war with Trump and Sanders at least through June 7th (California) and things are getting increasingly nasty and rancorous on the Democratic side after all the events in Nevada at the convention and the resulting letter from Sanders which showed he's not backing down (you should read that if you want something to cheer you up).

 

And, Trump's actually polling ahead of or within the margin of error in states like WV, KY, Indiana, PA, Ohio and Michigan. The survey results show he's leading Clinton by 10-15% across all those states in terms of potential trust for dealing with the economy.

Edited May 18, 2016 by caulfield12

[greg775]

Greg, I advise you to look at the board of a collapsing unicorn start-up called THERANOS.

 

If you look all around the world, there are former politicians working as hugely paid K Street lobbyists, on the "prestige" list for the most famous law firms in the world even though they haven't practiced since leaving office, making speeches, serving on corporate boards, tv/radio shows like Mike Huckabee/Alan Keyes/Ben Carson, etc.

 

It was a good night for Bernie in the sense that winning KY doesn't mean anything because delegates were split 25/25, he ran away with Oregon and most already expected Clinton to win KY because she contested it the last two weeks, it was a closed primary (no independents or Republicans could cross over to vote for Sanders), etc. The results tonight pushed the campaign at least to California and potentially to some type of movement/disruption/protest at the Democratic Convention.

 

The lead in ACTUAL delegates is still a spread of something like 300. That's not counting all the superdelegates where the Clintons control 90%+ of them, with only 40 something for Sanders. There's no way he can win at this point.

 

However, Clinton now has to fight a "two front" war with Trump and Sanders at least through June 7th (California) and things are getting increasingly nasty and rancorous on the Democratic side after all the events in Nevada at the convention and the resulting letter from Sanders which showed he's not backing down (you should read that if you want something to cheer you up).

 

And, Trump's actually polling ahead of or within the margin of error in states like WV, KY, Indiana, PA, Ohio and Michigan. The survey results show he's leading Clinton by 10-15% across all those states in terms of potential trust for dealing with the economy.

Thank u Caulfield. It does make me feel better. ... You are on fire with your posts this year. You have become an intelligent poster. I think last year you were a C or B-. This year you are an A- or A.

[bmags]

Rest assured Greg, there are many people willing to make the argument that Bernie should overthrow the democratic will of the dem primary voters.

[RegionSox]

The situation with Theranos is kind of crazy. I have been following it a bit because I had a former coworker go work there about a year ago. It is a shame, they had a lot of good ideas.

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/theran...re-blood-tests/

[StrangeSox]

I remember seeing Theranos and Holmes hyped a ton a few years ago, then nothing, then starting late last year the story of their complete collapse and potential criminal charges.

[bmags]

I have no love lost for them. They started acting indignant in the press early on about regulation. Yeah, sorry, just because you are a startup in silicon valley does not mean you can work in health without quality regulation. Sure enough, they were overselling the crap out of what they could do and it was a sloppy set-up.

[caulfield12]

The situation with Theranos is kind of crazy. I have been following it a bit because I had a former coworker go work there about a year ago. It is a shame, they had a lot of good ideas.

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/theran...re-blood-tests/

 

 

And we would never have heard of the company and they wouldn't have piled up angel investors and an All-Star board (without any knowledge of the medical field other than Frist)...were it not for the Holmes aspect of the story.

 

Stanford dropout, "pretty" girl with a can-do spirit who's taking on Silicon Valley all by herself and changing the world for the better. It would have been a perfect American success story if it had actually lived up to the hype. Now it will be a Lifetime movie about all the excesses of the current venture capital/easy money years.

 

You would think they would have learned their lesson from 1998-2001.

[bmags]

Sure. Although its weird how I've heard of a lot of startups and businesses with promising new technology, and some of them don't have great stories as CEOs. Must be I have access to the internet and don't make weird narratives.

 

I feel like last page Theranos was an example of post-politicians gone awry using their power on boards, now its a story of a tech bubble.

 

Cool, anyway back to the democrat thread.

[caulfield12]

Zenefits, for example, is a case study dream for a unicorn company gone awry...but it hasn't received nearly the attention of Theranos because of the unique nature of Holmes' story IMO.

 

It's hard to resist. Other than Meg Whitman, Melissa Mayer and Carly Fiorina, there haven't been many women at the highest levels of a tech company...let alone being perceived as the "technical-side" brains behind the operation. In fact, the first time I read her story, she was being referred to by none other than Bill Clinton as a future Nobel Prize winner for how innovative the "blood drop" tech was supposed to be.

[greg775]

I'd love for IlliniLaw and all Hillary supporters to read this article and tell me why you support Hillary Clinton. Please use examples in this story and try to refute them. Many say I have no reason to despise Hillary. What about articles like this?

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/o...0517-story.html

[caulfield12]

Greg, there's nothing there of substance to respond to.

 

Kass has a right to an opinion, but that's all it is. Nothing more, nothing less.

[StrangeSox]

Trump's hired a Goldman Sachs guy to run his fundraising, he's accepted a boatload of cash from Sheldon Adelson (seriously, how does this guy have hundreds of millions of dollars to burn regularly?), and he's announced a joint fundraising plan with the GOP. So much for getting money out of politics (lol if you ever believed that).

[bmags]

Zenefits, for example, is a case study dream for a unicorn company gone awry...but it hasn't received nearly the attention of Theranos because of the unique nature of Holmes' story IMO.

 

It's hard to resist. Other than Meg Whitman, Melissa Mayer and Carly Fiorina, there haven't been many women at the highest levels of a tech company...let alone being perceived as the "technical-side" brains behind the operation. In fact, the first time I read her story, she was being referred to by none other than Bill Clinton as a future Nobel Prize winner for how innovative the "blood drop" tech was supposed to be.

 

I think the main issue with Theranos is 1) cheating on HR regulatory issues is less sexy than cheating on medical tests, and lying about how you are doing them and 2) Zenefits hasn't had the Feds require their CEO step down.

 

That last part I literally didn't even know could happen.

[illinilaw08]

I'd love for IlliniLaw and all Hillary supporters to read this article and tell me why you support Hillary Clinton. Please use examples in this story and try to refute them. Many say I have no reason to despise Hillary. What about articles like this?

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/o...0517-story.html

 

Greg - I don't know why you think I'm a huge Hillary Clinton supporter. In this thread, I've discussed how Clinton has a history of changing her stance on issues, she's too hawkish on foreign policy for my tastes, the e-mail think showed, at best, bad judgment, and I don't like the idea that a Clinton presidency would mean for 24 of the last 32 years (at a minimum), a Bush or Clinton would be in the White House. But assuming she is the nominee, she's also the sane choice for this country based on my values.

 

Social issues - acceptance of LGBTQ - have come a long, long way in the last 20 years. Hillary Clinton will appoint a Supreme Court justice who will not seek to overturn Obergefell.

 

Treatment of minorities - Hillary Clinton will not use fear tactics to further marginalize the American Muslim population. Hillary Clinton will not marginalize and condemn Hispanics as Trump has throughout his campaign.

 

Economy - I may not love Hillary Clinton's position on the economy, but Donald Trump has threatened to default on American debt in an effort to get creditors to take a smaller amount in satisfaction of that debt. America defaulting on its obligations means significantly higher borrowing costs in the future AND could lead to a massive global recession.

 

Health Care - Hillary Clinton will continue a health care policy that has, at a minimum, expanded affordable coverage to millions of people. Trump isn't going to continue the ACA. He isn't going to institute single payor. A vote for Trump is a vote for us to regress on health care.

 

Simply put, to me, in a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, not voting for Hillary Clinton is a vote for a step backwards for minority populations. It's a vote to put a man whose policies are dangerous into office. No matter how shrill you find Hillary Clinton, no matter how disingenuous you find her to be, she is still a significantly better policy choice than Donald Trump.

 

 

[bmags]

Ive never been fond of Obama's politics but I have always found him likable, and thought he did an amazing job at getting people who have felt alienated by Washington inspired again. I think it was important to finally have a President who wasnt an old white guy as well.

 

A couple things that bothered me about Obama's presidency were the Iran deal and the prisoner exchange for Bergdahl. I know he had a hostile congress and that made things difficult at times. I want everyone to get health care as much as the next person but I really dont like some aspects of Obamacare, particularly that they fine people who cant afford to pay for health care. Dont get me wrong, I think its great that people who were previously uninsurable are guaranteed coverage. I just genuinely dont understand the logic of fining people who cant afford insurance.

 

Hillary is a different story for me. Id rather have Obama be the President for the rest of my life than have her as President for a single day. She is the most untrustworthy candidate I can think of in my lifetime. She has been a part of so much corruption for so long. Id honestly prefer Trump to be President than her (Im shuttering just typing that) That video that greg posted a few pages back of Elizabeth Warren telling a story of a personal experience she had with Hillary where Hillary convinced Bill to veto a bill sponsored by credit card companies about bankruptcy and then when the bill came up again when Hillary was a senator and she voted for the bill. Warren says that Hillary was bought by the credit card companies and the financial influence was too much. Thats exactly what Bernie brings up at all of the debates and she laughs it off and claims shes never swayed by money.

 

Bernie is another guy who I REALLY dont like his politics but he comes across as the most honest politician and I believe the things that he says. This election really makes me sad for the future of our country. I cant believe there isnt a candidate on either side that I can even get a little excited about.

 

Edit-Forgot to mention. Obama's Press correspondence dinners (or whatever theyre called) where he roasts people are hilarious. I was really surprised how funny he can be and keep a straight face.

 

Just wanted to point out, I read this. I have had the times where I've sat down to write down my thoughts for this board. I enjoyed this and appreciated it, but that Elizabeth Warren thing is not an accurate representation of Hillary Clinton.

 

When that bill was sent to Bill Clinton it was done so with a republican majority congress. He pocket vetoed it. Then Hillary Clinton was elected to the senate as part of a +4 pickup of the dems.

 

The senate makeup was then 50/50 split, with a Republican president. The house was majority republican. At the time, democrats did not run the senate as it is today with requiring 60 votes, so the bankruptcy bill would have been reintroduced and signed.

 

Clinton then used her influence to say she would sign the bill to make it bi-partisan, and watered down the bill to still allow single mothers to collect cihld payments evn after the father declares bankruptcy (seriously, this would have been part of the Republican bill).

 

So yes, this is an example of how clinton rules. She saw a fight coming that would hurt people, and engaged in the fight to make it hurt as little as possible. I'm sure Sanders probably abstained and can keep his purity. But a whole of people are better off because she took this fight.

 

Clinton's remarks on the floor:

Senator Clinton: I rise today in support of final passage of S. 420, the Bankruptcy Reform Act. Many of my colleagues may remember that I was a strong critic of the bill that passed out of the 106th Congress.

While we have yet to achieve the kind of bankruptcy reform I believe is possible, I have worked with a number of people to make improvements that bring us closer to our goals, particularly when it comes to child support. Women can now be assured that they can continue to collect child support payments after the child’s father has declared bankruptcy. The legislation makes child support the first priority during bankruptcy proceedings.

 

This year, we have made more progress. The Senate agreed to include a revised version of Senator Schumer’s amendment to ensure that any debts resulting from any act of violence, intimidation, or threat would be nondischargeable.

 

Earlier today, this body agreed to include a cap on the homestead exemption to ensure that wealthy debtors could not shield their wealth by purchasing a mansion in a state with no cap on homestead exemption.

 

In addition, I was concerned about competing nondischargeable debt so I worked hard with Senator Boxer to ensure that more credit card debt can be erased so that women who use their credit cards for food, clothing and medical expenses in the 90 days before bankruptcy do not have to litigate each and every one of these expenses for the first $750.

 

Let me be very clear—I will not vote for final passage of this bill if it comes back from conference if these kind of reforms are missing. I am voting for this legislation because it is a work in progress, and it is making progress towards reform.

Edited May 19, 2016 by bmags

[bmags]

Actually I forgot that she actually did vote to fillibuster that bill after it wasn't signed into law in 2001 due to a hilarious abortion element (it did not allow terrorists who had bombed or threatened abortion clinics to claim bankruptcy after civil judgments, which is a bridge too far!)

 

She did not vote for passage of that bill, she was absent due to Bill's heart surgery. Her comments on it:

Mrs. Clinton. Mr. President, while I strongly believe that Congress should act to fix the problems in our bankruptcy system, I also believe that this bill is misguided and deeply flawed.

This bankruptcy bill fundamentally fails to accord with the traditional purposes of bankruptcy, which recognize that we are all better off when hardworking people who have suffered financial catastrophe get a ‘‘fresh start. . .’’

 

It [bankruptcy reform] should be about making sure that both large corporations and individual citizens are held to the same standards of responsibility and accountability.

 

This bill is flawed in a number of ways. But I want to begin by commenting on one of its most distressing elements. As many people know, I have long been concerned about the burdens placed on America’s families by a lack of health care insurance and by rising healthcare costs. In this bill, the Senate had an opportunity to take one important step to help citizens driven to the point of bankruptcy by unavoidable medical problems. Instead, the Senate rejected this opportunity to lighten the load on Americans dealing with the twin blows of medical and financial difficulties. The Senate’s failure to act is all the more striking to me today, because I must submit this statement into the Record while attending to a medical situation in my own family.

 

The world has changed since this bill was considered in 2001. During the past 4 years, workers have sustained unprecedented job losses, endured termination of pension plans, and faced wage cuts and elimination of health care and other benefits as a result of their employer’s bankruptcy. Many of these bankruptcies have been the direct result of wrongdoing by corporate mismanagement. The people who take the biggest hit when big companies go bankrupt aren’t the top executives, but the ordinary employees whose pensions and healthcare coverage disappear overnight.

 

And to make matters even worse, yesterday the Senate, again led by the Republican leadership, rejected an amendment offered by Senator Kennedy, which would have outlawed unlimited homestead exemptions. This would have prevented the wealthiest Americans from avoiding responsibility by hiding their assets from creditors.

 

The Senate also rejected an amendment that was intended to reinsert language that had been in the legislation the Senate passed in 2001, which would have prevented the discharge in bankruptcy of all liability for willful violation of protective orders and violent protests of providers of lawful services, such as reproductive health services.

 

Even though this language was in the 2001 Senate-passed bill, it is conspicuously absent from the bankruptcy bill that the Senate is now considering 4 years later.

 

Because of unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances, I will not be present when the Senate votes on final passage of this bill today. But were I able to be here, I would vote no, because this bill is clearly not in the best interests of the American people.

 

 

So basically, that story is nonsense. Like many of the stories against her, the hearsay is either completely made up or woefully inaccurate.

[Texsox]

i didn't like the Bergdahl thing either. I didn't really freak out about it, I just didn't understand the logic. I get it, he's an American life even if he's a criminal, and I get that the Israelis do the same thing, but I felt like a sports fan questioning if his GM gave up too much.

 

I guess innocent until proven guilty isn't a thing in the military. I prefer the exchange then a trial, if necessary. If we start deciding who to try and save based on anything less than a legal, fair, trial, I believe we take a giant step backwards and leave soldiers at risk.

[lostfan]

I guess innocent until proven guilty isn't a thing in the military. I prefer the exchange then a trial, if necessary. If we start deciding who to try and save based on anything less than a legal, fair, trial, I believe we take a giant step backwards and leave soldiers at risk.

Huh? Of course it is. How would you deduce that from what I said?

[StrangeSox]

A couple things that bothered me about Obama's presidency were the Iran deal and the prisoner exchange for Bergdahl. I know he had a hostile congress and that made things difficult at times. I want everyone to get health care as much as the next person but I really dont like some aspects of Obamacare, particularly that they fine people who cant afford to pay for health care. Dont get me wrong, I think its great that people who were previously uninsurable are guaranteed coverage. I just genuinely dont understand the logic of fining people who cant afford insurance.

 

I'll try to explain it the best I can, but the "individual mandate" isn't about "finding people who can't afford insurance." It's an disincentive/stick for people who would otherwise choose to not have insurance; now, in practice, there's going to be a healthy mix of people who 'choose' not to have health insurance because they can't afford it or could only marginally afford it and choose to spend that money on something else, and then there's a lot of younger, generally healthy people who would just otherwise choose to go without insurance and hope for the best. When you are going to institute regulatory requirements like guaranteed issue that mean you can get insurance regardless of any current or previous illnesses, there's a big economic incentive to not carry insurance until you need it and then purchase it when you do. The problem is that this creates a death spiral in the insurance market place since insurance companies are left without a large pool of insurance premiums being paid by people who don't necessarily need to draw on their insurance.

 

What the law attempts to do is to eliminate or minimize the people who would fall into "can't afford insurance and would be fined" category a few of ways. The first is the massive expansion of Medicaid, which was unfortunately gutted by Roberts in the 2012 Obamacare ruling over the individual mandate. Several million more people who are marginally above the poverty line would have Medicaid coverage today instead of needing to pay for private insurance or pay the fine. The second way to was require parental policies to cover children to the age of 26--this keeps lots of young adults who would be the most likely to voluntarily forego insurance on more affordable employer-sponsored family plans. The third way is through the subsidies available through the federal and state exchanges. This provides an incentive/carrot for people to choose insurance over the fine, even if the insurance is a little more expensive.

 

I'm sure there are better write-ups out there, but that's the basic logic behind the individual mandate. Without that but with the other regulatory improvements, the private insurance market would collapse.

[StrangeSox]

Huh? Of course it is. How would you deduce that from what I said?

You called him a criminal but he hasn't been court-martialed yet, right?

[lostfan]

You called him a criminal but he hasn't been court-martialed yet, right?

I said "even if he's a criminal" meaning "even if he comes back and is put on trial and convicted," I wasn't straight out calling him a criminal.

[caulfield12]

I'll try to explain it the best I can, but the "individual mandate" isn't about "finding people who can't afford insurance." It's an disincentive/stick for people who would otherwise choose to not have insurance; now, in practice, there's going to be a healthy mix of people who 'choose' not to have health insurance because they can't afford it or could only marginally afford it and choose to spend that money on something else, and then there's a lot of younger, generally healthy people who would just otherwise choose to go without insurance and hope for the best. When you are going to institute regulatory requirements like guaranteed issue that mean you can get insurance regardless of any current or previous illnesses, there's a big economic incentive to not carry insurance until you need it and then purchase it when you do. The problem is that this creates a death spiral in the insurance market place since insurance companies are left without a large pool of insurance premiums being paid by people who don't necessarily need to draw on their insurance.

 

What the law attempts to do is to eliminate or minimize the people who would fall into "can't afford insurance and would be fined" category a few of ways. The first is the massive expansion of Medicaid, which was unfortunately gutted by Roberts in the 2012 Obamacare ruling over the individual mandate. Several million more people who are marginally above the poverty line would have Medicaid coverage today instead of needing to pay for private insurance or pay the fine. The second way to was require parental policies to cover children to the age of 26--this keeps lots of young adults who would be the most likely to voluntarily forego insurance on more affordable employer-sponsored family plans. The third way is through the subsidies available through the federal and state exchanges. This provides an incentive/carrot for people to choose insurance over the fine, even if the insurance is a little more expensive.

 

I'm sure there are better write-ups out there, but that's the basic logic behind the individual mandate. Without that but with the other regulatory improvements, the private insurance market would collapse.

 

 

This makes a lot of sense, but many would still say it's bending over too far to accommodate the private insurance companies' profit margins...that threat of the private insurance market collapsing has been used as a "threat" for years and year, just like "death panels" as a scare tactic.

 

How did the Romney/Massachusetts plan account for this issue?

 

 

[StrangeSox]

This makes a lot of sense, but many would still say it's bending over too far to accommodate the private insurance companies' profit margins...that threat of the private insurance market collapsing has been used as a "threat" for years and year, just like "death panels" as a scare tactic.

 

How did the Romney/Massachusetts plan account for this issue?

 

I don't think that's something that falls out of private insurance industry lobbying but something that comes out of standard healthcare economics. Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of single payer-style UHC over the chimera we got, but guaranteed issue pretty much requires the mandate.

 

The Mass plan was functionally very similar to ACA in this regard, and it too included an individual mandate.