He's making fun of this sentiment. I normally wouldn't say anything, just went really over your head.
Also Wett has beat death, twice, from planes, wouldn't mess with him.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Also Wett has beat death, twice, from planes, wouldn't mess with him.
I almost think Jeb running is a meant as a joke. Reading about his speeeches that he has been doing. It's scary. Dude wants total gov't control. Can't tell him apart from Obama, Hillary, or Stalin.
A few hours earlier BO laments having not been able to do enough on guns and then boom (pun intended), he's got a funeral he can make another pitch at.
He was elected governor before W took over.
I think Hillary supporters, since she refuses to talk about her positions and do interviews, should not be able to discuss GOP candidates, seems fair.
The NYT is more loyal than the TN old guys on here:
New York Times alters Clinton email story
By DYLAN BYERS
7/24/15 4:58 AM EDT
The New York Times made small but significant changes to an exclusive report about a potential criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's State Department email account late Thursday night, but provided no notification of or explanation for of the changes.
The paper initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation "into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state."
That clause, which cast Clinton as the target of the potential criminal probe, was later changed: the inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry "into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state."
The Times also changed the headline of the story, from "Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email" to "Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account," reflecting a similar recasting of Clinton's possible role. The article's URL was also changed to reflect the new headline.
As of early Friday morning, the Times article contained no update, notification, clarification or correction regarding the changes made to the article.
One of the reporters of the story, Michael Schmidt, explained early Friday that the Clinton campaign had complained about the story to the Times.
“It was a response to complaints we received from the Clinton camp that we thought were reasonable, and we made them,” Schmidt said.
New York Times alters Clinton email story
By DYLAN BYERS
7/24/15 4:58 AM EDT
The New York Times made small but significant changes to an exclusive report about a potential criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's State Department email account late Thursday night, but provided no notification of or explanation for of the changes.
The paper initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation "into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state."
That clause, which cast Clinton as the target of the potential criminal probe, was later changed: the inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry "into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state."
The Times also changed the headline of the story, from "Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email" to "Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account," reflecting a similar recasting of Clinton's possible role. The article's URL was also changed to reflect the new headline.
As of early Friday morning, the Times article contained no update, notification, clarification or correction regarding the changes made to the article.
One of the reporters of the story, Michael Schmidt, explained early Friday that the Clinton campaign had complained about the story to the Times.
“It was a response to complaints we received from the Clinton camp that we thought were reasonable, and we made them,” Schmidt said.
In fairness to the NYT, there's likely no criminal investigation actually targeting Hilary Clinton. So changing the headling to reflect "Bullshit government 'investigation' underway to exempt HRC of charges so when her criminal violation of government record keeping laws comes up in the campaign she can say she was cleared" is likely more accurate.
90% of the candidates are exactly the same. All puppets on a string.
The candidate who's really confused me so far is Rand. It seems like he's done nothing since his announcement. I like him and think he would be a great candidate but it's like he isn't actually running.
Even so, like ive said before there's no way he gets elected. Not while on an "audit the fed" platform. That's way too much power to be challenging. It'll never happen.
I know man. Not sure what I'm going to do if Rand doesn't run. Will prolly go with Johnson again.
Even back in 2000, Jeb was superior by many to George. But he let the older brother have his shot.
ahhhhhh.....
POLITICO retweeted
Susan Glasser @sbg1 20m20 minutes ago
Tennessee Is the Capital of American Jihad. And it didn't start last week. @POLITICOMag Friday Cover http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/chattanooga-shooter-carlos-bledsoe-120530.html…
POLITICO retweeted
Susan Glasser @sbg1 20m20 minutes agoTennessee Is the Capital of American Jihad. And it didn't start last week. @POLITICOMag Friday Cover http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/chattanooga-shooter-carlos-bledsoe-120530.html…
I've heard that Rand is focusing on the grass-roots approach in Iowa. With 52 different candidates right now, you won't win the election now, all you need to do is stay in the top 5 until the list gets trimmed some. Spending $ now would just be wasteful (& stupid unless you have an unlimited amount like Bush or Trump).
ahhhhhh.....
POLITICO retweeted
Tennessee Is the Capital of American Jihad. And it didn't start last week. @POLITICOMag Friday Cover http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/chattanooga-shooter-carlos-bledsoe-120530.html…
Fascinating article. Thanks for posting.
It amuses me that in the face of evidence/anecdotes like this, those on the left will lampoon FoxNews. As if they aren't different sides of the same coin......
His reps are still out in the fields, plus their was the chainsaw tax code thing. He will be in the top 5.
Walker is I guess the most all-in on Iowa. And it is a smart stragegery, not only geographically his strongest early primary, but with the wide open numerous candidates the best way for an early TKO is to be a winner. Kind of like how Kerry cruised to the '04 nom after winning Iowa, after that everyone crowned his ass & said game over.
And W won the Texas Gov's house four years before Jeb won Florida. The point is neither would have got where they were without GHWBs last name, prestige, and political connections. The same way Hillary has ridden Bill's popularity to the top of the democratic party.
Reading a piece at 538 comparing Kasich to Jon Huntsman. I'm only skimming it - I think they mean that he says and does things that imply "moderate", causing people to perceive him as not really conservative. When, actually, he is a conservative, and Huntsman really was a moderate. Anyway, thought this graph interesting. Quite a bit of room between JEB and the other two that many are touting as "best chance" - Rubio and Walker.
Jamo was saying his last name was hurting him now which is true, although I disagree with him that he would be cruising. You are not making any sense talking about the 90s.
Jeb commands a room, fundraises like a pro, can garner Latino votes, and is a solid conservative on basically every economic issue. He should be the nominee, but name fatigue is crippling him. Kasich is a natural replacement, but he doesn't have the name recognition to be a power player this early in the game.
Walker is only there because of his throw down with the unions and subsequent recall. Imagine if the national media had covered Kasich's budgetary and tax victories in the same way.
Seriously, he balances the federal budget in 1997 and then does the same in a huge rust belt state less than 15 years later (while also creating a surplus, cutting taxes, and increasing education funding). Fiscal conservatives should be salivating over him.
Walker is only there because of his throw down with the unions and subsequent recall. Imagine if the national media had covered Kasich's budgetary and tax victories in the same way.
Seriously, he balances the federal budget in 1997 and then does the same in a huge rust belt state less than 15 years later (while also creating a surplus, cutting taxes, and increasing education funding). Fiscal conservatives should be salivating over him.
Does anyone from the NKY/OH area remember the Medicaid expansion in OH? I would swear their was some sort of resolution or something where the OH voters explicitly said they did not want a Medicaid expansion, but then Kasich went ahead and expanded it anyway.
But I cannot find any information to support what I remember happening. Anyone remember or know what the hell I'm talking about?
That's honestly my biggest hang up with Kasich. That the voters of his state blatantly and explicitly told him to do something, and he did the exact opposite which is going to cost billions down the road.
But I cannot find any information to support what I remember happening. Anyone remember or know what the hell I'm talking about?
That's honestly my biggest hang up with Kasich. That the voters of his state blatantly and explicitly told him to do something, and he did the exact opposite which is going to cost billions down the road.
Ah yes, how could I forget. Balancing a budget, cutting taxes, building a massive surplus, maintaining education funding, etc. don't matter as much as a touching Medicaid expansion.
Did it ever occur to you that a budgetary hawk like Kasich might've expanded Medicaid *because* it was a good fiscal decision for Ohio? Or is that some Bill Cosby dogma that can never be questioned?
Did it ever occur to you that a budgetary hawk like Kasich might've expanded Medicaid *because* it was a good fiscal decision for Ohio? Or is that some Bill Cosby dogma that can never be questioned?
I don't think anyone disagrees that the Bush name is hurting Jeb in '16 - I'm just stating that neither brother would have won their governor races back in the 90's if their daddy hadn't once been president. I think it's fair to say that no one in America ever used family connections quite as successfully as W, all things considered.
Doubtful, best bet is he knew he would be long gone when it came time for the State to pony up, which is the concern with most states around the country. KY especially is effed with that on top of the pension shortfall.
I would say Kasich is a little loose-tongued to get traction but Trump puts doubt around that.
So why put that political grenade in his back pocket in the first place? He actually *circumvented* his legislature to get it done. It's not like his hand was being forced.
I think the Medicaid expansions will end up being terrible for states down the road.
I think (but cannot remember for sure) he expanded Medicaid in direct opposition to what the voters of Ohio explicitly told him to do.
And his reasoning he gave had nothing to do with the budget, it was:
“I said, ‘I respect the fact that you believe in small government. I do too. I also happen to know that you’re a person of faith. Now, when you die and get to the, get to the, uh, to the meeting with St. Peter, he’s probably not gonna ask you much about what you did about keeping government small, but he’s going to ask you what you did for the poor. Better have a good answer.'”
“I can’t go any harder than that! I got nothing left than that, so… and I wanna compliment Jan Brewer, the gov- the conservative governor of Arizona, um, nobody would’ve ever thought… and so, this is not a support of Obamacare, this a support of helping our communities, our health care systems, the poor, the disabled, the addicted, and the mentally ill. That’s what this is about, and we need to do it as Ohioans.”
So, I'm tired of politicians ignoring their constituents. I don't give one shit what St. Peter thinks about US government policy. And I'm sick and tired of the federal government expansion. It's not just "Kasich expanding Medicaid".
I think (but cannot remember for sure) he expanded Medicaid in direct opposition to what the voters of Ohio explicitly told him to do.
And his reasoning he gave had nothing to do with the budget, it was:
“I said, ‘I respect the fact that you believe in small government. I do too. I also happen to know that you’re a person of faith. Now, when you die and get to the, get to the, uh, to the meeting with St. Peter, he’s probably not gonna ask you much about what you did about keeping government small, but he’s going to ask you what you did for the poor. Better have a good answer.'”
“I can’t go any harder than that! I got nothing left than that, so… and I wanna compliment Jan Brewer, the gov- the conservative governor of Arizona, um, nobody would’ve ever thought… and so, this is not a support of Obamacare, this a support of helping our communities, our health care systems, the poor, the disabled, the addicted, and the mentally ill. That’s what this is about, and we need to do it as Ohioans.”
So, I'm tired of politicians ignoring their constituents. I don't give one shit what St. Peter thinks about US government policy. And I'm sick and tired of the federal government expansion. It's not just "Kasich expanding Medicaid".
Populism, broadening his base with free money, I suppose. He will have to explain it.
He's given several explanations for his decision. You picked out the most ridiculous one, and I don't know if it was on purpose or if it was just the first thing that popped up on your google machine.
I agree with the first statement.
But I think Jeb would have won in FLA in the 90's w/ a different name. Can't say the same for George in TEX. But I'm sure the name regocnition didn't hurt, especially in a state where names like McAuther & Eisenhour would have done well due to aged memories.
I don't see how any amount of political gymnastics could have propelled someone with Jeb's credentials at that time to the top elected office in the state of Florida without having the Bush name. The most significant position he had held up until 1994, when he lost his first race for governor, was being Florida's Secretary of Commerce, a role he was given in return for helping Bob Martinez successfully win the governors office in 1986. Without the Bush last name he would have been an unknown, incapable of making such a huge leap.
I preface this by saying I keep the radio in my car on 55 KRC. I have a very short drive to work. That means I hear Brian Thomas in the morning (who I like and generally agree with on most topics) and likely means I hear some of Hannity depending on what time I leave the office (who I hate). But the radio stays on 550 because the morning talk is much better than 700.
Anyway, one day this week, Kasich was on Hannity giving that same compassion bullshit reason for expanding Medicaid. So yes, it was the first thing I googled, but it jived with what I heard him say just this week.
Second, being in the Cincinnati radio market and working in Cincinnati, you hear far more about Cincinnati and OH politics than Kentucky. That being the case, the general impression I've gotten from Kasich over the years is he's been great for small business (as far as taxes are concerned), but he has his large government programs he loves (Medicaid, Common Core).
Putting another executive in office who loves big government programs scares me. My general perception (once again, I'm not sure if the facts back it up, I haven't spent a lot of time researching it) is Kasich has benefited from the manufacturing that was already in OH and the expansion of the oil and gas industry. It's easy to balance budgets when you're kicking Medicaid down the road and have the tax revenue coming in from the dotcom bubble.
I realize that many conservatives have a problem with Medicaid expansion but the truth is we have two options. Allow hospitals to deny treatment to the sick and injured who are unable to pay or...we can treat the sick and injured.
If people are going to be treated then why in the hell would you do so in the most expensive way possible? Why would you wait for the sick to get the sickest before you treat the illness?
Your insurance company wants you to be healthy. They want you to get all of your annual checkups, colonoscopies, pap smears, breast exams, etc. They want you to do that because they know that keeping people healthy is the cheapest, least expensive way to care for people. These people who have all the financial incentive in the world to keep you well have figured this out.
Yet because someone for political purposes has screamed about "big government", tried to frighten you with "death panels" and all that other bullshit and told you that giving poor people health care is a bad thing. People get sick. People get injured. Today those people who have no ability to pay for proper medical care...and HONESTLY...how many of you could pay for all of your medical care if you were uninsured???...have to go to hospital emergency rooms where the hospitals have to, and if you're a human being I would think you would want them to be treated. Treatment in the most expensive place possible and at the most costly time possible.
You can stick to your political reasons or you can use your brain and try and understand why insurers and people like your employer who are paying for health care premiums want their people to have access and to use primary care. You're going to pay for it either way as the costs will get passed along. So you want to do it the cheap way or costly way???
.
If people are going to be treated then why in the hell would you do so in the most expensive way possible? Why would you wait for the sick to get the sickest before you treat the illness?
Your insurance company wants you to be healthy. They want you to get all of your annual checkups, colonoscopies, pap smears, breast exams, etc. They want you to do that because they know that keeping people healthy is the cheapest, least expensive way to care for people. These people who have all the financial incentive in the world to keep you well have figured this out.
Yet because someone for political purposes has screamed about "big government", tried to frighten you with "death panels" and all that other bullshit and told you that giving poor people health care is a bad thing. People get sick. People get injured. Today those people who have no ability to pay for proper medical care...and HONESTLY...how many of you could pay for all of your medical care if you were uninsured???...have to go to hospital emergency rooms where the hospitals have to, and if you're a human being I would think you would want them to be treated. Treatment in the most expensive place possible and at the most costly time possible.
You can stick to your political reasons or you can use your brain and try and understand why insurers and people like your employer who are paying for health care premiums want their people to have access and to use primary care. You're going to pay for it either way as the costs will get passed along. So you want to do it the cheap way or costly way???
.
Last edited:
Similar threads
