Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

Looks like Aetna is dropping a majority of their Affordable Care Act coverage, projected to annoy some people but overall not actually cause a problem. Predictably, one side cites it as evidence that it can't work, while the other says it could lead to more support for the program.

Edited, Aug 17th 2016 10:57am by lolgaxe

"Because otherwise we'd lose a bunch of money" =/= "spite"

"Because you wouldn't let us merger" does though.

That is just... sad. Almost enough to not be laughable.

You're brain literally works backwards. Of course we *can* attack Sec. Kerry whether he's running for president or not. The question isn't when we can attack someone for their record. The question is whether you attack someone for their past record when they are running for president. The answer is: yes.

You start with a politician running for office. You then look through their past and see if there's some part of their record that might negatively (or positively if you're trying to support their run). Then you talk about that thing. Your argument is like saying that just because NASA pays more attention to the weather over the Cape in the 24 hours prior to a launch that no one's allowed to talk about weather any other time. Um... No. They just care about it more when they're trying to launch a rocket.

In the same way, we care more about a politicians past record when they're running for a new (especially higher) office. I mean, we could randomly at any point in time bring up any of a number of mistakes or unintended consequences of any of a very very large number of elected and appointed people's actions, but then we'd be spending a hundred hours every day talking about stuff. Sometimes, you pick the right time to bring something up. And the right time, in this case, is when that person is asking to hold a high public office.



Again, not getting it. When someone is running for office is when you look at their past decisions. That other people, who are not currently running for office may also have been involved in those decisions, or even made worse ones, isn't the point.



Tell that to the entire field of political pundits then. It's not like this is some new or strange thing or anything. Why attack someone's record who *isn't* running? That seems like a waste of effort during an election cycle.

Eh? No clue. You do recall I said months ago, that I just plan on drinking heavily, right? IMO, both candidates are horrific choices who will cause much pain for us all. It's really a choice between the devil you know and the devil you don't know at this point. We know how Clinton will run things. She'll sell power and influence to those with the right connections and willingness to pad her own pockets and profile. She'll pay lip service to whatever cause or organization comes along and she thinks will make her look good. I honestly don't think she really cares about any sort of agenda or direction. Classic definition of a politician for sale.

Trump on the other hand, is either also just a guy willing to blow in the wind or he's got his own ideas and agenda. Who knows? So far, it looks like he just plays lip service to whatever groups he thinks will support him in return. There is, I suppose, a small chance that his years of being on the other side of the pay to play power structure has given him insight into how the game is played, and maybe he's actually fed up with it and wants to do things "his way". Of course, do we know what "his was" actually entails? Not really. But I suspect he's going to be less likely to effectively sell his power and influence than Clinton will. His poor choices will be more likely to be his own rather than the highest bidder, but who knows?

Yup. Buying more vodka seems like a good strategy at this point.

Clinton wins, Democrats take Senate.

It's funny that, for someone who always gives long lectures on how polling should work and what we're all so foolishly forgetting during elections, you're so afraid to just take a stance on how it'll shake out.

Oh, and speaking of election guesses, I'll note that Smash paid up his bet to me regarding Clinton's primary run via a sweet Hillary Clinton paper doll book

If the liberal media and political string-pullers were this brilliantly predictive, competent, and manipulative, then how have they lost so many elections recently? Like...everything went exactly according to plan, apparently.

Trump donates to the Hillary Clinton Campaign ... kind of.

Proceeds off of an $84 peice of jewelery, split 3 ways. That'll go far...

Right. Or, you know, because I'm literate and can read the whole article.

And I never said it was 100% spite, but it sure looks as though that helped.

"If you're predisposed to be against the law though... blah, blah, blah..."

LAWYERED!