Democrats see a campaign ad that writes itself: Sen. X voted just last year to take away health insurance from tens of thousands of constituents. ("constituents" = illegal aliens) You go girl!
Section 1411 of PPACA (aka Obamacare) specifically excludes illegal aliens, doofus.
SEC. 1411. PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR EXCHANGE PARTICIPATION, PREMIUM TAX CREDITS AND REDUCED COST-SHARING, AND INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY EXEMPTIONS.
(1) IN GENERAL.—An applicant for enrollment in a qualified health plan offered through an Exchange in the individual market shall provide—
(A) the name, address, and date of birth of each individual who is to be covered by the plan (in this subsection referred to as an ‘‘enrollee’’); and
(B) the information required by any of the following paragraphs that is applicable to an enrollee.
(2) CITIZENSHIP OR IMMIGRATION STATUS.—The following information shall be provided with respect to every enrollee:
(A) In the case of an enrollee whose eligibility is based on an attestation of citizenship of the enrollee, the enrollee’s social security number.
(B) In the case of an individual whose eligibility is based on an attestation of the enrollee’s immigration status, the enrollee’s social security number (if applicable) and such identifying information with respect to the enrollee’s immigration status as the Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, determines appropriate.
The PPACA specifically states that before individuals are able to benefit from the new system, they have to be able to prove their legal citizenship or immigration status. To think that illegal aliens will benefit from Obamacare is almost as hard to believe that Donald Trump would refuse to hire undocumented workers because they are willing to work for lower wages.
I recent read a couple of excellent articles that attempt to deconstruct the belief systems held by modern Republicans/conservatives.
How Delusional Nostalgia Is Killing the White Working Class
Half of white Americans think the racial tables have turned against them.
Why Does the (White) Lower Middle Class Vote Republican?
Both articles observe roughly the same mechanics: the economic disenfranchisement of America's uneducated white lower middle class (the Alternet piece spends more time discussing US demographics and US race-related psychology as it relates to lower wages resulting from offshoring, immigration, technology, etc and goes on to cite the HuffPo piece) and both arrive at roughly the same conclusion: empowered conservative Republicans (the wealthy GOP "Establishment") has been lying to and manipulating America's uneducated white lower middle class for decades, which in turn has resulted in a form of white populist right wing radicalization.
A related observation from another site articulates an important point: "The sheer existence of Barack Hussein Obama as president is an affront to the values of whiteness so many whites hold dear." We need not mention that for many, White=Christian=American nor the logical corollary: nonWhite=nonChristian=nonAmerican.
"Obama very unpopular now."
That will hurt his chances at reelection.
Reminder: (aggregate polling results for Obama, Bush43 after 84.5 months of being POTUS)
Obama: 11/15/15 - 12/3/15 Approve (44.1) Disapprove (51.0) Net (-6.9)
Bush: 11/15/07- 12/2/07 Approve (33.1) Disapprove (61.4) Net (-28.3)
I sure hope most of them are Mu.slim, and that they all move to Texas!!!
Sadly, no. Most of them are evangelical Chris.tians with a side of Mormon.
Just let the Good Lord take care of them. I'm sure He wouldn't allow such people to slowly drown over the next few decades...
You all should be giving thanks to genocide and slavery. Start by bending over for 30 years to pick tobacco leaves...and don't bother trying to stand up for a couple of centuries,
Vermie: "If Iran blew Israel off the map Iran would be doing the United States a huge favor."
Rodent fk299: "J-sus Chr-st, Rodent! What the Devil has gotten in to U? That was a horrible thing to say!"
I myself am morally outraged by these claims! Jesus Christ is a gross distortion of that dude's name:
a) Jesus actual name as recorded in the original texts is "Yeshua" (ישוע in Hebrew) and "Iesous" (Ἰησοῦς in Greek) both of which translate to "Joshua." That your savior is known as Jesus is due to a transliteration flaw in Latin: Iesus. (Aramaic is no help, as the written language doesn't include vowels)
b) Christ is not an actual surname, but an honorific; in this case, it comes again from the Greek kristos, meaning "anointed one" (via John the Baptist, who apparently baptized Joshua sometime, somewhere) in which case we would again be relying on texts not supported by any independent factual evidence.
Paging Shroud of Turin...hellooo...
The problem isn't Trump; it's that 1/3rd of the GOP electorate supports him, not in spite of, but BECAUSE of what he says and how he says it. For that reason, the other "candidates" refuse to attack his overt fascism -although to be fair, Bush and Kasich have made a remark or two about it. If the US industry laughably calling itself "news" media had more than a passing concern with reporting facts, the Donald's campaign -among others- wouldn't have survived this long, much less lead the pack. Ben Carson? Carly Fiorina? Srsly??
Fascism is a difficult position to articulate because it has no real intellectual or political foundation that can be used to define itself. Nevertheless, it is generally understood as opposing liberal democracy: a combination of authoritarianism, nationalism (racism), totalitarianism, corporatism, homogeneity and militarism. North Korea provides an obvious current example, but there are many to choose from.
Oh look, an editorial comment from Josh Marshall, owner and publisher of TPM:
(TalkingPointsMemo) "For all of those writing articles announcing that Donald Trump has now officially become or embraced "fascism", I regret to inform you that there's really no clear definition of fascism, much as the harder left and right has imagined otherwise for decades. In any case, labels hardly seem relevant. What is relevant is that roughly a third of the voters Republicans will need to win the presidency next year now support Trump - this version of Trump, a candidate running a campaign which is increasingly open in its racism and militant in its nonsense."
I ? Josh but now he's just being a #$%$. On the heels of his claim that there is no clear definition of fascism, Josh states "In any case, labels hardly seem relevant." Oh ok, so let's just remove the word "fascism" from the political lexicon.
The notion that today's conservative clowns are remotely Christian is a joke. Their rhetoric is straight up Old Testament style fire and brimstone, paeans to the god of fear and wrath. But according the New Testament, Jesus himself (especially as per the gospels) was a liberal peacenik tax-and-spend hippie...I wouldn't say he was a communist but certainly no fan of capitalism.
"Let's ban automobiles. More people die in car crashes than from guns."
Yes, but cars provide a practical utility: transportation. A simple, everyday utility. And because of that, there are plenty of regulations governing drivers: tests, licensing, etc.
Statistically it is far safer to drive a car than own a gun.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
People with guns kill more efficiently. Really, your statement is among the world's dumbest. It is absurd to argue that guns have agency just as it is stupid to argue that nuclear weapons have agency.
"Better yet, lets ban bad behavior. Then again, who gets to decide what is "bad" behavior?"
Reasonable people can decide what constitutes bad behavior in the public sphere. But significant numbers of Republicans and/or conservatives are not reasonable.
*****Case in point***************
Public Policy Polling (PPP) results:
PPP (11/23/23) "The examples of the GOP’s reflexive opposition to President Obama’s agenda are many but this may be the best one yet: by a 27 point margin Republicans say they disapprove of the President’s executive order last year pardoning two Thanksgiving turkeys (Macaroni and Cheese) instead of the customary one. Only 11% of Republicans support the President’s executive order last year to 38% who are opposed- that’s a pretty clear sign that if you put Obama’s name on something GOP voters are going to oppose it pretty much no matter what."
I really love this in comparison to the "insane Bush outrage" that conservatives spent years whining about. Never mind that Bush was actually a terrible and horrible president on every level.
Uh, "old white men" did not draft the Bill of Rights; also, "old white men" do not equate to "right wing fundamentalists."
On the other hand, "right wing fundamentalists" does bear a striking resemblance to Daesh, the Nixon/Reagan/Bush administrations, virtually all terrorist orgs, Iran's mullahs, Israel's Knesset, Germany's Third Reich, various Latin American dictatorships over the past 100 yrs, not to mention the Republican base.
My problem with Obama is that despite Daesh (attacks in Paris, terrorism in Syria, Iraq, etc) he still maintains that removing Assad is his top priority. He was actually trying to sell Putin on that today after Turkey shot down one of Russia's fighter planes...while complaining that if Russia would just stop supporting Assad (by bombing the "moderate" rebels) we could all move forward. As if dictating terms to Putin will somehow force Russia to accede to US interests, haha. Now it seems like he actually wants to follow Dumbya's stumbling footsteps in removing a largely ineffectual Middle East strongman because Israel and Saudi Arabia.
While I do agree with Obama that global warming poses a far greater threat to civilization than Daesh, the latter is a far more extended and long-term problem than most everyone seems to realize. Islamic terrorism is nativist militant political outrage unleashed after a century of Western influence in the region in pursuit of the precioussss, in combination with sectarian wars (Sunni v Shia) that have been going on for roughly 1200 years, plus the various disagreements between regional tribal groups.
My problem with you is with your making completely unqualifiable and unjustifiable statements like "Obama will get us all killed." How exactly does that happen?? Specifically, how does Daesh destroy everyone in the US of A? Or -even more absurd- did you mean everyone in western civilization?
Need I point out the "irony" between wingnuts claiming a) threats of global warming are "alarmist" while b) ignoring/ridiculing global warming, and of course c) cheerleading everyone to go around heavily armed because 2nd Amendment FREEDUMB despite the fact that US gun owners killed more US citizens in 2013 year than all Islamic jihads combined across all years?
Right wingnut politics has always been a huge gift to grifters: Sarah Palin went from $0 to $12M in a few years. Carson was very well off as a top neurosurgeon, but it was his 1990 book "Gifted Hands" that made him rich. Trump is just getting richer because following his daddy's inheritance that's what he's good at...despite, strangely enough, his ventures having filed Ch. 11 BK four times for a collective loss of over $1 billion.
Others: Huckabee, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Dinesh D'Souza, etc. One big sucker factory.
Since when did touting equality and voting rights become pandering to "special interests?"
Oh right: I forgot how much right wing fundamentalists despise democracy.
"I don't think I am a coward though thankfully I have never truly been put to the test, but I don't believe in recklessly putting myself into harms way either. I believe in living to fight another day."
How convenient: you justify never putting yourself in harm's way because you can always rationalize living to fight another day. When will that day come?
"How am I running away from centuries of white supremacy as terrorism when I favored the 1964 Civil Rights Act and never raised my voice in opposition except against unjust causes."
I didn't hear you raise your voice when the conservatives on the SCOTUS gutted the 1965 Voting Rights Act (Shelby v Holder, 2013). Apparently you believe federal enforcement of voting rights (a civil right) is an unjust cause.
"Yes, you can compare terrorism to racism for those who believe that justice should only serve a few and not all. I am not the resident racist or terrorist on the MO board."
I agree, you're not *the* resident racist or terrorist on the MO board, only because there are several.
US Demographics: 70.5% White, 10.4% Latino, 12.5% Black, 3.5% Asian (approx 1% of Asians are Arabic and/or Muslim), 3.1% Other
According to Pew, party preference among Whites and Blacks has been nearly identical in the last three elections:
2010: 37D 60R (White); 60D 38R (Latino); 89D 9R (Black)
2012: 39D 59R, (White); 68D 30R (Latino); 91D 8R (Black)
2014: 38D 60R (White); 62D 36R (Latino); 89D 10R (Black)
Republican treatment of Latinos and Blacks by Republicans means they need to racially polarize the electorate in a way that gets them 4-5% more of the White vote. (They have clearly eschewed the Black vote; and given their anti-immigrant rhetoric of late I'll be surprised if they get 30% of the Latino vote) They can do some of this through suppressing turnout instead, meaning if they can keep sufficient numbers of Blacks and Latinos from voting in the first place, they don’t need to improve quite so much with Whites.
They must pursue more of the White vote and there are not too many ways to do that other than aggravating racial consciousness and jacking up the sense of white racial grievance.
This has been a mainstay of conservative/Republican electoral strategy since at least the time that Nixon pursued the Southern Strategy, but I doubt that it’s ever been this much of an urgent and indispensable part of their path to success.
So, we’re seeing two things: a revival of open racism that had been dormant on the presidential campaign trail, and continued efforts to suppress the minority vote. These aren’t really choices anymore, because Republicans can’t win any other way.
I think the answer is yes; there is enough wiggle room in the definition for some people say Trump doesn't *precisely* fit, so whatevs. But any idea that he isn't dictatorial or authoritarian is just wrong. No, he doesn't come out and say that he will disband congress. But his entire argument rests on the idea that he, and he alone, will "get things done." This is what his followers want him to do, as well. If we take him at his word, he is; if we simply assume a of what he says is just ginned-up BS, then he's more of a proto-fascist. Call it what you want, but Trump's running on nationalism, militarism, corporatism, nativism and authoritarianism.
Even more obvious is that the Republican base is clearly all of these things; Trump's rhetoric merely taps into and reflects those sentiments...as do virtually all the other POTUS candidates in the GOP klown kkkar, but they are less obvious about it. (Advocating a heavily armed citizenry is not of the less-obvious examples).
The huge difference between obama and GW Bush is Bush never aided and abetted islamic jihadist terrorists
How Washington Funded the Taliban
August 2, 2002
"In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been providing to agencies assisting Afghan refugees."
"Seems I touched a nerve."
Is the gag reflex actually a nerve?
"Coming from you, it's a compliment."
Egads then you'll love this even more: