HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Mad_Machine76 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 Next »

Mad_Machine76

Profile Information

Name: Mara Alis Butler
Gender: Female
Hometown: Indianapolis, Indiana
Home country: USA
Current location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Member since: Sat Feb 28, 2004, 01:13 AM
Number of posts: 20,871

About Me

Transgender (MTF) Social Worker/Case Manager working for State of Indiana. Huge Sci-Fi/Anime Geek and music lover. Hopeless \"political junkie\" and aspiring writer.

Journal Archives

Prediction Time: What will happen with Republicans on October 1, 2013

when the health care exchanges open ushering in a new era of access to health care for millions of Americans? They've worked so hard and devoted to so much and (other people's) money to prevent it from ever taking effect but are simply doomed to failure at this point. Nobody but their own rabid psychotic base is going to stand with them if they seriously shut down the government and/or cause a default on our debts over the healthcare law. Nobody. Whatever the polls say about the healthcare law, nobody but a few teabaggers are going to die on this hill with then. No doubt they will continue to make some token attempts to repeal it (hey, they gotta keep their seats, you know) but what's next for them? Once the exchanges take effect and people start signing up and realizing that the Earth hasn't suddenly stopped spinning on its axis, that nobody is coming to haul dear old granny in front of "death panels" and that government is actually here to help you (and that's NOT considered such a scary thing), Republicans are going to be totally deprived of the lifeblood of their electoral lives the past 4 years and they will have to finally accept (but probably won't) that they lost it to President Obama and the Democratic Party. So, what happens when that "bubble" they've been living in for the past 4 years suddenly pops and reality (maybe) finally sinks in? Interested in everybody's predictions. It will be a most interesting time to be sure........
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Sun Sep 15, 2013, 10:10 PM (6 replies)

Hard to say until we know for sure who's running



The strongest possible contender for 2016 would probably be Hillary and it's likely that she would either steamroll the competition and/or clear the field but she hasn't committed to running, so, hopefully, party leaders have some other strong contenders in the wings. I might take a look at Dean if he runs again. I really like Wesley Clark but nobody paid any attention to him in 2004 and he doesn't have a lot of name recognition. Basically, I'm open-minded. I'll support whoever I think stands the best chance for winning. I'd like to see a woman be elected sometime in my lifetime. We've already broken one major barrier. We will surely break others as we go along.
I don't know who might be running on the Republican side but if 2016 is anything like 2012, I'd say that their bench is pretty weak and whomever runs in 2016 is going to face the same dilemma that they faced in 2012: Simultaneously appealing to the far-right base to win the primary and moving and holding to the center to win the actual election. Are there any Republicans that we know might be interested that could even manage such a feat? I think that I heard that Santorum could be a strong contender in 2016 and if that's case, we'd have to be in pretty bad shape to lose to HIM!
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Sun Sep 15, 2013, 09:27 PM (0 replies)

But.......but....but

I thought that that was OBAMA'S SEQUESTER? Remember their "clever" #Obamaquester back in March? Now, THEY apparently want to adopt it?
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Wed Sep 11, 2013, 07:22 PM (0 replies)

You really have to wonder

why the GOP finds millions of Americans getting access to health care coverage more offensive than say, shoveling trillions of dollars into destroying, occupying, and "rebuilding" Iraq and sending thousands of American troops to be maimed and killed all the while accomplishing absolutely nothing other than the removal of a single tinpot dictator and his degraded regime. I won't even mention the irony of US taxpayers footing the bill to ensure that all Iraqis got healthcare guaranteed to them while Bush was reminding us that all Americans have access to emergency rooms.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:24 PM (1 replies)

Didn't they hear?

Obama is NOT negotiating over the debt ceiling and most certainly would NEVER negotiate a delay (beyond what he initiated) or defunding of his signature accomplishment of his Presidency and Democrats in the Senate aren't going to go along with it anyway. Republicans can go pound sand. They got their freak on by invading Iraq when Bush was (P)resident and spent LOTS of money and it cost thousands of lives. Helping lots of people obtain health insurance coverage will, by contrast, save lives and wind up costing way less money money than Iraq did. I'd rather government be helping people get health insurance coverage and get the medical care they and their families need rather than paying for their wars of choice and/or tax cuts for the wealthy. It's really weird and twisted how they are so morally offended by the notion of more people being able to get health care but if this is the hill they want to fight and die on, well...............
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Tue Sep 10, 2013, 04:02 PM (0 replies)

Kerry's position is apparently too nuanced for some people

He, along with a lot of other Democrats, gave Bush the AUTHORIZATION to use military force to disarm SH as a last resort, which was IMHO essentially the real mistake that they made (i.e. trusting Bush to use our military responsibly), but that's not exactly saying that he or the rest of the Democrats in Congress were gung-ho about invading Iraq. I'm sure that some were but I don't honestly think that Kerry was. It was really Bush, Cheney, et. al whom were jonesing for war and ultimately made it happen. Had they allowed the UN inspectors to do their jobs and supported their results instead of simply denigrating them at every turn, we might have avoided invading at all and I think that Kerry (and most IWR-voting Democrats) would've been satisfied with that conclusion.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Tue Sep 10, 2013, 10:32 AM (2 replies)

"Hard to see. Always in motion the future is"

Did Clinton's intervention in Kosovo ruin the Dems in 2000 (granted, the Dems had a lot of problems in 2000 but nothing to do with Kosovo, which was viewed AFAIK as a success)? Why would a failed war vote in Congress hurt us politically in three years time? By then, it will be clearer whether or not the decision was the right one but so many things are going to happen between now and 2016 that will shape the election and it's questionable about whether or not this will be one of them. I recall just a few weeks ago, a lot of people here were convinced that the Snowden/NSA revelations were going to destroy the Democratic Party in 2014 and 2016. Now, we're on to Syria.
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Mon Sep 9, 2013, 06:06 PM (0 replies)

He's afraid? Russia's worried?

He hasn't stayed in power this long by being stupid and/or insane and I'm reasonably sure he's not interested in being removed or toppled by the US (or as the result of our involvement). Being threatened with US airstrikes might have dealt him a more serious blow than we thought. Besides, it would be good PR for him and provides him with an alibi/vindication for him should chemical weapons be used again after they are removed from him (i.e. his claims of the rebels using them would be more credible and it would hurt the rebel cause politically).

Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Mon Sep 9, 2013, 05:55 PM (0 replies)

When did things like moral authority and/or hypocrisy.........

become the SOLE determinant of our current and future foreign policy? Throughout the debate on Syria, I am constantly hearing people question what kind of moral authority we have at present to intervene and whether or not we are hypocritical for potentially intervening in Syria when we didn't intervene in other places or under other circumstances. I'm not saying that I'm a huge booster for war or that I believe that military intervention is always justified and/or wise (though to be honest, I'm not the one sitting in the hot seat having to make those kind of decisions) nor do I believe that our country's hands are clean in terms of how we've conducted foreign policy in the past but it seems to me that if we let all of our country's past misdeeds and/or actions/inaction dictate our foreign policy now and forever, then when would it EVER be appropriate again to intervene anywhere (outside of legitimate self-defense)?
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Wed Sep 4, 2013, 12:19 PM (4 replies)

IOW: "Damn! He won't act like George W. Bush did and just start attacking other countries!"

Republicans can't seem to make up their minds. They threaten holy hell if he doesn't ask for their approval (for pretty much everything, including playing golf and putting his feet on the desk in the oval office) but then they get all irate and disappointed when he DOES ask for their approval. Let's just all agree that President Obama is pretty much damned if he does, damned if he doesn't no matter what he does (or doesn't do).
Posted by Proud Liberal Dem | Wed Sep 4, 2013, 12:08 PM (0 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 Next »