Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Thanks, Republicans, ever so much, for sticking up for the little guy.
This is from this morning, but I wanted to respond with a quick note.
Flood insurance rates are based on the area's risk of flooding(as well as amount of coverage and what, specifically, the policy covers). If Congress won't allow FEMA to declare certain area's "flood prone" then those areas still get lower flood insurance rates(flood insurance, in the US, can always be purchased from the Federal Government*, and you must have it if you want a mortgage from a government backed lender).
I'm not saying that the reason the Republicans(or Congress as a whole) won't authorize the change is to save people money on their flood insurance... But I do think that it is worth noting.
edited 22nd Mar '13 6:10:39 PM by Swish
And insurance rates are premiums based on risk, so that the insurance facility will have adequate capital to cover your losses. If you deliberately pay less than your risk would indicate, then the insurer may not have sufficient assets to pay out in the event of a major catastrophe.
Just because the government is the insurer doesn't make this formula suddenly false. Apparently Republicans think that the government creates money by magic without any consequences?
edited 22nd Mar '13 6:14:28 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Just because the government is the insurer doesn't make this formula suddenly false.
Oh, I don't disagree with how it should operate. The issue is that if it did, the people that needed flood insurance wouldn't be able to afford it. That or it wouldn't be offered to begin with(just like it was before 1968)...
Which would make them no different from Democrats...
Which would make them no different from most people, Republican or Democrat. The hypocrisy is that Republicans are quick to criticize government when it creates money, but now they want free stuff. They are also all about moral hazard, except apparently when it applies to people who want to live in a flood zone but can't afford the insurance.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Miss Israel: Obama ‘world-class hunk’
![]()
But it's not really the Republicans wanting "free stuff"... They want FEMA to not have a larger budget, which would be the case if they got more regions declared flood zones because FEMA is the organization that does the flood insurance program(which means, on the whole, less "free stuff" for people... So a "completely Republican platform", right?)...
The flood insurance rates bit is sort of a a side benefit...
edited 22nd Mar '13 6:29:15 PM by Swish
So climate change is a conspiracy for FEMA to increase its budget because it's just another greedy, parasitical government organization? It earns points for consistency, at least, if not sanity.
Then of course it is the fault of the government when floods come and there is no agency to mount an organized response.
edited 22nd Mar '13 6:33:28 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Interesting that she said that in light of this.
Let's avoid the Israel-Palestine discussion, though I wonder if that statement indicates a shift in U.S.-Israel relations.
Biden for '16,...I hope not,...it'll mean we'll get a 1968 all over again if we're lucky (more likely 1980,...especially if the opponent is Chris Christie. I'm hoping for Tim Kaine or the Colorado governor,...avoid the North at all costs for there be only doom from that direction (In the past century the Dems have elected from this section Wilson,Cox,Smith, FDR,Stevenson,Kennedy,Humphrey,Mc Govern,Mondale,Dukakis,Kerry,and Obama and only 4 didn't lose)
As it is the Tea Party pretty much has the public around their fingers just by talkig about "personal responsibility",only a Southern Dem can pull through on that.
However if Al Franken took interest that's where I'd go,between trying to overturn Citizens United and probably being able to put through any policy just by being good at the camera ala Ronald Reagan,seems like the best of both worlds. Able to swing things back to the left and sell the ideas a little more.
Everyone's talking Clinton and Biden, who's the new blood? I'd be happy to see Feinstein or Warren become the first lady President, though I fear the job would wreck them.
(What do we call the husband of a female president? The First Gentleman?)
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Naw, I'd give Warren more time,...and besides as one of three actual leftists that might be centrist by European standards,...she'd probably go the way of George Mc Govern.
No,if female candidates are he key,..then Janet Napolitano seems like the best choice,since Clinton's probably retired and is a little too polarizing,we'd probably get 2004 again.
But it's the outcome of 2014 that will determine things the most.
I was reading somewhere that the current Mayor of San Antonio might have a shot at it due to his being the speaker at the DNC last year mirrored Obama in 2004.
Would be kinda nice to have a Democrat Texan in the White House.
Obama designating 5 new national monuments on Monday.
Those monuments:
- Rio Grande del Norte National Monument in New Mexico
- First State National Monument in Delaware
- Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad National Monument in Maryland
- Charles Young Buffalo Soldiers National Monument in Ohio
- San Juan Islands National Monument in Washington state
edited 22nd Mar '13 9:04:29 PM by tclittle
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."![]()
![]()
![]()
A large portion of the Republican Party is vetting Rubio for a 2016 run.
Rand Paul, Bobby Jindal, Paul Ryan, and Scott Walker are all possibilities.
Warren has become the favorite of the Left-Wing of the Democrat Party (as opposed to the Center-Left and Centrist Wings). Just like Jesse Jackson (1988), Jerry Brown (1992), Howard Dean (2004), and John Edwards (2008). Probably not a good sign considering that trend.
And Feinstein has enough baggage to fill several land fills.
edited 22nd Mar '13 11:25:28 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016A Dem Californian would be the nicest,...after all the darn Repubs that managed,...and all the times poor Jerry Brown got screwed over.
But that probably won't happen.
I see Castro as more likely the next Veep candidate.
![]()
Last I checked Brown and Dean got completely destroyed before the nomination,...and all the other left faves that have gotten to nomination (like Mc Govern or Mondale) then got crushed by embarrassingly wide margins.
It's never gonna be Left vs Right,always Centre-left/Centre vs Right/Regressive Right.
edited 22nd Mar '13 9:15:38 PM by terlwyth
@Julian Castro
There is no way a mere mayor will ever win a President Nomination.
I personally think the 2016 Democrat Ticket will be Joe Biden/Tim Kaine, and the 2016 Republican Ticket will be Marco Rubio/Mike Pence^.
^ = I was originally gonna put Bobby Jindal as Rubio's running mate, but there is no way the GOP would be able to sell a ticket with no Caucasians in it.
That's my point.
edited 22nd Mar '13 10:38:10 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

Vice President Biden will headline a pair of Democratic fundraisers this spring in crucial primary states, a scheduling decision likely to feed speculation that he is considering a White House bid.
I'm rooting for him. Who are you guys hope will get the Democrat nomination in '16?
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus on Friday said the party played into a “caricature” of itself in the 2012 election cycle, citing “idiotic statements” and “biologically stupid things” said by Mitt Romney and other GOP candidates.
edited 22nd Mar '13 6:03:33 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016