Aa
It's a 50-50 nation, give or take
http://www.medhelp.org/posts/new_with_new_subject?forum_id=621
Nov 7, 11:05 AM (ET)
By CALVIN WOODWARD
WASHINGTON (AP) - The election laid bare a dual - and dueling - nation, politically speaking, jaggedly split down the middle on the presidency and torn over much else. It seems you can please only half of the people nearly all of the time.
Americans retained the fractious balance of power in re-electing President Barack Obama, a Republican House and a Democratic Senate, altogether serving as guarantors of the gridlock that voters say they despise. Slender percentages separated winner and loser from battleground to battleground, and people in exit polls said yea and nay in roughly equal measure to some of the big issues of the day.
Democracy doesn't care if you win big, only that you win. Tuesday was a day of decision as firmly as if Obama had run away with the race. Democrats are ebullient and, after a campaign notable for its raw smackdowns, words of conciliation and healing are coming from leaders on both sides, starting with the plea from defeated Republican rival Mitt Romney that his crestfallen supporters pray for the president.
But after the most ideologically polarized election in years, Obama's assertion Wednesday morning that America is "more than a collection of red states and blue states" was more of an aspiration than a snapshot of where the country stands.
Compromise was a popular notion in the hours after Obama's victory and an unavoidable one, given the reality of divided government. But the familiar contours of partisan Washington were also in evidence, especially the notion that compromise means you do things my way.
As Democratic Rep. Steve Israel of New York put it, "If you refuse to compromise, we are going to beat you." Israel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said the election showed "if you are an extremist tea party Republican, you are going to lose."
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky was grudging in interpreting the election as any kind of mandate for Obama, saying voters "have simply given him more time to finish the job they asked him to do together" with Congress, and did not endorse his "failure or excesses."
In New York's bustling Times Square, hope, skepticism and familiar polarities were all to be found when people talked about the president. "He may not have done a great job in my mind but I kinda trust him," said Jerry Shul. "I have faith he will get with the Republicans and get something done."
A less-flattering George Dallemand called this "a moment of truth" for the country. "I guess we have to wish for the best now, but I still think he is socialism."
In Miami, Karen Fitzgerald, 55, wore a black dress and said she was in mourning over Romney's defeat.
"It's an upsetting day," she said. But she took some comfort from her Democratic friends on Facebook, who have stopped chiding the other side in their posts. "Now they're all saying we need to work together and be united," she said. "Maybe we can."
In Chicago, Obama supporter Scherita Parrish, 56, predicted the president will reach out to Republicans but may not get much back.
"But the people have spoken," she said. "They need to lick their wounds, get on with it and start working with the president."
Indeed, unity is a challenge not just for Obama but for the Republicans, who won less than 30 percent of the growing Hispanic vote and not even one in 10 black voters. Obama built a strong Electoral College majority, if only a narrow advantage in the popular vote, despite losing every age group of non-Hispanic white voters.
Surveys of voters found Obama's health care law to be as divisive as ever, with just under 50 percent wanting it repealed in whole or part, and 44 percent liking it as is or wanting more of it.
But democracy doesn't care about exit polls, either, and the election almost certainly means Republicans can forget about trying to roll it back now.
In reaffirming divided government, though, Americans all but ensured colossal fights are ahead over the shape of government and Obama's agenda. He is out to break a wall of Republican opposition to tax increases on the wealthy - a move that about half the voters in exit polls thought was a good idea. And extraordinarily difficult negotiations are imminent as the president and Congress try to make a deal to avoid the "fiscal cliff" - steep spending cuts and a variety of tax increases in January.
In the end, voters split about equally on whether Obama or Romney would be better at handling the economy.
Then again, they were divided down the middle on whether Obama or his predecessor, George W. Bush, deserves most of the blame for the economy's problems.
So it goes in the 50-50 nation, give or take.
---
Associated Press writers Christine Armario in Miami, Michael Tarm in Chicago and David Martin in New York contributed to this report.
Nov 7, 11:05 AM (ET)
By CALVIN WOODWARD
WASHINGTON (AP) - The election laid bare a dual - and dueling - nation, politically speaking, jaggedly split down the middle on the presidency and torn over much else. It seems you can please only half of the people nearly all of the time.
Americans retained the fractious balance of power in re-electing President Barack Obama, a Republican House and a Democratic Senate, altogether serving as guarantors of the gridlock that voters say they despise. Slender percentages separated winner and loser from battleground to battleground, and people in exit polls said yea and nay in roughly equal measure to some of the big issues of the day.
Democracy doesn't care if you win big, only that you win. Tuesday was a day of decision as firmly as if Obama had run away with the race. Democrats are ebullient and, after a campaign notable for its raw smackdowns, words of conciliation and healing are coming from leaders on both sides, starting with the plea from defeated Republican rival Mitt Romney that his crestfallen supporters pray for the president.
But after the most ideologically polarized election in years, Obama's assertion Wednesday morning that America is "more than a collection of red states and blue states" was more of an aspiration than a snapshot of where the country stands.
Compromise was a popular notion in the hours after Obama's victory and an unavoidable one, given the reality of divided government. But the familiar contours of partisan Washington were also in evidence, especially the notion that compromise means you do things my way.
As Democratic Rep. Steve Israel of New York put it, "If you refuse to compromise, we are going to beat you." Israel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said the election showed "if you are an extremist tea party Republican, you are going to lose."
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky was grudging in interpreting the election as any kind of mandate for Obama, saying voters "have simply given him more time to finish the job they asked him to do together" with Congress, and did not endorse his "failure or excesses."
In New York's bustling Times Square, hope, skepticism and familiar polarities were all to be found when people talked about the president. "He may not have done a great job in my mind but I kinda trust him," said Jerry Shul. "I have faith he will get with the Republicans and get something done."
A less-flattering George Dallemand called this "a moment of truth" for the country. "I guess we have to wish for the best now, but I still think he is socialism."
In Miami, Karen Fitzgerald, 55, wore a black dress and said she was in mourning over Romney's defeat.
"It's an upsetting day," she said. But she took some comfort from her Democratic friends on Facebook, who have stopped chiding the other side in their posts. "Now they're all saying we need to work together and be united," she said. "Maybe we can."
In Chicago, Obama supporter Scherita Parrish, 56, predicted the president will reach out to Republicans but may not get much back.
"But the people have spoken," she said. "They need to lick their wounds, get on with it and start working with the president."
Indeed, unity is a challenge not just for Obama but for the Republicans, who won less than 30 percent of the growing Hispanic vote and not even one in 10 black voters. Obama built a strong Electoral College majority, if only a narrow advantage in the popular vote, despite losing every age group of non-Hispanic white voters.
Surveys of voters found Obama's health care law to be as divisive as ever, with just under 50 percent wanting it repealed in whole or part, and 44 percent liking it as is or wanting more of it.
But democracy doesn't care about exit polls, either, and the election almost certainly means Republicans can forget about trying to roll it back now.
In reaffirming divided government, though, Americans all but ensured colossal fights are ahead over the shape of government and Obama's agenda. He is out to break a wall of Republican opposition to tax increases on the wealthy - a move that about half the voters in exit polls thought was a good idea. And extraordinarily difficult negotiations are imminent as the president and Congress try to make a deal to avoid the "fiscal cliff" - steep spending cuts and a variety of tax increases in January.
In the end, voters split about equally on whether Obama or Romney would be better at handling the economy.
Then again, they were divided down the middle on whether Obama or his predecessor, George W. Bush, deserves most of the blame for the economy's problems.
So it goes in the 50-50 nation, give or take.
---
Associated Press writers Christine Armario in Miami, Michael Tarm in Chicago and David Martin in New York contributed to this report.
I'm sorry you feel that way, honestly. I never intended to mock anyone in any way and do believe that I don't have all the answers or always know what is right. I just do the best I can with what I got. There is a lot of tension because people are worried is all. I imagine you'd feel the same way if Romney were elected. I don't think it is personal and am really sorry that you do. The election has amped things up in terms of the discord and that is unfortunate for sure. Not sure when it will get better either.
Anyway, I understand your decision to leave as I think anything a place/people are too frustrating to deal with it just isn't worth it. But I'm sorry if I had a part in that. Peace
Anyway, I understand your decision to leave as I think anything a place/people are too frustrating to deal with it just isn't worth it. But I'm sorry if I had a part in that. Peace
"Actually, my comment about "being converts" was to MrsP. And it really sounded like that was what she was inferring... that we have to be 100% on board with the President, believe in all of his policies and practices, and I think that is unrealistic. By no stretch of the imagination was she 100% okay with everything Bush did...."
ABSOLUTELY ridiculous...Why in the world would I even think ANY of you on the right would support the president 100% or his policies. None of you even believe in his policies....I can't stand it anymore. Most of you jump down my throat because I support the President. You jump down my throat when I show facts on how the repubs in congress intentionally oppose him just because. You gloss over the fact that the majority of the American people believe in him and his policies that why he was re-elected...I left this forum because i was told in a sarcastic way that I wouldn't disagree with ANYTHING the President says..I'm sick of it. Like I said I will support the President on my own AWAY from CE...You guys can continue to dissect everything you think is wrong with my stance and what I believe. I've NEVER intentionally made anyone feel less of themselves for what or who they believe in. I may have disagreed but that's about it. I maybe young but I'm not naive and I'm not gullible.....It's sad that most of you on the right on this forum believe I am and for that I am DONE with this forum! My opinions and what I believe in get mocked and it's just a damn shame... I wish you all well.
ABSOLUTELY ridiculous...Why in the world would I even think ANY of you on the right would support the president 100% or his policies. None of you even believe in his policies....I can't stand it anymore. Most of you jump down my throat because I support the President. You jump down my throat when I show facts on how the repubs in congress intentionally oppose him just because. You gloss over the fact that the majority of the American people believe in him and his policies that why he was re-elected...I left this forum because i was told in a sarcastic way that I wouldn't disagree with ANYTHING the President says..I'm sick of it. Like I said I will support the President on my own AWAY from CE...You guys can continue to dissect everything you think is wrong with my stance and what I believe. I've NEVER intentionally made anyone feel less of themselves for what or who they believe in. I may have disagreed but that's about it. I maybe young but I'm not naive and I'm not gullible.....It's sad that most of you on the right on this forum believe I am and for that I am DONE with this forum! My opinions and what I believe in get mocked and it's just a damn shame... I wish you all well.
Actually, my comment about "being converts" was to MrsP. And it really sounded like that was what she was inferring... that we have to be 100% on board with the President, believe in all of his policies and practices, and I think that is unrealistic. By no stretch of the imagination was she 100% okay with everything Bush did....
EL... they'll still be crying about Bush. What else are they going to do? Step up and say things aren't working? No dice....
EL... they'll still be crying about Bush. What else are they going to do? Step up and say things aren't working? No dice....
"...What a bunch of crybabies. Hey, you lost. Get over it. ..."
I don't hear anyone crying, dude.
Although, at the end of his 2nd term, when his 8 years in office have amounted to exactly zero (which is basically what his FIRST 4 years in office have amounted to), I'd be EXTREMELY surprised if you're not still pointing the finger at GWB and complaining about how "there's NO WAY it could have been fixed in 8 years... if only he'd had more time, and the party of NO would have worked with him".
You want to hear crybabies? Take a look in the mirror, and look at all the moaning & complaining you've been doing for the last 4 years, about how everything is GWB's fault, and how the Republicans just won't work with us, not to mention how "stupid" we Republicans and our comment are, here in the CE-Forum.
Look in the mirror Mike, if you'd like to get a good look at a crybaby.
Glass houses and stones and throwing, comes to mind.
I don't hear anyone crying, dude.
Although, at the end of his 2nd term, when his 8 years in office have amounted to exactly zero (which is basically what his FIRST 4 years in office have amounted to), I'd be EXTREMELY surprised if you're not still pointing the finger at GWB and complaining about how "there's NO WAY it could have been fixed in 8 years... if only he'd had more time, and the party of NO would have worked with him".
You want to hear crybabies? Take a look in the mirror, and look at all the moaning & complaining you've been doing for the last 4 years, about how everything is GWB's fault, and how the Republicans just won't work with us, not to mention how "stupid" we Republicans and our comment are, here in the CE-Forum.
Look in the mirror Mike, if you'd like to get a good look at a crybaby.
Glass houses and stones and throwing, comes to mind.
Google wait times as well even for Canada. Seeing a specialist takes longer based on the WHO studies that were done. And every doctor has some type of protocol and standard of care that they follow. Who sets the standard?
Example, mammograms. Right now in the US, they are recommended to start at age 40. In 2010, there was a govt. agency study done that said women shouldn't get them until age 50 due to false positives. Thank the dear lord they did not change the standard of care because physicians did not agree with them. I have no family history or reason to be suspected as high risk for cancer but am based on my first mammogram findings. Right now the standard of care is mammos at age 40. That is the standard. (that is not a political comment but just an example of 'standard of care' and understanding that 'someone' sets it over and above treating physicians and patients.)
See what I'm saying? Death panals are a scary term but in reality, what that means is that the deciding body for standard of care in whatever country we are talking about says when a person with cancer reaches X point, they are no longer a candidate for treatment and it is only comfort care verses here, some will treat to the bitter end on on the chance it will work. But they choose that over being told you've reached X point and there is nothing else we are going to do.
I also wouldn't have given up the care I received for my son by moving to another country. We were asked to moved several times since my sons birth and declined. Even when they were little and moving to Europe sounded exciting. With his delay, I don't think I could have duplicated the therapy and help we got elsewhere. I looked into it.
Anyway, always a discussion that people are entrenched in their views. I respect my friend Adgal and am glad she loves her system and it gives her security. :>)
Example, mammograms. Right now in the US, they are recommended to start at age 40. In 2010, there was a govt. agency study done that said women shouldn't get them until age 50 due to false positives. Thank the dear lord they did not change the standard of care because physicians did not agree with them. I have no family history or reason to be suspected as high risk for cancer but am based on my first mammogram findings. Right now the standard of care is mammos at age 40. That is the standard. (that is not a political comment but just an example of 'standard of care' and understanding that 'someone' sets it over and above treating physicians and patients.)
See what I'm saying? Death panals are a scary term but in reality, what that means is that the deciding body for standard of care in whatever country we are talking about says when a person with cancer reaches X point, they are no longer a candidate for treatment and it is only comfort care verses here, some will treat to the bitter end on on the chance it will work. But they choose that over being told you've reached X point and there is nothing else we are going to do.
I also wouldn't have given up the care I received for my son by moving to another country. We were asked to moved several times since my sons birth and declined. Even when they were little and moving to Europe sounded exciting. With his delay, I don't think I could have duplicated the therapy and help we got elsewhere. I looked into it.
Anyway, always a discussion that people are entrenched in their views. I respect my friend Adgal and am glad she loves her system and it gives her security. :>)
As for people being called cry babies, yes, that was out of line. No name calling goes for everyone. Were there not already so many comments about it, in posts that contain other good comments, it would be deleted.
I can't say much about France, Canada and Sweden, but I do know there are a lot of people in England/UK who can not get testing/treatment they need, due to the rigidity and antiquated guidelines of the NHS. I've also seen it a few times with Canadians.
I can't say much about France, Canada and Sweden, but I do know there are a lot of people in England/UK who can not get testing/treatment they need, due to the rigidity and antiquated guidelines of the NHS. I've also seen it a few times with Canadians.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
