Bharat Rakshak

komal wrote:HITLERY. OBAMBA. KKKLINTON. Urban naxalite.

komal wrote:Not to mention that Woodrow Wilson, ...

The U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Pakistan have cost American taxpayers $5.9 trillion since they began in 2001.
The figure reflects the cost across the U.S. federal government since the price of war is not borne by the Defense Department alone.
The report also finds that more than 480,000 people have died from the wars and more than 244,000 civilians have been killed as a result of fighting. Additionally, another 10 million people have been displaced due to violence.

It breaks down like this, according to Crawford and the report:

Total U.S. war-related spending through fiscal year 2019 is $4.9 trillion.
The other $1 trillion reflects estimates for the cost of health care for post-9/11 veterans.
The Department of Veterans Affairs will be responsible for serving more than 4.3 million veterans by 2039.
What’s more, longer wars will also increase the number of service members who will ultimately claim veterans benefits and disability payments.

The U.S. government spent $4.1 trillion during fiscal year 2018, which ended Sept. 30, according to the Treasury Department.

komal wrote:Pakistan is the alpha and omega of Islamic Terrorism. 9/11 was planned by the ISI. They provided Osbama with a safe haven.

komal wrote:I have no idea. But her antics have no impact on the debate. The GOP has chosen to impose sanctions on Iran and not Pakistan. That is far more important than anything done by Omar.

it is not about le-publicans vs. democrats

komal wrote:I have no idea. But her antics have no impact on the debate. The GOP has chosen to impose sanctions on Iran and not Pakistan. That is far more important than anything done by Omar.

komal wrote:I have no idea. But her antics have no impact on the debate.

I have no idea

But her antics have no impact on the debate

What is your answer for Radical Islamic Terrorism?

The Iowa caucuses are the first time actual voters all across any US state get up and go say who they want to be president.
And these voters do literally have to "get up and go" — to an in-person event, held at a specific time in the evening, at one of 1,681 precincts across the state. There's no absentee voting, so if you're bedridden or out of the state, you've historically been out of luck.
(However, this year, for the first time, both parties are letting out-of-state members of the military participate by web, and Democrats are making some allowances for other Iowans who might have trouble showing up.)
The caucuses are administered separately by each major party, and Republicans and Democrats have quite different rules. This year, the GOP contest is simple: After some opening rigmarole at their caucus sites, an ordinary secret ballot vote on presidential candidates will be conducted, and the totals will be tallied statewide.

The Democratic caucuses are far more complicated — they're rowdy, hours-long public affairs, with back-and-forth debate among attendees who have to go physically stand with other supporters of their preferred candidate. "It's kind of like a carnival, where the candidates' supporters say, 'Come over to us, to our group!'" says Drake University political scientist Dennis Goldford.

There's no secret ballot, and if a Democratic candidate doesn't get enough supporters in a precinct (15 percent of attendees), he or she is eliminated, reality show style.

As the Appeals court covers Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, women in these states can now effectively bare all without breaking the law, reports NBC News.The 'prohibition on public exposure of breasts by women and girls over 10 years old' will be gone from the city code of Fort Collins as of this week.

KLNMurthy farted, not wrote:{}

The most-vulnerable Democrat in Colorado’s state House, Bri Buentello, is dreading door-knocking in her rural district now that Elizabeth Warren dropped her massive “Medicare for All” plan into the presidential arena.

“This is going to cause down-ballot damage in swing districts and states if she’s the nominee,” Buentello says, describing how her Pueblo-area constituents — who voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump in 2016 — were already echoing criticisms about a giant, one-size-fits-all big government run plan that cancels private health insurance and raises taxes.

The fear of blowback is indicative of the broad and largely negative response to Warren’s proposal from centrist, moderate and rural Democrats — many of whom, like Buentello, back Joe Biden in the primary. And it exposes the fault line between those who fret about winning voters in the center and the activist progressive base propelling Warren to the front of the Democratic pack.

In swing-state Ohio, Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, a liberal populist, has previously referred to Medicare for All as a “terrible mistake.” The influential culinary workers union in Nevada has also expressed misgivings. And the best-known Democrat from the blue state stronghold of California, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, also let it be known Friday that she’s not on board.

Throughout the presidential primary season, Medicare for All has been debated repeatedly by Democrats on stages where Warren has largely ducked specifics and the issue of tax increases.

What’s different now is that Warren is emerging as the frontrunner — and centrists and pragmatists in her party are starting to hit the panic button as Warren’s plan seems tailor-made to make enemies of doctors, hospitals, the insurance industry and some employers.

Joe Biden, a top-tier presidential contender along with Warren, on Friday personally attacked the Massachusetts senator’s proposal and her math, saying the plan spends more than it takes in.

“She’s making it up,” Biden told PBS, saying Warren’s proposal spends more than it takes in. “We don’t have to go that route. All we have to do is go back [and] restore Obamacare.”

"You have to be kidding me," retorted Biden campaign manager Greg Schultz. "Warren was a Republican until she was 47 years old while Joe Biden has spent his life helping elect Democrats across the country and served with honor in the Senate and with President Obama."

Veterans of past political campaigns, remembering the beating their party took over Obamacare — which has finally become popular after Republicans attempted to repeal much of it — fear that Medicare for All raises too many questions, picks too many fights with special interests and won’t garner support where it counts the most in a presidential election: swing districts in the swing states needed to clinch the Electoral College.

The fundamental challenge Senator Warren has in selling her plans across the country is that Medicare for All, while popular in largely urban coastal areas, does not share the same appeal in the middle of the country, particularly in the areas where people largely have health insurance and are mostly satisfied,” said Bill Burton, a former spokesman for President Obama’s campaign and the founder of a super PAC that supported his reelection, who also briefly worked for billionaire Howard Schultz's brief 2020 presidential campaign.

“When you look at the counties that President Obama and President Trump won, you see rates of health insurance in the 90-95% range, so she’s potentially solving a problem that many of these voters may not share these views on,” Burton said.

Burton has company among Obama alums , many of whom remember how Republicans weaponized Obamacare in the 2010 and 2014 midterms. Without Obama on the ticket defending his namesake healthcare plan, it was largely a millstone around the necks of Democrats.

“It played out with the Clinton health plan. It played out with the Affordable Care Act. Frankly, going all the way back to President Truman, it is consistently the case that health reforms are always popular at first, when they're more like bumper sticker slogans," said Larry Levitt, the senior vice president for health reform at the Kaiser Family Foundation. "As details get filled in and opponents really start to attack, plans never get more popular.”

The GOP is likely to echo the same criticisms of Obamacare — that it was a step toward socialism. But this time, a wholesale government takeover of health insurance would actually be a step toward socialism, which is still viewed more negatively than positively by Americans overall.

“You don’t win with a message of socialism in a swing state like Florida,” said Bill Nelson, a former Florida senator and Biden surrogate.

Another political problem underpins the debate: most of the Democrats running to unseat Republican incumbent senators don’t support her plan, and if they don’t win their races, then the GOP will remain in control of the Senate. So the plan wouldn’t pass anyway. And if the Democratic senators who oppose Medicare for All win their races, they’re unlikely to reverse their opposition and pass the plan.

The Democrat-controlled House could also pose a problem, said Rep. Ami Bera, a California Democrat who’s a doctor and is neutral in the primary.

“We need to put out proposals that can actually make it into law,” Bera said. “We should be proud as Democrats all of our candidates are talking about how to expand coverage, but I don’t see Medicare for All of getting anywhere close to 218 votes in the House and certainly not 60 votes in the Senate.”

“It comes down to that question of Americans being used to being able to make choices, to have the right to make a decision,” Hickenlooper said. “And I think proposing a public option that allows some form of Medicare that maybe is a combination of Medicare Advantage and Medicare, but people choose it, and if enough people choose it, it expands, the quality improves, the cost comes down, more people choose it, eventually, in 15 years, you could get there, but it would be an evolution, not a revolution.”

And that’s a problem that her plan might exacerbate in places like Colorado’s rural and suburban districts, said Rep. Buentello.

“This is an idea that’s dreamed up in big, urban rich states like Massachusetts and they expect them to go over well in places like Colorado and they don’t,” Buentello said. “The Denver suburbs won’t be in Democratic control forever, and this makes it harder for us to keep.”

A_Gupta wrote:Most of what is on this thread is neither fact nor idea. It is propaganda in spite of protests to the contrary.

Najunamar wrote:As I see it, there are 2 rancorous issues for PIO in US of A. Firstly it is the H1-B, working permits for spouses type issues which are largely impactful for a small section of Indians (I think at most 10-15% being very charitable here with the numbers), secondly the overall policy which is stuck in cold war mode for most of the US governmental apparatus (these are people who are now in positions of power that grew up in the late 80s and early 90s- when India was weak both politically and economically). My guess is it is far easier to pivot on the first issue than the second, hence citizens of USA with ambitions of helping bring the vision of a Bharathavarsha leading the world are better off focusing on what must be done for the second. Whether it is best served by 1 candidate or other is a personal decision of course and I am merely stating my beliefs on that front (no problems with the trolls and barbs, too old to care for that cr*p anyway).

A_Gupta wrote:Most of what is on this thread is neither fact nor idea. It is propaganda in spite of protests to the contrary.

UlanBatori wrote:PeeAyyo ppl r not Indian citjens. So as applied to US, they must be US citjens. I cannot see why any PeeAyyo other than the tiny minority who run "bodyshops" (sorry no offence intended, u know what I mean) would lose sleep about immigration policy for skilled immigrants: they worry about Family Immigration maybe. Or keeping their jobs in the face of a flood of Outsourcing. It is not unexpected: PeeAyyOs are the first targets for workplace lynchmob "revenge" when jobs are cut due to outsourcing to India or due to import of DOOs. Know this personally. It is also not unexpected that desis in desh are blind or uncaring about this aspect: they want PeeAyyOs to go agitate to INCREASE the quotas? Why would PeeAyyOs do that? Isn't it enuf that when they vijit desh half the crooks are out there trying to rip them off?

The only good thing this time is to do whatever possible to help TGbibi. Dharma.
Such an amazingly refreshing change from what passes for yindoo-Amirkhan in the RoKhanna generation.

komal wrote:Attack Pakistan and dismember it?

Have Newt light lamps? Hold hearings in the House and praise India?

darshan wrote: Just came back from a local Mandir where it's sort of become fashion by many coconuts to call Tulsi a fake Hindu. Most of them recent arrivals in last two decades who don't even have any idea about struggles that went into building a Hindu Mandir that they were standing in. Their only qualifiers to be Hindu are that they're from India and were born in family with Hindu names. Needless to say that they got off the boat, picked an affiliation to some political party to look cool/go with the crowd/etc. and will stick with it till they die.

Mort Walker wrote:I have older relatives (and I’m old myself) that constantly vote for the INC because they brought India independence and got handouts from the INC. These people have become vote banks and their party can do no wrong.

Mort Walker wrote: I should have said NRIs who aspire to become PIOs. That bill passage is pretty important for people who seek a Green Card.