Health Care Passes Senate

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]dhickey wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

…
Until the Republicans can put up candidates that will help reverse (rather than slow) the progression towards socialism, they’re not getting my vote.

I really struggle with the logic behind voting for the lesser of two evils in politics. Maybe those that do are single with no interest in children? Maybe they are more concerned with their own near term fate than the long term fate of their offspring?[/quote]

I see.
So, in Minnesota, a traditionally center to center-left state, a split conservative vote accomplishes…what?
It proves that by splitting the center-right and conservative vote, even a clown can be elected to the Senate. How does this choice “reverse…the progression towards socialism?”

Coleman was not a liberal, except to the purist, and the proof is in the election itself: he played to the concerns of a near majority of Minnesotans. A near majority, and not quite a full majority.

“The lesser of two evils?” And there is no evil in this outcome, I suppose, since every vote for Charles Aldrich was functionally a vote for the minority candidate, Mr. Franken.
Apparently I judge differently the power of the purist. The practical result is that he never achieves his goals, and it is his children who will bear the results of his purest choices, choices which will not be undone.

22

Of course such things would not be issues if the near-worst of all possible voting systems (being allowed to provide only a single answer on a single candidate and that, only a yes being permitted) were not in near-universal use in the US, with better systems such as instant-runoff never being allowed to be used for Federal elections.

Hmmm, why do you think that is?

Is it too hard to allow voting rank order of preference?

Of course not.

But the existing system causes intelligent people to conclude, “I shouldn’t vote for the candidate I prefer because ‘he can’t win’ and therefore I’m wasting my vote,” thus giving a near-guarantee of one of the two major party candidates winning.

And somehow, just about everyone is deceived and sees no real problem with this and does not see that there is no reason for it to be this way, other than to serve the two major parties.

23

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Of course such things would not be issues if the near-worst of all possible voting systems (being allowed to provide only a single answer on a single candidate and that, only a yes being permitted) were not in near-universal use in the US, with better systems such as instant-runoff never being allowed to be used for Federal elections.

Hmmm, why do you think that is?

Is it too hard to allow voting rank order of preference?

Of course not.

But the existing system causes intelligent people to conclude, “I shouldn’t vote for the candidate I prefer because ‘he can’t win’ and therefore I’m wasting my vote,” thus giving a near-guarantee of one of the two major party candidates winning.

And somehow, just about everyone is deceived and sees no real problem with this and does not see that there is no reason for it to be this way, other than to serve the two major parties.[/quote]

There are dozens of examples of multiparty democracies–none seem to require rank-order voting for their endurance. The USA functions by adaptive pluralism, and for good reasons.

Be careful when you wish to change a rule, since all the rules may be changed in the effort.

24

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]dhickey wrote:
How big was Norm Coleman’s loss? If he would have voted against TARP he would have won. A lesson for the Republicans.[/quote]

No. A lesson for the Paulistas and other Libertarians.[/quote]

Why would we care?

[/quote]

Exactly. I’m actually happy.

V[/quote]

Well, good on you! I am so glad that happiness can be so easily achieved.
Orion should not care, because he knows nothing of the USA or its politics, and he is not subject to its laws.
You, Vegita, are subject to its laws, happy lad that you are, and all the more so knowing the following:

[/quote]

Ah, the Chushin school of idiotic arguments…

I know it well!

25

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
I see.
So, in Minnesota, a traditionally center to center-left state, a split conservative vote accomplishes…what?
[/quote]
Tells Norm and republicans they are not behaving properly.

It doesn’t. Unless the republicans are smart enough to see those as lost votes and act more conservative.

He wasn’t a conservative. If he was, i would have voted for him. pretty simple really.

No, it was a vote for a more conservative candidate. It was also a statement to the republican party that they are not acting as conservatives. Why is this so hard to understand?

[quote]
Apparently I judge differently the power of the purist. The practical result is that he never achieves his goals, and it is his children who will bear the results of his purest choices, choices which will not be undone.[/quote]
Again, the republicans that you vote for, and encourage to behave the way they do because you vote for them, are taking us down the exact same path. Because they chose to take their time doing it makes even more likely they are able to take us in the wrong direction for a longer period of time.

26

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]dhickey wrote:
How big was Norm Coleman’s loss? If he would have voted against TARP he would have won. A lesson for the Republicans.[/quote]

No. A lesson for the Paulistas and other Libertarians.[/quote]

Why would we care?

[/quote]

Exactly. I’m actually happy.

V[/quote]

Well, good on you! I am so glad that happiness can be so easily achieved.
Orion should not care, because he knows nothing of the USA or its politics, and he is not subject to its laws.
You, Vegita, are subject to its laws, happy lad that you are, and all the more so knowing the following:

[/quote]

Ah, the Chushin school of idiotic arguments…

I know it well!

[/quote]
You know it so well because you deserve it so much, having provided innumerable examples of your failed history, judgment, facts, etc.

Now, run along…or why not provide more examples of your expertise, in, say, Italian jurisprudence. Or the authorship of The Federalist, or…

27

[quote]dhickey wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
I see.
…
“The lesser of two evils?” And there is no evil in this outcome, I suppose, since every vote for Charles Aldrich was functionally a vote for the minority candidate, Mr. Franken.
[/quote]
No, it was a vote for a more conservative candidate. It was also a statement to the republican party that they are not acting as conservatives. Why is this so hard to understand?

[/quote]

My friend, to quote Homer Simpson, “Just because I do not care does not mean I do not understand.”

So, having made the choices that you made, are you happy with the end result?

28

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

My friend, to quote Homer Simpson, “Just because I do not care does not mean I do not understand.”

So, having made the choices that you made, are you happy with the end result?[/quote]

I don’t know what the end result will be. It’s only been a year. I tend to look a little further in the future. What’s best for the republican party in the long term? To let them know they are not conservatives or to keep affirming (voting) that they are doing a bang-up job. This seems to me a pretty simple concept.

If you are only thinking about consequences of a single term, they have you right where they want you. They think the same way. They campaign the same way. They govern the same way.

Norm Coleman is no longer a senator. Maybe I contributed to Republicans at least thinking about returning to their conservative roots.

29

[quote]dhickey wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

My friend, to quote Homer Simpson, “Just because I do not care does not mean I do not understand.”

So, having made the choices that you made, are you happy with the end result?[/quote]

I don’t know what the end result will be. It’s only been a year. I tend to look a little further in the future. What’s best for the republican party in the long term? To let them know they are not conservatives or to keep affirming (voting) that they are doing a bang-up job. This seems to me a pretty simple concept.

If you are only thinking about consequences of a single term, they have you right where they want you. They think the same way. They campaign the same way. They govern the same way.

Norm Coleman is no longer a senator. Maybe I contributed to Republicans at least thinking about returning to their conservative roots.
[/quote]

This X over 9000

V

30

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]dhickey wrote:
How big was Norm Coleman’s loss? If he would have voted against TARP he would have won. A lesson for the Republicans.[/quote]

No. A lesson for the Paulistas and other Libertarians.[/quote]

Why would we care?

[/quote]

Exactly. I’m actually happy.

V[/quote]

Well, good on you! I am so glad that happiness can be so easily achieved.
Orion should not care, because he knows nothing of the USA or its politics, and he is not subject to its laws.
You, Vegita, are subject to its laws, happy lad that you are, and all the more so knowing the following:

[/quote]

Ah, the Chushin school of idiotic arguments…

I know it well!

[/quote]
You know it so well because you deserve it so much, having provided innumerable examples of your failed history, judgment, facts, etc.

Now, run along…or why not provide more examples of your expertise, in, say, Italian jurisprudence. Or the authorship of The Federalist, or…

[/quote]

No problem-

It is just that when I am right and you are wrong you claim that I could not possibly know because I am not American.

Now I do understand that Chushin operates under certain limits regarding his mental abilities but I Id wager that in your case those limits are less strict and so you are simply lazy.

Which is a-ok, though often you even contradict yourself, f.e. if you happen to know better than me how Montana is run even though you live in BF, Wisconsin oe whereever, why would I not know better how Italy is run if I live only a two hour drive away from it?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but just because you do not invest the time and energy to think something through hardly makes me wrong.

xoxo,

Orion

31

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]dhickey wrote:
How big was Norm Coleman’s loss? If he would have voted against TARP he would have won. A lesson for the Republicans.[/quote]

No. A lesson for the Paulistas and other Libertarians.[/quote]

Why would we care?

[/quote]

Exactly. I’m actually happy.

V[/quote]

Well, good on you! I am so glad that happiness can be so easily achieved.
Orion should not care, because he knows nothing of the USA or its politics, and he is not subject to its laws.
You, Vegita, are subject to its laws, happy lad that you are, and all the more so knowing the following:

[/quote]

Ah, the Chushin school of idiotic arguments…

I know it well!

[/quote]
You know it so well because you deserve it so much, having provided innumerable examples of your failed history, judgment, facts, etc.

Now, run along…or why not provide more examples of your expertise, in, say, Italian jurisprudence. Or the authorship of The Federalist, or…

[/quote]

No problem-

It is just that when I am right and you are wrong you claim that I could not possibly know because I am not American.

Now I do understand that Chushin operates under certain limits regarding his mental abilities but I Id wager that in your case those limits are less strict and so you are simply lazy.

Which is a-ok, though often you even contradict yourself, f.e. if you happen to know better than me how Montana is run even though you live in BF, Wisconsin oe whereever, why would I not know better how Italy is run if I live only a two hour drive away from it?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but just because you do not invest the time and energy to think something through hardly makes me wrong.

xoxo,

Orion[/quote]

Speaking of contradictions, I do not claim to know more about Montana than someone who lives there and is actively involved in its political life; how does that compare to your professed superior knowledge of all things American, acquired by selected proxy? You fail by your own example.

Invest time in your logorrhea? Oh, no, no. It takes no time whatsoever to see through your intellectual vacancy. You are wrong simply because…you are wrong! And wrong so often as to make yourself a laughingstock. It is the habit of a bigoted mind to be wrong, or perhaps it is your own lack of inquiry, that makes you so reliant on false information, websites, and so forth. It all must fit some preconceptions–you call them, laughably, “axioms”–to which you must adhere as surely as the insapient limpet to the immotile rock. You claim expertise where you have none…or have you finished your embryology class by now?

As for other areas of feigned expertise, I am quite sure your knowledge of the Italian law system must be at least as great as your knowledge of Navajo history, or radiation teratology, or…well, who knows what scope of practice may be held by a social parasite who lives on the dank banks of the Danube?

Please do inform us. The Orionic Catalogue still has a few empty pages.

32

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]dhickey wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

My friend, to quote Homer Simpson, “Just because I do not care does not mean I do not understand.”

So, having made the choices that you made, are you happy with the end result?[/quote]

I don’t know what the end result will be. It’s only been a year. I tend to look a little further in the future. What’s best for the republican party in the long term? To let them know they are not conservatives or to keep affirming (voting) that they are doing a bang-up job. This seems to me a pretty simple concept.

If you are only thinking about consequences of a single term, they have you right where they want you. They think the same way. They campaign the same way. They govern the same way.

Norm Coleman is no longer a senator. Maybe I contributed to Republicans at least thinking about returning to their conservative roots.
[/quote]

This X over 9000

V[/quote]

As much as I respect you and dhickey, I have to challenge this thinking, but only once. Is there an historical example of this happening-- that is, a more “extreme” candidate capturing a state or national nomination, and an election, without capturing as well the “center?” Not Lincoln in 1860, not Goldwater in 1964, not WJ Bryan, not Reagan in 1980 (well, there is room for argument on that one.)

If Republicans were “to return to their roots,” it will not be because of right-thinking folks like you and dhickey, because you are in a minority, one which has declared itself to be un-capturable and un-co-optable. If the Return is to happen, it would do so with a secular shift in the thinking of “the center,” or when the word “compromise” is not equated with treachery.

33

[quote]John S. wrote:
Well, good run America.

With all these new taxes coming into affect almost instantly you can expect unemployment to skyrocket, and the dollar to fall at record speeds.

They are going to collapse the system and blame it on Capitalism.

*edit

The only hope left is if the radical left in office decide when merging the bill to include the public option. That is the only way this bill will die.[/quote]

That was the goal all along, John. Most people hate capitalism and want some sort of benevolent feudalism – guaranteed healthcare, guaranteed retirement, a guaranteed job, a place to live…they want feudalism, with toys.

Read the thread about Brave New World. Thinking people will always be in the minority. Most just want drugs, alcohol, and unlimited sex. Give 'em that and they will be like cattle in the fields, happily munching away on the grass before them.

34

Merry fucking Christmas, lets ram something down your throat you don’t want. There is still a long way to go on this. It’s bill that will increase everyone’s taxes and hurt the 150 or so million folks who already have insurance to get 30 million more really super crappy insurance while adding a layer of bureaucracy to complicate the matter.

The cringe factor is pretty high here. I wish I did not read it on Christmas.

35

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

If Republicans were “to return to their roots,” it will not be because of right-thinking folks like you and dhickey, because you are in a minority, one which has declared itself to be un-capturable and un-co-optable. If the Return is to happen, it would do so with a secular shift in the thinking of “the center,” or when the word “compromise” is not equated with treachery.
[/quote]

There is right and wrong. The republican party need to return to what is right, not taylor their platform to the masses. If they do what is right, we will progress. The economy will benefit, real jobs will return, our debt will shrink, and personal liberties will be restored. People will notice.

In the process they need to educate the voting masses. Basic economic principles are not that difficult to understand or communicate. Instead republicans chose to engage in the simple-minded rhetoric and platitudes that the Dems do. They cannot win this battle. Socialist rhetoric will always sound better to the simple minded. If we assume that the voting public is incapable of understanding basic economic truths, we are doomed and we just sit back and enjoy the destruction. It won’t matter who is power.

I tend to think one can reach the voting masses. Is it more work? Sure. Republicans chose to quibble over insignificant details or differences, rather take a stand on fundamental economic and moral truths because it is easier. Unfortunately, this only gets us exactly what we have today.

36

[quote]dhickey wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

If Republicans were “to return to their roots,” it will not be because of right-thinking folks like you and dhickey, because you are in a minority, one which has declared itself to be un-capturable and un-co-optable. If the Return is to happen, it would do so with a secular shift in the thinking of “the center,” or when the word “compromise” is not equated with treachery.
[/quote]

There is right and wrong. The republican party need to return to what is right, not taylor their platform to the masses. If they do what is right, we will progress. The economy will benefit, real jobs will return, our debt will shrink, and personal liberties will be restored. People will notice.

In the process they need to educate the voting masses. Basic economic principles are not that difficult to understand or communicate. Instead republicans chose to engage in the simple-minded rhetoric and platitudes that the Dems do. They cannot win this battle. Socialist rhetoric will always sound better to the simple minded. If we assume that the voting public is incapable of understanding basic economic truths, we are doomed and we just sit back and enjoy the destruction. It won’t matter who is power.

I tend to think one can reach the voting masses. Is it more work? Sure. Republicans chose to quibble over insignificant details or differences, rather take a stand on fundamental economic and moral truths because it is easier. Unfortunately, this only gets us exactly what we have today.[/quote]

Well said. You understand my point: It is not sufficient that candidates adopt “minority” views, however appealing they may be. It is the voting public which must be educated.
Adversity is an unpredictable instructor; when things go bad this decade, not everyone will share your insights and your solutions.

This is also why I refer to “secular shifts.” If you think this will now occur rapidly, think again. After the 1932 elections, It was 62 years before the Republicans captured both houses of Congress. I ain’t got that kinda time.

37

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

This is also why I refer to “secular shifts.” If you think this will now occur rapidly, think again. After the 1932 elections, It was 62 years before the Republicans captured both houses of Congress. I ain’t got that kinda time.
[/quote]

The harder and faster the collapse, the faster the shift. Key differences between now and then:

Access to information. This should be a huge advantage in educating the masses.

Our currency was in much better shape in 1932.

We still haven’t fully recovered from that collapse and gov’t programs that sprung out of it. We are not starting from the same amount of gov’t intervention, debt, or consumer irresponsibility. In other words we were much worse off in 2008 than we were in 1929.

38

[quote]dhickey wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

This is also why I refer to “secular shifts.” If you think this will now occur rapidly, think again. After the 1932 elections, It was 62 years before the Republicans captured both houses of Congress. I ain’t got that kinda time.
[/quote]

The harder and faster the collapse, the faster the shift. …
[/quote]

There is a lot there to contest, but I won’t.

But this first thought is the most treacherous. Why would you suppose that “information” will save minority opinion. Is it not conceivable that liberal spendthrifts will also be better at indoctrinating the public, as they have to date?

Or that as things fail, the blame will be pinned on “The Right.” The collapse of which you speak has occurred–the tipping point of November 2008–why presume that further failure inevitably leads to vindication?

39

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

There is a lot there to contest, but I won’t.

But this first thought is the most treacherous. Why would you suppose that “information” will save minority opinion. Is it not conceivable that liberal spendthrifts will also be better at indoctrinating the public, as they have to date?
[/quote]
I wasn’t speaking of indoctrination. We have incredible access to information. When the masses decide to take notice, our leaders won’t be able to hide. FDR did some really crazy shit for an extended period of time. This will be very hard to do in today’s world, if people are paying attention.

The truth? That the collapse is due to gov’t meddling and that party affiliation has little to do with anything. If the Dems want to adopt traditionally conservative values, I’ll vote for them. Hopefully others will vote based on results and effective policy, once they have taken the time to recognize them.