US POLITICS XXXIX

[awesome possum]

yeah. Too bad the republicans can't just focus on accomplishments of their candidates, like the democrats did with Obama.....

:leaving:

Meh, I give this post 2 out of 10 Trolls. You can do better.

And considering that Sarah Palin is the star of the Republican party right now, you should also know better. Well, maybe not you.....

[Swordfish]

Meh, I give this post 2 out of 10 Trolls. You can do better.

And considering that Sarah Palin is the star of the Republican party right now, you should also know better. Well, maybe not you.....

I'm curious as to what Sarah Palin has to do with this.

Could you elaborate?

[awesome possum]

Palin has about the same amount to do with this that Obama does: none. Just felt like throwing a little petty trolling back your way... unless you want to try to trot out this old line of debate.

[Guy Kilmore]

Guy, the problem with that argument is the supporters of the bill claim this is better for businesses, right? That business really favors this, and that it will make them more competitive. It will make everything cheaper and we'll all benefit. If that's not just proponents blowing smoke up our collective asses, then the "fair share" argument makes no sense. States should be racing to do this to attract businesses. Right?

I think you misread what I wrote, as I did not say anything about business and whatnot, plus if one looks at the states that have enacted some form of public healthcare/universal healthcare you would find that they are fairly competitive business wise.

I was stating that states encourage or force people to move to other states to recieve benefits, so that they do not have to be responsible for it or address the problem. I see this occur on the county level all the time in Minnesota. Counties will actively "encourage" people to seek out benefits in other counties to avoid the overhead. (Ironically these counties tend to be more developed and have more successfull businesses.)

As for why states are enacting policies that are good for business, I think you and I can both agree that states frequently enact/don't enact legislation that are pro-business for a whole host of good and bad reasons.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I think you misread what I wrote, as I did not say anything about business and whatnot, plus if one looks at the states that have enacted some form of public healthcare/universal healthcare you would find that they are fairly competitive business wise.

If that's the case, then the free rider argument isn't disadvantaging them.

I was stating that states encourage or force people to move to other states to recieve benefits, so that they do not have to be responsible for it or address the problem. I see this occur on the county level all the time in Minnesota. Counties will actively "encourage" people to seek out benefits in other counties to avoid the overhead. (Ironically these counties tend to be more developed and have more successfull businesses.)

Is there any evidence that significant numbers of people are moving from state to state for medical benefits? Considering all the other factors to consider when making a major move like that, it doesn't seem likely that the number would be significant.

Absent some evidence of an influx of people distorting that state's program, ithere's no reason not to do it on a state basis.

[Swordfish]

Palin has about the same amount to do with this that Obama does: none.

So then is it your contention that Obama was elected due to his accomplishments?

Or are you agreeing that your observation about republicans not placing emphasis on accomplishments when voting for a presidential candidate is applicable to the democrats as well?

Just felt like throwing a little petty trolling back your way... unless you want to try to trot out this old line of debate.

Which old line of debate would that be?

[Guy Kilmore]

Is there any evidence that significant numbers of people are moving from state to state for medical benefits? Considering all the other factors to consider when making a major move like that, it doesn't seem likely that the number would be significant.

I have seen qualitative data from Wilder Foundation's Homeless count here in the twin cities, where homeless people will state that they migrate to areas such as the twin cities from other states to take advantage of things like healthcare and other benefits (unfortunately I do not have this information in an electronic format or I would post it). Also, historically, if one looks at the structuring of anti-vangrancy laws one can also see this trend, thankfully this isn't as much as true. The homeless population/vulnerable populations/low-income populations are and do frequently move. (Which is very annoying when it comes to providing consistent care.)

If that's the case, then the free rider argument isn't disadvantaging them.

I disagree, I think you are looking at it too narrowly, it does have impact an adds an un-needed burden on the system the state provides. It also limits what the state can do, which limits the quality of care. A reduction on the quality of care makes it difficult to help a person move off the system and towards independence.

[Guy Kilmore]

So then is it your contention that Obama was elected due to his accomplishments?

I voted for Obama because I was interested in his past accomplishments. There have been a plethora of politcs threads that discussed this issue and I encourage you to read those threads again.

[Swordfish]

I voted for Obama because I was interested in his past accomplishments. There have been a plethora of politcs threads that discussed this issue and I encourage you to read those threads again.

So is it your contention that Obama was elected primarily on the basis of past accomplishments, and not on what he said and/or promised?

[Guy Kilmore]

So is it your contention that Obama was elected primarily on the basis of past accomplishments, and not on what he said and/or promised?

I suggest you read past election threads as I think this was a hot topic and would have data that would answer your question better.

[Swordfish]

I suggest you read past election threads as I think this was a hot topic and would have data that would answer your question better.

Thanks you for your suggestion.

However, allow me to ask the question in a way that pertains directly to the comment that started the discussion in THIS thread.

Would you say that republican voters, as a whole, are less interested in a presidential candidates accomplishments than democratic voters?

ETA: Or more accurately, that 'past accomplishments' are a larger factor in the presidential preferences of democratic voters than they are in the minds of republican voters?

[Guy Kilmore]

ETA: Or more accurately, that 'past accomplishments' are a larger factor in the presidential preferences of democratic voters than they are in the minds of republican voters?

No.

WIth that said, I do agree with the statement that the Indian Governor that FLoW is presenting will have little chance to get the nomination in the Republican Party in the current enviornment, I wish this was not so. I also feel that his past accomplishments would be used against him by other canidates.

ETA: This would have been a much more reasonable question to ask at the start of this vein, instead of the tact you chose. I find that people who are willing to engage in a dialogue will tend to engage reasonable questions. Snark tends to just breed more snark. Now if you feel a desire to use Obama as an example for the point you are trying to prove, I suggest that you look back at past political threads to get an idea of how people felt about him. This should provide you sufficent information about people's voting habits in regards to him, as that was debated pretty much into the ground.

[Shryke]

It's also inaccurate to heavily imply that "Republican voters care about past accomplishments and Democratic ones don't".

The problem with the Indiana Guy FLoW was mentioning is that his past accomplishments and current disposition all ad up to a guy who just wouldn't have the Conservative Cred necessary to win a GOP Primary. (Although this is obviously assuming not much changes in the next few years, which is certainly not a given)

[Annelise]

No. I do agree with the statement that the Indian Governor that FLoW is presenting will have little chance to get the nomination in the Republican Party in the current enviornment

Well, it's unfortunate because he really seems the sort of candidate I would like to see the GOP nominate. But when people like Marco Rubio have trouble with the Tea Party folk, I have to agree its not a good time for moderates.

For more on Rubio and the Tea Party, read here: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/debate-exposes-marco-rubios-tea-party-problem.php?ref=fpblg

[Guy Kilmore]

Well, it's unfortunate because he really seems the sort of candidate I would like to see the GOP nominate. But when people like Marco Rubio have trouble with the Tea Party folk, I have to agree its not a good time for moderates.

For more on Rubio and the Tea Party, read here: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/debate-exposes-marco-rubios-tea-party-problem.php?ref=fpblg

I would love to see a discussion between Rubio and Obama.

[Elrick]

Obama apparently is going to start up offshore drilling at first I thought this was a flipflop but through research on politifact.com I remembered that this was his stance in 2008 so I guess not. Am unsure why he's starting it now though... I'm kinda saddened to hear that so many people hate Obama now. :(

[Annelise]

For more on Mark Kirk, GOP candidate for Senate in Illinois and his vow to repeal and replace: http://www.frumforum.com/club-for-growth-backs-kirk-into-a-corner

Sen. Corker said outright today it wasn't going to be repealed. Sen. McConnell's only saying they're campaigning on repeal and reform, but won't say they'll actually do it.

Pressed to say whether that means he'd pursue a course of repealing the bill if he becomes majority leader in the fall, McConnell demurred. "I'm not going to predict the outcome of the fall election."

ETA: Fixed the Kirk link.

[Annelise]

Throwing it out there for discussion:

The 4th Circuit’s J. Harvie Wilkinson III went a step further, arguing that Heller “encourages Americans to do what conservative jurists warned for years they should not do: bypass the ballot and seek to press their political agenda in the courts.” Conservatives largely ignored these observations, content to celebrate the outcome and ignore the process.

The conservative position has traditionally been that barring egregious violations of our nation’s founding document, the court should defer to the will of the people as expressed by their elected officials. Having been unable to stop the Democrats from passing health reform, conservatives now seem to have abandoned this position. Putting aside the fact that there is almost no precedent that suggests that the court would find against the legislation, seven minutes is hardly enough time to reflect over whether we are doing what we’ve always purported to hate: legislating through the courts.

Rush Limbaugh once said that “Liberals attempt through judicial activism what they cannot believe at the ballot box.” Yet on these two high profile issues: gun rights and health reform, the use of the courts to challenge legislation that was passed by representatives of the voters has generated almost no internal debate among purported conservatives. In fact, the silence is deafening. Regardless of whether these suits are right or wrong, conservatives must at least be able to acknowledge that these actions seem to violate our own principles to not legislate via the courts. Yet, there has been almost no internal debate. Our hypocrisy is palpable, and this silence should embarrass us all.

http://www.frumforum.com/using-the-courts-to-kill-obamacare

The definition of "egregious" would seem to be the heart of it.

[Shryke]

I've heard that one of their biggest problems these days is that the government is so corrupt/useless/full of holes in Iraq that ALOT of the money the US funnels into it essentially goes straight to the insurgency.

[Shryke]

FYI, it's also a fallacy to say "If Health Care is so good, why didn't anyone do it before", which is also a large part of your 'argument'.

I asked a question. How can that be a fallacy?

It's a fallacious question. (for another example of a fallacious question that gets used often in elementary school: "Does your mom know that your gay?")

Beyond that, your whole argument relies on people/companies acting in their long term best interest. Doesn't happen.