Isn't it obvious that the democratic system forces people to be liars?

[thekaje]

I'm a sophomore in HS now, but in 8th grade History I learned somethink that makes me fairly certain that this is unconstitutional.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/13/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4863877.shtml

 

[GoodGame]

Nope. Actually I think it's social tact and threats of social ostracizion that require people to be liars.

 

[Bamspeedy]

He's pretty liberal, though. I'm not sure "any state" would have elected him had he grown up there. If they did, he'd absolutely have to compromise on a huge number of the positions he takes.

I did say 'almost' any state. Of course it would depend on chance (some really popular incumbent senators of either party he wouldn't have been able to beat since at that time he would be an unknown), but I meant to imply if he ran against someone he had a reasonable chance of defeating. I guess it would help if he had been born sooner, since the early '90's were the last time some of these states voted for a democrat senator (Feingold was elected in '92). The advantage of being an incumbent kind of prevents stating whether or not any of these states will elect a democrat senator again anytime soon.

Most recent map:



Red = 2 republican senators
Purple = 1 Republican, 1 Democrat
Blue = 2 Democrats
Green = 1 Democrat, 1 independent

So let's look at the 'Red' states and see if they've had any democrat senators:

Texas = Before Hutchison was elected in '93, Texas had at least one democrat senator since 1875, so the previous 118 years!

Oklahoma = One democrat senator from '75-'94.

Kentucky = A real mix of parties, last democrat in '99.

Tennessee = From '84-'94 there was 2 democrats.

Alabama = Democrats controlled both seats for 100 years until 1981, then still had one member until 1997. Shelby changed parties, having been elected as a democrat but then switched when the republicans gained the majority in congress in the '90's...wonder if he'll switch back now....

Arizona = One democrat from '77-'95.

Georgia = At least one democrat from the civil war until 2003.

South Carolina = At least one democrat until 2005.

Maine = Last democrat in '95.

States with no democrats since before the 1990's:

Mississippi = Last democrat in '89.

Utah = Last democrat in '77, but they've only got one new senator since '74, so not really a good 'sample size' due to incumbents having an advantage.

Kansas = Ok, you really got me on this one, none since 1939.

Idaho = Last democrat in '81.

Wyoming = Last democrat in '77.

I got these figures from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Senators_from_Maine
and just replacing 'Maine' in the link with whatever state you want (remember to capitalize the first letter!)

 

[thekaje]

Hey, I really appreciate the effort you put into that post. But I'd argue that "Democrat" and "Republican" are extremely amorphous labels, the definition of which varies from state to state. Hence Rudy Giuliani the closet-liberal New York "Republican," as well as the conservative Democrat Blue Dog Coalition.

I think it's a safe bet that pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-universal-health-care Russ would have a tough time anywhere but liberal strongholds and the quirky Upper Midwest.

By the way, I noticed this bizarre stream-of-consciousness rambling on his Wiki page:

I have never accepted the proposition that the gun debate is a black and white issue, a matter of 'you're with us, or you're against us.' Instead, I have followed what I believe is a moderate course, faithful to the Constitution and to the realities of modern society. I believe that the Second Amendment was not an afterthought, that it has meaning today and must be respected. I support the right to bear arms for lawful purposes — for hunting and sport and for self-protection. Millions of Americans own firearms legally and we should not take action that tells them that they are second-class citizens or that their constitutional rights are under attack. At the same time, there are actions we can and should take to protect public safety that do not infringe on constitutional rights.

He believes in a Constitutional right to bear arms, and then says that arms should be used for hunting and sport and for self-protection? That anti-gun law is un-Constitutional, unless it's not?

This here is a steaming pile of electioneered, focus-grouped, illogical BS.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Hey, I really appreciate the effort you put into that post. But I'd argue that "Democrat" and "Republican" are extremely amorphous labels, the definition of which varies from state to state. Hence Rudy Giuliani the closet-liberal New York "Republican," as well as the conservative Democrat Blue Dog Coalition.

I think it's a safe bet that pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-universal-health-care Russ would have a tough time anywhere but liberal strongholds and the quirky Upper Midwest.

By the way, I noticed this bizarre stream-of-consciousness rambling on his Wiki page:


He believes in a Constitutional right to bear arms, and then says that arms should be used for hunting and sport and for self-protection? That anti-gun law is un-Constitutional, unless it's not?

This here is a steaming pile of electioneered, focus-grouped, illogical BS.

He is for people to have guns, but not if they are felons (he wants more background checks at gun shows), and wants more safety (trigger locks). I think that is more reasonable than banning everyone from having them, or to allow felons to have guns.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Wait, wait, wait. I'm sorry, but this thread is not about the merits of the current proposal. This thread is about politically necessary inconsistency.

Yes, I know. You insinuated that Obama was a liar for apparently changing some of his rhetoric over time due to political necessity. And to "prove" this point, you posted a video of various sound bites taken out of context over a number of months.

Well, I'm "proving" the opposite by showing that Obama's primary stances on healthcare in the US haven't really changed at all as shown in those websites of his official positions on the matter.

So, once again, what do you find has changed so dramatically, on the basis of clearcut facts instead of obvious propaganda, that you would now accuse the President of the United States of being a "liar"?

Or do you just want to just keep quoting right-wing sites like The American Thinker for your 'facts'?

 

[thekaje]

Yes, I know. You insinuated that Obama was a liar for apparently changing some of his rhetoric over time due to political necessity. And to "prove" this point, you posted a video of various sound bites taken out of context over a number of months.

Well, I'm "proving" the opposite by showing that Obama's primary stances on healthcare in the US haven't really changed at all as shown in those websites of his official positions on the matter.

So, once again, what do you find has changed so dramatically, on the basis of clearcut facts instead of obvious propaganda, that you would now accuse the president of the United States of being a "liar"?

I stated that he is a liar. I just posted the quote in context, man. He implied very clearly that he wants to get rid of private insurance. His position now is that he has no such goal. Anybody who looks at his past comments will be deeply suspicious of these current claims.

Or do you just want to just keep quoting right-wing sites like The American Thinker for your 'facts'?

Dude, I am a liberal. I voted for Obama. Did you even read that post? Try to get over this knee-jerk crap.

 

[Formaldehyde]

And I'm stating he is no such thing. You have yet to actually show that is the case. Taking sound bites out of context obviously doesn't make it so. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best.

Once again, show me a single lie based on his actual positions. And try not to use obvious right-wing propaganda sites to do so, especially since you claim to be a liberal.

 

[thekaje]

I'm not going to talk about this with someone as trenchant and obviously entrenched as you.

I'm tired of people being pissed off at every synapse firing.

EDIT: Well, on your twelfth ninja edit, you seem a lot less hostile...

 

[Formaldehyde]

You called the President of the United States a liar based solely on an obviously biased Youtube video and right-wing website. Yes, I am a bit pissed off, especially since you claim to be a liberal to boot.

Is this your first exposure to obvious propaganda? Do you believe everything you see in Youtube videos without actually checking the facts for yourself, and before jumping to absurd conclusions such as this?

What I see is someone who is trying to compromise in order to effect desperately needed change in a political climate that isn't exactly enthused with the idea of actually changing. That is political reality in a representative democracy when you don't control the Congress outright, not lying.

Let's try some corroborable facts for a change.

 

[thekaje]

The opinionated nature of a source doesn't automatically destroy its worth.

You need to chill out. I might come back later and re-post that earlier in-context direct quote in juxtaposition with his current claims. Maybe you'll have simmered down by then.

EDIT: Do you understand the points I'm making with the American Thinker links? They're completely beyond the editorial scope of the articles themselves. In fact, I mock the editorial leanings of the article. But the basic facts they report are true: they received those emails from David Axelrod, and a White House spokesperson suddenly says they were sent on accident.

 

[thekaje]

August 14, 2009

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press...in-town-hall-on-health-care-Belgrade-Montana/

Now, I want to just be honest with you, and I think Max will testify, that in some cases what we've seen is also funding in opposition by some other insurance companies to any kind of reform proposals. So my intent is not to vilify insurance companies. If I was vilifying them, what we would be doing would be to say that private insurance has no place in the health care market, and some people believe that. I don't believe that. (Applause.) What I've said is let's work with the existing system. We've got private insurers out there. But what we do have to make sure of is that certain practices that are very tough on people, that those practices change.

March 24, 2007

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/events/healthforum/obama_transcript.html

BARACK OBAMA: Well, we have a plan that we are in the process of unveiling. What we want to do is try to set up a series of round table discussions before we actually announce it. Not just with experts, which we've already done, but rather with frontline workers, with nurses, with doctors, with consumers, which we're going to be scheduling over the next couple of months in terms of rolling it out. But let me just address a couple of points.

As I indicated before, I think that we're going to have to have some system where people can buy into a larger pool. Right now their pool typically is the employer, but there are other ways of doing it. I would like to -- I would hope that we could set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out where we've got a much more portable system. Employers still have the option of providing coverage, but many people may find that they get better coverage, or at least coverage that gives them more for health care dollars than they spend outside of their employer. And I think we've got to facilitate that and let individuals make that choice to transition out of employer coverage.

I do believe that employers are going to have to pay or play. I think that employers either have to provide health care coverage for their employees or they've got to make a decision that they're going to help pay for those who don't have coverage outside the employer system. So I think that's one important principle. And as I said, the second important principle is that we're going to have to put more money into prevention, more money into chronic care management, more money into medical technology, because that is how we're going to accrue the savings that help us provide subsidies to those who don't already have it.

What IS his goal? Does he want to see an end to private health insurance or not? Where does he see his plan heading? These two plans (2009 and 2007) sound very similar (though he advocated a straight-up single-payer system in 2003), but his professed goals are clearly very different. Indeed, the 2007 quote makes it seem as though he always planned to propose the current "public option" system as a way to phase out private insurance. In defending his health care proposal today, he claims he has no such intention, despite the fact that this clearly was not the case in 2007.

Meanwhile, here's the history of Obama's take on single-payer health care. The article is written by Politifact.com, which is considered to be non-partisan.

Quote from that article:

A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House.

We're talking about professed intentions here. It seems pretty clear to me that he is being less than honest with people right now. He is professing that he wants a very simple baby-step and nothing more, but in the past he's said that the "baby step" was the way to get a full-on single-payer system. He said that he wants to get rid of private health insurance. So how are we to believe him when he says that his "public option" will merely coincide with private insurers and not drive them out of business? His avowed goal was to have no private insurers at all!

And here's another quote:

I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter because, frankly, we historically have had a employer-based system in this country with private insurers, and for us to transition to a system like that I believe would be too disruptive.

Now, this statement is the entire focus of that article, but I want to repeat the point here: this statement is a complete lie.

In your response, try not to be so defensive. I'm not attacking your mom. Unless Barack Obama is your mom.

 

[Bill3000]

What IS his goal? Does he want to see an end to private health insurance or not?

You're aware the employee insurance is not the same thing as private health insurance, right?

 

[thekaje]

You're aware the employee insurance is not the same thing as private health insurance, right?

I don't see how the distinction is worthwhile if it doesn't mean "private health insurance" in that quote.

 

[sonorakitch]

OP: You are most certainly right.

Barry Goldwater is the only guy I can think of who said whatever he believed despite political ramifications. And it didn't get him to the WH.

Chris

 

[Bill3000]

I don't see how the distinction is worthwhile if it doesn't mean "private health insurance" in that quote.

Plenty worthwhile. Employee insurance means just what it is - insurance offered by one's employer. The major part of Obama's plan is to create a competitive market, which wouldn't be through employers.

 

[thekaje]

Plenty worthwhile. Employee insurance means just what it is - insurance offered by one's employer. The major part of Obama's plan is to create a competitive market, which wouldn't be through employers.

I know the latter part, but I don't agree with your distinction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States#Private_health_care_coverage

Employer-sponsored health care coverage is private health care coverage offered through the employer.

I don't get what you're driving at, so you're going to have to clarify.

EDIT:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press...in-town-hall-on-health-care-Belgrade-Montana/

The only point I want to make about this is whether you're for or against a public option, just understand that the public option is not a government takeover of health insurance. Everybody here who still has -- who has currently private insurance, you would more than likely still be on your private insurance plan. Employers wouldn't stop suddenly providing health insurance. So that is where this idea of government-run health care came from. It is not an accurate portrayal of the debate that's going on in Washington right now. All right?

 

[Bill3000]

Employer-sponsored health care coverage is private health care coverage offered through the employer.

I don't get what you're driving at, so you're going to have to clarify.

What I'm getting is that the private health-care coverage would (eventually) be sold through the marketplace instead of being employer-sponsored.

 

[thekaje]

What I'm getting is that the private health-care coverage would (eventually) be sold through the marketplace instead of being employer-sponsored.

But in 2007, he expects his program to drive employer-sponsored health care into the ground.

Your point is much clearer to me now, and I agree that he's not saying explicitly in 2007 that he expects an end to private health insurance outright. But what he does say has strange implications.

If this point doesn't seem contradictory to people, please focus on the second half of the post, beginning with "Meanwhile..."

 

[JerichoHill]

I'm a sophomore in HS now, but in 8th grade History I learned somethink that makes me fairly certain that this is unconstitutional.

Nope. It's called Cost of Living Adjustments. If you're a federal employee, you get them. It's nice.