Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Jabbadabbado, Nov 6, 2008.
How to win elections? Stop being evil.
And Voter ID doesn't look like trying to cheat? Where's the statistically noticeable incidence of voter fraud?
As far as so-called "entitlement reform" is concerned:
People feel "entitled" to these programs for a very simple reason: they've been paying into them their whole lives. Screwing them on the back end - "thanks for your contribution, sucker, now get lost" - will do absolutely nothing to "lower the cost of health care". It will only lower the cost to the federal government. The underlying problem is that health care is dramatically overpriced. But we can't do anything about that, because socialism. For the people forced to fend for themselves the cost of health care will most assuredly not be any "lower".
Rhode Island did Voter ID right, don't want to get into that again.
And Medicare/Medicaid are the biggest long-term driver behind the budget deficit (the immediate ones being the unemloyment rate [continuing to fall], the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq [ending and ended], the Bush Tax Cuts [now expired for the rich], and Medicare Part D [now funded as part of ObamaCare]). The costs of Medicare/Medicaid are expected to soar as more and more Baby Boomers retire. That's a fact, Obama and the Democrats know this. Entitlements need to be reformed, and I'd rather it get done under a liberal Democratic president. We can lower the costs of healthcare by making it harder for pharmaceutical companies to block drugs from going generic after a number of years, by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, and by allowing the important of safe drugs from foreign coutries (like Canada).
It'd be great if we had a liberal Democratic president then, instead of a center-right technocratic one.
Who apparently should resign for Beyonce's lip-syncing...
But seriously, I vote (generally) for the GOP's analogue in Australia, the Liberal Party. And I'd vote Lib-Dems or Conservative in the UK. I could never fathom voting GOP. That has to say something.
Don't even need to read that blog. The text in the link saying what it's about is asinine enough as it is.
Pretty sure the blog is intended to be satire - it has links to other items such as 'Debate Ends Abruptly As Obama Punches Romney In Face.'
Yeah. Andy Borowitz is a satirist.
Satire or not, I could sadly see some bat - crazy Tea Partier actually having the audacity to call for an Obama resignation over something like that.
Center-right is a step in the right direction considering what we had prior.
I don't think GWB was left, right, or center; he was just too incompetent to align with any political ideology other than, 'Durrrp.'
He did have a good idea or two. His proposal on immigration during the last couple of years of his Presidency was probably the closest and fairest thing we'd come to immigration reform (not saying it was perfect, but it least it wasn't like the rest of the GOP's "Deport all foreigners regardless" doctrine). It's really too bad McCain and others in the GOP Congress torpedoed it before it got far.
As it was satire, you probably did.
I agree- GWB would have been roasted for that stance if he had spoken up during one those "debates" where Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann competed to offend as many people as possible. Debating Alan Keyes in 2000 was child's play compared to those horror shows.
And his emphasis on fighting AIDS in Africa was outstanding. Unfortunately, the list ends there.
the republican party has been high jacked with neo-cons, religious wackos, blatant racists, and war mongers...
the modern republican party, IMO, has gone through a regressive non enlightenment movement... Truth, science and fact are not tolerated.
Rinsed Penis. He always sounds plastered.
One of Michelle Bachmann's staff members actually came out and said that the Enlightenment was one of the worst things to happen to Western civilization.
The only thing that surprises me is that it didn't come from Bachmann herself.
The future of the Republican Party seems to be an admission that they can no longer win the presidency with the rules as they have been in modern times (with all people being able to vote). They are now attempting to blatantly gerrymander the electoral college vote distribution, but mostly in blue states (or states that have voted for Obama, even if they aren't consistently Democratic). If their current plan had been in effect for 2012, Mitt Romney would have been elected, despite losing by over five million votes.
Is there anyone here that generally votes Republican who is on board with this idea? Is there any Republican here that favors the idea of having a system where Mitt Romney would have gotten all but a few of Virginia's electoral votes, despite cleanly losing the state? If there is such a person, why do you believe this is okay? If not, what do you think of it?
As I read elsewhere today, the GOP's gerrymandering plans are a complete admission of failure, not just for right now, but into the future. They know that they can't win nationally anymore. Either they change the rules to favor them or they will lose every presidential election well into the future.
I'll take such plans seriously when they actually pass a legislature somewhere. Constitutionally, they're 100% acceptable, because states have the right to decide for themselves how to allocate their electoral votes, and there's no fundamental difference between Michigan, Pennsylvania, Nebraska, and Maine.
Politically, I'm rather sure they won't pass, because all of the state legislators and Congresspeople in gerrymandered seats know that this would put a massive target on their backs with regards to future redistricting.
And what could the intent of such plans be, if not for them to pass?
If I'm ever seen out somewhere dressed all in black, which is unlikely to happen but still possible, and some wisenheimer says "who died?" I have an answer ready: the Enlightenment.
Certainly there are some firebrands who would love to see such plans come to fruition, but my impression is that the Republican "establishment" in the various states is going to do what it takes to block it, along with any members in potentially swingy or gerrymandered districts. They realize the people wouldn't stand for it, and the ensuing backlash would be very damaging to the entire redistricting system, along with the state party as a whole. So they're not going to jeopardize their own political futures for the sake of the national party. The people who think this is a clever move are going to be out of luck.