fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Is that the new talking point? I thought they were illegal aliens. Always the propagandist, fox. Tsk tsk.
Whoa
- Thread starter fossten
- Start date
I think we are being fed that and so it will be, it will be a referendum... The media has placed this as a single issue election. I was stating why I thought it was odd, because the state has 'Obamacare' in place already. Massachusetts obviously likes Obamacare for themselves... So we are taking a 'referendum' that Washington needs to back off Obamacare because a state that already basically has obamacare voted in someone who stated he would be against obamacare.
Nope - and that one I will stand by. Many things are fuzzy, and I will state what I think might happen, or how I see it playing out, but often there are too many variables to make a 'certainty' type of statement.And as far as you not knowing for certain about the future of politics, you certainly didn't hesitate to make a solid prediction about Palin not getting the GOP nom in 2012, didja?
With what I know of, and who I know in power in the Republican party-no way is Palin going to be the nominee for 2012.
Oh, just as a little tidbit... in case this slipped by some people regarding how 'liberal' Brown really is, and how odd that this should suddenly become a game changer...
As a state senator, Brown voted for Massachusetts 2006’s reform law which, like the Senate and House bills, includes an individual health insurance mandate, insurance exchanges, government affordability credits and insurance regulations. As a result of the law, 98% of Massachusetts residents have health insurance and 79% want the law to continue.
This is the law that is most often compared to the law that we are looking at on a national level.
Brown was for healthcare reform on a state level.
Does it belong on a state by state level - can other states afford it - those are all interesting questions, but when push comes to shove, Brown thought that the state's plan was OK.
So does this mean that he is for healthcare - just is differing on which 'level' that healthcare is enacted.
As a state senator, Brown voted for Massachusetts 2006’s reform law which, like the Senate and House bills, includes an individual health insurance mandate, insurance exchanges, government affordability credits and insurance regulations. As a result of the law, 98% of Massachusetts residents have health insurance and 79% want the law to continue.
This is the law that is most often compared to the law that we are looking at on a national level.
Brown was for healthcare reform on a state level.
Does it belong on a state by state level - can other states afford it - those are all interesting questions, but when push comes to shove, Brown thought that the state's plan was OK.
So does this mean that he is for healthcare - just is differing on which 'level' that healthcare is enacted.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Thanks for confirming the contradiction. So you retract this statement?
Or were you just blathering at the time and forgot to proofread your post?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
04 makes a good point - was Romneycare done behind closed doors and rammed through against the Massachusetts public's wishes? I'm pretty sure there are only a few Republicans in the legislature.
Also, how can you account for the fact that Brown received 53% of the vote despite only 21% of the population being Republicans?
In this case I am holding 4 Aces - I would bet the house. Now, you might have that straight flush, but I know the cards on the table, and the percentages are overwhelming in my favor. Is it a certainty (that is why my quotes in the above statement) - nope, nothing in politics is. Is it a certainty as far as the odds... you betcha.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Tsk tsk, fox, in your ardor to hurry up and be flippant, you failed to read my post.
Again.
Nice talking with ya.
One of the reasons Obama was voted in was because he wanted healthcare reform. The public at that time wanted healthcare reform. This really didn't start out to be against the public's wishes. I believe the form that it took, the stupidity of closed doors, the inability to reach across the aisle, an extremely vocal minority (at the beginning) and segments of the media rallying behind the issue are all contributors to the current negative viewpoint of healthcare reform.
About 51% of Mass is independent. So, I would assume he pulled in all the Republicans, and about 3/5s of the independent vote. That is pretty easy number crunching...
How do you account that suddenly Brown is the savior against healthcare reform when he voted for almost the exact same product in Mass.? Do people really understand that if a good bill gets to the floor - there is a good chance he will vote for it... He isn't the conservative savior that the media and the right paint him to be. He is pretty liberal, and still represents a very liberal state. I am not sure of his stand on state vs national healthcare - and haven't seen anything regarding his position on that.
Talk about packaging politics.
I did - sorry you don't like the answer...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Saying you 'can't be certain' is not the same as saying you're 'certain.' Saying you're as 'certain as you can be' doesn't bring you up to the 'certain' level. Sorry you didn't understand the contradiction.
Federalism.
In fact, he has made that point. States should be able to decide on universal healthcare and in whatever form. It is not a federal issue.
Shag, that is fine - however, I would imagine if you ask most people who have jumped on the Brown bandwagon if they would have done so if they knew of his voting record regarding universal healthcare, they would be hesitant to do so again. I think that the people who make up the teaparty movement, although certainly are against 'universal' healthcare on a federal level, are also against it on a state level as well.
You assume most of the tea partiers voting for him did NOT know his record. However, they are not near as uninformed as you think they are.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
She may not even run. And you cannot be certain about that.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Are you implying that voters are ignorant and naive?
Even if they did they would have weighed the two evils and came to the conclusion that Brown was the lesser of them. Better to have a senator that believes in state level universal healthcare than a senator that believes in federal level universal healthcare.
However I would imagine for most teaparty members, the ideal candidate would believe in no universal healthcare on any level.
Most people don't look at past voting records.
Yep.
Does 'certainty' have 'degrees'? I am certain the sun will rise tomorrow. However, if I had to really slice and dice that statement, I am probably 99.99∞% certain.
"If they did"...do you think that most of them did or did not look at his voting record?
Do you think that maybe, to a tea partier, that is not too relevant in a federal level politician as long as that politician respects the Constitution; specifically in the realm of Federalism?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Well that explains Obama's election.
Do I think it's inevitable?
I think that Obama and those around him want some form of the healthcare bill passed. The devil is in the details with that bill, so if they have to add something or provision, it doesn't matter to them. It's easy to just add or remove things like abortion funding or whatever else at a later date.
The Obamacare plan is about all of the government, proceedures, and taxes within that legislation. Once that framework is in place, they can fix it later. They've stated this all along.
Right now I'm hearing Obama saying, "Let's just pass the things we all agree on." In the mind of the people who wrote the bill, it's not about abortion funding or medicare funding, those individual issues are of little importance right now, but are divisive enough to torpedo the bill.
I don't know why you mentioned American Indians, so I have no reply to that.
And almost every elected official since the mid 1800s...Well that explains Obama's election.