Republican Wins Massachusetts senate race

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by August

Or he didn't agree with their methods and means more likely. Does your mangling of his name indicate some personal dislike of the man?

Again, it doesn't appear that Lieberboy was standing on principle. A policy that he was advocating a few months ago suddenly became unacceptable when other Dems brought it up.

Reforming our asinine system was too important to let personal issues get in the way. But it appears that that's just what happened.

That is a solid majority, especially when you count the RINOs like Snow and Chaffee. Then there is the HoR.

It's not a filibuster-proof majority.

[August]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

It's not a filibuster-proof majority.

but it's definitely close enough for any bill that enjoys even the least bit of bipartisan support Angus. Apparently it doesn't even have the support of democrat leaning independants. That should tell you something right there.

I don't like my government being run by one party, be they Democrats or Republicans.

Originally Posted by August

I don't like my government being run by one party, be they Democrats or Republicans.

Which is why a multi-party system could be advantagiouse to the american people.

Originally Posted by August

but it's definitely close enough for any bill that enjoys even the least bit of bipartisan support Angus. Apparently it doesn't even have the support of democrat leaning independants. That should tell you something right there.

I don't like my government being run by one party, be they Democrats or Republicans.

Well come on over to Finland, we've got all kinds of little parties like the Swedish Democrats. They have their own minister post in the present government and a seat in the European parliament, from Finland. I'm a Finn and lived here all my life and it boggles my mind how that can be.

[August]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

Which is why a multi-party system could be advantagiouse to the american people.

Maybe, as long as they don't run a parliamentary system where the biggest winner takes all.

Originally Posted by August

Maybe, as long as they don't run a parliamentary system where the biggest winner takes all.

100% agreed.
Preportionate representation works best.

[GoldenRivet]

its not about the number of seats

its not about the filibuster

its about the American people standing up, making their votes count.

and the people of Massachusetts have sent every senator in the United States a message that they are not immune from being voted off the effing island

any senator with his whits about him or her will think to themselves, boy, if i dont straighten up and start listening to the majority i'll be unemployed come November

Other posative steps could be:

1: Government funding of elections.

2: No campaigne contributions in excess of USD 100.

3: No lobbyist contributions AT ALL.

(An end to legalized graft).

[August]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

Other posative steps could be:

1: Government funding of elections.

2: No campaigne contributions in excess of USD 100.

3: No lobbyist contributions AT ALL.

(An end to legalized graft).

I gotta disagree to at least number 1. Your intentions are honorable but total government funding means total government control of who can run. Bad idea. To get Ralph Nadar off the ballot in the 04 election the Dems were forced to bring suit in each and every state. A lengthy and expensive process that was not very successful. Now imagine if all they had to do was convince a government administrator, possibly himself a dem appointee to wipe a candidate off the ballot nationwide in one stroke?

Originally Posted by August

I gotta disagree to at least number 1. Your intentions are honorable but total government funding means total government control of who can run. Bad idea. To get Ralph Nadar off the ballot in the 04 election the Dems were forced to bring suit in each and every state. A lengthy and expensive process that was not very successful. Now imagine if all they had to do was convince a government administrator, possibly himself a dem appointee to wipe a candidate off the ballot nationwide in one stroke?

You may very well be right here. Although it does work in Danmark, the huge population difference between the lands, would certainly create difficulties for the same principal to work in USA. (The entire population of Danmark is only half that of New York City).

Scratch number 1.

[magic452]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

You may very well be right here. Although it does work in Danmark, the huge population difference between the lands, would certainly create difficulties for the same principal to work in USA. (The entire population of Danmark is only half that of New York City).

Scratch number 1.

A little off topic but wouldn't that same logic apply to government run health care. A point I have been trying to make for quit some time.


Harry Reid was already running scared here in Nevada, 5 or 6 adds on every local channel during the news hours. Most featuring Health Care.
He has been doing this for at least 6 months now.

Funny I didn't see any tonight. Maybe I just missed them.

Can only hope that he is next. If we can get through the next few months maybe we have a chance. We sure need some new blood in DC.
At least it takes the new guys a little time before they become just like the old guys.
We need health Care Reform but one that works, done in a sensible way with support from all parties, dems, repbs and independents as well.

Campaign funding is a horrible mess and I afraid that the USSC just made it worse. The amount of money spent on campaigns will increase dramatically and I'm afraid that it will be to the debtrment of the American people.

Magic

Originally Posted by magic452

A little off topic but wouldn't that same logic apply to government run health care. A point I have been trying to make for quit some time.

Do you trust your government enough to carry the ball alone?
Government owned and staffed hospitals?
Health insurance premiums replaced by higher taxes?
The end of medical lawsuits? (No more $ for injuries).

In my opinion, it's all or nothing. Anything in between is a recipe for exploitation of the system, and the people.

[magic452]

No I don't trust the government enough to run health care, hospitals. etc.
One of the reasons is that the government is so distant from the people.

This thread is a perfect example of this. Health care reform was supposed to be passed last August without any debate or input from anyone other than a few Democrats. People protesting delayed it and if there hadn't been a special election it would have passed now by hook or crook.

Would you trust a government that bribed Senators the way this bunch just did, or tried to sneak it into law without anybody even having a chance to read it?

What I was tying to say is though government health care may work in a country with a much smaller population and much smaller area doesn't mean it will work here. There is too diverse a population here for a one size fits all approach. Different regions and different gropes have very much different needs. A health care system that works good here in Nevada most certainly would not be good in L A or New York city.

A very good example is Medicare Advantage plans, Government paid HMOs. My brother was on one and he received excellent health care in Nevada but I know others in L A that received very poor care under the same system run by the same company.

Magic

Originally Posted by magic452

No I don't trust the government enough to run health care, hospitals. etc.
One of the reasons is that the government is so distant from the people.

You and I agree here.

People protesting delayed it and if there hadn't been a special election it would have passed now by hook or crook.

Both hook and crook, IMO.

Would you trust a government that bribed Senators the way this bunch just did, or tried to sneak it into law without anybody even having a chance to read it?

Even less than you do. (My distrust is by-partisan).

What I was tying to say is though government health care may work in a country with a much smaller population and much smaller area doesn't mean it will work here. There is too diverse a population here for a one size fits all approach. Different regions and different gropes have very much different needs. A health care system that works good here in Nevada most certainly would not be good in L A or New York city.
Magic

There is a big difference in that Danmark is THE STATE, while USA is supposed to be comprised of 50 States. (State, Nation, Country, all have the same meaning). From my prespective, this is another power-grab by the Federal Government from the "States". I have to put that word in quotation marks, as the constitutional power of the states has been by-passes enough to render them as merely servile provinces.

The People are supposed to control The States, who in turn control The Federal Government. Unfortunately, the process seems to have been completely reversed. The People must take back control of their States, who in turn must take back their control of The Federal Government.

I don't see Federal Health Care as being permissable by The US Constitution, other than by the very broadest of definitions.

USA is not alone. I see the same problems arising from the central powers of "The United States of Europe" (The EU), which I am opposed to. I do not wish to see Danmark reduced from a State to a Province, under an overly controling central government.

Would I trust The EU with a One Size Fits All Health Care Package?
HELL NO! I don't trust The EU, or The UN, with anything.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

But the writing is on the wall for the President. He will be a one term president...

People were saying the same thing about Bush.

It depends not only on how the public feels about Obama, but also how the public feels about whoever is running against him next time. If the Republicans give us crap again, it is likely Obama gets another term.

In order for an incumbent to be replaced two circumstances must be present

1. The citizens must feel that reelecting the incumbent would be bad

AND

2. The citizens must feel that electing the opponent would be good.

This is what happened to Bush in 2004. Bush had low approval rates, but what the Democrats were offering was not "that" much better. In politics the tie often goes to the incumbent.

"I am not Bush" did not work in 2004 and "I am not Obama" won't work in 2012. It would behoove both parties if they understood that.