MA Senate Special Election Poll

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Brown (R)

[nhmagic]

Brown in a heartbeat.   It's one of the last shots we have at taking down that villainous healthcare scheme that violates the first, tenth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution.  And Yankee, not all of the GOP supports "universal coverage".  That is Rat verbiage, which we do not use.  The word "universal" has a highly positive connotation that does not match the reality of its primary purpose which Rats look to create - which is single-payer government run healthcare that allows complete financial access into an individual's life.  It also implies a federal government mandate and regulation of some kind.  Most conservatives support the right to choose whether a person wants insurance or not. 

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Brown in a heartbeat.   It's one of the last shots we have at taking down that villainous healthcare scheme that violates the first, tenth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution.  And Yankee, not all of the GOP supports "universal coverage".  That is Rat verbiage, which we do not use.  The word "universal" has a highly positive connotation that does not match the reality of its primary purpose which Rats look to create - which is single-payer government run healthcare that allows complete financial access into an individual's life.  It also implies a federal government mandate and regulation of some kind.  Most conservatives support the right to choose whether a person wants insurance or not. 

Should have used different terminology but if Obama had started with what he had in Sept when he gave his speech to congress, minus the Public Option and mandated coverage but with some other provisions that weren't in that, it would have passed with 80 Votes. But yeah, this wasn't about health Care reform it was about getting the Liberal wet dream of a public option to eventually get to the socialist wet dream of single payer.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Brown in a heartbeat.   It's one of the last shots we have at taking down that villainous healthcare scheme that violates the first, tenth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution.  And Yankee, not all of the GOP supports "universal coverage".  That is Rat verbiage, which we do not use.  The word "universal" has a highly positive connotation that does not match the reality of its primary purpose which Rats look to create - which is single-payer government run healthcare that allows complete financial access into an individual's life.  It also implies a federal government mandate and regulation of some kind.  Most conservatives support the right to choose whether a person wants insurance or not. 

Should have used different terminology but if Obama had started with what he had in Sept when he gave his speech to congress, minus the Public Option and mandated coverage but with some other provisions that weren't in that, it would have passed with 80 Votes. But yeah, this wasn't about health Care reform it was about getting the Liberal wet dream of a public option to eventually get to the socialist wet dream of single payer.

Do we really need an argument about health care in a thread about Massachusetts?

[I left.]

Yankee, you may have worked constructively on healthcare as a senator, but I tend to doubt that the GOP ever intended to cooperate in any way on healthcare.

Not that I demand that, that's perfectly fine as they're a pathetic minority, which shouldn't have any influence on the legislative process anyway.

Only thing is the Democratic caucus needs to hold its votes together.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Brown in a heartbeat.   It's one of the last shots we have at taking down that villainous healthcare scheme that violates the first, tenth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution.  And Yankee, not all of the GOP supports "universal coverage".  That is Rat verbiage, which we do not use.  The word "universal" has a highly positive connotation that does not match the reality of its primary purpose which Rats look to create - which is single-payer government run healthcare that allows complete financial access into an individual's life.  It also implies a federal government mandate and regulation of some kind.  Most conservatives support the right to choose whether a person wants insurance or not. 

Should have used different terminology but if Obama had started with what he had in Sept when he gave his speech to congress, minus the Public Option and mandated coverage but with some other provisions that weren't in that, it would have passed with 80 Votes. But yeah, this wasn't about health Care reform it was about getting the Liberal wet dream of a public option to eventually get to the socialist wet dream of single payer.

Do we really need an argument about health care in a thread about Massachusetts?

No, we don't

Yankee, you may have worked constructively on healthcare as a senator, but I tend to doubt that the GOP ever intended to cooperate in any way on healthcare.

Not that I demand that, that's perfectly fine as they're a pathetic minority, which shouldn't have any influence on the legislative process anyway.

Only thing is the Democratic caucus needs to hold its votes together.

We can't be sure of that. I am inclined to think that if Obama had restrained Pelosi and Reid from treating us like crap during the Stimulus and stuff and completely, thinks would have been different. The cooler heads in the GOP like Hatch, Grassely, Alexander, Corker, Isakson would have voted for a less controversial bill. You guys have no one to blame but yourselves. This isn't a European parliament and as such you have to be actually willing to work with the minority to get stuff done. The alienation of the GOP caucus is Obama's fault. DeMint, Coburn would have been a loud but irrelevant side show, but instead of that Obama empowered them but giving a free hand to congress on everything and letting Pelosi continue her most corrupt congress in history that she had established in 2007, which included alienating all hope of Republican input. I really hope the GOP takes back the House in 2010.

The other miscalculation the Dems made was that American had shifted to being a Center Left country, in a way opposition to Obama is making it more Center-Right.

[I left.]

One thing I do wonder though, if you demand minority input on every piece of legislation, saying the majority has no right to push its agenda through, what are elections ultimately for then?

[Vepres]

One thing I do wonder though, if you demand minority input on every piece of legislation, saying the majority has no right to push its agenda through, what are elections ultimately for then?

Uh, the Gingrich congress and Bush's Republican congress got lots done.

The majority has a right to push it's agenda, but not without checks. Like Yankee said, a reasonable, monderate, though still Democrat-leaning healthcare bill would've passed.

The majority here doesn't cancel elections because it will lose.

[Vepres]

Yankee, you may have worked constructively on healthcare as a senator, but I tend to doubt that the GOP ever intended to cooperate in any way on healthcare.

Not that I demand that, that's perfectly fine as they're a pathetic minority, which shouldn't have any influence on the legislative process anyway.

Only thing is the Democratic caucus needs to hold its votes together.

Like you'd say that if Republicans were in power

[I left.]

Yankee, you may have worked constructively on healthcare as a senator, but I tend to doubt that the GOP ever intended to cooperate in any way on healthcare.

Not that I demand that, that's perfectly fine as they're a pathetic minority, which shouldn't have any influence on the legislative process anyway.

Only thing is the Democratic caucus needs to hold its votes together.

Like you'd say that if Republicans were in power

I would indeed. That's the point of democracy.

[Senator Libertas]

Yankee, you may have worked constructively on healthcare as a senator, but I tend to doubt that the GOP ever intended to cooperate in any way on healthcare.

Not that I demand that, that's perfectly fine as they're a pathetic minority, which shouldn't have any influence on the legislative process anyway.

Only thing is the Democratic caucus needs to hold its votes together.

Like you'd say that if Republicans were in power

I would indeed. That's the point of democracy.

The U.S. is not a democracy, sorry.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Yankee, you may have worked constructively on healthcare as a senator, but I tend to doubt that the GOP ever intended to cooperate in any way on healthcare.

Not that I demand that, that's perfectly fine as they're a pathetic minority, which shouldn't have any influence on the legislative process anyway.

Only thing is the Democratic caucus needs to hold its votes together.

Like you'd say that if Republicans were in power

I would indeed. That's the point of democracy.

The U.S. is not a democracy, sorry.

Franzl doesn't understand the purpose of the Senate anyways, so don't even bother.

[I left.]

Yankee, you may have worked constructively on healthcare as a senator, but I tend to doubt that the GOP ever intended to cooperate in any way on healthcare.

Not that I demand that, that's perfectly fine as they're a pathetic minority, which shouldn't have any influence on the legislative process anyway.

Only thing is the Democratic caucus needs to hold its votes together.

Like you'd say that if Republicans were in power

I would indeed. That's the point of democracy.

The U.S. is not a democracy, sorry.

Look I'm not getting into this Democracy v. Republic debate again. It's pointless debating that issue with trolls such as yourself, considering that you ignore widely accepted definitions.

[Verily]

Yankee, you may have worked constructively on healthcare as a senator, but I tend to doubt that the GOP ever intended to cooperate in any way on healthcare.

Not that I demand that, that's perfectly fine as they're a pathetic minority, which shouldn't have any influence on the legislative process anyway.

Only thing is the Democratic caucus needs to hold its votes together.

Like you'd say that if Republicans were in power

I would indeed. That's the point of democracy.

The U.S. is not a democracy, sorry.

Indeed; his argument would have held even more water if he had said that the US is a republic. If you're going to attack him for not making his argument strong enough, be my guest, but you look like an idiot.

[I left.]

Yankee, you may have worked constructively on healthcare as a senator, but I tend to doubt that the GOP ever intended to cooperate in any way on healthcare.

Not that I demand that, that's perfectly fine as they're a pathetic minority, which shouldn't have any influence on the legislative process anyway.

Only thing is the Democratic caucus needs to hold its votes together.

Like you'd say that if Republicans were in power

I would indeed. That's the point of democracy.

The U.S. is not a democracy, sorry.

Franzl doesn't understand the purpose of the Senate anyways, so don't even bother.

Who determines what the purpose of the Senate is? The founding fathers again?

Why should it be relevant in current debates about how the Senate should be?

[Senator Libertas]

Yankee, you may have worked constructively on healthcare as a senator, but I tend to doubt that the GOP ever intended to cooperate in any way on healthcare.

Not that I demand that, that's perfectly fine as they're a pathetic minority, which shouldn't have any influence on the legislative process anyway.

Only thing is the Democratic caucus needs to hold its votes together.

Like you'd say that if Republicans were in power

I would indeed. That's the point of democracy.

The U.S. is not a democracy, sorry.

Indeed; his argument would have held even more water if he had said that the US is a republic. If you're going to attack him for not making his argument strong enough, be my guest, but you look like an idiot.

Your post doesn't even make sense. I think you should look in the mirror.

[Senator Libertas]

Yankee, you may have worked constructively on healthcare as a senator, but I tend to doubt that the GOP ever intended to cooperate in any way on healthcare.

Not that I demand that, that's perfectly fine as they're a pathetic minority, which shouldn't have any influence on the legislative process anyway.

Only thing is the Democratic caucus needs to hold its votes together.

Like you'd say that if Republicans were in power

I would indeed. That's the point of democracy.

The U.S. is not a democracy, sorry.

Look I'm not getting into this Democracy v. Republic debate again. It's pointless debating that issue with trolls such as yourself, considering that you ignore widely accepted definitions.

Oh I see, you have no argument, so you report to ad hominem attacks.

[Verily]

Yankee, you may have worked constructively on healthcare as a senator, but I tend to doubt that the GOP ever intended to cooperate in any way on healthcare.

Not that I demand that, that's perfectly fine as they're a pathetic minority, which shouldn't have any influence on the legislative process anyway.

Only thing is the Democratic caucus needs to hold its votes together.

Like you'd say that if Republicans were in power

I would indeed. That's the point of democracy.

The U.S. is not a democracy, sorry.

Indeed; his argument would have held even more water if he had said that the US is a republic. If you're going to attack him for not making his argument strong enough, be my guest, but you look like an idiot.

Your post doesn't even make sense. I think you should look in the mirror.

It should be blatantly obvious.

In a democratic system, governance results from a strict majority vote of the people. In such a case, strictly speaking, compromise is not necessary except to garner majority support. However, compromise probably would be necessary on almost everything in the US if each proposal were to require majority support among the populace at large.

However, the US is a republic. Instead of voting on everything, we elect representatives who vote on things for us. Once again, governance results form a strict majority, but this time, that strict majority is the majority of representatives rather than the majority of the people. the majority of representatives need not even represent a majority will nationally--often, in fact, they do not.

The politicians in office are free to form whatever coalitions for majorities that they want in a republic. In this particular case of the US, those coalitions consist of the Democrats and the Republicans. They are certainly permitted to form coalitions outside of this formulation in order to pass certain legislation, but that runs contrary to their internal attempts to form permanent working coalitions in order to govern. A republican system consisting entirely of the politically unaffiliated inevitably collapses because it is unable to agree on anything without each individual demanding further concessions to his or her own position--it's the prisoner's dilemma writ large. The party coalitions are the only thing that prevent such a prisoner's dilemma situation from taking over by creating a social environment that encourages cooperation within coalition groups.

[live free or die]

Brown (I/R).

He's a solid moderate who has run a strong campaign. I'd be glad to see him replace Shaheen.

[true liberty]

brown. its time we kill this healthcare bill.

[Χahar]

Brown (I/R).

He's a solid moderate who has run a strong campaign. I'd be glad to see him replace Shaheen.

Brown's not a moderate.

[President Marokai]

Brown (I/R).

He's a solid moderate who has run a strong campaign. I'd be glad to see him replace Shaheen.

Brown's not a moderate.

But but but, he's sorta kinda maybe pro-choice-ish!

[So the Heroes Fall]

According to some a fascist dictatorship with legal abortion and civil unions would be a "moderate" government (see those who called Rudy Giuliani a moderate.)

[redcommander]

Saw the debate on online streaming, and Brown won it in a landslide according to most viewers. Coakley again seemed impersonal, and she didn't leave her same talking points and take a political risk. She clearly blew her final chance to get momentum back to her campaign.

[Χahar]

Saw the debate on online streaming, and Brown won it in a landslide according to most viewers. Coakley again seemed impersonal, and she didn't leave her same talking points and take a political risk. She clearly blew her final chance to get momentum back to her campaign.

"Her final chance?"

She's winning by a lot.