CT stayed Democrat for Senate and House (no big surprise there). Still waiting on the results of the governor race.
EDIT: Alaska is looking interesting with "write in" in the lead. Don't know if these are all for Murkowski but Alaska may be looking at a repeat of CT's Lieberman Independent win from a few years ago. With the one difference being that winning a statewide race as a write-in is a much greater accomplishment than winning as an Independent.
EDIT 2: I was just checking the ballot measures over on CNN, what's up with all of the union secret ballot measures? Is this a state level response to CardCheck?
Mass. went with Patrick, no surprise there. Scott Murphy lost in NY, but again, I'm not surprised. Disappointed, especially since the ads Gibson supporters put out were wholly untrue attack ads which cited the Heritage Foundation almost exclusively, but it would be hard to keep a seat after only a year when you didn't get a chance to do much. I'd say that it's possible Gibson would be a good representative by going old-school republican, but we all know that won't happen. As for Republicans taking seats on a national level, every one of them has been saying they're going to be obstructionist and/or try to reverse the health care reforms (which they'll be incapable of doing anyhow). How people vote for people who say outright that they will work against their best interests is beyond me.
How people vote for people who say outright that they will work against their best interests is beyond me.
It's because not everyone agrees on which pieces of legislation are in their best interest.
Please explain how making it illegal for insurance companies to take your money and then decide to not cover you after promising they would due to a 'pre-existing condition' is in the best interest of any consumer.
If an insurance company breaches its contract, there is a remedy for that. Forcing people to pay for other people's insurance at gun point is undesirable to some people. Forcing people to buy insurance for themselves is undesirable to some people. Creating a gigantic government health care program that causes insurance rates for working people to go up 30% so that people who don't work can get free insurance is undesirable to some people.
If an insurance company breaches its contract, there is a remedy for that. Forcing people to pay for other people's insurance at gun point is undesirable to some people. Forcing people to buy insurance for themselves is undesirable to some people. Creating a gigantic government health care program that causes insurance rates for working people to go up 30% so that people who don't work can get free insurance is undesirable to some people.
Wasn't the point of my question, but I understand. Even when it passed, I think most politicians involved figured that something so huge would get tweaked. REPEALING the entire thing, including the protections for consumers/insured, is a bad idea.
I can't believe I'm arguing politics on the internet. LOL. Clearly I need to get back to work. I think it is because I know GTMR to be intelligent and so it is hard to resist.
Looking at the exit polls for Prop 19, I was just shaking my head.
So, here's an idea. How about a different kind of majority needed to restrict the rights of others? So, if a ballot is to provide services, or spend money on this and that, it needs a simple majority. But if the ballot is to simply to stop people doing something, like partaking in an activity or lifestyle, you need a 70% or 80% majority.
But, like everything else brilliant or even reasonable, it would need to be enacted in the first place, under the current system, where the old-of-mind and stupid-of-body have an equal voice.
Emily and I have discussions like this on a daily basis. I present some problem. She immediately has a straightforward, reasonable solution that would almost assuredly minimize or eliminate the problem at no substantial additional cost. We then, as always, realize that straightforward or reasonable solutions to problems are actually the most difficult pieces of legislation one could ever put forth.
She immediately has a straightforward, reasonable solution that would almost assuredly minimize or eliminate the problem at no substantial additional cost.
And that is why you're never going to make it in politics.
Looking at the exit polls for Prop 19, I was just shaking my head.
So, here's an idea. How about a different kind of majority needed to restrict the rights of others? So, if a ballot is to provide services, or spend money on this and that, it needs a simple majority. But if the ballot is to simply to stop people doing something, like partaking in an activity or lifestyle, you need a 70% or 80% majority.
Discuss.
You had me until "spend money". Govt has to get the money before spending the money which involves taking it from someone.
How about any law that would grant further liberty onto the people requires only a simple majority and any law that restricts the liberty of the people requires 2/3 majority?
I'm actually glad there were no ballot measures regarding homosexual rights this time. I've come to learn that a ballot measure on any gay issue should hardly be considered a vote, but more of an impending stripping of rights in any given state.
But, like everything else brilliant or even reasonable, it would need to be enacted in the first place, under the current system, where the old-of-mind and stupid-of-body have an equal voice.
And those of us that blindly worship "the will of the people" as the be all end all solution to every single problem in the country would have none of that brilliant nonsense.
How about any law that would grant further liberty onto the people requires only a simple majority and any law that restricts the liberty of the people requires 2/3 majority?
I'd actually be intensely for something like that.
Smoking would still be banned in NYC (it's intensely unpopular, and the new proposed bans in public plazas, boardwalks, and parks is overwhelmingly popular), but at least then it's a reflection of a strong majority, and even then minority rights are maintained (smoking is allowed on public streets away from buildings and all noncommercial private property).
How about any law that would grant further liberty onto the people requires only a simple majority and any law that restricts the liberty of the people requires 2/3 majority?
It's funny how you saw my idea (which isn't a serious one, by the way), and immediately flipped it 180%. I don't see gay marriage as "granting a right" which should only need 50%. I see that as a right that is currently restricted, that shouldn't be, and should need a 75% "No" vote to keep in place.
Also, when I originally wrote my post, I included wording about the lifestyle being harmless to the people doing the voting. For example, young people smoking pot in a city is going to effect older people in rural areas how? No way. However, when it comes to gun bans, I personally think most problems come down to geography. Having firearms in the country makes more sense, but handguns in a city makes zero sense, and the only reason you carry a handgun in a city is to use it to intimidate or harm someone else.
If 75% of people in a city think they should restrict the right to carry a handgun, great, the law can pass. But it's a tricky issue.
Forcing people to pay for other people's insurance at gun point is undesirable to some people. Forcing people to buy insurance for themselves is undesirable to some people.
I am interested in this view point. Do you also believe that the EMTALA passed in 1986 should abolished? Should we really force hospitals to treat anyone who walks off the street regardless to their citizenship status or ability to pay?
Should we really subsidize everyone who can't pay for their emergency room visits with higher costs for aspirin and other associated medical costs? Medical costs that are passed onto you and I, well onto our insurance companies.
If you take this stance then we could just allowed hospitals to choose who they want to treat they can cut out all the losses from treating people who can't afford it. Our hospital bills would decrease, our insurance costs would go down. Healthcare would become affordable for us again!
Do you really think this is a good idea? Should we allow hospitals to decline service to patients?
The young people of today are the old people of tomorrow. The old people of today are the young people from yesterday.
Why do so many political discusions treat age groups like they are static?
Because they are.
Almost a hundred years ago kids liked jazz music, and their parents thought it was the devil. Those same jazz listening kids thought that the rock music their kids listened to was evil and the devil. Those same rock music listening parents thought that hip hop was the devil.
When the young people of today become old, they will vote. They will solve all the problems of the '90s and the '00s. Meanwhile, the kids in 2040 will have a whole new set of problems. won't vote, and the old people will keep them down. Then decades later, they will vote to solve the problems of the 2040s, and so on.
The young people of today are the old people of tomorrow. The old people of today are the young people from yesterday.
Why do so many political discusions treat age groups like they are static?
That's not the point Steve, as generations go further people who grew up in more progressive times (we are talking social issues) will become older and more tolerant. Do you really think the majority of the under 30 people are going to hate gay people more when they are 80?
A Libertarian would not force a doctor or a hospital to treat a person. A Randian Objectivist would say that your need is not a claim on my ability. That being said, there are people in the world that believe in charity and who would voluntarily give time, money and expertise. Unfortunately there are also those who do not. There are many people who consume more than they produce even though could carry their weight. And, sadly, there are those who, through no fault of their own, need others just to survive.
Comments
EDIT: Alaska is looking interesting with "write in" in the lead. Don't know if these are all for Murkowski but Alaska may be looking at a repeat of CT's Lieberman Independent win from a few years ago. With the one difference being that winning a statewide race as a write-in is a much greater accomplishment than winning as an Independent.
EDIT 2: I was just checking the ballot measures over on CNN, what's up with all of the union secret ballot measures? Is this a state level response to CardCheck?
Scott Murphy lost in NY, but again, I'm not surprised. Disappointed, especially since the ads Gibson supporters put out were wholly untrue attack ads which cited the Heritage Foundation almost exclusively, but it would be hard to keep a seat after only a year when you didn't get a chance to do much. I'd say that it's possible Gibson would be a good representative by going old-school republican, but we all know that won't happen.
As for Republicans taking seats on a national level, every one of them has been saying they're going to be obstructionist and/or try to reverse the health care reforms (which they'll be incapable of doing anyhow). How people vote for people who say outright that they will work against their best interests is beyond me.
Old people without jobs were the most against it.
So, here's an idea. How about a different kind of majority needed to restrict the rights of others? So, if a ballot is to provide services, or spend money on this and that, it needs a simple majority. But if the ballot is to simply to stop people doing something, like partaking in an activity or lifestyle, you need a 70% or 80% majority.
Discuss.
But, like everything else brilliant or even reasonable, it would need to be enacted in the first place, under the current system, where the old-of-mind and stupid-of-body have an equal voice.
Emily and I have discussions like this on a daily basis. I present some problem. She immediately has a straightforward, reasonable solution that would almost assuredly minimize or eliminate the problem at no substantial additional cost. We then, as always, realize that straightforward or reasonable solutions to problems are actually the most difficult pieces of legislation one could ever put forth.
How about any law that would grant further liberty onto the people requires only a simple majority and any law that restricts the liberty of the people requires 2/3 majority?
Gay marriage? Simple majority.
Gun ban? 2/3 majority.
Smoking would still be banned in NYC (it's intensely unpopular, and the new proposed bans in public plazas, boardwalks, and parks is overwhelmingly popular), but at least then it's a reflection of a strong majority, and even then minority rights are maintained (smoking is allowed on public streets away from buildings and all noncommercial private property).
Also, when I originally wrote my post, I included wording about the lifestyle being harmless to the people doing the voting. For example, young people smoking pot in a city is going to effect older people in rural areas how? No way. However, when it comes to gun bans, I personally think most problems come down to geography. Having firearms in the country makes more sense, but handguns in a city makes zero sense, and the only reason you carry a handgun in a city is to use it to intimidate or harm someone else.
If 75% of people in a city think they should restrict the right to carry a handgun, great, the law can pass. But it's a tricky issue.
As is preventing people selling raw milk.
And what about the right of an employer to fire someone based on sexuality?
Anyway, I walked into work today at 9:30 and CNN still had "live" election coverage going. I had a LOL at that.
Should we really subsidize everyone who can't pay for their emergency room visits with higher costs for aspirin and other associated medical costs? Medical costs that are passed onto you and I, well onto our insurance companies.
If you take this stance then we could just allowed hospitals to choose who they want to treat they can cut out all the losses from treating people who can't afford it. Our hospital bills would decrease, our insurance costs would go down. Healthcare would become affordable for us again!
Do you really think this is a good idea? Should we allow hospitals to decline service to patients?
Why do so many political discusions treat age groups like they are static?
Almost a hundred years ago kids liked jazz music, and their parents thought it was the devil. Those same jazz listening kids thought that the rock music their kids listened to was evil and the devil. Those same rock music listening parents thought that hip hop was the devil.
When the young people of today become old, they will vote. They will solve all the problems of the '90s and the '00s. Meanwhile, the kids in 2040 will have a whole new set of problems. won't vote, and the old people will keep them down. Then decades later, they will vote to solve the problems of the 2040s, and so on.
BTW, whatever happened to Kate? Is she too cool to hang out with us now?