26 replies to this topic

[m3g4tr0n]

You're from Massachusetts. Why didn't you warn us about RomneyCare? Why didn't you tell us what we were in for?

Have any of you looked over these secret provisions?

• All Americans have to travel in pairs, regardless of marital status.
• All Americans have to ride bicycles to and from their home/work/school...and wear a helmet at all times.
• All Americans have to join the Osmund Fan Club.

This is far, far beyond what our Founding Fathers envisioned when they wrote the Constitution. I cannot believe that anyone would willingly accept this.

[King Biscuit]

For shame...

[Thrash]

you forgot the part about having to wear mom jeans.

[m3g4tr0n]

you forgot the part about having to wear mom jeans.

You're right. I totally forgot about the double-secret provision.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Ah, Romneycare. You might be interested to know that nobody in Massachusetts ever called it that. Now even Romney himself sometimes slips and says it.

Mitt Romney was not a popular governor. Almost as soon as he got elected he started traveling around badmouthing Massachusetts. Once, during a book signing in Utah, a woman told him she wished he was their governor -- so did we. He only wanted to be governor at all so he'd have something on his résumé for when he ran for president. When it was clear from the polls that he would not win reelection in 2006 he decided not to run again.

I was opposed to the Massachusetts healthcare plan when it was first proposed. I believe in universal healthcare, but what I believe in is universal government-provided healthcare. "Single payer," as they call it. I am 100% opposed to the government telling me I have to purchase a private, for-profit company's product. It's just a giveaway to the big insurance companies, whose CEOs salivate and rub their hands together with dollar signs in their eyes at the prospect of people being compelled to buy insurance.

That said, I am forced to admit that "Romneycare" (he actually had almost nothing to do with it, it was drafted and passed by the Democratic legislature with little input from him) has worked. 98% of Massachusetts residents have health insurance, and virtually all children. Most of those who do not are exempt for one reason or another (usually religious). So by that metric it has been a success. I just don't think the ends justify the means.

I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with the right-wing asshats who say that the individual mandate should be overturned. I think there's a good chance that will happen, but the court could very well come back and say it's unconstitutional because there is no public option. Wouldn't that be something? There are even some observers who think that's exactly what the Obama administration hopes will happen. It would certainly put them in a good position to argue that it's time to talk about single payer again.

This election is shaping up to be a 1% vs. 99% contest. The Republican nominee-to-be is the poster child for the wealthy elite, and Obama has already begun to frame the argument in terms of fairness. Look at the Ryan budget, which Romney has embraced, which gives away billions in tax cuts to the rich while slashing programs for the poor. Basically the Republican theory seems to be that you motivate the rich by giving them free money, but you motivate the poor by taking everything away from them. As the president said, it's thinly veiled social Darwinism. The battle lines are being drawn. I think the Obama campaign is gonna go all Harry Truman on the GOP's ass, and healthcare could be a big part of it.

[Thrash]

The Republican nominee-to-be is the poster child for the wealthy elite

It saddens me, but that's the truth.

[The Dark Empire]

I think some government programs could be cut back a little but not completely. We need government regulation but not to a point where government spending is too high as well as taxes. Besides the point, healthcare should not be a top priority. Energy and defense spending are more important issues in my eyes. Universal healthcare lacks support as seen by the attempts of multiple presidents. It is possible that the U.S is not ready for health care. In all honesty I doubt that anything dramatic will happen over the next four years especially if its a tight election.

[Evil Rudekker]

What Jor said.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Haha.

And now Santorum's out, meaning that barring some catastrophic personal scandal (a gay sex tape would do the trick) Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee for president. This really isn't new; this has effectively been the situation for at least a month. But Santorum's dropping out makes it official. My guess is that he looked at the polls, he looked at his fundraising, and he looked at what the Romney campaign was capable of, and decided he couldn't risk it. If he had lost Pennsylvania it would have destroyed any chance he might have had for a future in politics.

So yeah. You've got a man who epitomizes wealth and privilege leading a party whose budget plan would reward the rich and hurt the poor. Hard to see how you win with that. Rick Santorum, meanwhile, has positioned himself to be able to come back in 2016 and demand the GOP nomination on the grounds that he was right all along. There are even people talking about a Rick Santorum vs. Hillary Clinton race in 2016.

That would be AWESOME.

[Bambi]

... but Romney wears jeans! Can't you see that he's just one of us?!

[Haflinger]

I know!

A lesbian sex tape proving that Mitt Romney is really a woman. THAT would do it.

[Evil Rudekker]

God, I hate American politics.

[Haflinger]

American politics would be better if it was more like Italian politics. You guys should get on the electing strippers bandwagon.

[Evil Rudekker]

I also hate Italian politics.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

I don't politics are too different the world over. Only the specific issues. But America makes progress in fits and starts. I think we may be on the cusp of something right now. There's something in the air.

[The Dark Empire]

I see a dead lock coming our way

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Deadlock? You mean like at the Republican convention? No way. With Santorum out Romney's got a clear path.

Or do you mean deadlock in a larger sense? If so, please explain. I happen to think we might be on the cusp of a major societal shift, akin to the one experienced in the 1960s with the civil rights movement. I think issues like gay marriage, the legalization of marijuana, and single-payer healthcare are tilting heavily toward the "liberal" or progressive viewpoint. With the poster child for wealth and privilege the standard bearer for the Republican party, this election is going to be framed in terms of the 1% vs. the 99%. And that's not an argument the right wins. I think the Republicans will lose this election, and then they will be thrown into crisis.

The modern Republican party is based on the union of two factions: Social conservatives (largely Christian evangelical) and fiscal conservatives (Wall Street types). This union worked because at the time it was forged, social mores in this country were relatively conservative. Think of the 1950s.

But things have changed. Society has moved to the left socially. Consider: While we debate the legality of gay marriage, we ignore the minor social miracle that the existence of gay couples is acknowledged and even accepted by a majority of Americans. That was certainly not the case in the 1950s, far from it. And therein lies the problem. For while most of society has moved left on social issues, the religious right has not. In fact, they have remained entrenched in social positions taken when "I Like Ike" was a culturally relevant thing to say. That presents a problem for the Republican party, because Wall Street types like to be in the majority. For one thing, their social positions are probably closer to Democrats than Tea Party types. And for another, it's just good for business. Tolerance -- what the far right sees as "permissiveness" -- sells.

So what's going to happen? Here's what I think: Fiscal conservatives will abandon the Republican party in favor of the Democrats. Despite vocal and ridiculous right-wing claims to the contrary, Barack Obama is actually quite moderate, almost a centrist. He has a very cautious, long-term approach that has been infuriating to some of his far left supporters, who have been frustrated at the rate of change. But his method pays off. It won him the primaries, against the powerful Clinton machine, and it won him the election. I think he is too quick to compromise, but it's hard to say he does not keep his eye on the long-term goal. I think we are going to see steady economic improvement, maybe not explosive growth but steady, and that Wall Street will respond to it.

From 1968-1992 the Republicans essentially had a lock on the presidency. The one aberration was 1976, the first election after Watergate, and even then Jimmy Carter won by only the slimmest of margins. They were able to achieve this because the social scale was tilted in their favor. But all that has changed. Now the social scale is tilted in the Democrats' favor. The Democrats will become the majority party, and while they will pull to the center somewhat, as all majority parties inevitably do, still the mere fact of their majority will pull America to the left. I think we will see all of the things I mentioned (gay marriage, legalized marijuana, and single-payer health care) in the next twenty years. Possibly as little as ten. And I think the Republican party will be relegated to the minority, the party of religious nuts and extremists, much as the Democratic party was the party of hippies and communists for so many years. That would represent a fundamental shift in American politics and a great leap forward for social progress.

[Thrash]

tl;dr the country sucks now

you forgot to add that

[The Dark Empire]

I see it in a sense that there are a lot of groups of people and no one wants to alienate them. Society is changing yes but not drastically. There is no clear mandate from the people. I agree there is a move to a more liberal view point but I would not say a progressive one. The way I see it is a that both parties are just looking for voters. Remember the populist party. All these societal protests and movements represent a minority of people who just happen to be widely publicized. These issues are being played up. I honestly don't see a clear winner in the election. There is no clear societal shift either. It takes a lot of time to switch from conservative to liberal. It takes time and the health care issue and the gay's rights are only the bits of steam as the water's only just beginning to boil. Although you may hate to admit it liberal progress has regressed too far to change so quickly. I say a dead lock because the country has not given a mandate to change. Obama will most likely get reelected but on slim margins prompting his administration to take a step back and ease off even more. Then what, some new candidate walks in and claims great change when in reality nothing will get done. Remember Kennedy, all his programs failed even when he campaigned on change. There is no clear defining issue. A new deal coalition is not going to be formed until the next huge national issue. I say a dead lock because our nation's politics are struggling to find the ground between conservative and liberal and we can't make any "progressive" movements because of it. By next election things will change for the Republican party. Parties change to appeal to voters, the Republicans aren't stupid their just building their voting block. It may not be the best one but it gives them the best chance. The Republican party will not be thrown into disarray like you say. I think this election might even give them an edge for the future. They could blame the democrats for the failure of a new liberal movement.

[The Dark Empire]

much as the Democratic party was the party of hippies and communists for so many years. That would represent a fundamental shift in American politics and a great leap forward for social progress.

That is a misconception. The 1960's where close elections because the voting blocks were changing. Hippies and communists played a minuscule role in american politics. Remember the silent majority. Democrats were very similar to republicans but they were marred by failures of the cold war publicized by the so called hippies.