Is it wrong to vote on the issues?

[manlymatt83]

I'm normally a liberal, but I don't like obama-care at all. Not really because of obama-care, but because not one single republican supports the bill. To me, that's saying something, and I don't like pushing something through by giving special care to Nebraska, or special rights to some random senator, etc. etc.

Tomorrow, I'll vote in the Massachusetts election if I can get back home early enough, and I'd like to vote for Scott Brown. He's for the death penalty, so I don't like that, but overall, this would take away the 60 seat majority in the senate, and allow the health care bill to get the amending and bi-partisan support it deserves (and that Obama promised).

Would it be wrong to vote for someone simply because of that reason?

 

[Craig234]

There's a lot to say, I'll pick a few things.

It wouldn't be wrong to vote for that reason, if that's what's important to you. But I'd encourage you to re-examine if you're right.

I don't know if healthcare means anything to you. But let's talk about a couple things.

One: If Ted Kennedy has your respect as a politician, this was his priority.

Two: You seem to misunderstand the bi-partisan problem. You seem to have an attitude lke Obama seemed to, a big smile and a friendly approach that said can't we all get along.

You clearly put importance on the Republicans going along. If they don't, they must have valid, logical reasons that are all about the interests of the American people, right?

No. Not right. If you follow the politics, you find Republican leaders ADMITTING that as a POLITICAL STRATEGY, tey realize trheir only chance to regain power is to keep the Dems from passing things.

So they have committed themsevles to do so at any legal cost it seems. NOT about the quality of the bill, though they'll issue some statements to say that's why to look good.

It's why on every major Democratic priority, they have blocked, often giving ZERO votes. Not because the bills are bad.

Look back at the stimulius bill - the Dems had a bill, Obama tried for bi-partisan, the Repubs gave him big changes, he made them - and zero Repubs voted for it anyway.

The abuse of the filibuster is how they are blocking - it's gone from the historic 8% rate on major bills to 70%, an all time record, breaking their previous record, this session.

You are giving their no way too much validity. It's political.

Rememeber you are not only voting on healthcare but on the Dems only chance to get all kinds of liberal things passed - like the new consumer protection agency. You will block every Dem bill.

One more thing. I talked to a staffer in the progressive Caucus. She explained progressives in the House feel this bill is very important to the progress of healthcare and are going to vote for it.

They're sickened that the Republicans havem by abusing the filibuster to turn 50 vote issues into 60 vote issues, that so many comrpomises were made. But htey are strongly for it.

A loss isyet another victory for the healthcare private industry, oen of our nation's largest industries at extracting excessive profits and corrupting our system, and the Republicans fdr obstructing.

Your vote tomorrow is a voe for the national party not just the person. If it were the person, I'd say 'she's not that great'. But for the agenda that gets passed, consider that.

 

[manlymatt83]

Interesting reply, thanks. But correct me if I'm wrong:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091025/D9BI4D6O1.html

Doesn't seem too corrupt to me... also, Massachusetts has a great setup, and it's local - by the state. Why can't other states follow? Why do we have to have a gigantic system run by a really inefficient government? Healthcare reform is really one thing I'd prefer to leave up to the states to do, even if the government mandated that it happen.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Interesting reply, thanks. But correct me if I'm wrong:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091025/D9BI4D6O1.html

Doesn't seem too corrupt to me... also, Massachusetts has a great setup, and it's local - by the state. Why can't other states follow? Why do we have to have a gigantic system run by a really inefficient government? Healthcare reform is really one thing I'd prefer to leave up to the states to do, even if the government mandated that it happen.

Thats stoopid...totally!
How in hell are the states going to do this???
It must be accross the board federal.....
If i change jobs and move to a different state there are so many issues such as will my care carry over to a different state...will everything be the same concerning what is approved etc......

The states can barely manage themselves.....
So how do suggest this happen??

 

[Craig234]

Interesting reply, thanks. But correct me if I'm wrong:

Glad you liked it.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091025/D9BI4D6O1.html

Doesn't seem too corrupt to me... also, Massachusetts has a great setup, and it's local - by the state. Why can't other states follow? Why do we have to have a gigantic system run by a really inefficient government? Healthcare reform is really one thing I'd prefer to leave up to the states to do, even if the government mandated that it happen.[/QUOTE]

Too bad you missed Jon Stewart tonight if you did. He did a segment on the situation the the entire national healthcare reform effort rests on the vote of the one state who has a better system already and no incentive to pass the federal one. In effect making your point, why does Massachussetts need this? You didn't seem to respond to my others points - you say you are loiberal, but I wonder how much you are if the future of the Democrats' window to pass liberal things doesn't get a response,

We've had decades for this 'leave it to the states' plan; it hasn't happened and won't happen. And the current system won't continue one way or another.

I'm not hearing Massachuetts' large majority of Democrats giving much weight to the national Democratic agenda. I'm not sure why that is.

Stewart had a funny theory - that Massachusset has a bias for the attractive guy, showing the Kennedys, Romney and the current guy's Cosmo spread.

 

[Double Trouble]

I'm normally a liberal, but I don't like obama-care at all. Not really because of obama-care, but because not one single republican supports the bill. To me, that's saying something, and I don't like pushing something through by giving special care to Nebraska, or special rights to some random senator, etc. etc.

Tomorrow, I'll vote in the Massachusetts election if I can get back home early enough, and I'd like to vote for Scott Brown. He's for the death penalty, so I don't like that, but overall, this would take away the 60 seat majority in the senate, and allow the health care bill to get the amending and bi-partisan support it deserves (and that Obama promised).

Would it be wrong to vote for someone simply because of that reason?

No matter who you vote for, we need more voters like you. Forget which party someone is from, vote on the issues in general and what each candidate stands for. If we had more of that, we'd have fewer partisan tools in congress and we'd have a better government. Ask yourself who you like better overall, who represents your views better, and who would do a better job for the country, and vote for them.

The whole health care mess is another thread, people can argue about that forever. No matter how you slice it, the dems are trying to push through a bill that 1) the people of the country don't want, and 2) is not supported by a single crossover republican. If there was anything worth saving in this bill, you would have had two or three repubs jump the line. The fact is that even the dems don't really want this bill, they've just painted themselves into a corner politically where they must pass *something* or look like total failures.

 

[StageLeft]

but because not one single republican supports the bill. To me, that's saying something

It says they are sheep just like all of the democrats who do support it. It is a system of two single trains of thought, not 100.

One: If Ted Kennedy has your respect as a politician, this was his priority.

He's dead. Nothing stupider in the world, and I do mean nothing, than voting in somebody of the same party because you want to try and respect the memory of a dead guy who was in that party. That is, unless the dead guy can somehow take control of the body of the new representative in which case this reason is valid.

 

[sandorski]

Not supporting something because you disagree with the proposal is one thing, but disagreeing with something because a Minority refuses to accept it is another thing entirely. Unless the Majority is acting Tyrannical, giving the minority the Power to decide outcomes completely undermines Democracy. Especially if that Minority is simply refusing to support things for Political purposes.

 

[Robor]

Not supporting something because you disagree with the proposal is one thing, but disagreeing with something because a Minority refuses to accept it is another thing entirely. Unless the Majority is acting Tyrannical, giving the minority the Power to decide outcomes completely undermines Democracy. Especially if that Minority is simply refusing to support things for Political purposes.

What have the Republicans supported?

 

[sandorski]

What have the Republicans supported?

I have no idea. Nothing as far as the Major Issues have been concerned.

 

[dmcowen674]

I'm normally a liberal, but I don't like obama-care at all. Not really because of obama-care, but because not one single republican supports the bill. To me, that's saying something, and I don't like pushing something through by giving special care to Nebraska, or special rights to some random senator, etc. etc.

Tomorrow, I'll vote in the Massachusetts election if I can get back home early enough, and I'd like to vote for Scott Brown. He's for the death penalty, so I don't like that, but overall, this would take away the 60 seat majority in the senate, and allow the health care bill to get the amending and bi-partisan support it deserves (and that Obama promised).

Would it be wrong to vote for someone simply because of that reason?

It's your right and prerogative but I will forever consider you a Traitor to the U.S. along with anyone that votes Brown in Massachusetts.

Oh and you're no Liberal.

 

[Craig234]

I have no idea. Nothing as far as the Major Issues have been concerned.

I was listening to a partisan Republican answer that question. He came up with one thing, some sort of inter-state rule change to make something easier. Sounded like answer to be able to list something.

 

[StageLeft]

It's your right and prerogative but I will forever consider you a Traitor to the U.S. along with anyone that votes Brown in Massachusetts.

Oh and you're no Liberal.

As a traitor to the US what should his punishment be?

 

[sandorski]

I was listening to a partisan Republican answer that question. He came up with one thing, some sort of inter-state rule change to make something easier. Sounded like answer to be able to list something.

I'm sure they agreed on Pepperoni Pizza, or something.

 

[MotF Bane]

I'm normally a liberal, but I don't like obama-care at all. Not really because of obama-care, but because not one single republican supports the bill. To me, that's saying something, and I don't like pushing something through by giving special care to Nebraska, or special rights to some random senator, etc. etc.

Tomorrow, I'll vote in the Massachusetts election if I can get back home early enough, and I'd like to vote for Scott Brown. He's for the death penalty, so I don't like that, but overall, this would take away the 60 seat majority in the senate, and allow the health care bill to get the amending and bi-partisan support it deserves (and that Obama promised).

Would it be wrong to vote for someone simply because of that reason?

You've already given it more thought than I've come to expect from most voters - at least you're past the level of YAY DEMOCRAT in Massachusetts. Single-issue voting is generally what the parties want, so consider everything. Look at spending, look at taxes, the wars, security, civil rights, et cetera. Absolutely do not take your information from any commercials they present on radio or television, especially the attack ads.

 

[MotF Bane]

It's your right and prerogative but I will forever consider you a Traitor to the U.S. along with anyone that votes Brown in Massachusetts.

Oh and you're no Liberal.

So you're a traitor for voting for Bush?

 

[MotF Bane]

Interesting reply, thanks. But correct me if I'm wrong:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091025/D9BI4D6O1.html

Doesn't seem too corrupt to me... also, Massachusetts has a great setup, and it's local - by the state. Why can't other states follow? Why do we have to have a gigantic system run by a really inefficient government? Healthcare reform is really one thing I'd prefer to leave up to the states to do, even if the government mandated that it happen.

MassCare? That's not a great system. Look at what's happened to the MA state budget.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Matt,

If you're a liberal, you don't appear to be examining the other issues that will be affected by your vote. Brown voted 96% of the time Republican.

A Coakley voter, here.

 

[nick1985]

Not supporting something because you disagree with the proposal is one thing, but disagreeing with something because a Minority refuses to accept it is another thing entirely. Unless the Majority is acting Tyrannical, giving the minority the Power to decide outcomes completely undermines Democracy. Especially if that Minority is simply refusing to support things for Political purposes.

Odd, MAJORITY of Americans are against this bill.

 

[nick1985]

A Coakley voter, here.

lol

 

[nick1985]

It's your right and prerogative but I will forever consider you a Traitor to the U.S. along with anyone that votes Brown in Massachusetts.

How will he sleep at night? DEAR GOD!

 

[MotF Bane]

Matt,

If you're a liberal, you don't appear to be examining the other issues that will be affected by your vote. Brown voted 96% of the time Republican.

A Coakley voter, here.

 

[Atreus21]

I'm normally a liberal, but I don't like obama-care at all. Not really because of obama-care, but because not one single republican supports the bill. To me, that's saying something, and I don't like pushing something through by giving special care to Nebraska, or special rights to some random senator, etc. etc.

Tomorrow, I'll vote in the Massachusetts election if I can get back home early enough, and I'd like to vote for Scott Brown. He's for the death penalty, so I don't like that, but overall, this would take away the 60 seat majority in the senate, and allow the health care bill to get the amending and bi-partisan support it deserves (and that Obama promised).

Would it be wrong to vote for someone simply because of that reason?

Nope. I can't think of any better basis for voting than the issues, assuming of course you think the guy is telling the truth.

 

[Capt Caveman]

lol

B/c you'd rather have the Bush days back? Now, that's funny.

 

[MotF Bane]

B/c you'd rather have the Bush days back? Now, that's funny.

Really?