The Republicans’ War on Democracy is taking its toll. Stealing elections and suppressing voters is a full time campaign, and the Guardians of Plutocracy are unrelenting.
Today’s New York Times article is a clear warning that democracy is losing in America. Fascism, totalitarianism, corporatocracy, or whatever you want to call the opposite of democracy, is prevailing.
The percentage of registered New Mexico voters has fallen. New voter registration rates in Florida are falling by 20 to 40% in certain counties. College voter registration tables are empty.
The League of Women Voters registration efforts have been crippled. The Florida Secretary of State is threatening a $50 dollar fine for each “late” application form.
It’s good to see the Brennan Center for Justice is challenging the Florida Republicans’ voter suppression laws on First Amendment grounds that registering to vote is protected speech.
In the meantime, the Republican Party has been winning their war on democracy.
I know it sucks to vote the lesser of evils. I hate voting for those almost as loathsome corporatist Democrats.
But is there any other real choice?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
104 comments:
Perhaps in order to avoid letting Republicans steal elections, we should institute photo ID laws.
Otherwise, you've documented a few data points about registration rates falling, but you haven't conclusively tied those falling rates to Republicans. Why are they to blame?
Heathen, the war on democracy runs deeper than that. The current GOP advocates unrestrained capitalism and almost pure plutocracy, which is not democratic, by definition. No form of oligarchy is. This demon goes by different names: Free Speech, Capitalism, Free Market.
Some people, like The Heathen Republican, compose long posts to show that the majority of campaign funding comes from paupers. I don’t feel like looking them up, but I suspect you remember. They ignore the fact that the GOP currently wants omnipotent SuperPACs, corporations and other bodies to engage in costly promotions of chosen political candidates in order to purchase elections.
Corporations are giant people also, and that is OK. Unrestricted "support for a candidate, not direct funding" is the goal we all want, right?
Additionally, we want to be bound by the unrelenting vision of the Founders, blessed be He, and make sure we cannot enact any law that would attempt to save our democracy if the Founders, Glory, did not explicitly sanction it, even though the Founders, O' Holy One, primarily wanted to make sure an oligarchy could never circumvent the will of the majority, which is exactly what is happening as we speak.
The Tea Party vision of democracy can go by many names, but Democracy is not among them.
John, since you made it personal...
You never listen to what people you disagree with actually say. You have this idea of what someone believes, you repeat it endlessly, and you ignore their denials and actual statements. It's one of your biggest weaknesses.
Mr. Republican,
The long, sordid history of Republican vote suppression is well known to any politically informed person, including yourself. We don't need to waste our time writing some sort of essay about it every time someone like you comes along and plays dumb. Why not deal with the truth, so we can get along to some sort of rational discussion about this issue?
Nah, too much to ask.
Green Eagle, what did I say that wasn't rational? If you're so sure of Republican vote suppression and our desire to steal elections, I'm suggesting the rational thing to do is pass voter ID laws.
Why don't you address my rational suggestion instead of pretending I'm the one playing dumb.
There's no way these ALEC-sponsored "voter ID" laws have any purpose whatsoever besides suppressing the vote. "Voter fraud" is practically non-existent. These voter ID laws disenfranchise millions of college students, elderly, low income and minority voters. And by the strangest coincidence, most people in those categories tend to vote Democratic.
As for suppressing voter registration drives, if that doesn't violate the First Amendment, what does?
""Voter fraud" is practically non-existent. These voter ID laws disenfranchise millions of college students, elderly, low income and minority voters. And by the strangest coincidence, most people in those categories tend to vote Democratic."
Tom, I'm so confused. It's Dave that's claiming Republicans want to steal elections. It's Green Eagle claiming Republicans want to suppress the vote. Yet here you are saying voter fraud (which includes stealing elections and vote suppression) is non-existent.
Which is it guys? You don't get to blame Republicans for voter fraud and then claim voter fraud doesn't exist so we don't need voter ID laws.
Let me see if I can clear up your confusion.
One, stealing elections is not voter fraud. If you disagree, show me an election that was stolen by fraudulent voters that voter ID laws would have prevented.
Two, suppressing the vote is not voter fraud. It is not allowing qualified voter to vote, not letting unqualified voters vote.
See the difference?
The Heathen Republican,,
outstanding!!! How dare you use logic in your argument!!
Jerry Critter: "See the difference?"
I do, and I strongly suspect Heathen does also. But, true to form, he intermingles definitions and attempts to create more confusion. That's his forté.
Heathen Republican: "John, since you made it personal..."
If John had called you a lying piece of s__t, or a motherf__ker, now that would be personal. But he didn't...
Interesting...that's something you never do...and something Heathen thinks he does.
John, since you made it personal...
You never listen to what people you disagree with actually say. You have this idea of what someone believes, you repeat it endlessly, and you ignore their denials and actual statements. It's one of your biggest weaknesses.
What a ridiculous reply.
Jeff's Jockstrap, your attitude bores me.
Jefferson, you're a fool. Instead of talking about Dave's ideas or mine, John attempted to attribute specific statements to me, personally. Falsely, as it turns out. It doesn't take name calling to make something personal, but I fear you have no idea what I'm talking about.
Ridiculous, John?
"Heathen, the war on democracy runs deeper than that. The current GOP advocates unrestrained capitalism and almost pure plutocracy, which is not democratic, by definition. No form of oligarchy is. This demon goes by different names: Free Speech, Capitalism, Free Market."
The current GOP does not advocate unrestrained capitalism. You're confusing us with libertarians.
The GOP does not advocate almost pure plutocracy. Politicians of both parties are guilty of this, and it has nothing to do with ideology.
That you define oligarchy as free speech, capitalism, and free market is quite informative.
"Some people, like The Heathen Republican, compose long posts to show that the majority of campaign funding comes from paupers."
This is an outright falsehood, which I expect from Jefferson, not you. I've written no such post.
"They ignore the fact that the GOP currently wants omnipotent SuperPACs, corporations and other bodies to engage in costly promotions of chosen political candidates in order to purchase elections."
Unlike you, I try not to attribute motives to my political opponents. It's not that the GOP WANTS the current campaign finance system, as evidenced by all of the candidates statements in the current primary cycle. They are simply working within the system we have, and the only way to win a campaign is through SuperPACS. Just ask Obama; he can confirm that for me.
Heathen Republican: "Jefferson, you're a fool."
Now that's personal! You're catching on. Gee, I must have underestimated you. You're smarter than you look.
By the way, I wasn't addressing Dave's ideas. I was pointing out your inability to distinguish between "voter fraud" (as committed by individual voters, which statistically barely exists) and "vote suppression" and/or "the stealing of elections" (as committed by political parties and/or governments). So, that makes you either a liar and/or a conniver, or you're just plain ignorant and/or stupid.
Which is it?
Heathen Republican: "This is an outright falsehood, which I expect from Jefferson, not you. I've written no such post."
You have false expectations.
"That you [John Myste] define oligarchy as free speech, capitalism, and free market is quite informative."
As your boy, Ronald Reagan, was fond of saying, "There you go again."
I can't locate where Mr. Myste equated oligarchy as free speech, capitalism, and free markets. It is apparent, however, that he was referring to the right wing's use of these terms interchangeably to disguise the true nature of the system we now live under, and the Republican Party's deceitfulness in veiling the fact that these words are not equivalent.
One thing I've never heard you speak out against is the plutocracy and/or oligarchic structure that's ingrained and systemic in our economic system. I suppose I never will. Why? Because I believe you support and approve of it.
Heathen,
I will respond to your nonsense later, when I have more time, but I would quickly like to point out that Obama's aids said that he only relented on SuperPACs because that is the system and he must fight within it, not because he supports the idea. He is against the idea the last time I heard.
This discussion was on an NPR broadcast, so I cannot cite it, sorry. I am sure you heard it, so I am sure there is no need.
These damn Republicans have simply outlived any semblance of usefulness in this country, and this current anti-democracy branch of them should be jailed and disbanded!
Jerry,
I see the difference that you are trying to articulate, but I don't understand why you find it necessary to distinguish between stealing elections, voter fraud, and suppressing votes. Do you think the splitting of hairs will win the argument? Here is how I would differentiate:
Voter Fraud = Granny Smith Apple
Vote Suppression = Golden Delicious Apple
Stealing Election = Gala Apple
In the end, they're all apples. Even if you want to tell me the Granny Smith Apple is so much different from the others, they're just apples.
@John
"I would quickly like to point out that Obama's aids said that he only relented on SuperPACs because that is the system and he must fight within it, not because he supports the idea. He is against the idea the last time I heard."
And every GOP presidential candidate agrees. Same justification, both parties. So why would you say that only the GOP wants Super PACs? You just repeated my statement, but you credit Obama with good intentions while assuming Republicans have bad intentions.
@Jefferson
"I can't locate where Mr. Myste equated oligarchy as free speech, capitalism, and free markets."
It's not worth the time to respond if you can't see that I provided a direct quote from John and then offered a response. Seriously Dave, you'll let anyone in this place.
"One thing I've never heard you speak out against is the plutocracy and/or oligarchic structure that's ingrained and systemic in our economic system. I suppose I never will. Why? Because I believe you support and approve of it."
You've also never heard me speak out against Hugo Chavez or Castro or Mao or Mussolini or Stalin, so you should naturally assume I support and approve of them, too. Your logic is astounding.
Heathen,
Show me where voter fraud has resulted in either voter suppression or stealing of elections.
Jerry, you've entirely missed my point. I have made no allegations of voter fraud. It is the other progressives here that are alleging that Republicans steal elections suppress voter turnout.
All I've done is suggest that a voter ID law might help in those areas. And yet none of you have bothered to respond to my suggestion.
I just thought that since you were suggesting that voter ID law might help prevent the stealing of elections and/or voter suppression, you might have some examples of where voter fraud resulted in the stealing of elections and/or voter suppression. I guess I was wrong.
Heathen: "You've also never heard me speak out against Hugo Chavez or Castro or Mao or Mussolini or Stalin, so you should naturally assume I support and approve of them, too."
We've never had long, drawn-out discussions about Chavez, Castro, Mao, Mussolini, Stalin, etc., but we have talked at length about plutocracy and/or oligarchy in this country. Gee, Dave has even made these topics the cornerstone of so many of his posts.
But, as I mentioned, mum's the word from you.
"Seriously Dave, you'll let anyone in this place."
That's a personal attack against me. Unlike you, I'm not crying about it.
registering to vote is protected speech.
I'm all for free speech but it's going to take some explaining to make me understand how voting is speech, or protected under that ammendment. I guess I can sort of at least grasp the idea that having to show an ID to vote could raise a suit based on the Fifteenth Amendment; buyt the first? I don't get it.
But if the Court rules showing my ID to vote is a violation of my voting rights, then by god I can't wait till the NRA raises another using that one as a way to prove showing an ID to buy a gun is a violation of the Second Amendment!
These damn Republicans have simply outlived any semblance of usefulness in this country, and this current anti-democracy branch of them should be jailed and disbanded!
And rounded up, and put onto trains, and reeducated and if need be liquidated for the good of the collective.
Yeah yeah we know what conclusion you socialists always, ALWAYS come to.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/12/wisconsin-voter-id-law-unconstitutional_n_1339830.html
the implementation of the new Wisconsin Voter ID law has been blocked.... it has been ruled unconstitutional by two different judges.
... the fact of the matter.... is there is virtually NO VOTER FRAUD in Wisconsin...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/05/10/wisconsin-set-to-disenfranchise-likely-democratic-party-voters/
just another case of Republicans wanting 'less government' by creating a fix for a problem that doesn't exist. Hmmmm.... I guess if it stinks like a fish.... it must be a fish. Suppression is not that hard a word to understand.
Man, Heathen, you do like playing dumb. As you know perfectly well, there is essentially no such thing as "voter fraud," i.e. individuals voting illegally. In fact, far more people are struck by lightning than the known cases of voter fraud. On the other hand, Republicans have been engaged for decades in systematic attempts to prevent likely Democratic voters from voting, ranging from illegally striking them from the voter rolls by claiming they are felons (the tactic which made George W. Bush president,) providing inadequate voting machines in Democratic districts, so people have to wait in line up to six to eight hours to cast their vote, and the ever popular "voter ID" scheme, designed deliberately to deny poor people (who Republicans are sure will vote Democratic) the right to vote. An early practitioner of Repubican voter suppression was Mr. Rehnquist, whose party loyalty was rewarded by making him the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which enabled him to preside over the greatest act of judicial corruption in the history of the United States, the aforementioned sanctioning of the stolen Florida vote in 2000.
You know all of this perfectly well, and this is why I resent your pretend ignorance, which just wastes our time. Of course, that's all you can do, since there is no factual or moral defense of the miserable behavior of the Republican party.
Green Eagle, I'll use small words so that everyone understands. I did not claim that there IS voter fraud.
You proceed to list attempts to interfere with a fair and legal vote. You think, exclusively by Republicans.
If YOUR examples are true, then I suggested that a voter ID law might fix the problem. If Republicans are so determined to steal elections, don't you think they should be stopped?
Instead, Democrats oppose voter ID laws. So which is it? Is there a problem with our voting system or not? If there is (which you claim), then why not support voter ID laws to fix the problem?
Not the problem I claim. The problem YOU claim.
"Dave, you'll let anyone in this place."
Ya, Dave, knock it off! Whose Blog do you think this is, anywayz!
Heathen: "...I'll use small words so that everyone understands. I did not claim that there IS voter fraud."
You're right, you didn't explicitly say there's voter fraud, but you implied there is when you recommended voter ID laws as a "fix".
(You've lowered yourself to insulting everyone -- something I thought even you wouldn't stoop to doing. I was wrong.)
"I suggested that a voter ID law might fix the problem of voter fraud."
But you, yourself, admitted that voter fraud is negligible. If that's the case, what is it that might be "fixed" through a voter ID law? Would vote suppression be reduced through a voter ID law? How about the stealing of elections as committed by political parties through their corporate overlords? Would these be reduced though voter ID laws, too?
Please, tell me, exactly how voter ID would be beneficial in reducing vote suppression or the stealing of elections.
"But you, yourself, admitted that voter fraud is negligible."
Jefferson, you're still not paying attention. Let me try again.
I've made no claims one way or the other about voter fraud. Your like-minded progressives here have made claims, not I.
I suggested that if you're all so convinced that Republicans want to steal elections and suppress the voter, perhaps all of you should support voter ID laws.
It's axiomatic to most people, but apparently you don't see why. If a poll worker can verify the identity of an voter and his/her eligibility to vote, it minimizes the risk of any voting crimes.
The core question is this: If Republicans are the problem with the voting system, why do Democrats oppose voter ID laws, which might stop Republicans and their nefarious activities?
I see you, too, refuse to answer this one question.
"I hate voting for those almost as loathsome corporatist Democrats. But is there any other real choice?"
The short and short-term answer is no. Longer term, rather than disparage the fact that some Democrats are so-soers at best while a few are virtually indistinguishable from Republicans much of the time, there's the option of building a much bigger, much stronger liberal wing of the Democratic Party. And with that, putting some heavy pressure on DINO's to be good team players, possibly even replacing some through the primary process.
The fact is, the Democratic Party can't remain effective enough and competitive enough as an old-time big-tent party in an era when Republicans march in lockstep with their most extreme factions and heed the commands of their most militant media and big-money masters.
Note to the management: I left a comment here Friday afternoon. It seems to have disappeared.
Heathen Republican asks: "If Republicans are the problem with the voting system, why do Democrats oppose voter ID laws, which might stop Republicans and their nefarious activities?"
It's not as simple as requiring voter ID.
Voter ID could be a college student's campus ID card, but that's not good enough.
Voter ID could be a senior citizen's last driver's license, even if expired, plus Social Security card, but that's not good enough.
Credit card with photo? Not good enough.
Voter ID could be a stub from a poor person's last public-assistance check, or a special card issued for free by a state or federal welfare agency, by Catholic Charities or some other such group. But no, none of that is good enough.
Voter ID could be a homeless veteran's DD-214, maybe along with dogtags and/or military ID card. But no, that's not good enough.
Voter ID could be a card issued at any county courthouse and obtained by executing a sworn statement from the registrant, accompanied by sworn statements from two residents willing to vouch, in person, for the registrant as to who he or she is.
There are other possibilities, but these make the point. What Republicans are really after with this BS campaign against a problem made up out of whole cloth for typically cynical, selfish reasons is discouraging or preventing from voting as many people as possible who, by demographic characteristics, are likely to vote for Democrats.
For their trouble, the ALEC-inspired Republicans doing this ought to be manning all the polling places — in hell's deepest, hottest pit.
Now, if Democrats could only find a way to require the wealthy to have to show proof of prior military service, proof of not having cheated on their taxes going back at least seven years, plus proof of citizenship . . .
Heathen: "Jefferson, you're still not paying attention. Let me try again."
I'm trying to follow your train of thought, I really am. I keep thinking you're dense, or possibly I am, but concluded (since we're both intelligent human beings...not to mention I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) we need a working definition of voter fraud, since apparently we're having a problem communicating due to a "language barrier".
A few years ago, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) reviewed thousands of media reports concerning a wide variety of potential voting fraud or voter intimidation, and came up with a list that includes the following:
(1) absentee ballot fraud,
(2) voter registration fraud,
(3) voter intimidation and suppression,
(4) deceased voters on voter registration list and/or voting,
(5) multiple voting,
(6) felons voting,
(7) non-citizens voting,
(8) vote buying,
(9) deceptive practices, and
(10) fraud by election officials.
For reasons of discussion, I perceive "voter fraud" to include 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7; "voter suppression" to include 3 (and possibly 9); and "stealing of elections" (or more appropriate, electoral fraud) to include 10 (and possibly 9).
So, I'll ask my question one more time, and hopefully, through the use of a common vocabulary, you'll be able to answer the following for me:
Please tell me, exactly, how voter ID would be beneficial in reducing "vote suppression" (number 3 above, and possibly 9) or the "stealing of elections", i.e. electoral fraud (number 10 above, and possibly 9).
I do hope I'm being clear enough in my inquiry this time.
More truth than April foolishness.
HR,
You’re doing a splendid job of stirring things together, mischaracterizing, redefining terms, “playing dumb” and muddying the water. Your talents don’t go unnoticed.
I at least owe you an answer to your question about Republicans. Why are they to blame? For the same reason the fascist punk with the 9mm is to blame for the death of Trayvon Howard. They have the power and know who to target.
John,
I believe HR let slip some truth in the first part of his statement. .The GOP does not advocate almost pure plutocracy. Politicians of both parties are guilty of this, and it has nothing to do with ideology.
I agree, the GOP does not advocate almost pure plutocracy. They want pure plutocracy, not almost pure plutocracy.
HR has such a special regard for you. He first projected, “You never listen to what people you disagree with actually say,” as he was about to exemplify it in his own particular fashion.
First he offered this little “misunderstanding”, (or would that more accurately be called a fake misunderstanding?) “That you define oligarchy as free speech, capitalism, and free market is quite informative.”
Nobody, apart from maybe his fan in the peanut gallery, would make such a claim if they truly “listen to what people you disagree with actually say”.
Not to settle for that quaint illusion, we see the show goes on. You’ve been called out on an “outright falsehood”, as HR wrote no such post, as some people like him may have.
He even kindly provided us what you said. "Some people, like The Heathen Republican, compose long posts to show that the majority of campaign funding comes from paupers."
Some people, like you John, compose posts that agitate thin-skinned, or contrarian, readers, like The Heathen Republican, who don’t bother to read carefully. Not that I’m saying HR doesn’t read carefully.
Some people, like Heathen, take umbrage with you, John, not that I’m saying Heathen does.
Jerry,
How can we communicate with someone who claims to distinguish between stealing elections, voter fraud, and suppressing votes is “splitting of hairs”. This typical re-defining is a GOP specialty in shutting down a discussion they don’t like.
Green Eagle,
Of course, that's all you can do, since there is no factual or moral defense of the miserable behavior of the Republican party.
Your observations are that of someone who has seen a lot of Right Wing malarkey and noticed the patterns of distraction and deception.
Okjimm,
When Republicans say they want less government, we know they want it out of the boardroom and into the bedroom. The want government out of healthcare and into wars, and a powerful surveillance state. The Party of “Papers Please”, and “Your urine, please” are all about suppression of democracy and imposing its one party dictatorship. They care nothing about compromise and little for the public good.
Jack,
Not enough of them are in prison for sure.
Free,
“freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” These are the rights of the citizens to political expression. These are their voices in their role in democracy. The right of the people to vote is such political expression, their voice, at its essence.
SW,
Your voter ID point is very well presented. I could only add, "Voter ID could be a handgun permit. Now THAT would, for some mysterious reason, be good enough".
JG,
Thanks. That's a pretty good list of the Right's tactics of disenfranchisement.
Dave,
Not to settle for that quaint illusion, we see the show goes on. You’ve been called out on an “outright falsehood”, as HR wrote no such post, as some people like him may have.
Regarding Heathen, I should never have started with him, because I have way too much going on at the moment to finish what I started or even to look up his post. I know my slight deviation off topic irks him sometimes.
Heathen well knows the post to which I was referring, and also well knows that I used the term "paupers" satirically to exaggerate what I considered a deceptive position laid out in his post.
I rarely debate a position outright. I always exaggerate the position of the opposition for my own amusement, which tends to annoy the oppositions for reasons I cannot divine.
I only debate outright when I am excessively passionate about the position, such as taxes or entitlements, and no mischievous muse inspires me otherwise.
After Heathen's response, I realized that if I engaged him, it was going to be a long day, and my schedule would not tolerate it, so I simply faded into the distance. I could not concede because I was not wrong; but I could not proceed, because there were not enough hours remaining to allow me to reach my destination. Therefore, I just stopped, and vanished, leaving the esteemed HR in awe of the specter of my potential brilliance, yet frustrated by its absence. He was aching for a lashing and had already padded his breeches, and then just stood there, looking around sheepishly for the whip that never came.
Just,
I did not know who Jeff's Jockstrap is. Please tell me it is not me. I don't want to be a jockstrap.
Dave,
You asked, "How can we communicate with someone who claims to distinguish between stealing elections, voter fraud, and suppressing votes is “splitting of hairs”.
Only with great difficulty, because they are not trying to communicate, only confuse, obfuscate, and misdirect. It is a sign that they believe they have already lost the argument and are only trying to salvage their reputation.
Voter ID laws can't fix this:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9221
John,
I've been busier than usual lately too. The distractions of hoops and loops require more time than we may have, enjoyable as they may be.
Just as they pick and choose what to address, we sometimes may do likewise.
Jerry,
What? Republicans "confuse, obfuscate, and misdirect". Whatever for?
Leslie,
Yes. Florida again.
Privatizing our public elections by GOP Corporate Friendly Voting Machines Inc. is a cancer on democracy.
Their war on democracy is thorough and waged on multiple fronts.
The right of the people to vote is such political expression, their voice, at its essence.
Um, no. It's not. Speech is speech, voting is voting. Not saying they aren't both a right... just not the one you're talking about. Under your logic I could sue for voting rights under the provisions in the Constitution that preclude the Government from quartering troops in our homes (3rd amendment)
It would make about as much sense.
You're thinking of-
15th Amendment.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
These guys are making a very poor legal arguement and their case is going to get thrown on summary disposition because of it. Then you'll likely freak out about it.
It's just a matter of time before someone decides we should means-test voters. After all, that's pretty much the way the Founders had it.
Free,
If money is speech, and money as speech is political expression, why isn't voting political expression? Explain the disconnect.
I know about the 15th Amendment. You were wondering how the First Amendment may apply, and I offerd a possibilty.
Murr,
That's the GOP for you, Government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. I swear they'd bring back slavery if they could.
That isn't a possibility Dave.
As for "money" being speech, money given to make a movie is speech - which I've explained to you countless times. Making a movie and voting are entirely different things. Both of which you have a right to do, but they are covered by different parts of the Constitution. You'd be frighteningly ignorant of our laws if you couldn't figure this out.
And the Democrats did bring back slavery. By ObamaCare I have to give money to insurance companies or I will be punished.
That's pretty much slavery, but the SCOTUS is taking care of that problem for us as we speak.
John,
No, Jeff's JockStrap is my name for Jefferson's Guardian.
I have way too much respect for you to call you anything other than John Myste. In fact I feel bad not calling you MR. John Myste.
Free,
Movies? Slavery to health care?
Oohh-kaayy... We see you aren't interested in this conversation...or reality.
Off you go again...See you next time around.
Yes, movies is free speech. They are protected under the 1st Amendment... or do you think say... um... Michael Moore doesn't require that protection?
As for slavery, forcing me to work (which is how grown ups get money) so that I can pay an insurance company or be punished under Obama Care is indentured servitude at the least. I don't like it when my government forces me to buy shit I don't want or need.
Speaking of movies, I just saw "Knowing" with Nicholas Cage. Kinda cool if you like scary kids and aliens and stuff.
I don't like it when my government forces me to buy shit I don't want or need.
Me neither.
So I take it then that you aren't a big fan of the individual mandate. Good, on that we agree.
Free,
Are you willing to let people who choose not to buy healthcare die if they cannot prove that they can pay for their care? Are you willing to let their children die because they choose not to buy healthcare? Are willing to refuse healthcare if you are unable to,pay for it?
Why are you making this an emotional issue Jerry? It shouldn't be one. When we're talking about health care we're talking about responsibility. Who is responsible for whom? I'm responsible for myself and my family. If my daughter doesn't get heath care I'm responsible for the cost because I'm her father. If she doesn't get any, it's not society's failure but my failure. If you can't provide your own health care it isn't my failure, it's yours. I am not responsible for you, nor are you responsible for me or my family. The question isn't that children should or should not get health care. It's who is accountable when they do not. I say their parents, you say society.
Free,
Jerry is "making it an emotional issue," because it is. Your response was also emotional. You feel that society should let children die, because the parents should have handled the situation. However, all this throwing around of "shoulds" is purely emotional. Your preference is no more truth than Jerry's is.
The whole concept of responsibility, who "should" handle what, is a human-invented idea, unless you think there is some God regulating it.
Therefore, Jerry is not making it an emotional issue. It is a emotional issue, one that he is trying to discuss with emotions, and one that you discount, since you get to decide what "should" happen.
However, what you emotionally decide "should" happen is barbaric and primitive. What Jerry thinks "should" happen better mirrors a workable and intellectual society.
Of course, that is just my emotional assessment of the situation.
Free,
So your answers to my three questions are yes, yes, and yes?
Jerry, sometimes the things that make us feel good are unconstitutional. In those cases, what we want and what we can enshrine in law are not the same.
If it makes you feel better, you're in good company. Our esteemed president also thinks that the law should be found constitutional because it helps people. He doesn't have a constitutional argument for it, but taking it away would hurt people, so that's good enough for him.
HR,
I don't know if the mandate is any more, or less, constitutional than forcing me to buy car insurance. Why don't conservatives claim we should be responsible for our own car accidents?
I can see that it can be argued that health care could fall under the "general welfare" clause, and regulating the health care industry can be under the Constitutional power to "regulate commerce". That's not a wild stretch, by any means.
Our esteemed president also thinks that the law should be found constitutional because it helps people sounds a bit specious, don't you think? You once lectured me about presuming GOP motives and rationale for restrictive voter suppression. Remember? Surely you're no hypocrite.
I don't know if the mandate is any more, or less, constitutional than forcing me to buy car insurance.
The federal government doesn't force you to buy car insurance.
As for general welfare I don't think fining some one for not buying a service (insurance is not helth care BTW) is in that person's welfare, nor is forcing someone to conduct commerce (individual mandate) regulating commerce. Like I said, government can regulate interstate commerce but they can't force you to conduct it.
And last but not least this shouldn't be an emotional issue. Good sound decisions are seldom made when you're operating on the "emotional train wreck" level.
As for being barbaric and primitive, way to sound like a big emotional teenage girl again.
It's not primitive to expect grown people to take care of themselves, and it's frankly childish to expect perfect strangers to take care of you. That's what little kids do. Adults provide for themselves. The common figure is that 10% of Americans don't have health insurance. That's less than one in 10 people if you do the math. I bet we could cut even that number in half is even a quarter of those people stopped being big children and took care of themselves. We have medicare and social security to take care of the rest... you know people who really can't care for themselves and actually deserve help.
As for Liberty; Liberty is freedom and freedom doesn't evolve or change. You're either free or you aren't. It's black and white. Under Obama Care I am NOT free to choose to not buy insurance. That's one less freedom.
Bottom line.
Liberty cannot be defined as enacting the stale will of a previous people (in the case the Founders, O' Glory).
Liberty must evolve with the will of the people or it is not liberty.
It is a stretch to use The Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause for our bidding. I think that stretch was desired by some of the Founders, Blessed be He, but it may not have been. There is no proof.
Either way, using English, the language in which the Constitution is written to understand the Constitution tells us that a liberal interpretation is a stretch, and is not the obvious interpretation; but the clauses are there, ambiguous and sanctified by the Holy Founders and can be stretched. Circumventing the will of the people is also a Stretch, and was not what the Founders, Hollowed Be He, intended.
Therefore, the Constitution should be amended, one way or the other, to clarify its own boundaries. That is the only way to settle this debate, but there is a problem.
That amendment would be repeatedly reversed and revived as different parties took office. However, we must have this weakening of the Constitution in order to settle the debate. One side in the debate sees democracy as self-governance, rule by the people. The other side sees democracy as submitting to the presumed dictatorship of a few dozen Skeletons, Bless, even when it is counter to the will of the population.
Passing an amendment to explicitly sanction liberal laws that are in place and that the majority depend on, would be difficult. We live in a representative democracy that does not represent the will of the majority and in a democracy built largely on accountability where the elected officials are more accountable to the few and less accountable to the many. Therefore, passing an amendment to confirm the will of the people would not be easy, as the people would not get to vote on the amendment.
If we had a binding referendum to reinforce the narrow interpretation, and if the people actually knew what they were giving up by passing it, it would not pass.
Is it wrong to liberally interpret the Constitution in order to preserve the will of the people? That is the real question. Conservatives, whose ideology generally does not put the will of the majority first, but instead puts principles and conservative concepts of “right” first, would say, no, it is not worth it. Liberals think it is. Liberals then go a step further and claim that their necessary liberal interpretation is exactly what the Founders, glorified be His eternal name, had in mind.
The liberal interpretation of Constitution may be something a few of the Founders, in His holy wisdom, would have admired, but it certainly is not what the Founders, that Glorified Entity, imagined.
So, I don’t think liberals are always preaching what they believe for the reason they believe it. Both sides make up an interpretation that suits them, but in this case, the Liberal looks crazy when he claims his elastic interpretation of the Constitution is exactly what the Founders in all their Holy wisdom, ordered.
Again, Liberty cannot be defined as enacting the stale will of a previous people. Liberty must evolve with the will of the people or it is not liberty. First and foremost, the Founders, in all His Omniscient Foresight, intended to preserve individual liberty, which as ironic as it may seem, includes preserving the will of the people to rule themselves as they see fit.
As for Liberty; Liberty is freedom and freedom doesn't evolve or change. You're either free or you aren't.
If you will changes, but you are still bound by your will of 200 years ago, then you were free then and you are not free now.
Liberty does not evolve, but people do. Freedom for everyone to live under the rules James Madison thought we should live under is not freedom unless you are James Madison.
Is it just me John, or do you have a pathological need to overstate and over complicate a simple point. You are either free to do something or you are not. It's not subjective, it's objective. For example, here in Kansas we are not free to murder our neighbors. We are not free to do that. If you individual mandate folks have your way, in addition to lacking the freedom to murder the neighbors we will also not have the freedom to decline to purchase health insurance, and if we will not have the freedom to choose what kind we wish to buy as that will be mandated. That's it. It's that simple. It's a choice. Do you want the freedom to not have to buy health insurance. Check one for yes, two for no. James Madison has nothing to do with it. He didn't know anything about insurance, it didn't exist in the 18 century. This debate could not have taken place in his era for that reason and also because computers and the internet didn't exist either.
Freedom doesn't belong to any era any more than gravity does. It's either there or it isn't. Sometimes freedom not being there is a good thing - like with murder. But most of the time it is a pretty good thing - the question is; is it good when it comes to insurance. That question can't be solved in yet another long winded debate with you in another amateur, pointless exercise in arm chair philosophy - but through the cut and dried lens of law. Law is pretty clear, the Federal Government lacks the authority to make you buy anything. That could be insurance or a stick of gum. If your state wants to do that, it's up to them because under the 10th Amendment your state can pretty much do whatever it wants so long as it doesn't violate the civil rights of it's citizens- but states aren't the federal government now are they? You'll have to turn your own state into a socialist quagmire John - and that's fine. You and your fellow citizen's of where ever have that right. And thank god or James Madison, I don't have to live there. Another freedom I may loose when that becomes irrelevant with federal government over reach turning all the states into clones of one another.
And as for majority rule, we don't have that in this country. We live in a Republic that was set up to protect the ultimate minority... the individual. We can't get together and all vote you shave your head, even if that be the "will of the people."
That's because the individual's right out weighs all the votes in the ballot box.
Free,
You'll have to turn your own state into a socialist quagmire John - and that's fine.
First, I am about to have to leave and I don't have time to answer your long-winded comment. However, I would like to point out that I am a capitalist and I want to be nothing else.
Good to hear. Now stop supporting socializing stuff.
I think i is Dave's and liberal's in general who have a chilling, and misguided case for democracy that should worry us most. Because, believe it or not, a small unelected group upholding individual liberty is a huge improvement over the opposite.
Democrats have fought hard to undo safeguards against direct democracy, attaching a morality to a process that can do both good and bad and who are now undermining the collar that restrains the wild dog of the legislative branch. They have created ballot measures to do away with the Electoral College to turn the Presidential election from States choosing a leader into a popularity contest. They'd like Washington, rather than localities, to dictate nearly everything. The mere mention of states' rights puts you in league with the Ku Klux Klan.
Why not? Democracy allows rhetoric, false empathy and emotion to pummel rational thinking - so it's no wonder so many politicians thrive in it. The Supreme Court, however, should rise above democracy, not give in to it. That's the point of it's existence after all.
A independent judiciary is after all, the corner stone of a democratic government. Without it and the blue print that the Constitution provides, we deevolve into mob rule.
Actually the insurance mandate is a very capitalist thing, not socialistic, since you have to buy insurance from a capitalistic corporate insurance company.
Jerry,
Exactly.
This is why I'm wondering if the Supreme Court decision will be affected by the corporate cronies of the corpo-judges.
After all, they are "persons" with more "free speech", and I don’t mean movies, than all of the rest of us.
I think it could go either way. Something tells me Big Money will vote that siphoning money to corporations is constitutional.
As I see it, a corporatist judiciary is, along with a corporatist Congress and White House, the cornerstone for corporatist rule by a corporatist government.
Dave Dubya: "As I see it, a corporatist judiciary is, along with a corporatist Congress and White House, the cornerstone for corporatist rule by a corporatist government."
Amen, brother...
Incidentally, Jerry and Dave, it's still a possibility that Obama has been crazy all along -- like a fox, that is -- and he's forcing a showdown that could open the door to universal healthcare. [fingers cross, yet not holding my breath]
JG,
You hit the nail n the head. Let the Supremes strike down Obamacare. It will open the door for Medicare For All financed by a tax just like Medicare is now. And Medicare has already gone though all the legal challenges.
Single payer here we come!
I came to this conclusion as well. the righties at the site I left the comment about it hid their fear with the old righty pissed off act.
You're forced to buy a smoke detector. A seatbelt and airbags in your car. A motorcycle helmut.
And if you can't afford them government will help you.
Your arguement is wrong Free Guy.
Free,
Good to hear. Now stop supporting socializing stuff.
I support letting the American Tax Payers decide what is socialized, not you.
All,
I do believe Obama never wanted ObamaCare and always wanted Universal Healthcare. I am certain his intention was to bring ObamaCare online, and then allow the individual mandate to be picked up by the government with a future law.
God bless that man, Mr. Obama. He is the greatest man since FDR, as I am sure all will agree.
John Myste: "I am certain his intention was to bring ObamaCare online, and then allow the individual mandate to be picked up by the government with a future law."
Small steps...
Truth 101: "Your arguement [sic] is wrong Free Guy."
Many times his arguments are wrong, at least from my perspective. In this case, however, I see pitfalls with yours. I disagree, nobody is forced to purchase smoke detectors, seat-belts, airbags, or helmets. If you desire, you don't have to purchase any of these items. Needless to say, you wouldn't be able to buy a new home, a new car, or ride a motorcycle, that's true, but you still aren't forced to buy a privately-supplied product.
With the insurance mandate it's different. Just by virtue of being alive, you'd be mandated to purchase a service from private enterprise, and the only way not to is by death.
Big difference...
No difference. You are fined if you don't have a smoke detector, no seat belt or no helmut. Just as you would be fined for not having health insurance.
From your point Jeff nobody is forced to obey any law.
This is why I'm wondering if the Supreme Court decision will be affected by the corporate cronies
Probably not since they don't have to give a rat's ass about an election... which is why they are appointed for life.
and he's forcing a showdown that could open the door to universal healthcare
You know I've suspected this myself.
Actually the insurance mandate is a very capitalist thing, not socialistic, since you have to buy insurance from a capitalistic corporate insurance company.
Forcing anything is antithetical to the entire concept of a free market. You have to have choice to have that... and ObamaCare takes away choices, it doesn't give them.
Mr. Obama. He is the greatest man since FDR, as I am sure all will agree
I will say this for him, he's probably converted more people to Libertarian ideals than any other person in history.
In this case, however, I see pitfalls with yours. I disagree, nobody is forced to purchase smoke detectors, seat-belts, airbags, or helmets. If you desire, you don't have to purchase any of these items. Needless to say, you wouldn't be able to buy a new home, a new car, or ride a motorcycle, that's true, but you still aren't forced to buy a privately-supplied product.
With the insurance mandate it's different. Just by virtue of being alive, you'd be mandated to purchase a service from private enterprise, and the only way not to is by death.
This is the most disingenuous argument ever (not to mention inaccurate). The rule is NOT that “if you are alive, you must purchase health insurance. I would tell you the rule, but correcting that would be distracting to my point, and I have already indulged this enough.
The big issue is not that we are having to purchase a service and that there is no precedent for it. There are precedence, the one mentioned, and the Social Security Act.
We should argue what we believe for the reason we believe it and not make up disingenuous arguments in hopes of furthering our case. When we do this, we just create targets and cement our opponent’s knowledge that we are wrong.
As for this specific argument, I do not credit anyone here with inventing it, but only with mindlessly parroting it, so parrots, I am not indicting you, but the original inventors, for their misplaced creativity.
JTF!, are you familiar with the term, "hook, line, and sinker". ;-)
You prostrated yourself when you said...
"I have way too much respect for you to call you anything other than John Myste. In fact I feel bad not calling you MR. John Myste."
Gee, if you feel that bad, why don't you just call him "sir" and get on your knees and "shine his shoes"?
Gee, if you feel that bad, why don't you just call him "sir" and get on your knees and "shine his shoes"?
My shoes are already shiny. I wouldn't have it any other way.
Truth 101: "You are fined if you don't have a smoke detector, no seat belt or no helmut [sic]."
True, but only if I own a home (and only in select states), drive a car, or ride a motorcycle. Otherwise, it's impossible to be fined.
I'm disappointed that you cannot see the difference.
From your point Jeff nobody is forced to obey any law.
Well, that's not what said, did I? I did say, however, that nobody's forced to buy any private enterprise's product. Period. Until, of course, the individual mandate takes effect.
Okay, John, I'll play... ;-)
It's a perfectly accurate arguement John. Social Security is part of the government. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents it. ObamaCare doesn't force tax payers to pay a tax. It forces people to buy a good from a private company... and that is where there is no precedent. How you don't see this as forcing people to give money to the "evil corporations" you guys seem to hate so much is beyond me. Heck, liberals hate insurance companies more than any other with the possible exception of oil corporations and yet you are defending it. Would you support a bill that said that weather or not you own a car or not you have to buy Shell or Exxon oil, in the type specified by the government, weather you need it or not? Of course you wouldn't, but you defend it here.
Would you support a bill that said that weather or not you own a car or not you have to buy Shell or Exxon oil, in the type specified by the government, weather you need it or not? Of course you wouldn't, but you defend it here.
I officially reverse my opinion about the purchase of oil. I no longer support that bill.
Free,
It's a perfectly accurate arguement John. Social Security is part of the government.
The legal debates against the SSA were the same as the legal debates against the Affordable Healthcare Act. The only difference is that the SSA arguments were genuine.
Whether you call your forced purchase of a service a tax or a forced purchase, semantics aside, it is the same thing.
It would appear, that if I take you at your work, the argument is more important to you than the reality of the action. You think this is not a real-world debate, but a semantic exercise.
Jeff is grasping at straws. Desperation among the right is entertaining.
Grasping at straws? Please explain.
I agree, there is much desperation on the right.
John, the constitution clearly outlines that the government has a right to levy taxes. Weather those taxes and what they are spent on is a good idea is a case by case basis. I tend to think Social Security is a bad idea because it's a rip off and I happen to think I can do a much better job and get a better return on investment on my own with the money I'm forced to pay into. However, I wouldn't argue it's unconstitutional. It clearly is. The government forcing me to pay a large fine if I do not but shares in a 401k for example, is unconstitutional because while the government has the power to tax it cannot require me to purchase jack shit. So, I wouldn't argue that a national health service is unconstitutional... bad idea but not illegal. The government has the authority to tax and set up things like a national health service. Granted it's a horrible idea I'll appose at the ballot box... but not the court house. The issue at hand however is a legal one, and semantics are the heart of law. Government has no authority to require me to buy anything, and setting the precedent that it can opens all kinds of very ugly doors.
John, the constitution clearly outlines that the government has a right to levy taxes. Weather those taxes and what they are spent on is a good idea is a case by case basis. I tend to think Social Security is a bad idea because it's a rip off and I happen to think I can do a much better job and get a better return on investment on my own with the money I'm forced to pay into. However, I wouldn't argue it's unconstitutional.
You are using semantics again. Plenty of others challenged it and did claim it was unconstitutional. You well know that levying taxes was intended to produce revenue, not to fund the elderly. The problem is the exact same problem as with ObamaCare, unless you think that the argument is not one of the principle of law, the specific verbiage chosen, which violates the conservative view of Original Intent squarely.
If the individual mandate at been implemented through a tax collection then used to purchase insurance, would you then find that plumbing, the exact same thing in the real world, acceptable?
It clearly is. The government forcing me to pay a large fine if I do not but shares in a 401k for example, is unconstitutional
If you would like to discuss that separate question some time, we can.
The issue at hand however is a legal one, and semantics are the heart of law.
Semantics are at the heart of law, but not at the heart of the interpretation of law. There is also the concept of Original Intent, which extends beyond just the Original Intent of the Founders, blessed by He, but is really a question to be considered for all laws.
Government has no authority to require me to buy anything, and setting the precedent that it can opens all kinds of very ugly doors.
Government requires you to buy things right now and has for many years. The precedent has been set. Besides, the Roberts court does not honor precedent, so I am not sure how your argument is logical.
Plenty of others challenged it and did claim it was unconstitutional.
Some did, but no one is using that arguement here so I wonder why you keep returning to it? In your own words I would respond-
"If you would like to discuss that separate question some time, we can."
The interpretation of law is all about the finite details, because those small details can have major consequences. As for the concept of Founder's Intent, it has no bearing on this legal arguement. This is a textual question. We aren't asking ourselves what the founders would have thought about this. We're simply reading the darn document. They gave the government the power to tax and regulate commerce, not force commerce between private citizens. There is zero precedent for that... in fact quite the opposite. That is as logical as it gets. If the government wants to tax then tax, but you can't call forcing me to buy a good from a private company a tax because... duh... it's a purchase not a tax. This is common sense, kindergarten four year old stuff. If you want insurance for all you're just going to have to have a tax funded government agency. That's how our law is set up. Too bad you have tried to pass that 100 times and failed on the federal level each time- you're just going to have to suck that one up and keep working for it because his so called compromise happens to have a key facet in it that happens to be unconstitutional.
Free,
As for the concept of Founder's Intent, it has no bearing on this legal arguement. This is a textual question.
So, then, it is your contention that Original Intent in Constitutional law is irrelevant, right?
I keep bringing up SSA, because very similar arguments were used to try to declare it un-constitutional. The “tax” was then considered a purchase, not a tax. Your legal gripe is purportedly with the plumbing of the Act, and not with the concept.
Would conservatives vote to amend the Affordable Healthcare Act so that the individual mandate is collected in the form of a tax, then reallocated to its purpose? I am assuming their complaint is with a perceived Constitutional violation, and not the actual effect of the law itself. I must assume this, because I know the GOP is not a group of hypocrites. Therefore, I assume you, like your colleagues in congress, would vote to Amend the law, making the Supreme Court Case irrelevant, right?
OK, I am on board with this. I am nothing if not a great compromiser. Let’s get it done!
So, then, it is your contention that Original Intent in Constitutional law is irrelevant, right?
On this question it is.
I keep bringing up SSA, because very similar arguments were used to try to declare it un-constitutional.
But it's not the same argument, and as you said-
"If you would like to discuss that separate question some time, we can."
As for the concept - I hate it. I don't like socialized medicine but I don't think it's unconstitutional. I can not like something and yet acknowledge it isn't illegal. However I can't do that with ObamaCare, because the individual mandate violates federal law (Constitution)
Also, I can't speak for what Conservatives would do since I'm not a Conservative. However, I wouldn't argue it was illegal but I'd fight it at the ballot box tooth and nail. But that isn't the case, the vote already happened and it passed, and the SCOTUS is going to throw that bill out. So, back to the drawing board for you Democrats.
Wow, Dubya, you sure do get the malcontents! :P
Free, I would edit your sentence thusly... you wrote:
I will say this for him, he's probably converted more people to Libertarian ideals than any other person in history.
My edit:
I will say this for him, he's probably converted more racists to Libertarian ideals than any other person in history.
And with every word, you further convince us of this, since he is lots more conservative than Clinton ever was.
Free,
Would conservatives vote to amend the Affordable Healthcare Act so that the individual mandate is collected in the form of a tax, then reallocated to its purpose? I am assuming their complaint is with a perceived Constitutional violation, and not the actual effect of the law itself. I must assume this, because I know the GOP is not a group of hypocrites.
John,
I can't speak for Conservatives since I'm not one. I can only speak for me. I think I made it very clear, if the Federal Government set up a national health service it would be epic stupidity but not unconstitutional. If you are talking about a voucher system, that too would be fine... and funny you would support that when you opposed so strongly Paul Ryan's plan to do so with Medicare.
But fining me if I don't buy a private service? That's not a tax, it's a fine, and an unconstitutional one at that.
This is such a funny comment about my comment because I'm as white as Barack Obama is.
Malcontent? I like the sound of that.
funny you would support that when you opposed so strongly Paul Ryan's plan to do so with Medicare.
I don't agree with the individual mandate as anything other than a necessary stepping stone to Universal Healthcare.
Post a Comment