Originally posted by WulebgrAre you suggesting that Franken does not possess the greatest ideas?
That's a sentence I had to read twice.
You think the American political process favors those with good quality ideas? Simply, wow!
That doesn't make any sense. Americans are not idiots. Why would someone vote for the person with bad ideas?
Originally posted by WulebgrWay to edit my post. I said all Democrats who do not commit crimes. Blagojevich obviously falls into that category.
C'mon. What a bunch of horse manure. Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were Republicans. Rod Blagojevich is a Democrat.
I also said that all Republicans ARE bad, not that they have always been bad. Eisenhower was the last Republican meriting any respect.
Originally posted by lepomisBecause they are deceived into believing the ideas are good.
Why would someone vote for the person with bad ideas?
How does anyone learn to discern good ideas from bad? Not by watching television, reading Ann Coulter, or attending most public schools (many private schools are even less likely to help) in America.
Originally posted by WulebgrSo to stay on topic, What deceitful ideas did Franken pawn off on us. That is unless you thought Franken had the best ideas and where just talking in generalities about idiot voters.
Because they are deceived into believing the ideas are good.
How does anyone learn to discern good ideas from bad? Not by watching television, reading Ann Coulter, or attending most public schools (many private schools are even less likely to help) in America.
Originally posted by lepomisJust as it is difficult for American voters to discern good ideas from bad, it is difficult to carry on reasoned debate here when an illogical appeal is made to the wisdom of these voters as if that settles some obscure point. The merits of Franken's ideas are not determined by the fact that he was elected fairly, and it appears that he was, but by their content, whatever they might be. If his ideas was the main point here, I've missed it for I've not seen a single positive affirmation of a single concrete idea attributed to him, nor to his opponent. In the absence of substantive issues oriented debate, your illogical assertion was the most interesting piece of the "argument".
So to stay on topic, What deceitful ideas did Franken pawn off on us. That is unless you thought Franken had the best ideas and where just talking in generalities about idiot voters.
Now, here's a concrete proposal:
To create an affordable, portable and consumer-friendly health insurance market, we must first level the playing field between people who get health insurance through an employer and those who choose to buy insurance on their own.
STEP #1: I would provide individuals and families who buy insurance on their own with a tax deduction, so they get the same benefit as those who get their insurance through an employer. And for low-income Americans, I would propose an adjustable tax credit that can go directly to the private insurer of their choice. I would then make health insurance more consumer-friendly by ensuring that each state has a low-cost option for young people and limited variations in health insurance premiums. Finally, I would prohibit insurers from turning people down based on pre-existing conditions, so that insurance companies could no longer cherry-pick and deny insurance to those who need it the most.
(from Norm Coleman's website)
John McCain made a similar and more detailed proposal. Obama explained in detail in the debates why tax breaks fail to address the issues.
There's still some merit in Coleman's ideas, but they are vastly inferior to the sorts of plans Democrats put forth. A tax break for medical insurance will not bring medical coverage to families that are already tax exempt because they are so poor, and the cost of minimal medical insurance would exceed 20% of their gross income, income that is already inadequate for housing and food.
The tax credit idea, on the other hand, if you can make it large enough and can get the support of some Republicans, might work. It would, of course, dwarf the current EIC credit, for it would need to be at least five times as generous.
Originally posted by WulebgrA tax credit, whatever the size, would be helpful, but candidates always seem to ignore the base of the problem. It should not be a question of how its paid for or who pays for it. The focus should be on why it's soooo damn expensive in the first place.
Now, here's a concrete proposal:
To create an affordable, portable and consumer-friendly health insurance market, we must first level the playing field between people who get health insurance through an employer and those who choose to buy insurance on their own.
STEP #1: I would provide individuals and families who buy insurance on their own with a t ...[text shortened]... urse, dwarf the current EIC credit, for it would need to be at least five times as generous.
Steps should be made to:
decrease medical charges
decrease medical costs
increase consumer awareness of self care
increase consumer awareness of healthy living
etc...
Anything else is wasting time and money.
Also, Franken is doing none of this... at least not according to his site.
Originally posted by rwingettTotal tauroscatology! Parties will do whatever it takes to win. Voter disenfranchisement? You mean like identifying yourself as registered, and making sure you only vote once, and that you aren't voting for your dog or grandmother who is deceased?
They went to that well one too many times. People were on the lookout for Republican shenanigans this time around. All their massive voter disenfranchisement efforts were hotly challenged.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSeriously, I think both parties like the ability to question the results.
Why isn't the voting system modernized so the results are unquestionable and known in 1 day as is the case here?
What I've heard is that idiotic standards have been used to question ballots, which for the most part are paper fill in optical scan ballots. Some people apparently put a X in the circle, and then reading the instructions filled it in. These are being questioned as not counting. Random careless pencil lines are being questioned.
And apparently some precincts have more ballots counted than they have registered voters.
If it was Chicago or Detroit, I wouldn't be at all surprised, but I guess Minneapolis/ST. Paul is catching up.
Originally posted by rwingettReality is that Ventura wasn't a bad governor, and Arnold hasn't been bad either, and most Californians liked Reagan as governor as well.
I think Franken is far more qualified for public office than Ventura was. He's a smart man. I think he'll make a decent Senator. As for some of the other show-biz politicians, despite my initial skepticism over Schwarzenegger, it seems that he has actually done a decent job. He is now one of the very few Republicans for whom I have any respect. And Reagan.. ...[text shortened]... he worst person in the wooooooooorld (as Keith Olberman says), but Bush has done it in spades.
Franken isn't a dummy as you point out. He is about as far left as you could imagine, which makes him good or bad according to your leanings.
Reagan, who you obviously don't like, won the respect and admiration of people on both sides, winning two landslides, the second almost a total electoral sweep with massive popular vote margins.
On his watch, the economy went from dismal, the absolute worst since the Great Depression, to the longest peacetime prosperity on record. On the side, his policies brought down the Soviet Union, and the Berlin Wall.