(07-06-2014 02:34 PM)Poorwill Wrote:  Obamacare was only about the first campaign goodie for re-election. The whole cluster was put together with no give-a-sh!t about consequences in order to ram it through Congress ("pass it and then see what's in it") before the next elections.

You don't seriously think passing the ACA was an advantage for the Democrats in the 2010 and 2012 elections do you?

(07-06-2014 02:46 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  You don't seriously think passing the ACA was an advantage for the Democrats in the 2010 and 2012 elections do you?

It didn't turn out to be an advantage, but I think the Democrats envisioned that it would be -- up until about August 2010.

If Killary decides to murder and bury ACA, who knows I might vote for her. LOL

(07-06-2014 02:34 PM)Poorwill Wrote:  Obamacare was only about the first campaign goodie for re-election. The whole cluster was put together with no give-a-sh!t about consequences in order to ram it through Congress ("pass it and then see what's in it") before the next elections.

ACA was one thing, and one thing only; Barack Obama's burning desire to stomp deep tracks into the sands of history, especially after he torched a trillion dollars on his flaccid stimulus, and didnt even have a hoover dam or an interstate highway system to show for it. doesn't anyone remember the heady early days of the obamites, when they were presumed to be supreme beings -- before they demonstrated their abject incompetence in all phases of governance?

it was a crappy bill, the crafting of which he had nothing to do with (it should be called nancy-pelosi's-legislative-aid-care, not Obamacare), and, in fact, he ran HARD against Hillary in the primaries because she advocated the individual mandate.

he didnt know or care what was in it. he was in it for the paragraph in the history books.

(07-06-2014 02:48 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 02:46 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  You don't seriously think passing the ACA was an advantage for the Democrats in the 2010 and 2012 elections do you?

It didn't turn out to be an advantage, but I think the Democrats envisioned that it would be -- up until about August 2010.

Maybe some did but I know none of the ones in my state saw it that way. It cost my congressman his seat and he knew it very well might when he voted for it.

(07-06-2014 07:37 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 02:48 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 02:46 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  You don't seriously think passing the ACA was an advantage for the Democrats in the 2010 and 2012 elections do you?

It didn't turn out to be an advantage, but I think the Democrats envisioned that it would be -- up until about August 2010.

Maybe some did but I know none of the ones in my state saw it that way. It cost my congressman his seat and he knew it very well might when he voted for it.

And it should have cost him his seat.

(07-06-2014 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 07:37 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 02:48 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 02:46 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  You don't seriously think passing the ACA was an advantage for the Democrats in the 2010 and 2012 elections do you?

It didn't turn out to be an advantage, but I think the Democrats envisioned that it would be -- up until about August 2010.

Maybe some did but I know none of the ones in my state saw it that way. It cost my congressman his seat and he knew it very well might when he voted for it.

And it should have cost him his seat.

indeed. and any reasoning for a congressman to vote so flagrantly against the will of his constituents is not good reasoning.

(07-06-2014 02:19 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 01:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 11:57 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  So let me get this straight,
Saying "you on the other hand seem more bothered that" and "don't care that" is not calling you greedy, uncaring, unethical etc. etc. I never said those things! You are lying about what I posted plain and simple. Unbelievable.

OK, English words don't have the same meanings to you as they do to me.

Sorry about the misunderstanding. You're usually a reasonable, if left-leaning, poster, so let's just move past this and have future reasonable discussions.

So why did you have to throw that in there? I'm always reasonable. I'll see you it the next interesting thread, or this one when we finally get a ruling from the SCOTUS.

Why did I throw what in there? The comment about English words not meaning the same to the two of us (I'm guessing since that was highlighted)? Because they obviously don't. This is like two ships passing in the night with zero communication. I think the best answer is simply to drop it and move past it.

(07-06-2014 07:49 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 07:37 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 02:48 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 02:46 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  You don't seriously think passing the ACA was an advantage for the Democrats in the 2010 and 2012 elections do you?

It didn't turn out to be an advantage, but I think the Democrats envisioned that it would be -- up until about August 2010.

Maybe some did but I know none of the ones in my state saw it that way. It cost my congressman his seat and he knew it very well might when he voted for it.

And it should have cost him his seat.

indeed. and any reasoning for a congressman to vote so flagrantly against the will of his constituents is not good reasoning.

Glad it cost him his seat. It should've.
He obviously didn't consider himself as a representative of his constituents. He saw himself as the decider of what's best for them regardless of what they wanted.

(07-06-2014 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 07:37 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 02:48 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 02:46 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  You don't seriously think passing the ACA was an advantage for the Democrats in the 2010 and 2012 elections do you?

It didn't turn out to be an advantage, but I think the Democrats envisioned that it would be -- up until about August 2010.

Maybe some did but I know none of the ones in my state saw it that way. It cost my congressman his seat and he knew it very well might when he voted for it.

And it should have cost him his seat.

You don't know the incompetent representative we got in his place. Plus we lost 14 years of seniority and a seat on the Ways and Means Committee. He took a principled stand (regardless of your opinion of the bill) and paid the price. The easy course would have been to vote no and he would have been reelected with no problem.

(07-06-2014 08:18 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 07:49 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 07:37 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 02:48 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  It didn't turn out to be an advantage, but I think the Democrats envisioned that it would be -- up until about August 2010.

Maybe some did but I know none of the ones in my state saw it that way. It cost my congressman his seat and he knew it very well might when he voted for it.

And it should have cost him his seat.

indeed. and any reasoning for a congressman to vote so flagrantly against the will of his constituents is not good reasoning.

Glad it cost him his seat. It should've.
He obviously didn't consider himself as a representative of his constituents. He saw himself as the decider of what's best for them regardless of what they wanted.

I would have to disagree with that school of thought. We don't elect representatives to take a poll and vote whatever way 51% of the poll want. We elect representatives to weigh the pros and cons of every bill and make his best judgment on how to vote on that bill.

(07-06-2014 08:27 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 08:18 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 07:49 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 07:37 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Maybe some did but I know none of the ones in my state saw it that way. It cost my congressman his seat and he knew it very well might when he voted for it.

And it should have cost him his seat.

indeed. and any reasoning for a congressman to vote so flagrantly against the will of his constituents is not good reasoning.

Glad it cost him his seat. It should've.
He obviously didn't consider himself as a representative of his constituents. He saw himself as the decider of what's best for them regardless of what they wanted.

I would have to disagree with that school of thought. We don't elect representatives to take a poll and vote whatever way 51% of the poll want. We elect representatives to weigh the pros and cons of every bill and make his best judgment on how to vote on that bill.

It's a representative democracy. Those elected should be our voice not follow their own if it is vastly different than the people they represent. He deserved to lose his seat for not being the voice of those who voted him to be their voice.

BTW your guy couldn't have weighed the pros and cons and used his best judgment before voting for the ACA because NONE of them read the bill before signing it. NONE of them.

(07-06-2014 08:27 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 08:18 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 07:49 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 07:37 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Maybe some did but I know none of the ones in my state saw it that way. It cost my congressman his seat and he knew it very well might when he voted for it.

And it should have cost him his seat.

indeed. and any reasoning for a congressman to vote so flagrantly against the will of his constituents is not good reasoning.

Glad it cost him his seat. It should've.
He obviously didn't consider himself as a representative of his constituents. He saw himself as the decider of what's best for them regardless of what they wanted.

I would have to disagree with that school of thought. We don't elect representatives to take a poll and vote whatever way 51% of the poll want. We elect representatives to weigh the pros and cons of every bill and make his best judgment on how to vote on that bill.

I agree 100% with dawg about why we elect representatives. That's why it should have cost him his seat.

(07-06-2014 09:32 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 08:27 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 08:18 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 07:49 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 07:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  And it should have cost him his seat.

indeed. and any reasoning for a congressman to vote so flagrantly against the will of his constituents is not good reasoning.

Glad it cost him his seat. It should've.
He obviously didn't consider himself as a representative of his constituents. He saw himself as the decider of what's best for them regardless of what they wanted.

I would have to disagree with that school of thought. We don't elect representatives to take a poll and vote whatever way 51% of the poll want. We elect representatives to weigh the pros and cons of every bill and make his best judgment on how to vote on that bill.

It's a representative democracy. Those elected should be our voice not follow their own if it is vastly different than the people they represent. He deserved to lose his seat for not being the voice of those who voted him to be their voice.

BTW your guy couldn't have weighed the pros and cons and used his best judgment before voting for the ACA because NONE of them read the bill before signing it. NONE of them.

I said it cost him reelection, not that it was vastly different for the wishes of the people in the district. The difference was 0.78%. Oh and be careful throwing the "Representative Democracy" term around in here. You'll stir up a real hornet's nest.

(07-07-2014 09:29 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 09:32 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 08:27 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 08:18 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 07:49 PM)EagleX Wrote:  indeed. and any reasoning for a congressman to vote so flagrantly against the will of his constituents is not good reasoning.

Glad it cost him his seat. It should've.
He obviously didn't consider himself as a representative of his constituents. He saw himself as the decider of what's best for them regardless of what they wanted.

I would have to disagree with that school of thought. We don't elect representatives to take a poll and vote whatever way 51% of the poll want. We elect representatives to weigh the pros and cons of every bill and make his best judgment on how to vote on that bill.

It's a representative democracy. Those elected should be our voice not follow their own if it is vastly different than the people they represent. He deserved to lose his seat for not being the voice of those who voted him to be their voice.

BTW your guy couldn't have weighed the pros and cons and used his best judgment before voting for the ACA because NONE of them read the bill before signing it. NONE of them.

I said it cost him reelection, not that it was vastly different for the wishes of the people in the district. The difference was 0.78%. Oh and be careful throwing the "Representative Democracy" term around in here. You'll stir up a real hornet's nest.

I doubt that was the true difference. A long-time incumbent does not lose their seat on an issue that has a spread of less than one percent.

(07-07-2014 10:39 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 09:29 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 09:32 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 08:27 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 08:18 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Glad it cost him his seat. It should've.
He obviously didn't consider himself as a representative of his constituents. He saw himself as the decider of what's best for them regardless of what they wanted.

I would have to disagree with that school of thought. We don't elect representatives to take a poll and vote whatever way 51% of the poll want. We elect representatives to weigh the pros and cons of every bill and make his best judgment on how to vote on that bill.

It's a representative democracy. Those elected should be our voice not follow their own if it is vastly different than the people they represent. He deserved to lose his seat for not being the voice of those who voted him to be their voice.

BTW your guy couldn't have weighed the pros and cons and used his best judgment before voting for the ACA because NONE of them read the bill before signing it. NONE of them.

I said it cost him reelection, not that it was vastly different for the wishes of the people in the district. The difference was 0.78%. Oh and be careful throwing the "Representative Democracy" term around in here. You'll stir up a real hornet's nest.

I doubt that was the true difference. A long-time incumbent does not lose their seat on an issue that has a spread of less than one percent.

The 0.78% was the margin he lost the election by. Is that so hard to comprehend? Did you not understand my post or are you calling me a liar?

(07-07-2014 09:29 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 09:32 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 08:27 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 08:18 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 07:49 PM)EagleX Wrote:  indeed. and any reasoning for a congressman to vote so flagrantly against the will of his constituents is not good reasoning.

Glad it cost him his seat. It should've.
He obviously didn't consider himself as a representative of his constituents. He saw himself as the decider of what's best for them regardless of what they wanted.

I would have to disagree with that school of thought. We don't elect representatives to take a poll and vote whatever way 51% of the poll want. We elect representatives to weigh the pros and cons of every bill and make his best judgment on how to vote on that bill.

It's a representative democracy. Those elected should be our voice not follow their own if it is vastly different than the people they represent. He deserved to lose his seat for not being the voice of those who voted him to be their voice.

BTW your guy couldn't have weighed the pros and cons and used his best judgment before voting for the ACA because NONE of them read the bill before signing it. NONE of them.

I said it cost him reelection, not that it was vastly different for the wishes of the people in the district. The difference was 0.78%. Oh and be careful throwing the "Representative Democracy" term around in here. You'll stir up a real hornet's nest.

must mean NC CD-2. it was the only NC district that flipped in 2010, and it was really close. I don't recall exactly how close, but it went through a full recount. I don't recall that it was a republican target district in 2010, but the dem incumbent did some personally stupid sh!t in the run up to election day.

renee elmers was reelected by a pretty huge margin in 2012, so I think the district is safe -- minimal meddling in this district from the libertarians that seem to cause so much mayhem in NC. and this is the dem primary in which clay aiken was headed to a recount against some dead guy, so it's especially safe in 2014.