Prediction: Romney is going to lose ...

[Oceander]

Please relax. The polls that you cite are flat out WRONG.

Why?

Because they assume a Democrat advantage of between 7 and 9 percentage points in party affiliation among likely voters.

In order to believe that, you would have to believe that the 2012 race will attract an even higher turnout among Democrat core constituencies than occurred in 2008 (when Democrats enjoyed a 7-point advantage in the "Hope and Change" era).
 
Do you really believe that to be the case this year? Who is more motivated to vote in 2012 - Republicans or Democrats? As for Independent (unaffiliated) voters - do you think they will be more or less likely this year to endorse Barack Obama after having lived through and seen the results of his first term?

In reality, Republican and Democrat turnout is far more likely to mirror 2010 than 2012.

So, please -relax. But still: get everyone you know who might be so inclined to register and vote to save America from a second Obama term.

Amen

[aligncare]

andy, I can't even begin to count how many times I've been wrong in politics; but, this time I'm certain--even I can't be wrong.  Obama will lose.  In part because Obama's been a failure on the economy, but also because Romney is the right man for this moment in history.  He's got the right skills and the right temperament to succeed.  He's an attractive candidate who's conservative enough for what needs doing over the next four or eight years.  He's got the support of 90+ percent of conservatives like Cruz, Rubio, Ryan and scores of other high profile conservatives.  Plus, he appeals to the middle as well.

I am resolved and I am not worried any longer about Romney's chances.

[Oceander]

andy, I can't even begin to count how many times I've been wrong in politics; but, this time I'm certain--even I can't be wrong.  Obama will lose.  In part because Obama's been a failure on the economy, but also because Romney is the right man for this moment in history.  He's got the right skills and the right temperament to succeed.  He's an attractive candidate who's conservative enough for what needs doing over the next four or eight years.  He's got the support of 90+ percent of conservatives like Cruz, Rubio, Ryan and scores of other high profile conservatives.  Plus, he appeals to the middle as well.

I am resolved and I am not worried any longer about Romney's chances.

Maybe so, but let's not get too sanguine, or rest to easily on our apparent laurels.  There's still the matter of an election to win.

In the meantime, however, since my vote and, I suppose, your vote, aren't going to turn the tide and put NYS into Romney's column, what would be the more productive use of our time?  I'm asking honestly.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Maybe so, but let's not get too sanguine, or rest to easily on our apparent laurels.  There's still the matter of an election to win.

In the meantime, however, since my vote and, I suppose, your vote, aren't going to turn the tide and put NYS into Romney's column, what would be the more productive use of our time?  I'm asking honestly.

I am fond of knitting.

[R4 Trump]

Maybe so, but let's not get too sanguine, or rest to easily on our apparent laurels.  There's still the matter of an election to win.

In the meantime, however, since my vote and, I suppose, your vote, aren't going to turn the tide and put NYS into Romney's column, what would be the more productive use of our time?  I'm asking honestly.

Go on the Mitt site and sign up to make calls in the swing states! 

[Oceander]

Go on the Mitt site and sign up to make calls in the swing states! 

I won't do that because I absolutely cannot stand it when someone calls me.  So far I've managed to be polite, but political campaign phone calls drive me up the wall, which is a bad thing because my wife is getting tired of footprints on the ceiling.  Since I hate it, I would feel very awkward doing it to other people.

[Rapunzel]

I won't do that because I absolutely cannot stand it when someone calls me.  So far I've managed to be polite, but political campaign phone calls drive me up the wall, which is a bad thing because my wife is getting tired of footprints on the ceiling.  Since I hate it, I would feel very awkward doing it to other people.

Same here.  I had a summer job in High School working for a vacuum cleaner sales company and my job was to call potential customers to try and make appointments.. I HATED it...... then I sold encyclopedia's door-to-door for a VERY short while... I was actually pretty good and made a lot of money (for the time) but then I started really looking at the people I was selling to and could not get past they needed furniture and a lot of other things more than encyclopedias and that was that.. I just could not do it!  and like OC I hate calls unsolicited calls, love caller ID because I don't answer unless I know who is on the phone.....

[Luis Gonzalez]

LB, at this moment the answer is no.  That could change if Pennsylvania becomes competitive, and depending on how Romney campaigns.  Funny thing is, I don't want or expect Romney to run a conservative campaign.  I wouldn't find him credible if he did.  I actually think he may have a better chance of getting my vote if he puts Condi Rice on the ticket and reels in enough suburban women to get within the margin of error in my state.  At that point, I'd have to make the calculation that my denying him my vote could have the effect of helping OPapaDoc.  But so long as Pennsylvania stays firm Obama territory, I feel no ethical dilemma in not voting for Romney.

I will be very active in trying to deny Obama re-election, of that you can be certain.  For example, I will make many more videos mocking OPapaDoc and liberals.  But specifically promoting and supporting Romney?  I just can't go there.  At least not yet.

Interesting.

The only action that will eventually bring about stopping Obama from being re-elected, is to vote for the individual running against him, who has the greatest chance of defeating him.

The most likely outcome of people not voting for the opposition because they feel that the opposition has already lost, is that the opposition will lose.

I can understand your unwillingness to cast a vote for Romney. I just don't understand your refusal to cast an effective vote against Obama if you really wish to actively deny Obama re-election.

At Lexington, 75 minutemen faced over 700 British troops. The minutemen were outnumbered, out gunned, and untrained, and faced certain defeat.

Thank God someone fired that first shot.

I am voting for Romney even if I am the only person in Florida doing so.

It's not about whether I like Romney or not, it is about what I think about Obama.

[R4 Trump]

Well said Luis!

And to Oceander:  Calling was the only thing I could think of considering where you live..sorry  

Although you might enjoy a nice debate with a stupid lib on the other end of the phone..that can be satisfying too 

[massadvj]

Interesting.

The only action that will eventually bring about stopping Obama from being re-elected, is to vote for the individual running against him, who has the greatest chance of defeating him.

The most likely outcome of people not voting for the opposition because they feel that the opposition has already lost, is that the opposition will lose.

I can understand your unwillingness to cast a vote for Romney. I just don't understand your refusal to cast an effective vote against Obama if you really wish to actively deny Obama re-election.

At Lexington, 75 minutemen faced over 700 British troops. The minutemen were outnumbered, out gunned, and untrained, and faced certain defeat.

Thank God someone fired that first shot.

I am voting for Romney even if I am the only person in Florida doing so.

It's not about whether I like Romney or not, it is about what I think about Obama.

Your point of view is reasonable and cogent.  I make no argument against it, nor do I criticize anyone for voting for Romney. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

Your point of view is reasonable and cogent.  I make no argument against it, nor do I criticize anyone for voting for Romney.

Please understand that I am not critical of your choice, it's obviously a choice, so we all have the right to make our own, but having grown up in a place where I did not have the ability to vote, I see the exercise of my vote as a sacred duty; I owe it to the country and the people who welcomed me.

I am far from thrilled by Romney, but I am frightened of Obama, and to me, not casting a vote against him amounts to my sitting idly by while the country is raped and pillaged.

I can't do it.

Maybe, voting for Romney in Florida will be quixotic, but I will charge at that windmill with everything I have.

[massadvj]

Please understand that I am not critical of your choice, it's obviously a choice, so we all have the right to make our own, but having grown up in a place where I did not have the ability to vote, I see the exercise of my vote as a sacred duty; I owe it to the country and the people who welcomed me.

I am far from thrilled by Romney, but I am frightened of Obama, and to me, not casting a vote against him amounts to my sitting idly by while the country is raped and pillaged.

I can't do it.

Maybe, voting for Romney in Florida will be quixotic, but I will charge at that windmill with everything I have.

Romney cannot win without Florida.  He can win without Pennsylvania.

I did not say I was not going to vote.  I will definitely vote for my good conservative congressman Joe Pitts and several other candidates down ticket.  At this point, I have not decided to cast a ballot in the presidential race.  I do hope Obama loses, and I guess that means I hope Romney wins.  I also hope Liz Warren loses and Scott Brown wins.  But I can't vote for Scott Brown because he does not live in my geographical region.  In my mind, Romney does not reside within my political geography, so I can't really vote for him, either.  But I do not hold any animosity toward him, or for anyone who is supporting him.

[Oceander]

Romney cannot win without Florida.  He can win without Pennsylvania.

I did not say I was not going to vote.  I will definitely vote for my good conservative congressman Joe Pitts and several other candidates down ticket.  At this point, I have not decided to cast a ballot in the presidential race.  I do hope Obama loses, and I guess that means I hope Romney wins.  I also hope Liz Warren loses and Scott Brown wins.  But I can't vote for Scott Brown because he does not live in my geographical region.  In my mind, Romney does not reside within my political geography, so I can't really vote for him, either.  But I do not hold any animosity toward him, or for anyone who is supporting him.

Mass:  suppose, strictly for the sake of argument, that polls showed Pennsylvania narrowing and Obama having a mere hairs' breadth lead over Romney at the end of October - would you still not vote for Romney?

[Oceander]

Just as an aside, and to pat ourselves on our collective back, I'd like to point out that this thread is a good example of how debate on GBR is, well, debate, and not simply an angry shouting match.  We have basically one individual who is adamant about his position debating with several individuals who are just as adamant about their position, which contradicts the first individual's position and, so far, both sides have been able to articulate their positions well and no-one has devolved into angry name-calling or other derogatory comments.

Congratulations GBR!

And special thanks to Massadvj for holding his own and for not feeling that he's being ganged up on unfairly.  It takes a lot of strength of will and character to defend one's self articulately and peacefully.

[massadvj]

Mass:  suppose, strictly for the sake of argument, that polls showed Pennsylvania narrowing and Obama having a mere hairs' breadth lead over Romney at the end of October - would you still not vote for Romney?

I have not decided yet.  But assuming Romney hasn't sold too much of our liberty down the drain with his campaign promises, I can see myself voting for him.  It's like saying "Suppose you are allergic to both broccoli and cauliflower.  Broccoli will kill you quickly, whereas cauliflower will kill you over the long term.  Now suppose you had to eat one of them to survive.  Which one would you choose?"

The notion that I should choose cauliflower because cauliflower is "better" seems ludicrous to me.

[Oceander]

I have not decided yet.  But assuming Romney hasn't sold too much of our liberty down the drain with his campaign promises, I can see myself voting for him.  It's like saying "Suppose you are allergic to both broccoli and cauliflower.  Broccoli will kill you quickly, whereas cauliflower will kill you over the long term.  Now suppose you had to eat one of them to survive.  Which one would you choose?"

The notion that I should choose cauliflower because cauliflower is "better" seems ludicrous to me.

Fair enough.  But let's put you to the test:  would you choose cauliflower for the simple reason that you would have a better chance of survival, or would you instead choose to die for lack of any food at all?

[massadvj]

Fair enough.  But let's put you to the test:  would you choose cauliflower for the simple reason that you would have a better chance of survival, or would you instead choose to die for lack of any food at all?

I guess if it came down to no food at all, I'd eat cauliflower for survival.  That may be the gist of this election, for sure.

[Rapunzel]

“If people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney’s health care plan, they would have had health care,” said Saul.

IT is surrogates making statements like this that make me question if I will indeed vote for Romney here in Arizona.......

[DCPatriot]

“If people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney’s health care plan, they would have had health care,” said Saul.

IT is surrogates making statements like this that make me question if I will indeed vote for Romney here in Arizona.......

What's is the problem?

He said "REPEAL AND REPLACE"

[Rapunzel]

What's is the problem?

He said "REPEAL AND REPLACE"

There-in lies the difference between a fiscally conservative Republican and a liberal Republican... fiscally conservative Republicans want the government the hell out of healthcare... totally.

[DCPatriot]

There-in lies the difference between a fiscally conservative Republican and a liberal Republican... fiscally conservative Republicans want the government the hell out of healthcare... totally.

No....therein lies the difference between somebody who recognizes this is a States Rights issue and the Federal Government has no business sticking their power anywhere near my health needs or demands.

[Rapunzel]

No....therein lies the difference between somebody who recognizes this is a States Rights issue and the Federal Government has no business sticking their power anywhere near my health needs or demands.

That is not what Romney said today...in his appearances today he indicated that he will play around with something new to replace Obamacare... he doesn't get that we do not want him or anyone else playing around with healthcare at a national level.........  and the fact remains that his spokesperson should never have held up Romneycare as an excuse for the lie that was/is being fomented against Romney, she should have given the facts which are quite clear -- he had nothing to do with the woman being uninsured when she came down with cancer and the fact his campaign clearly doesn't get that is troublesome........ and too indicative of the McCain campaign mis-steps in 2008.

[DCPatriot]

Rush was freaked out today out a possible loss in November.

IMHO, this is a Purrfect time for Sarah Palin to come out swinging in opposition to Romney trying to walk away from repealing Obamacare.....which almost 70% of the country opposes.

[Rapunzel]

Rush was freaked out today out a possible loss in November.

IMHO, this is a Purrfect time for Sarah Palin to come out swinging in opposition to Romney trying to walk away from repealing Obamacare.....which almost 70% of the country opposes.

Won't happen... she is not going to do anything to undermine him at this point in the election, the time for that was in the primary.... but after he is elected --IF he is elected -- then the Tea Party needs to be very vocal in holding his feet to the fire or make him a one-termer...  I refuse to go along with another mushy Republican President........    however, unless he gets a better team to speak as his behalf on TV he is going to lose.. this is two spokes-people now who have blown his campaign for him with stupid statements... that never needed to be spoken.

[mystery-ak]

Rush was freaked out today out a possible loss in November.

IMHO, this is a Purrfect time for Sarah Palin to come out swinging in opposition to Romney trying to walk away from repealing Obamacare.....which almost 70% of the country opposes.

I know how he feels,,,not a good day for Mitt to say the least...

[Lando Lincoln]

Romney had a bad day, but it is not "you-didn't-build-that" bad. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

There-in lies the difference between a fiscally conservative Republican and a liberal Republican... fiscally conservative Republicans want the government the hell out of healthcare... totally.

Actually, this illustrates the difference between statists and Constitutionalists.

A statist, conservative or liberal, will argue that the decision on whether to have government involvement in healthcare or not is to be decided at the Federal level, where a Constitutionalist will understand that (like abortion) the decision lies with the individual States. 

In Romney's Massachusetts, Romneycare was supported by more than 80% of the people of the State, 99% of the MA legislature, and nearly every special interest group in the State. Today 84% of the people of the State still approve of it.

If we are to believe, as we should believe, that politicians serve the people who elected them, then we have to understand that, in the case of Romneycare at least, Mitt Romney and the MA legislature acted as the people who elected them wanted to act.

We have to support the people (and the legislature) of a liberal State like MA, to enact legislature like Romneycare, because in acknowledging their Constitutional right to enact that legislation, we strengthen the equally Constitutional right of a State like Alabama to outlaw abortion, should Roe v. Wade ever fall.

Insofar as Romney and Obamacare...he is on record, as late as July 11 this year, in front of a hostile crowd at the NAACP national convention, on making the repeal of Obamacare one of the first active goals of his Presidency, and Romney knows that not doing so will amount to political suicide.

I expect that he will sign any legislature that comes across his desk that will dismantle Obamacare...what we need to do if we really want Obamacare gone, is seize the Senate, maintain our hold on the House, and elect Romney.   

That takes going to the polls and voting a straight Republican ticket.

Some may argue that they will have to hold their noses, but to me, the higher stench would come from inaction based on unattainable (or unrealized) goals.

[R4 Trump]

Actually, this illustrates the difference between statists and Constitutionalists.

A statist, conservative or liberal, will argue that the decision on whether to have government involvement in healthcare or not is to be decided at the Federal level, where a Constitutionalist will understand that (like abortion) the decision lies with the individual States. 

In Romney's Massachusetts, Romneycare was supported by more than 80% of the people of the State, 99% of the MA legislature, and nearly every special interest group in the State. Today 84% of the people of the State still approve of it.

If we are to believe, as we should believe, that politicians serve the people who elected them, then we have to understand that, in the case of Romneycare at least, Mitt Romney and the MA legislature acted as the people who elected them wanted to act.

We have to support the people (and the legislature) of a liberal State like MA, to enact legislature like Romneycare, because in acknowledging their Constitutional right to enact that legislation, we strengthen the equally Constitutional right of a State like Alabama to outlaw abortion, should Roe v. Wade ever fall.

Insofar as Romney and Obamacare...he is on record, as late as July 11 this year, in front of a hostile crowd at the NAACP national convention, on making the repeal of Obamacare one of the first active goals of his Presidency, and Romney knows that not doing so will amount to political suicide.

I expect that he will sign any legislature that comes across his desk that will dismantle Obamacare...what we need to do if we really want Obamacare gone, is seize the Senate, maintain our hold on the House, and elect Romney.   

That takes going to the polls and voting a straight Republican ticket.

Some may argue that they will have to hold their noses, but to me, the higher stench would come from inaction based on unattainable (or unrealized) goals.

 

[Oceander]

With respect to the larger question of whether the federal government can Constitutionally have a role to play in health care the answer is a decided "yes."  No, Congress cannot directly dictate who gets treatment and who does not, but Congress can most definitely regulate the interstate aspects of the business of providing health care.  For example, Congress could most definitely set quality standards for medical equipment that is sold in interstate commerce.

[Lando Lincoln]

Actually, this illustrates the difference between statists and Constitutionalists.

A statist, conservative or liberal, will argue that the decision on whether to have government involvement in healthcare or not is to be decided at the Federal level, where a Constitutionalist will understand that (like abortion) the decision lies with the individual States. 

In Romney's Massachusetts, Romneycare was supported by more than 80% of the people of the State, 99% of the MA legislature, and nearly every special interest group in the State. Today 84% of the people of the State still approve of it.

If we are to believe, as we should believe, that politicians serve the people who elected them, then we have to understand that, in the case of Romneycare at least, Mitt Romney and the MA legislature acted as the people who elected them wanted to act.

We have to support the people (and the legislature) of a liberal State like MA, to enact legislature like Romneycare, because in acknowledging their Constitutional right to enact that legislation, we strengthen the equally Constitutional right of a State like Alabama to outlaw abortion, should Roe v. Wade ever fall.

Insofar as Romney and Obamacare...he is on record, as late as July 11 this year, in front of a hostile crowd at the NAACP national convention, on making the repeal of Obamacare one of the first active goals of his Presidency, and Romney knows that not doing so will amount to political suicide.

I expect that he will sign any legislature that comes across his desk that will dismantle Obamacare...what we need to do if we really want Obamacare gone, is seize the Senate, maintain our hold on the House, and elect Romney.   

That takes going to the polls and voting a straight Republican ticket.

Some may argue that they will have to hold their noses, but to me, the higher stench would come from inaction based on unattainable (or unrealized) goals.

Good stuff Luis.  How come you used to piss me off so much? (Mostly kidding.)

[Rapunzel]

If we are to believe, as we should believe, that politicians serve the people who elected them, then we have to understand that, in the case of Romneycare at least, Mitt Romney and the MA legislature acted as the people who elected them wanted to act.

The Romney surrogate using Romneycare to defend the reason Romney is not responsible for the death of this man's wife has nothing to do with states rights.  It has to do with the surrogate being stupid and showing just how little Romney understands how the majority of Americans outside MA want government mandated healthcare.    It was stupid to take the discussion anywhere near the healthcare argument if the argument you were going to use was "his wife should have lived in MA"... it should have been the woman died 7 years after Romney was not longer affiliated with Bain Capital and 5 years after her husband left the company Bain purchased AND after she left her own job where SHE had insurance coverage....... in no way, shape or form was Romney responsible for this woman's death and neither Bain or Romney or Obamacare had one thing to do with her death... perhaps it would be more revealing to know what kind of cancer the woman came down with, what her lifestyle was and what led to her leaving her job where she had insurance.

[DCPatriot]

If we are to believe, as we should believe, that politicians serve the people who elected them, then we have to understand that, in the case of Romneycare at least, Mitt Romney and the MA legislature acted as the people who elected them wanted to act.

The Romney surrogate using Romneycare to defend the reason Romney is not responsible for the death of this man's wife has nothing to do with states rights.  It has to do with the surrogate being stupid and showing just how little Romney understands how the majority of Americans outside MA want government mandated healthcare.    It was stupid to take the discussion anywhere near the healthcare argument if the argument you were going to use was "his wife should have lived in MA"... it should have been the woman died 7 years after Romney was not longer affiliated with Bain Capital and 5 years after her husband left the company Bain purchased AND after she left her own job where SHE had insurance coverage....... in no way, shape or form was Romney responsible for this woman's death and neither Bain or Romney or Obamacare had one thing to do with her death... perhaps it would be more revealing to know what kind of cancer the woman came down with, what her lifestyle was and what led to her leaving her job where she had insurance.

Rap, the surrogate knew that she didn't want to get down in the gutter defending who didn't 'kill' his wife.

Why argue such a ridiculous charge?  Plus, she didn't know at the time, that the guy was offered a buyout....or she would have worked that in her statement.

[Rapunzel]

Rap, the surrogate knew that she didn't want to get down in the gutter defending who didn't 'kill' his wife.

Why argue such a ridiculous charge?  Plus, she didn't know at the time, that the guy was offered a buyout....or she would have worked that in her statement.

DC she "should" have been smart and savy enough to tell the questioner that Governor Romney is sorry the man lost his wife, but he in no manner, shape, or form had any connection to her death either in a direct or indirect manner.  No way should she have said what she said... anyone saying what she did does not belong in the job of spokesperson.

[famousdayandyear]

DC she "should" have been smart and savy enough to tell the questioner that Governor Romney is sorry the man lost his wife, but he in no manner, shape, or form had any connection to her death either in a direct or indirect manner.  No way should she have said what she said... anyone saying what she did does not belong in the job of spokesperson.

Clueless spokesman.  What a concept from the Romney campaign.  Why not hire the best and the brightest in the campaign to save us from total tyranny?

[Rapunzel]

Andrea Saul CV = spokesperson Charlie Crist = Spokesperson John McCain 2008... WHY would anyone hire her for a spokesperson in 2012!!!!!!!!

[Luis Gonzalez]

With respect to the larger question of whether the federal government can Constitutionally have a role to play in health care the answer is a decided "yes."  No, Congress cannot directly dictate who gets treatment and who does not, but Congress can most definitely regulate the interstate aspects of the business of providing health care.  For example, Congress could most definitely set quality standards for medical equipment that is sold in interstate commerce.

Actually, what you are describing is an expansion of the Commerce Clause, beyond what may have been the original intent of the clause.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[2]
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

Congress did not invoke the Commerce Clause for the first 100 years of our existence, and the original intent was to deny the sort of discriminatory State legislation that had been previously permitted under the Articles of Confederation, such as passing legislation which would prohibit goods manufactured in one State to be sold within the boundaries of the State generating the legislation.

Many Constitutional scholars describe the original intent of the Clause as being more of a directive to Congress to regulate the manner under which Commerce would be conducted, but not in the current endless powers that Congress has given itself to regulate, dictate, and control commerce, manufacturing, and even what one may do with the fruit of one's own land.

In your specific example, the originalists would respond that the Commerce Clause would require that the manufacturers of medical equipment sold in in interstate commerce would supply full disclosure of all information pertaining to the equipment they manufactured, that they would provide proof of liability coverage, and absorb all costs associated with their equipment harming end users due to flaws in manufacturing.

Given that minimalist view, the market itself would weed out substandard, inadequate, and poorly manufactured and designed equipment, and those manufacturers would simply fail.

In today's acceptance of the nanny nature of the current definition of the Commerce Clause, as stated above, substandard equipment meeting minimal government standards, built more economically and sold at a lower cost to the consumer, would control the marketplace, destroy the market for better equipment that exceeds those standards, is manufactured better, and is more efficient. As a result, the market suffers, quality suffers, and eventually, the very consumers that excessive regulatory actions under an expansive definition of the Commerce Clause sought to protect, would suffer the greatest of all.

[Luis Gonzalez]

If we are to believe, as we should believe, that politicians serve the people who elected them, then we have to understand that, in the case of Romneycare at least, Mitt Romney and the MA legislature acted as the people who elected them wanted to act.

The Romney surrogate using Romneycare to defend the reason Romney is not responsible for the death of this man's wife has nothing to do with states rights.  It has to do with the surrogate being stupid and showing just how little Romney understands how the majority of Americans outside MA want government mandated healthcare.    It was stupid to take the discussion anywhere near the healthcare argument if the argument you were going to use was "his wife should have lived in MA"... it should have been the woman died 7 years after Romney was not longer affiliated with Bain Capital and 5 years after her husband left the company Bain purchased AND after she left her own job where SHE had insurance coverage....... in no way, shape or form was Romney responsible for this woman's death and neither Bain or Romney or Obamacare had one thing to do with her death... perhaps it would be more revealing to know what kind of cancer the woman came down with, what her lifestyle was and what led to her leaving her job where she had insurance.

I have absolutely no clue what your response has to do with my quote.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Good stuff Luis.  How come you used to piss me off so much? (Mostly kidding.)

It's a talent I have.

[Rapunzel]

I have absolutely no clue what your response has to do with my quote.

Because your quote going on about how great MA thinks Romneycare is has nothing to do with the subject at hand. 

I could care less if MA likes Romneycare or doesn't like Romneycare, he is running for President of the USA, not MA and the majority of Americans who will be voting are not in favor of Obamacare. 

This is not a states rights issue it is a surrogate who totally shot the campaign in the foot today problem... same as the etcha-sketch guy a couple of months ago.......


 

[R4 Trump]

Because your quote going on about how great MA thinks Romneycare is has nothing to do with the subject at hand. 

I could care less if MA likes Romneycare or doesn't like Romneycare, he is running for President of the USA, not MA and the majority of Americans who will be voting are not in favor of Obamacare. 

This is not a states rights issue it is a surrogate who totally shot the campaign in the foot today problem... same as the etcha-sketch guy a couple of months ago.......

Not that he needs it but I am going to defend Luis on this one.

He was not comparing or referring to what happened today. He was only  explaining what are states rights issues and what the majority in Mass wanted.
I did not take his comment to mean anything but that.

We are all upset today that the  Idiot Andrea Saul screwed the pooch and should be fired, IMO. But that wasn't what his comment was about.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Because your quote going on about how great MA thinks Romneycare is has nothing to do with the subject at hand. 

I could care less if MA likes Romneycare or doesn't like Romneycare, he is running for President of the USA, not MA and the majority of Americans who will be voting are not in favor of Obamacare. 

This is not a states rights issue it is a surrogate who totally shot the campaign in the foot today problem... same as the etcha-sketch guy a couple of months ago.......

I don't respond to the subject, I joined a ongoing conversation at a point when the conversation engaged me, and it appears that other members and admins in the group seemed to appreciate my post.

I discuss what I wish to discuss, when I wish to discuss it, and with whom I wish to discuss it.

You can opine at will, that's your prerogative, but this thread began long before the surrogate issue came into being this morning, so how this discussion should revolve around an issue that did not exist at the time that the thread was posted is a tad confusing.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Not that he needs it but I am going to defend Luis on this one.

He was not comparing or referring to what happened today. He was only  explaining what are states rights issues and what the majority in Mass wanted.
I did not take his comment to mean anything but that.

We are all upset today that the  Idiot Andrea Saul screwed the pooch and should be fired, IMO. But that wasn't what his comment was about.

Thanks.

[R4 Trump]

Thanks.

Well we are all pissed off today given what Andrea Saul did on Fox, so emotions are high and things can get misconstrued. It happens..
I just wanted everyone on the same page!

[Rivergirl]

Thanks.

Well I am fit to be tied because Hannity couldn't wait to exploit this dumbass woman's comments.

Were they more important than the BIG LIE.  Hell NO.  But ratings demand that these people trash Romney.   Might be good TV but the future of our country depends on us ridding ourselves of the leftist trash in the white house.

JMO

[R4 Trump]

Well I am fit to be tied because Hannity couldn't wait to exploit this dumbass woman's comments.

Were they more important than the BIG LIE.  Hell NO.  But ratings demand that these people trash Romney.   Might be good TV but the future of our country depends on us ridding ourselves of the leftist trash in the white house.

JMO

You are right, but the problem is Mitt's surrogates need to tighten up what they say! This woman was a disaster! She didn't really stick to the topic of the lie, she had to mention Romneycare.. Anyone with any sense, would have never done that!!

Mitt needs to come out and be forceful against all the obama machine crap! If he doesn't have people who can be pitbulls, then replace them with ones who can
We do have to win! It is more important than anything in our lifetime!
but put the people in front of the cameras that can get the job done correctly!

[R4 Trump]

One more thing! Anyone on this forum could have handled that interview 100% better than Andrea did today! We all have the facts and we all know better than to give Obama ammunition!

[Oceander]

Actually, what you are describing is an expansion of the Commerce Clause, beyond what may have been the original intent of the clause.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[2]
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

Congress did not invoke the Commerce Clause for the first 100 years of our existence, and the original intent was to deny the sort of discriminatory State legislation that had been previously permitted under the Articles of Confederation, such as passing legislation which would prohibit goods manufactured in one State to be sold within the boundaries of the State generating the legislation.

Many Constitutional scholars describe the original intent of the Clause as being more of a directive to Congress to regulate the manner under which Commerce would be conducted, but not in the current endless powers that Congress has given itself to regulate, dictate, and control commerce, manufacturing, and even what one may do with the fruit of one's own land.

In your specific example, the originalists would respond that the Commerce Clause would require that the manufacturers of medical equipment sold in in interstate commerce would supply full disclosure of all information pertaining to the equipment they manufactured, that they would provide proof of liability coverage, and absorb all costs associated with their equipment harming end users due to flaws in manufacturing.

Given that minimalist view, the market itself would weed out substandard, inadequate, and poorly manufactured and designed equipment, and those manufacturers would simply fail.

In today's acceptance of the nanny nature of the current definition of the Commerce Clause, as stated above, substandard equipment meeting minimal government standards, built more economically and sold at a lower cost to the consumer, would control the marketplace, destroy the market for better equipment that exceeds those standards, is manufactured better, and is more efficient. As a result, the market suffers, quality suffers, and eventually, the very consumers that excessive regulatory actions under an expansive definition of the Commerce Clause sought to protect, would suffer the greatest of all.

Very simply:  nope. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

Very simply:  nope.

Can't argue against that level of eloquence.

We'll agree to disagree.

I just don't see the original intent of the Commerce Clause being so broad that it allows the Justice Department to shut down a private farm because the milk it produces for self-consumption may impact interstate commerce.

That expansive view of the Commerce Clause is wrong. 

[famousdayandyear]

Not that he needs it but I am going to defend Luis on this one.

He was not comparing or referring to what happened today. He was only  explaining what are states rights issues and what the majority in Mass wanted.
I did not take his comment to mean anything but that.

We are all upset today that the  Idiot Andrea Saul screwed the pooch and should be fired, IMO. But that wasn't what his comment was about.

From a borderline newbie.  I'm taken back when a mod intervenes when Rap can take the on the issue when necessary.  His comment had NOTHING to do with Rap's post.  How in the h3ll did the Commerce Clause work itself it this thread. 

BTW:  Verbosity does not equal clarity. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

From a borderline newbie.  I'm taken back when a mod intervenes when Rap can take the on the issue when necessary.  His comment had NOTHING to do with Rap's post.  How in the h3ll did the Commerce Clause work itself it this thread. 

BTW:  Verbosity does not equal clarity.

Having read all the rules and regs on the site, I fail to find that "stick strictly to the posted topic" one, in fact, I've seen the forum's ownership take off on tangents that had nothing to do with the posted topics.

Having said all that...

You're a newbie like I am a newbie.

We know each other, and for a long time.

You're not using your real fake name, are you?

We have history, don't we?

I love a mystery.

Hmmmm...