Yes, we live in a republic, where we directly elect the people who represent us in the legislative branch of our government. Key word here being "represent". But you, like so many legislators who get elected, seem to forget that aspect of their job. They represent the constituents who elected them, and the point here is that most of them didn't give a shit what their constituents wanted, despite the fact plenty of them were calling and writing in to tell them exactly how they felt about this bill.
This argument, coming now as it is from right-wingers, is particularly rich, given: 1. Under all other circumstances, they decry such appeal to popular democracy as "tyranny of the majority" and proclaim that the republic exists precisely so that it is not implemented. 2. If the people had been listened to for the last 30 years, there'd have been universal healthcare in the United States long before now, using means that go much further than Obama's bill.
What you do in your spare time is your own business. I'm not a "right-winger", dumbass. Oh, so what is it that you don't understand about a representational government? You seem to be confusing arguments against a pure democratic form of government. We have a constitutional republic, with a constitution establishing checks and balances to prevent simple mob rule where the rights of individuals might be lost. The fact you seem to think that means representatives should just ignore everything and push through harmful legislation that the majority of their constituents want them to drop is frankly quite warped. But considering who I'm dealing with and the kind of government you favor, I'm not surprised. Right. And you base this on what?
I don't like Obama's bill, dumbass. The problem here has nothing to do with the specific bill, but that right-wingers (yes, you are one, despite your denials, as your political positions repeatedly show) have suddenly decided that representatives should cast their votes according to the latest opinion polling. It is impressive that they can make such a 180-degree turn without blinking. On the fact that the polls said for years and years - and still say - that the public believe that the state should ensure that everyone has healthcare. The disingenuous argument that Republicans are screeching about now, is based upon polling that shows in some cases that the public are marginally against Obama's specific plan. And that after months of propaganda concerning a descent into Nazism, communism and all the rest of the idiocy.
Updating with new data on the public's response, this time from MSNBC's NewsVine. The responses in this poll number nearly 1 million. [?=WARNING - LARGE IMAGE] [/?]
That's a particularly bad poll, a completely unscientific sample and phrased in such a leading way with very specific but limited response choices. Here's a properly conducted poll giving completely different data: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/88593-poll-pluarlity-support-healthcare-overhaul
What are you talking about? It simply asks whether you are excited and angry. Heck, even the text after angry might even turn off some people from voting angry and instead "I don't know", and yet still people still voted that they are more angry about this bill than excited! And there is an "other" option as well! You can try and parse it all you want, but there is no 'misleading' about this question -- it asks the most basic of people's opinions! As for sample size, these days most major polling outfits are very hush hush about their methodologies anyway. But what is notable about this poll is that it has received nearly a million responses in just little more than a day. You can't fake that, in that short of amount of time, even if you are in front of the screen, clicking again and again to vote. Gallup has actually been very wrong lately. However, I will reserve judgment until they release the poll tomorrow. That said, Gallup's sample size and demographic hasn't been very reflective of the country's makeup lately either.
That was never at issue in this discussion. Only someone as far left as you would think a moderate liberal/libertarian would qualify as a "right-winger". According to you. I could say the same of both Democrats and Republicans alike, but that has nothing at all to do with our government and how it's supposed to function. Except that this is hardly the first time it's been brought up, and it's never come close to becoming law. Either you haven't been paying attention or you've been purposely ignoring everything that shows that the majority of Americans are against this plan. I'm betting the latter, because like Liet you have this knack for ignoring whatever isn't convenient.
So they should have followed the public opinon polls or they shouldn't? Make up your mind. Perfectly illustrating that your politicians have not been governing according to the views of their constituents.
If you don't see how there's a problem with a poll that does not regulate its sample at all, then you have a serious problem understanding statistics. Above a certain fairly low threshold, the number of respondants in a poll is irrelevant. That they are representative is much more important. Not to mention that anger and excitement are plainly not the only two opinions one can have of this. Even accounting for a margin of error, their effort is infinitely more relevant than a website that just posts a question and invites anyone who desires to vote.
He can answer for himself but as someone who's right of center on economic policy, I'll put it like this: I DO think that it is within the concept of a representative republic for a member of congress to do an unpopular thing because they believe it must be done - even in the face of a majority of the population being against it. BUT That is a power that should be exercise with the gravest reluctance and in the most critical of decisions and it should be used more in terms of an overall political philosophy and almost never in terms of "nuts and bolts" To use the current situation as an example - on the broad philosophical point of whether or not we need health care reform, or indeed, whether we need a real NHC....one can argue that as a matter of ideology, one can hold that it's a moral imperative to provide care for everyone. In that context I don't question a representative "doing what's right" (as they see the right) even if a majority disapprove (while noting that such a person was probably elected from a district in which the majority of THEIR constituents agree) That said, when the majority disapprove of the methodology or the mechanics of achieving that goal, that should be defied only in the most rare of circumstances. Just because you have a laudable goal doesn't make your methods above scrutiny.
Meh. One could also argue that in such instances, you may also be getting a much more realistic approximation of votes, because just like with voting, who can respond is not overtly regulated. Fairly constructed polls would be nice yeah, but I have to be honest with you, with the sense of theater that seems to be going on lately....sometimes, a simple, let everyone vote approach may end up being the only thing that (hopefully) can't be faked. Yeah, I wouldn't normally quote something without some sort of statistical regulation, but when just about all of it seems staged, choreographed, you have to be able to turn to the most basic of ways of having your voice heard. You speak about sample regulation, but as I have said earlier, which you may not be aware of, some US polling outfits have abandoned releasing full data on how representative their samples are. I don't recall of the top of my head whether Gallup is one of them, but I do routinely check the political makeup of their respondents (or at least used to) before many of the polling companies made it much more difficult to get that information. But, let's wait and see if Gallup releases a full set of methods on this poll (I looked briefly, but didn't see it). "I don't know" and "Other" were also option. Think that pretty much covers every aspect.....except for Teh Baba option which should be in every poll. No, not really. I have seen polls which are considered coming from reputable sources severely distort the actual political makeup of this country when constructing their sample size. They'll interview 1000 people yes, but 700 of them will be Democrats, 200 Republicans and 100 independents. (not to that extent obviously, but in that same vein). Anyway, this is actually fairly old news....I paid more attention to the distortion going on in the polls back in 2008, when it was of more interest to me.....but suffice it to say, it happens. When a poll would interest me (ha!), I would often go back and look at the source data to make this sort of check, but it became increasingly difficult to get that information, and I got tired of having to call their offices. BTW, even in the link you cited, someone mentions the aggregate polling at Pollster.com. Even there, it shows that people were and are opposed to this plan by ~10%. That's about 125:100, still not 1:1.
Sorry, but that's way beyond stupid. If you regulate it so that the sample is representative, you get an accurate picture. If you don't regulate it, you can get one side or other rigging the poll, or just be susceptible to a statistical bias in who is more likely to answer the question or visit the site. Scientific polling is for a reason and this is not at all like general election voting. When "Other" includes such a huge variety of common and reasonable responses, you've got yourself a very bad poll. Anger and excitement are not the predominant feelings that the public will have about this. Many are likely to be much more cautious. I'd like to see that data. Yep, I'd say that's about right. And such figures make resorting to data which obviously isn't credible, as you're doing, all the more pointless.
I'm not questioning the need to regulate sample size in scientific polling. What I'm saying is that how the sample is regulated may be suspect. Many polls these days are just pieces of fiction, pushed forward by both sides to create the zeitgest, rather than to reflect it. And while I would prefer a return to more scientific polling, when the current outfits are stretching the limits of what is scientific, you not only can no longer argue a hierarchy of polling methodology, but you also have to start at least considering other ways of getting a sense of what people are actually thinking. Further, then there is the demonization of some polls because it does not reflect someone's preferred outcome. For instance, Rasmussen. Rasmussen has been disparaged lately as a Republican polling company, but the fact of the matter is, Rasmussen has had the MOST ACCURATE polling of either the 2008 or the 2004 elections (2006 also I believe, but not sure). They are not the right, they are center, and have consistently revealed the center in election after election. And yet when they are maligned, where is the defenses for "value scientific polling appropriately" then?? Clearly they have proven their accuracy, and yet they are disparaged. I could go on and on. Now, I am not saying this Gallup poll has a sample size problem. I haven't seen the source data to comment. But even at their website, I didn't see a link to the full report, and their remarks on methodology for this poll on this poll's webpage, didn't even mention the political makeup of the sample size. This is MARKED SHIFT I have noticed in Gallup, something that started about a year ago. In 2008, they would almost always include a link to the full report, it would be in their survey methods section. But now, not so much anymore. Make of that what you will. All the more reason why people should have voted "I don't know" or "Other" then. Why sign up for such a strong emotion, when its not the "predominant" feeling? You can claim all you want that their choices were constrained and they were "forced" to vote "Angry", but the reality is, other options were also available. LOL, it's around. You'll have to excuse me if I don't jump at the task of finding the PDF files from 2 years ago with the full data (if they're still even at the links). I'm sure you could always go to TBBS and look it up there, I mentioned it there at the time, and I would have copied the relevant data into the post, so that even if the information was taken down by the source, it would still be there. Meh, I'm just trying to give as good as I get. People want to push the idea that it was 1:1, well their hypocrisy will be pointed out, even if it is by example through mimicry. I can't stand any form of hypocrisy, your mileage may vary. And let's just forget polls for a second and focus on something concrete -- how Democrats have fared in recent elections. It's more real than polls anyhow. Losses in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, were the polls that mattered, and they all showed decisively that the country was against the health care bill. Now, the message may have been ignored, but that doesn't change that people were clearly against it. The more that message is ignored, I suspect the more you will see that message magnified and with louder volume, which is perhaps what these snapshot polls are reflective of most of all...
They should have listened to the constituents who were calling and writing them and actually thought about the pros and cons of the bill. Obviously some of them thought about it enough that they thought they should be exempt from it, and were afraid to admit that they voted for it. Which has nothing to do with what I was responding to, namely your assertion that suddenly everyone has changed views on anything. Not really. Actually there hasn't ever been much support for a NHC system in this country because the cost has always been seen as too prohibitive.
Not this shit again. This makes about as much sense as saying "If food stamps are so great, how come members of Congress don't get them? How come they're exempt from food stamps? Huh?" This bill is designed to provide access to health insurance to people who do not already have it. Members of Congress, like many other people, already have health insurance through their employer. There's no "exempt" about it -- that's just a stupid line thrown out there by the right in the hopes that people won't think too hard about it.
Actually no, not really, since one thing is not like the other. Only certain people qualify for food stamps, whereas with this bill, every American must buy health insurance ... except certain members of the Administration and Congress. Your comparison fails, big time. Except it doesn't provide access to health insurance so much as forcing it on everyone with the threat of being fined and/or sent to jail if some government bean counter deems you able to "afford" it. A pretty good plan too. In fact, a lot of people who were also on it are getting screwed out of it now, as it's going to be limited to only a select number of people now. They are exempt in the sense that they aren't being forced to deal with a private insurance company at newly inflated rates like every other American is going to have to.
You fucking idiot. Seriously..... They aren't exempt from Food Stamps. They just don't qualify for them. In this case they specifically exempted themselves from the system they claim is a great thing for America. If it's great enough to force us to use it and great enough to force Federal employees to use it why isn't it great enough for them to use it?
And he didn't use other people's money to do it. Or force people to do it against their will. Or basically anything at all that is like national health care. The cartoon is so ridiculously pathetic that it does not deserve to be taken seriously.
Nice evasion. You seem to be saying that they should govern by opinion poll on this issue, but are unwilling to make that a more general principle. Factually incorrect, as a quick Google search reveals. Dozens of polls, spread out over a very long period of time show that the public want the government to gaurantee health coverage, even if it costs them more in taxes.
So you're being hypocritical by using a poll that you know is a load of rubbish and defending that poll as a form of "mimicry".
Look it's a REPRESENTATIVE democracy. That means they are to REPRESENT the folks who voted them into office, not the party that they claim to belong to, and not some bitch on the hill who says, "vote for my bill or you don't get to sit on any decent committee."
Same question as to Captain X - do you apply this principle generally, or just in cases where it suits you?
Not really, I'm just not letting you steer off course by reminding you of what's under discussion. That's because you're the only one going on about opinion polls. I said that they should listen to their constituents and actually think critically about what effect proposed legislation will have. Prove it. The only people saying that are lib-tards like yourself, and unlike what they tell themselves, they do not represent the majority of people in the US.
I assume that they were doing the latter, just not to your satisfaction. As regards the former, if they're not supposed to base such analysis on opinion polls, then what you're saying is that they should have listened to those constituents who happen to agree with you, which is pretty shallow. Here are three. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/americans_favour_universal_health_care/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/reuters-health-care-poll_n_304098.html http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/...health-of-the-public/20070627healthindex.html As I say, there are innumerable others, which you can google yourself if you wish. It's astonishing that this is not widely known, in the midst of this huge debate.
Maybe I missed something. Has some key detail of the bill changed since the time of this PolitiFact debunking?
No, they obviously weren't thinking of what was best for the country because they completely ignored the implications of forcing every American to purchase health insurance just for being alive. As for any health care reform, they obviously failed to consider the economic situation of this country. No, I'm saying they should have listened to the people calling and writing them, as in their actual constituents, and not opinion polls, which can never really be trusted because they tend to be biased. All of which I trust about as far as I can throw whoever took them. What's fascinating is that since you happen to agree with these polls, even though it has nothing to do with you or your country, you continue to keep trying to say they prove something, all while claiming that the polls which show Americans don't like this new health care reform mean nothing because you don't agree with them. And all while trying to accuse me of the same bias.
