“I think that's part of it -- amazing how people can't make the distinction between landmass and population -- but it also comes from self-identification polling, usually done by the Heritage Foundation or AEI or some other conservative think-tank, and some of it rather old. It also comes from the fact that they've been conditioned to trust and seek out only self-validating sources of information, all of which tells them constantly that they are the overwhelming majority that they need to think they are.”
The person, the individual voter, needs to validate -himself-, i.e., validate his own beliefs and his own preference/desire to vote Republican and to feel good about doing so. The only way he can do that is if he believes that the items on your list are true.”
Self-described "conservatives" are very fond of saying, and believing that there are far more conservatives than liberals in the U.S.; that conservatives outnumber liberals by some exponential margin (at least 2-to-1, from what I read and hear). They're quite certain that the overwhelming majority of Americans are conservative, prefer and agree with conservative policy and ideology (which is self-evidently correct), that liberals represent only a small minority and that liberalism is widely unpopular because it is, naturally, self-evidently wrong.
But they have a hard time explaining how, if it's true that conservatives vastly outnumber liberals and conservatism is overwhelmingly popular, both on a national scale, Democrats have gotten more votes than Republicans in four of the last five presidential elections and three of the last four national election cycles.
Since "conservatives vastly outnumber liberals" and "conservatism is overwhelmingly popular" -have- to be true, the only answer that would make sense is large-scale, widespread "voter fraud."”
Cyke101 on Dec 5, 2013 at 11:31:54
“That reminds of a few years ago, when there was a fairly large GOP campaign trying to dissuade citizens from filling out the census, because it could be one big liberal plot to whateverIdon'tknow. Except that the census was important to districting efforts and allocation of funds. Because the GOP was telling their constituents not to fill out the census, their districts would be underreported, and because their districts would be underreported, that meant less federal funds would be allocated to those conservative-heavy areas. Thus, at the last minute, the GOP reversed course and told constituents, "What do you mean we said that? It's very important that you fill these out! Be a true American!" blah-de-blah. Misinformation backfired badly.”
chemguy on Dec 5, 2013 at 11:13:22
“I think that belief comes from national election maps. My conservative friends in rural areas like to point at the red/blue election results maps and make remarks about how the country is almost all "red" with just a few liberal cities that are "blue". They don't seem to grasp that 80% of the country lives in urban areas.”
Ice9 on Dec 5, 2013 at 10:56:55
“Voter fraud that can't be proven, making it into a conspiracy of epic proportions.”
“All of these seem to share a common motif: Resentment. With a little bit of self-congratulation mixed in. That, to me, is what Republican politics boils down to these days. When I ask people who vote Republican why they do so, once they get done reciting the standard boilerplate rhetorical abstractions about Limited Government™ and what-not, the answer is always some variation on this: "Those people" [whoever "they" may be] are unfairly and undeservingly benefiting at my expense. Which, of course, is the fault of Democrats and liberals. Vote Republican, and they'll put a stop to it.
Which, of course, they won't, but that's not the point. When Democrats win, they -feel- that they're unfairly footing the bill for undeserving moochers; when Republicans win, they're still footing the bill, but they feel like something's being done about it, like the government is now on the side of -us-, -me-, the -good- people, the -makers-, whereas if Democrats win they feel like the government is on the side of -them-, the -bad- people, the -takers-, even though the equation and the empirical reality is in all other respects -precisely- the same.”
“Technically, in English phonetics, a "g" followed by an "e" or an "i" is supposed to be pronounced as a soft "g" (gentle giant) whereas if it's followed by an "a," "o" or "u" it's supposed to be a hard "g" (gain goes to guts).
Often an extra vowel (or consonant) is added to transform a soft "g" unto a hard "g" (guest guide), sometimes unnecessarily (ghastly ghost guard).
There are exceptions, of course. English has more exceptions to its own rules than any other language.”
“Just from the text of that hyperlink it's obvious you're lying. The hyperlink says, "Obamacare to increase individual market premiums."
-Individual- -market- premiums. Not -all- health insurance premiums. -Individual- -market- premiums only. Most Americans who are insured do not get their insurance from the individual market; roughly 95% of Americans get it from either their employer or the government (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security Disability). Only 5% of insured Americans buy their insurance on the individual market, which the ACA exchanges are meant to supplant.
Accordingly, since only a relatively tiny fraction of Americans are even in the individual market to begin with, to state that the ACA will "raise premiums for most Americans" based on the alleged "fact" that individual market premiums (and -only- individual market premiums) are expected to rise, is a deliberate, grotesque, and outright lie.
Of course individual market premiums are going to go up; they always have and they always will. That's why the ACA exchanges were created in the first place. The point is to move people -away- from the individual market and into the ACA-created group market, i.e., the exchanges. That way people can buy an individual policy for what they'd be paying for an employer-based group policy.
You can understand how this works, or you can validate your political prejudices. You can't do both.”
“I would expect they could make arrangements with the insurer to pay by postal money order. Somehow I doubt there will be all that many Americans who don't qualify for Medicaid who have no credit and keep all their assets in cash.”
“Yes, "we" could, but that's not the point. The point is that the ACA grants the Secretary of HHS (and, by extension, the POTUS who oversees HHS) the authority to regulate how the statute is implemented, and nothing that anyone is doing exceeds that authority. At a minimum, no one has demonstrated that it does. Saying things is not enough.”
3x on Dec 3, 2013 at 19:54:21
“"The point is that the ACA grants the Secretary of HHS (and, by extension, the POTUS who oversees HHS) the authority to regulate how the statute is implemented,"
“Of course not but regulatory authority granted in federal statutes is generally pretty broad. "The Secretary shall promulgate comprehensive regulations for the effective administration and enforcement of this section," or something along those lines.
Ms. Bachmann et al. want their fans to believe that the POTUS is changing the -law-, which he cannot do, when he has done no such thing. She, and they, count on their fans to -not- understand the difference between law and regulation; they don't need to "make a case" (meaning, an actual case that would hold up to scrutiny) that anything actual violation of the law or abuse of executive authority is occurring. Her/their fans will believe that no matter what you tell them.”
3x on Dec 3, 2013 at 16:01:15
“"regulatory authority granted in federal statutes is generally pretty broad."
Sure. But this is about one specific statute (ACA). So we could just look it up.”
“Of course there's a meaningful difference. Laws (i.e., legislation, i.e., statutes) are passed by Congress, and can't be changed without a subsequent act of Congress. Regulations are promulgated by executive-branch agencies, with statutory authority, as you stated.
What Ms. Bachmann is implying is that "there is no meaningful difference" between changing the language of a statute, which no one is doing, and changing the implementation thereof by the agency authorized to regulate its implementation, which is perfectly legal and constitutional. The difference you dismiss out of hand is not only meaningful, but critical to understanding what she is doing rhetorically.”
3x on Dec 3, 2013 at 13:32:16
“Okay, I see what you mean now, thanks.
Though I'm sure you would agree that a regulation cannot violate the law that authorizes it (or any other), nor can it exceed the authority the law gives it. I don't see Bachmann making a case for that happening, I'm just pointing that out.”
“You'd think, as a member of Congress, she would understand the difference between law and regulation; between legislation and administration. In fact she probably does, but is just pretending not to in order to perform this improv act for her audience.”
3x on Dec 3, 2013 at 13:12:35
“There's no meaningful difference - a regulation or administrative act may not violate the Constitution, and the government can only regulate with authority from law.
Not that I agree with Bachmann on the facts.”
nnealj1 on Dec 3, 2013 at 13:09:56
“She is politicizing, propagandizing, one hundred percent of the time....”
Barnie1326 on Dec 3, 2013 at 13:07:25
“You give her too much credit - she has absolutely no idea how government works.”
“One thing that got lost in the run-up to last year's SCOTUS decision on the Affordable Care Act is that -none- of the court challenges in the various federal circuits that led up to that decision challenged the law on due process grounds. Meaning, none of the challengers argued that the law was unconstitutional because it constituted a deprivation of liberty without due process of law under the 5th Amendment.
Because of Mitt Romney.
See, the states are constrained by the 14th Amendment in the same way the federal government is constrained by the 5th, viz., they cannot deprive any person of liberty without due process of law. Indeed, the federal government is -more- constrained by the 5th than the states are by the 14th; the states can provide -more- individual liberty than the federal constitution requires, not less. If the ACA were unconstitutional because it infringed upon individual liberty, then Massachusetts' law (and any other state-level health-insurance mandate) would also be unconstitutional. The Court could not strike down Obamacare on due process grounds without also striking down Romneycare.”
“I see. You stated, unequivocally and without qualification, that I was "wrong," based on what -other- -people- =told= you, not what you yourself actually know, understand, have studied, or have your own independent expertise.
Thank you for clearing that up.
Have a nice evening.
Scoutitout on Nov 26, 2013 at 22:15:55
“Oh and there it is - you are definitely an attorney.”
1. If I'm an atheist, and I deny you a benefit because -you- are a Christian, that's discrimination.
2. If I'm a Christian, and I deny you a benefit because -I- am a Christian, that's -not- discrimination.
What Hobby Lobby et al. are trying to do is (2), not (1). If they win (2), that will not make (1) legal.
(1) is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Hobby Lobby is not challenging the constitutionality of Title VII, nor does it need to; Title VII is not implicated by (2).
(2) is illegal under the provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires employers to provide insurance coverage that includes contraception. That's the law that Hobby Lobby is challenging, as a violation of its "rights" under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Now, is there a danger that it if Hobby Lobby prevails, an employer can deny any benefit to any employee because the employer simply "doesn't believe in" that benefit, irrespective of and without any need to show that his objection to that benefit is based on -religious- belief? I doubt it. =This= case won't have that result. It could lay the groundwork for a future challenge along those lines, but I doubt such a challenge would be successful, as there is nothing analogous to the Free Exercise Clause on which such an employer could rely.”
“I'm sorry, I really don't want to keep going back and forth on this, but that simply makes no sense. First, atheism is not a religion, and second, there is just no plausible, realistic counter-example.
What "benefit" that the law requires him to provide could an "atheist" employer plausibly "deny" to "Christians," because it offends him as an atheist? If an employer "denies" a "benefit" to "Christians" that he otherwise offers or provides to non-Christians, regardless of the reason why he does it, that's -discrimination-. And as I said, that is specifically and explicitly -against- -the- law-. But that is =not= what Hobby Lobby et al. are trying to do.
They're not trying to deny benefits to non-Christians, or to anyone else on the basis of the -employee's- religion. They're trying to deny a particular benefit to -all- of their employees, based on =their= =own= religious "beliefs" with respect to that benefit. That is -not- discrimination. They don't propose to treat different employees/applicants differently on the basis of the employee/applicant's religion; they propose to treat everyone equally, based on -their- -own- religion, not the employees'/applicants' religion (or lack thereof).
The danger is not that an "atheist" can "deny" "benefits" to "Christians." The danger is that an employer can deny benefits to his employees based on an unsubstantiated and unfalsifiable claim that he is doing it on the grounds of his own religious "beliefs."”
Scoutitout on Nov 26, 2013 at 21:33:04
“Well like I said, it's what the attorneys told me - don't reply if you don't want to go back and forth - I was just having a discussion”
“I -am- an attorney and I'm not wrong. But let's not niggle over details when fundamentally we agree on this issue.”
Scoutitout on Nov 26, 2013 at 20:40:56
“I'm not an attorney but the two in my firm I spoke with about this agreed with me, although their legalese was a bit over my head as I'm just a paralegal. One gave me the example of a company owned by an atheist and how they would have the same right to deny benefits to Christians with the logic of this case - food for thought about what this precedent could mean.”
“No, wrong, the analogy is -entirely- wrong and -entirely- inapt, because the legal precedent that would be established should Hobby Lobby et al. win would allow an employer to exempt himself from legal requirements and standards based on -his- =religious= beliefs, not just any "beliefs." The lawsuit is being put forth pursuant to the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA); it is -explicitly- about the -employer's- =religious= -beliefs-.
Moreover, what Hobby Lobby and others claim the right to do is not to discriminate against their employees, or prospective employees, on the basis of the employees' or candidates' religious identification, affiliation or beliefs. They don't claim a right to refuse to hire someone, or to fire a current employee, based on -that- person's religion. What they're seeking is to be -exempt- from a legal requirement that they provide a benefit to their employees, where that benefit is in some way offensive to -their- =religious= -beliefs-.
You're talking about two very, =very= different things, factually and legally. They are in =no= =way= analogous. Not. Even. Close.
As I said, I think we are fundamentally in agreement on this issue, and I would even agree that "religious" beliefs are just as arbitrary as any other "beliefs." But there is simply no analogy to a non-religious entity seeking the kind of exemption that Hobby Lobby is seeking on non-religious grounds. Nothing in the Constitution or in Federal law would even potentially allow for that.”
Scoutitout on Nov 26, 2013 at 19:14:55
“You are wrong - in fact I just had this talk with an attorney in my office. One thing is for sure however, if the court rules in favor of HobbyLobby the dems will sweep 2014 and 2016 which actually would be fine with me.”