MO Says NO To Mandatory Healthcare

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Health Care, health care reform, Law, Missouri

Proposition C passed by 70% last night and that has a lot of folks wondering if more states will follow suit to get initiatives like these on the ballot during times when vote turn out is extremely low.

The answer, of course, is yes. Similar initiatives will be on the ballot in Arizona and Oklahoma later this year. And I’d be shocked if they didn’t pass overwhelmingly too.

From NY Times:

“My constituents told me they felt like their voices had been ignored and they wanted Washington to hear them,” Jane Cunningham, a state senator and Republican who had pressed for a vote, said Tuesday night. “It looks to me like they just picked up a megaphone.”

The referendum, known as Proposition C, was seen as a first look at efforts by conservatives to gather and rally their forces over the issue. In the end, though, the referendum seemed not to capture the general population’s attention. Instead, Republican primary voters (who had the most competitive races on Tuesday) appeared to play a crucial role in the vote’s fate.

By the way, guess what else passed by 70% in Missouri during the exact same primary election 6 years ago when Republican turnout was high.

Still, will this ultimately mean anything? My guess is no. Because federal law will trump this vote.

However, one can’t say for certain until the courts have their say.

More from NYT:

Practically speaking, it remains entirely uncertain what effect the vote will have. The insurance requirement of the federal health care law does not come into effect until 2014. By then, experts say, the courts are likely to weigh in on the provision requiring people to buy insurance.

“While we’re disappointed that Missourians didn’t vote against this, we think the courts will ultimately decide it,” said David M. Dillon, a spokesman for the Missouri Hospital Association.

More as it develops.


This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 4th, 2010 and is filed under Health Care, health care reform, Law, Missouri. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

55 Responses to “MO Says NO To Mandatory Healthcare”

  1. mw Says:

    “…will this ultimately mean anything? My guess is no. Because federal law will trump this vote.” – jg

    You are missing the point about the real meaning of this vote. This is a much more accurate indicator of the national voter sentiment on Obamacare than the poll you were citing a few days ago. This is a great big flashing go signal for Republicans to step on the accelerator, run hard in 2010 against Obamacare, and turn up the heat on any Democratic incumbents who voted for it.

    The meaning is not in whether federal law trumps the states votes. The meaning is in what this says about a Democratic majority running roughshod over the will of the electorate, ramming the Obamacare hairball down the voter’s throats – and the likelihood they will pay the price in November.

  2. kranky kritter Says:

    You seem to be trying very hard to spin this outcome as NOT representative of public sentiment. Do you have any actual data that supports this notion?

    I agree with MW that popular sentiment seems to be against at least some aspects of HCR. Especially requiring all folks to have HC coverage.

    I am ok with it, personally, so long as there’s substantial flexibility in regard to how much you must have. But that doesn’t mean that it makes sense to me to pretend that anti-HCR sentiment is only a conservative plot. I recognize that there is legitimate and reasonable opposition. That means that a reckoning is inevitable.

  3. Justin Gardner Says:

    I don’t think a vote buried within a primary during a midterm year where turnout is awful except in Republican districts means that this represents the real sentiment of the electorate or even Missouri.

    But I guess we’ll see come November.

  4. Tweets that mention Donklephant » Blog Archive » MO Says NO To Mandatory Healthcare -- Topsy.com Says:

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Justin Gardner, Donklephant. Donklephant said: DONKLEPHANT: MO Says NO To Mandatory Healthcare http://ow.ly/18qEtQ [...]

  5. Simon Says:

    I’m with MW and KK. This vote repudiates Justin’s post at http://donklephant.com/2010/07/29/poll-obamas-healthcare-reform-opposition-waning and answer’s KK’s comment therein that “it would be a HUGE mistake for the GOP to run on repeal.”

  6. Simon Says:

    Sorry, answers. A stray apostrophe snuck in where it had no business.

  7. kranky kritter Says:

    So, Justin, in other words, you don’t have data to support the idea that this is only an artifact of high GOP turnout. Got it.

    This irritated me enough hat I hunted some down. Folks can try this link if they want to peruse the “by county” vote breakdown. Use the pulldowns and tabs to get a screen with by county tallies for prop C. My presumption in looking was that at least some counties would be heavily democratic and thus vote against prop C. Of the 100+ counties (I quick-counted 116) I only saw 2 counties that voted against it, both by about a 4 to 6 margin. Two!

    At a glance, every other county was heavily in favor. That was just a glance, so I may have missed one or two others. But all of the big counties except these 2 had high margins in favor. So presumedly even most of the counties with higher population density don’t like mandatory HC.

    This look at actual data calls into serious question the idea that this is just an artifact of high republican voter turnout. IMO, the county-by-county results are way too strong and way too widespread to think that the sentiments expressed by this referendum are an illusion. In fact, it seems preposterous now that I’ve looked at the numbers.

  8. kranky kritter Says:

    Well Simon it may be expedient in the short term. But if the GOp runs on and sucessfully repeals HCR, they will bear the whole brunt of public anger as healthcare costs continue to rise 7 to 10% per year.

    Lacking good cost control and access answers, the GOp will look 7 to 10% wronger with each passing year.

    Fortunately, repeal won’t happen. Cynically, if one believes that, then running on repeal is a safe and expedient tactic.

  9. Justin Gardner Says:

    Okay, here are the numbers:

    577,612 voted in the Republican primary for State Senator.
    315,787 voted in the Democratic primary for State Senator.

    That’s a total of 893,399, 65% of which were Repubs and 35% were Dems.

    How many folks voted on Prop C? 938,782. Less than 40,000 more than voted in the Senate race.

    You think those additional voters were Dems showing up to vote against it when Repubs outnumbered Dems at the polls almost 2 to 1? If so, prove it.

    Basically, given that another 262K more Republicans showed up to vote, then yes, I do think this sample is not representative of public opinion. And that doesn’t seem like a preposterous opinion, but feel free to sling some more hyperbole my way.

  10. Aaron Says:

    My fiance can now get medical coverage despite her occasional migranes being listed as a “pre-existing condition” thanks to HCR. This is to say nothing of my friends in the trans-gender community.

  11. mw Says:

    @Justin
    Wow! That is even worse for the Democrats than I thought. A pretty clear indicator of the “enthusiasm gap” the Kos kids are so worried about. Looks like a highly motivated Republican turnout to vote against a government they feel no longer listens or represents them and eager to send a message at the ballot box. As opposed to Democrats who can’t be bothered and don’t seem to care. How does this partisan ratio compare to the 2006 primary when the Democrats were motivated and many Republicans felt betrayed by their own leadership?

    If this is indicative of the national zeitgeist – and turnout like happens nationwide – even Harry Reid is going to lose his seat.

    As goes Missouri, so goes the nation?

  12. Simon Says:

    Aaron, I hope your so-called “transgender” friends can now finally get the psychiatric care they so urgently need.

  13. Simon Says:

    Justin, you left out an important number. As you say, 577,612 voted in the Republican primary, and 315,787 voted in the Democratic primary, a total of 893,399. As you know, 938,761 people voted for or against proposition C. Unless it is unreasonable to assume that most of the people voting on proposition C also voted in the primaries, it seems reasonable to infer that most of the 361,149 votes cast for proposition c over and above the total votes in the GOP primary came from Democratic primary voters. How can you escape the conclusion that proposition was wildly popular with even Democratic primary voters?

  14. kranky kritter Says:

    Okay, here are the numbers:

    577,612 voted in the Republican primary for State Senator.
    315,787 voted in the Democratic primary for State Senator.

    That’s a total of 893,399, 65% of which were Repubs and 35% were Dems.

    Oopsie!!! Sloppy reasoning, amigo. VERY sloppy. From the FAQs of The Missouri Secretary of State

    What kind of primary election does Missouri have?

    Missouri has what is known as an “open” primary. In an open primary, voters may take a ballot for any party and vote for those candidates. Missouri does not require voters to “affiliate” with any political party when they register, however, you must choose a specific party ballot or a non-contested ballot.

    What does that mean, folks? It means that the number of votes in each primary doesn’t tell you how many Republicans and how many Democrats voted. It only tells you how many folks voted in each primary. Not their affiliation.

    Now. Suppose it’s true, as I read somewhere earlier today, that there were more contested races on the GOP side. This suggests that substantial numbers of democrats crossed over to vote the more interesting GOP ballot and that independents tended to choose the more interesting GOP ballot.

    I decided to see if that claim held up. I looked at the MO primaries for congress. One senate seat is open, and neither primary represented a contest. The democrat won with 80%, the republican with 70%. No interest there, either side.

    How about the house? All 9 seats in the house were of course up.
    • In 4 of the districts, the democrat ran unopposed. Unopposed.

    • In the 9th district no democrat bothered running.

    • In 3 of the 4 remaining districts, the democratic winner took 80%+ of the vote.

    •The only district where the democratic primary had something resembling a contest was district 7, where the eventual winner took 67% In that district, the Republicans had an 8-way steel cage match where the highest vote getter only received 36%.

    How many folks voted on Prop C? 938,782. Less than 40,000 more than voted in the Senate race.

    You think those additional voters were Dems showing up to vote against it when Repubs outnumbered Dems at the polls almost 2 to 1? If so, prove it.

    Nope, didn;’t say it, and don’t think it, so no need to prove it. Now, how about you prove that your 2 to 1 numbers are correct? Can’t do it, can you? They’re based on an incorrect presumption that Missouri has closed primaries.

    Basically, given that another 262K more Republicans showed up to vote, then yes, I do think this sample is not representative of public opinion. And that doesn’t seem like a preposterous opinion…

    And if your 262k tally is incorrect, as the data above strongly suggests? Will you admit you were wrong? Or will you fall back to whatever remaining plausible excuse remains? If Missouri didn’t keep track of crossover and unaffiliated voters, you can always cling to the idea that it was all those extra republicans, Even though roughly 114 of 116 counties voted for Prop C by something like a 2 to 1 margin.

  15. Chris Says:

    Hey simon, go fuck yourself. Then drown in a bottle of drano please, do the country a favor.

  16. Alistair Says:

    Well if the judge can overturn Prop 8 then it’s a good chance the prop c can get overturn. I bet some of you righties tonight are puking.

  17. Chris Says:

    http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/1439167346/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280975696&sr=8-1

    lol

  18. Justin Gardner Says:

    Simon, seriously….what the hell was that all about? That’s incredibly insulting. And you do realize that psychiatric counseling is part of the gender reassignment process, right? So not only is your comment ignorant, it’s also dumb. Never leave those kind of comments here again. Completely and absolutely unnecessary.

    However, Chris, equally bad and offensive. Never use that language again or threaten somebody else. If you do it again, you’re gone. Come on, you know the rules and there are numerous ways to express your anger so don’t back me into a corner.

    Kranky, come on…you’re kidding me right?

    Dems and Repubs don’t switch ballots just to switch ballots and vote for the other party, especially in primaries. Want evidence? See 99.9% of all elections in the history of our country.

    Also, I never said anything about hotly contested races in individual districts. I’m talking about the statewide contest for the GOP Senate slot, which had a ton of different candidates and thus drew more Repubs to the polls.

    But listen, you’ve already made up your mind that you’re right so keep holding on to that and I’ll keep holding on to my opinion what the numbers reveal. But I’m not spinning anything. That’s just how I see the numbers. Call it spin if that makes you feel better.

  19. Simon Says:

    Justin, I’m pretty tired of “transgender-ism”–a serious mental illness–being lumped in with LGB issues. I’m even more tired of people being told that their psychosis is legitimate and meriting surgical disfigurement. Aaron’s normalizing comment, which reflects and advances grievous violence done to a desperately ill group of people–demanded response.

  20. Chris Says:

    Actually Justin I think you’ve shown amazing restraint, I fully expected to be booted and it would be well deserved :) As a side note thought I didn’t threaten him :)

    But Simon deserves to be called out. I’m tired of bigots behaving as if their views are justified and worth consideration.

  21. Chris Says:

    And I do apologize for losing my temper, I suffer from internet Tourette’s.

  22. Simon Says:

    And I’m tired, Chris, of people who are doing grievous violence to sick people attempting to claim the moral high ground. When someone proposes to treat cancer patients using crystals, they are doing real harm–even if the patient believes in crystal healing. You are doing harm under the guise of a sanctimonious political correctness. These people are sick and they need help. Those who pretend otherwise should be recognized doing harm, and accordingly criticized. (Criticized, not “called out”–this isn’t Rikki Lake.)

  23. Justin Gardner Says:

    Simon, you’re really off base with this. The methods for gender reassignment have been long established and your personal bias is getting in the way of the facts. And the whole, “political correctness” nonsense needs to be put to bed. That’s such a catch-all, lazy argument that I’m surprised you’re even unearthing it. Our species, as a whole, is a wonderful, complicated thing and just because you don’t understand some aspects of it doesn’t mean that people aren’t suffering severe mental anguish over the decisions they have to make. Seriously, look up the process for changing genders. It’s protracted and intense and nobody who undertakes it walks an easy road.

    Chris, agree that Simon should be called out for such a callous comment, but keep the Tourette’s in draft form. Just present the facts and let those serve as the counter point. As you’re well aware, that’s the rule of law here, so please adhere to it.

  24. Simon Says:

    Justin, I don’t doubt that our ability to disfigure people in surgery has advanced to a state of great sophistication. Nevertheless, “transgender” is a psychological disorder that should be met with sympathy and treatment, not physical violence under guise of surgery. We don’t give children or the mentally ill what they want. We give them what they need.

  25. Chris Says:

    Justin thanks for being level-headed, something I can aspire to. Simon’s attitude reminds me of the attitudes towards rape 60 years ago, and is so repulsive I hit enter before thinking.

  26. Aaron Says:

    Wow. Sorry Justin, I didn’t mean to start such a heated debate over transgenders on a post about HCR.

    Simon, I do agree that SRS is not something to be taken lightly or done on a whim. Everyone I know who has, has gone through pretty intense psychiatric examination and therapy and years of treatment before going through such.

    There was an article I was reading about a year ago. I’m afraid I don’t have a link for it unfortunately. It basically said there was results coming back that indicated the brains of most TGs were more similar to their identified gender than their born one. It was believed in the article that this had to do with hormone timing during pregnancy.

    Much work is going into gender studies lately, to both better understand GID and see to it it’s treated properly, whether that be therapy, hormone balancing, or in extreme cases SRS.

    I hope this clarifies my view on this subject, and how it relates to the broader theme of giving folks the right care. Some of that is psychological, some of that is genetic.

  27. Aaron Says:

    Augh. Also please ignore my horrid grammar this late in the evening. :)

  28. theWord Says:

    Simon-
    You have a psychosis which is causing a psychological disorder, religious bigotry. It’s most alarming side effect is that many who have it have a zeal to infect others and the society. Those with the issue should let science and medicine deal with reality since that is the sphere they inhabit.

  29. theWord Says:

    @Aaron-
    You should never have to apologize for caring about your fellow human beings. Hard to understand how being that way causes such vitriol.

  30. Zoe Brain Says:

    Simon – exactly what psychiatric treatment do you think they need? The following have all been tried: psychoanalysis, cognitive therapy, gestalt therapy, lobotomy, leucotomy, electro-convulsive therapy, contingent skin shock (use of cattle prods on genitalia), psychotropic drugs, aversion therapy involving drugs, shocks and beatings, spirit release therapy, and exorcism.

    All have shown a 0.000% success rate in long-term follow-up.

    The triadic therapy of psychological support, hormones and surgery has a 98% improvement rate using modern surgical techniques. Rather better results than most therapies for broken limbs etc.

    Given that the mortality rate without effective treatment is something over 40%, continuing experimentation using faith healing, aromatherapy, or homeopathy is ethically unsound. We’ve had over 60 years of experimentation to try to find an alternate, but the patients keep dying.

    We now know why. It’s an Intersex condition, a congenital one involving anatomy that is neither wholly male nor wholly female. We can now reliably induce transsexuality in experimental animals by appropriate hormonal manipulation in the womb.

    See for example:
    Male-to-female transsexuals show sex-atypical hypothalamus activation when smelling odorous steroids by Berglund et al Cerebral Cortex 2008 18(8):1900-1908;

    Male–to–female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. Kruiver et al J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2000) 85:2034–2041

    Sexual differentiation of the human brain: relevance for gender identity, transsexualism and sexual orientation. Swaab Gynecol Endocrinol (2004) 19:301–312.

    A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. by Zhou et al Nature (1995) 378:68–70.

    A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: relationship to gender identity by Garcia-Falgueras et al Brain. 2008 Dec;131(Pt 12):3132-46.

    etc etc etc. This is not controversial amongst anatomists.

    The reason why psychiatric therapies have a 100% failure rate is the same reason they have a 100% failure rate at curing colour blindness. It’s not a problem of psychology, it’s one of anatomy. And while you personally may not like the idea of people having their genitalia re-shaped – a course of action not for the feint-hearted – and I’m not real keen on the idea either, the facts are that it’s the only thing that works.

  31. Zoe Brain Says:

    theWord – sorry, you’re incorrect. While belief in talking snakes, hearing voices, and other such symptoms usually indicate a florid psychosis, there is a specific exemption for religious belief in the DSM. Religious bigotry is not a “mental illness” according to the Diagnostic and Staistical Manual Version IV Text Revised.

    Drinking coffee, or being a rape victim is though. As is Transsexuality, even if the result of surgery performed without consent on Intersexed infants to try to re-assign them a different sex.

  32. Simon Says:

    If he cared about his fellow human beings, theWord, he would help them to get the treatment they need. It isn’t loving to pander to someone. It isn’t loving to give a child everything they want, or to buy an alcoholic a drink. They may really, really, really want one. They may hate you for refusing. And it is, certainly, the easy way out to just say “sure, I’ll buy you a drink, and you’re right, maybe you’re really a woman, you should horribly disfigure yourself in surgery instead of getting that counseling.” But that is not caring. It is not loving. Caring about our fellow human beings frequently means helping them get what they need when they’re so sick that it isn’t what they want.

  33. theWord Says:

    Simon
    So how do we get you off the God Delusion since you are crying out for help?

  34. Simon Says:

    theWord, you’re the only one who has mentioned religion here. I haven’t, although I can if you like. This isn’t a religiously-motivated issue for me (it’s been my view for as long as I can remember—long before I was a Christian), although religion sharpens it (for those who believe in a personal creator, it would obviously be preposterous to accept the notion of “transsexuality,” insofar as the idea claims that God makes mistakes). That isn’t refuted by the workaday notion cited by Aaron that brain chemistry and structure have male and female aspects and that there can be some crossover so that men can have female-oriented brain chemistry and viceversa; big deal. Barbara and Allan Pease wrote a pop psychology book about just that years ago, but they weren’t recommending surgery. It’s perfectly normal for female brains to have a few male characteristics and vice versa; what is not at all normal is thinking that you need to disfigure yourself in major surgery as a result of that impulse. The impulse itself doesn’t need therapy, but if you think it matters, you might.

    As to the God “delusion”: we’ll have this conversation in a hundred years or so, and see who was deluded. I feel pretty good about my chances, and I’ll pray for yours.

  35. Chris Says:

    Excellent, Simon is praying for you word. Can you pray for me too Simon?

  36. Simon Says:

    Of course, but I shall refer both of you to St. Jude, also. ;)

  37. kranky kritter Says:

    That’s it, Justin? You’re just going to utterly ignore all the data I cited? That’s truly weak of you.

    Let’s start at the exact spot of your irrefutable wrongness in reading the data. You said:

    Okay, here are the numbers:

    577,612 voted in the Republican primary for State Senator.
    315,787 voted in the Democratic primary for State Senator.

    That’s a total of 893,399, 65% of which were Repubs and 35% were Dems.

    You haven’t even TRIED to account for unaffiliated voters. Folks who don’t favor either party (nationwide, this is roughly a 3rd of all voters) were extraordinarily likely to vote in the GOP primary because it offered more interesting decisions, for reasons previous stated, and which you’ve already conceded.

    Unless you presume that there WERE no independent voters, then the conclusion you reach above and all downstream reasoning based on it is also wrong. Period. Ironclad.

    But listen, you’ve already made up your mind that you’re right so keep holding on to that and I’ll keep holding on to my opinion what the numbers reveal. But I’m not spinning anything. That’s just how I see the numbers. Call it spin if that makes you feel better.

    Justin, I didn’t form any solid opinion until I looked at the actual data. I was driven to this by your eager dismissal of an overwhelming result in one direction. You’re the one who went at the data I cited with a mind to stick to your already formed position which dismissed a very inconvenient result for folks who heartily supported HCR, of whom you are one.

    The only place where you’re right is that we’ll see soon enough how numerous and durable the opposition to mandatory insurance is across Americs. Personally, I favor mandatory health insurance. But I don’t therefore delude myself that only Republicans dislike the idea.

  38. kranky kritter Says:

    Personally it seems quite likely to me that most folks pursuing gender reassignment surgery have unique genetic dispositions. We already know that genetically speaking, God does make mistakes. They’re called mutations. Unless one is so zealous as to presume that such mutations are intentional, then there’s plenty of documented evidence of such mistakes, whether one presumes them to be godly or not.

    If anyone presumes that God does not make mistakes, and that mutations ought to be accepted as God’s will, that calls into question the moral rectitude of treating things like harelips and cancer. You have lymphoma? Maybe you just need counseling to help you accept God’s will, under that rubric. [Which BTW I reject, just to be clear.]

    Folks pursuing a sex change are unquestionably under serious mental distress. Instead of looking to the “before” condition in determining whether this desire is a mental illness, I’d look to the after. Is the mental condition of trangender individuals substantially improved over the long term after surgery? Or is there a short term bump followed by a decline back into deep unhappiness?

    I don’t even know the answer to that last question but I would think it to be a substantial part of the answer. Not all of it of course. There’s going to be permanent mental scarring from the journey under the best of circumstances.

  39. Justin Gardner Says:

    Kranky…

    As mentioned, you read the data one way and I read it another. If you don’t agree with how I came to my conclusion, there’s nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.

    Basically, I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m just not agreeing with you. We’ll see how this shakes out in a few months.

  40. theWord Says:

    Simon had you said something compassionate and understanding I wouldn’t have known where it came from. When you say something bigoted and mean-spirited toward someone who only cared about a friend, It “had” to be religion – based on the evidence.

    That’s the thing Simon, you are unaware of what is good for you and you previously said we should do what is right and loving even though the person may want something different. Since religion leads you to bigoted conclusions not supported by the evidence and makes you come to unsupported, unverified claims… following your logic, you need people in the reality based community to intervene on your behalf. Or is that a right you grant only to yourself and members of your club? Aaron did not deserve the vitriol you spewed and if there is a heaven and people like you were to be there, I wouldn’t want any part of it, because that would truly be hell.

    Oh and FWIW, there are many good religious people but the truly mean-spirited cretins are almost universally members of that club.

  41. Chris Says:

    KK, so you’re saying god makes mistakes then? How truly heathen of you.

  42. Simon Says:

    KK, you’re assuming that mutations are mistakes.

  43. theWord Says:

    Most of the species that have ever existed are extinct. That’s one hell of a waste paper can for a perfect creator. Walk into the light, reality is fine.

  44. Aaron Says:

    Simon, I don’t believe that God makes mistakes. I believe God makes challenges for us to learn and understand the difference between body, mind and soul. Call it an anti-racism, anti-sexism lesson. Cancer can be seen similarly, not as a genetic mutation, but as a catalyst to strengthen resolve.

    I of course don’t claim to know God’s true plan, I can only make my own guesses on what it might be.

    (This of course is conditional on your personal faith, but running on that..)

  45. theWord Says:

    @Aaron So that explains Mariah Carey, Kenny G and Michael Bolton :-)

  46. WHQ Says:

    That isn’t refuted by the workaday notion cited by Aaron that brain chemistry and structure have male and female aspects and that there can be some crossover so that men can have female-oriented brain chemistry and viceversa; big deal.

    It’s not a big deal for you if you haven’t been forced to live in a way that is opposed to your own sense of self and who you are. I can’t imagine having to go through life as a woman, feeling as I do that I am a man. I’m lucky enough to think of myself as a man while also being able to live as one.

    Other commenters might think I’m off for saying this, but I’m kind of surprised at you, Simon, for being so strident and callous about this.

  47. kranky kritter Says:

    As mentioned, you read the data one way and I read it another. If you don’t agree with how I came to my conclusion, there’s nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.

    Basically, I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m just not agreeing with you. We’ll see how this shakes out in a few months.

    Here’s one of your so-called “conclusions:”

    That’s a total of 893,399, 65% of which were Repubs and 35% were Dems.

    It’s factually incorrect. You have utterly failed to account for the participation of unaffiliated voters. You math MUST be incorrect. Please admit your obvious error here. Show us all that you aren’t slithery when someone shows that you’ve made a clear mistake. Show us you’re willing to be a man and stand up and admit it when you’ve made a mistake.

  48. kranky kritter Says:

    KK, so you’re saying god makes mistakes then? How truly heathen of you.

    Chris I know that’s just a joke, so don’t think I am calling you out. I just want to avoid giving folks the wrong idea about my views on god. I don’t view God in a way that most folks do. Rather, I presume that God and good are equivalent, and leave it largely at that. IMO, to speak beyond that, to speak of God is to speak of less than all that God is.

    Risking that, I think that when we try to conceptualize God and do so in our own image, as an individual with some sort of omnipotence and infallibility, we see less than the totality of god and good. Which as I said, I believe to be the same and not separable.

    Or to try to explain it in another necessarily poor way, I don’t find myself gaining any spiritual insight into God’s nature by seeking a determination as to whether or not God is infallible. God is. And God is always revealing god and good, and we aren’t always able or willing to see. That’s about all I’ve been able to figure out, that it seems worthwhile to believe in God and good, and to try to support that. I realize it’s mystical that way. But I find that approach to be the least spiritually unsatisfying. The closest to God, in other words.

    KK, you’re assuming that mutations are mistakes.

    Well, really I’m just trying to speak in terms you seem to be trying to understand. I don’t pretend to know whether God makes mistakes or whether mutations are examples of the same. My belief is that the context of any true answer about the nature of God is MUCH larger than the context of the question about whether God makes mistakes. One is best served by unasking the question, because its context is too small for the scope of a true answer.

  49. theWord Says:

    and we’re back woo woo

  50. Chris Says:

    Thanks for playing ball KK :P

  51. blackout Says:

    Simon said: Aaron, I hope your so-called “transgender” friends can now finally get the psychiatric care they so urgently need.
    ———————————-
    As, I trust, can you , Simon.

  52. blackout Says:

    Kranky said: Please admit your obvious error here. Show us all that you aren’t slithery when someone shows that you’ve made a clear mistake. Show us you’re willing to be a man and stand up and admit it when you’ve made a mistake.
    ———————————–
    This is uncharacteristically strident for you Kranky, and it verges on desperation to be honest. Perhaps some folks spend too much time here, and have come to regard this forum as more integral to their daily lives than is merited? I visit Donklephant infrequently, yet I see the same half dozen individuals arguing each time, and find the opinions expressed on offer to be troubling in their predictability. Some of you could use a break imo…

    captcha: outvote chaos. Good luck!

  53. kranky kritter Says:

    Blackout, we all know you do an occasional drive by here to troll at the regulars. Hooray for you!

    What’s your point? Do you think anyone here is bothered that you visit here infrequently?

    I’ll even go ahead and cheerfully agree that I am, by whatever your definition is, desperate. Because I suspect the only way we can make you go away is to agree with you.

  54. Jim Satterfield Says:

    kk, your argument for a strong representation of unaffiliated voters in the Missouri primaries is no stronger than your claims concerning Justin’s arguments so far as I can see.

  55. Donklephant » Blog Archive » Congressional Research Service: “The precise number of new entities that will ultimately be created pursuant to PPACA is currently unknowable” Says:

    […] voters have taken a close look and made it clear what they think about the law. Claire McKaskill’s response to the vote illustrates the […]

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: