I tend to look at their record and positions they held on the issues before running for an office that required them to “evolve”.
Anyway, I voted, and there was no one there, so I have to assume that every candidate I voted for will win 1-0.
Seriously though, that’s some shitty turnout in a very close governors’ race that people are passionate about. In 2012 I waited about 30 minutes to vote, going in at the same time I did today. Today, there was me and poll workers. That’s it. This is a heavily Democratic district, BTW, where both the House candidate and state House candidate are Democrats running unopposed.
You could have said it at any point, but he was not lying for most people’s situations – most people can keep their plans. For the small number of plans that were not in compliant with the ACA, he was either lying or incorrect in good faith. Either option deserves criticism, but it’s not a particularly important thing in the scheme of things – the ACA is doing a lot of good and very little bad, according to the health and cost statistics.
The argument made in support of what happened was that a lot of people had crappy insurance anyway, and that it was absolutely necessary for the goals of ACA that they lose that insurance and replace it with better insurance.
That argument would have had more merit had it been made BEFORE it happened, rather than used as an ad hoc, politically convenient explanation of reality. The media reports about people going to lose their health insurance already had noted that it was mainly going to be because plans didn’t meet the standards. Instead of confirming this, ACA supporters continued to deny, deny, deny.
The only way to prove someone is lying is to prove that they knew one thing and said another – and it’s very, very hard to prove what someone knows in their mind.
It’s less about punishing politicians than showing healthy skepticism towards their claims. The “You can keep your insurance if you like it” was obviously not true and ACA supporters were wrong to defend the law from arguments that it was true. We can’t rationally debate whether a proposed law is a good idea or not if one side is going out of their way to hide its downsides until it’s too late to get rid of it.
Whatever proof you have that they are lying? I’m not sure what more you want. Accusations of lying without proof should be worth what, in your mind?
What remedy do you think you’re entitled to? Politicians lie sometimes. People accuse politicians of lying sometimes. That’s just politics, right? I guess your remedy is to advocate for whichever politicians you judge as liars to be voted out of office. Work for the campaign of whoever is opposing them maybe? You would use political remedies to address political issues you have with politicians.
What else are you getting at? I’m not sure what response you are looking for here.
I think what he’s looking for isn’t much to ask: for SDMB liberals to not carry water for politicians who they know are making claims that are untrue. And not wait until after the fact to make up a new argument.
Decision America. A choice between two parties which, for most intents and purposes, are as Right-leaning as each other, save for a few outliers. I can hardly talk though, we have the same deal in the UK.
Real human suffering? You mean from the 1% cut in funding a GOP Senate is likely to impose on social programs that have seen their budgets doubled since 2000?
Probably not, but if they did, it wouldn’t cause an increase in human suffering. For that to happen, the Dept. of Education would have had to have improved educational outcomes. Since the creation did not accomplish that, it’s doubtful that it’s repeal would do anything to educational outcomes either.