Attention Fellow Conservatives

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

No semi successful Democrat in Kansas is a rabid leftist. You have to go to michigancatville to find them

Rabid rightests? We have lots of those

We have plenty of both. As demonstrated herein.

[star seed 7]

 

[Spracne]

People talk about Medicaid as if it's the worst thing ever. There are a lot of folks who have literally no options, namely the elderly and disabled with either no families or families who can't/won't support them.

[gatoveintisiet]

People talk about Medicaid as if it's the worst thing ever. There are a lot of folks who have literally no options, namely the elderly and disabled with either no families or families who can't/won't support them.

This phenomen is pretty much everywhere, doesn't seem to matter where I go (and I go a lot of places)
It's all people wanna talk about anymore.  Spracne, I seriously don't know if at this point it's possible to turn the tide back in favor of medicaid.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Rest easy Dems, the overwhelmingly Democrat Kansas SC is almost certainly going to order Taylor's removal from the ballot. The statute in question requires:

(b) Any person who has been nominated by any means for any national, state, county or township office who declares that they are incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected may cause such person's name to be withdrawn from nomination by a request in writing, signed by the person and acknowledged before an officer qualified to take acknowledgments of deeds.

Taylor's letter evidently did not declare that he is "incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected" - intead, he only referred to the statute. The Court is going to allow him to wiggle out by ruling that a reference to the statute is the same thing as the declaration required by the statute. This will be an odd ruling, but politics evidently trumps the law. Maybe next time I'm sworn in as a witness, I'll just "swear to do everything listed in K.S.A. ____." Should be legally sufficient, right?

Odder still, the Kansas Democrat party is making no secret of the fact that they don't intend to replace Taylor on the ballot with another Democrat, which is also expressly required by the law. However, that question is not before the Court. Kobach will have to file his own lawsuit, which the Court won't decide until after the ballots sans Taylor have already been printed.

So, instead of there being a liberal on the ballot running as a Democrat, there will be a liberal on the ballot running as an Independent. The Democrat Party Motto: Lie, Cheat, Steal, Just Win By Any Means Necessary.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Rest easy Dems, the overwhelmingly Democrat Kansas SC is almost certainly going to order Taylor's removal from the ballot. The statute in question requires:

(b) Any person who has been nominated by any means for any national, state, county or township office who declares that they are incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected may cause such person's name to be withdrawn from nomination by a request in writing, signed by the person and acknowledged before an officer qualified to take acknowledgments of deeds.

Taylor's letter evidently did not declare that he is "incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected" - intead, he only referred to the statute. The Court is going to allow him to wiggle out by ruling that a reference to the statute is the same thing as the declaration required by the statute. This will be an odd ruling, but politics evidently trumps the law. Maybe next time I'm sworn in as a witness, I'll just "swear to do everything listed in K.S.A. ____." Should be legally sufficient, right?

Odder still, the Kansas Democrat party is making no secret of the fact that they don't intend to replace Taylor on the ballot with another Democrat, which is also expressly required by the law. However, that question is not before the Court. Kobach will have to file his own lawsuit, which the Court won't decide until after the ballots sans Taylor have already been printed.

So, instead of there being a liberal on the ballot running as a Democrat, there will be a liberal on the ballot running as an Independent. The Democrat Party Motto: Lie, Cheat, Steal, Just Win By Any Means Necessary.

Maybe Kobach should have just followed the law in the first place. That would have given him time to get a replacement democrat on the ballot.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Koback arguably is following the law. The statute is ambiguous as to what is required. I would hope the supreme court wouldn't interpret it such that the written requirement has no meaning, we'll see though. If Taylor is incapable of being a senator, he's surely incapable of being a DA, so he should quit that too.

Also, the Supreme Court is not overwhelming democrat, it's 4-3 Democrat appointed. Carol Beier is a rough ridin' leftist idiot, tho.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Koback arguably is following the law. The statute is ambiguous as to what is required. I would hope the supreme court wouldn't interpret it such that the written requirement has no meaning, we'll see though. If Taylor is incapable of being a senator, he's surely incapable of being a DA, so he should quit that too.

Also, the Supreme Court is not overwhelming democrat, it's 4-3 Democrat appointed. Carol Beier is a rough ridin' leftist idiot, tho.

Arguably, but when he has allowed people off the ballot in past elections without the statement in writing, and considering that the letter requested that Taylor be removed from the ballot pursuant to the statute requiring the statement, I think it's pretty likely the court will rule in Taylor's favor. Kobach is a prime example of why the Secretary of State should not be a political office elected by the populace. Insurance commissioner shouldn't be, either.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Koback arguably is following the law. The statute is ambiguous as to what is required. I would hope the supreme court wouldn't interpret it such that the written requirement has no meaning, we'll see though. If Taylor is incapable of being a senator, he's surely incapable of being a DA, so he should quit that too.

Also, the Supreme Court is not overwhelming democrat, it's 4-3 Democrat appointed. Carol Beier is a rough ridin' leftist idiot, tho.

Arguably, but when he has allowed people off the ballot in past elections without the statement in writing, and considering that the letter requested that Taylor be removed from the ballot pursuant to the statute requiring the statement, I think it's pretty likely the court will rule in Taylor's favor. Kobach is a prime example of why the Secretary of State should not be a political office elected by the populace. Insurance commissioner shouldn't be, either.

Good point. The SoS should be a non political position appointed by... the governor. That would remove any political concerns and make the office more directly accountable to the people.

Or better yet, maybe we should pick SoS the same way we pick KSSC candidates - first have a panel of (mostly liberal) attorneys narrow it down to three (moderate to liberal) choices from which the governor can pick.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Koback arguably is following the law. The statute is ambiguous as to what is required. I would hope the supreme court wouldn't interpret it such that the written requirement has no meaning, we'll see though. If Taylor is incapable of being a senator, he's surely incapable of being a DA, so he should quit that too.

Also, the Supreme Court is not overwhelming democrat, it's 4-3 Democrat appointed. Carol Beier is a rough ridin' leftist idiot, tho.

Arguably, but when he has allowed people off the ballot in past elections without the statement in writing, and considering that the letter requested that Taylor be removed from the ballot pursuant to the statute requiring the statement, I think it's pretty likely the court will rule in Taylor's favor. Kobach is a prime example of why the Secretary of State should not be a political office elected by the populace. Insurance commissioner shouldn't be, either.

Good point. The SoS should be a non political position appointed by... the governor. That would remove any political concerns and make the office more directly accountable to the people.

Or better yet, maybe we should pick SoS the same way we pick KSSC candidates - first have a panel of (mostly liberal) attorneys narrow it down to three (moderate to liberal) choices from which the governor can pick.

Yes, the second way you listed would be ideal. Secretary of State is a job. Political ideology should not play a factor. Thankfully, we have kept our courts mostly politics-free. I'm sure they will do the right thing and fix this mess.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Koback arguably is following the law. The statute is ambiguous as to what is required. I would hope the supreme court wouldn't interpret it such that the written requirement has no meaning, we'll see though. If Taylor is incapable of being a senator, he's surely incapable of being a DA, so he should quit that too.

Also, the Supreme Court is not overwhelming democrat, it's 4-3 Democrat appointed. Carol Beier is a rough ridin' leftist idiot, tho.

Arguably, but when he has allowed people off the ballot in past elections without the statement in writing, and considering that the letter requested that Taylor be removed from the ballot pursuant to the statute requiring the statement, I think it's pretty likely the court will rule in Taylor's favor. Kobach is a prime example of why the Secretary of State should not be a political office elected by the populace. Insurance commissioner shouldn't be, either.

Good point. The SoS should be a non political position appointed by... the governor. That would remove any political concerns and make the office more directly accountable to the people.

Or better yet, maybe we should pick SoS the same way we pick KSSC candidates - first have a panel of (mostly liberal) attorneys narrow it down to three (moderate to liberal) choices from which the governor can pick.

Yes, the second way you listed would be ideal. Secretary of State is a job. Political ideology should not play a factor. Thankfully, we have kept our courts mostly politics-free. I'm sure they will do the right thing and fix this mess.

You know, I think you may be on to something. Since this group of attorneys knows best, maybe they should vet the governor senate candidates down for us, too. Similar to what we have on the current ballot, they could give us three candidates: a liberal, a liberal running as an "independent," and a lousy establishment conservative.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I don't think there is a liberal running as an independent on the ballot for governor, but I may be wrong.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I don't think there is a liberal running as an independent on the ballot for governor, but I may be wrong.

Senator, Governor, same difference.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I don't think there is a liberal running as an independent on the ballot for governor, but I may be wrong.

Senator, Governor, same difference.

Pretty big difference actually. The senator can actually vote against Obamacare, while the governor can only reject it symbolically by sending money back to Washington at the expense of Kansas taxpayers.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

The senator can actually vote against Obamacare, while the governor can only reject it symbolically by sending money back to Washington at the expense of Kansas taxpayers.

You don't seem to understand how Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid works. Ultimately, when the federal government stops paying for the expanded Medicaid, Kansas will have dodged a major budgetary bullet.

[Rage Against the McKee]

The senator can actually vote against Obamacare, while the governor can only reject it symbolically by sending money back to Washington at the expense of Kansas taxpayers.

You don't seem to understand how Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid works. Ultimately, when the federal government stops paying for the expanded Medicaid, Kansas will have dodged a major budgetary bullet.

When does this happen? Wouldn't we be in a position where we could just cut medicaid back to where it is today?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

The senator can actually vote against Obamacare, while the governor can only reject it symbolically by sending money back to Washington at the expense of Kansas taxpayers.

You don't seem to understand how Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid works. Ultimately, when the federal government stops paying for the expanded Medicaid, Kansas will have dodged a major budgetary bullet.

When does this happen? Wouldn't we be in a position where we could just cut medicaid back to where it is today?

No. Google it.

[Rage Against the McKee]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/14/rubios-claim-that-medicaid-expansion-funds-will-go-away/

So you think paying 10% of the expansion costs in a few years is a net loss to Kansas taxpayers?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/14/rubios-claim-that-medicaid-expansion-funds-will-go-away/

So you think paying 10% of the expansion costs in a few years is a net loss to Kansas taxpayers?

Yes, I do. That "10%" is going to get more and more expensive as more and more people drop their private insurance to glom onto the public dime. This isn't hard to figure out. Meanwhile, the number of people vying to see one of the ever diminishing doctors who take Medicaid will swell, further reducing the shitty quality of public healthcare for those that truly need it.

[star seed 7]

Good, all healthcare should be taxpayer funded

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Good, all healthcare should be taxpayer funded

Yes, cause the money fairy can always print more money to pay for it, right?

Question: Many Canadians prefer to come to America to see a specialist rather than wait six months or more to see one provided by their taxpayer funded healthcare system. Once the libtards transform our own system into a single payer paradise, where do we go (and the Canadians, too, I guess) to see a specialist?

Another question: Are you on Medicaid? Are you actually excited for everyone to receive Medicaid-quality healthcare (unless you're rich enough to afford a private doctor)?

[renocat]

A February GOA report said 4% of medicaid recipients account for 30% of payments, mostly for the long term care of the elderly in care homes.  This is going to get worse as there are more baby boomers coming and less young workers to foot the bill.  I am not in favor of doing away with medicaid, but it needs reformed not just more money pumped into it.  I have enjoyeed the lively debate on this thread. Second the appt. of the SoS to get a qualified person; an election could yield a clinker someday.

[star seed 7]

Good, all healthcare should be taxpayer funded

Yes, cause the money fairy can always print more money to pay for it, right?

Question: Many Canadians prefer to come to America to see a specialist rather than wait six months or more to see one provided by their taxpayer funded healthcare system. Once the libtards transform our own system into a single payer paradise, where do we go (and the Canadians, too, I guess) to see a specialist?

Another question: Are you on Medicaid? Are you actually excited for everyone to receive Medicaid-quality healthcare (unless you're rich enough to afford a private doctor)?

We could stop buying tanks and jets that sit unused (a republican "free stuff" jobs plan).

FYI, I actually have Canadians in my family and they love their system and openly mock the neocon american media's portrayal of it. stop getting your opinions from rush

[gatoveintisiet]

What's wrong with Rush?

[CNS]

He is to conservative media what the crazy right thinks the rest of the media is to media x 100