Originally posted by romanlion:
Hey I've got an idea!
With all the dissatisfaction with Dunhill Barry, how bout a lefty independent ticket?
Franken-Feinstein 2012!!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:The Spirit of Ronald lives!
Michael Reagan, son of the former president, told the San Francisco Chronicle that he's looking at challenging California Senator Dianne Feinstein in 2012.
A poll out this week showed Feinstein with the highest negatives in her nearly 20 years in the Senate.
snip
This week it was learned that Feinstein's campaign accounts were "wiped out" in the accounting scandal that linked her to longtime treasurer Kinde Durkee. The latest FEC filings show Feinstein with more than five million dollars in the bank but it's not clear how much of that money actually exists or when the campaign might be able to access its remaining funds.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:What does this mean? OliviaG
Originally posted by romanlion:
... Dunhill Barry ...
quote:The stump speeches would at least have significant comedic and entertainment value.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Hey I've got an idea!
With all the dissatisfaction with Dunhill Barry, how bout a lefty independent ticket?
Franken-Feinstein 2012!!
quote:Just a jab at Barry for being a smoker, in spite of all we hear about how he is the smartest man in every room.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:What does this mean? OliviaG
Originally posted by romanlion:
... Dunhill Barry ...
quote:The lefties around here complain that she is too right wing.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Hey I've got an idea!
With all the dissatisfaction with Dunhill Barry, how bout a lefty independent ticket?
Franken-Feinstein 2012!!
quote:The actor spirit, perhaps. Michael resembles the politics of the Modern Day Right-Wing mouthpieces he tries to emulate much more than the politics of his late father.
Originally posted by 205:
The Spirit of Ronald lives!
quote:Franken-Boxer?
Originally posted by JSwift:
quote:The lefties around here complain that she is too right wing.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Hey I've got an idea!
With all the dissatisfaction with Dunhill Barry, how bout a lefty independent ticket?
Franken-Feinstein 2012!!
quote:How many non-millionaires in their right mind would want to be a Republican?
Originally posted by Martin L:
Perhaps the Republican Party would do well to raise up some non-millionaires.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:That would probably make them happier.
Franken-Boxer? [/QB]
quote:Indeed. The Dims would do well to do the same.
Originally posted by Martin L:
Perhaps the Republican Party would do well to raise up some non-millionaires.
quote:"From your lips to God's ear" seems appropriate...
Originally posted by New Yorker:
He actually said that there was no way Obama could lose and that we need much, much more government spending to solve our problems. What does one say in the face of such madness?
quote:Obama can definitely lose and, in a way, it would be better for progressives if he did. At least then the Dems would be back in opposition and actually fight the Republicans instead of caving in all the time.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
there was no way Obama could lose and that we need much, much more government spending to solve our problems. What does one say in the face of such madness?
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:"From your lips to God's ear" seems appropriate...
Originally posted by New Yorker:
He actually said that there was no way Obama could lose and that we need much, much more government spending to solve our problems. What does one say in the face of such madness?
--Tom Clune
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:And if (a majority of) the people of Arkansas want to adopt a system of racial apartheid, they wouldn't be subject to "unwarranted" federal intervention. There's a fairly long and unpleasant history behind the kind of arguments BA is advancing. I guess "state's rights" became too well known as a euphemism so the new watchword is "federalism".
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As for a social safety net, if the people of Georgia want a better safety net, then the Georgia state government can raise taxes on people living in places like Buckhead.
quote:It isn't just you. I could simply
Originally posted by orfeo:
Is it just me, or does anyone else find it tremendously sad that we have a 2012 election thread before we've hit 2012?
Given that said election doesn't happen until NOVEMBER 2012, for crying out loud. To have almost a third of the presidential term taken up by election discussion (note: I don't mean just here on the Ship) just illustrates everything wrong with a system where being elected is effectively bigger business than the actual process of doing things once elected.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:Since when have Presidential candidates been limited to those in their right mind? Have you watched the Republican primary debates?
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:How many non-millionaires in their right mind would want to be a Republican?
Originally posted by Martin L:
Perhaps the Republican Party would do well to raise up some non-millionaires.
quote:In the 1960s, it was unlikely that the Southern states were going to pass some sort of law requiring businesses to serve all regardless of race. That is a very bad situation. So in that instance, most of us would agree that Congress did the right thing in trumping federalism and passing the civil rights act. In that case, the ends justified the means.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:And if (a majority of) the people of Arkansas want to adopt a system of racial apartheid, they wouldn't be subject to "unwarranted" federal intervention. There's a fairly long and unpleasant history behind the kind of arguments BA is advancing. I guess "state's rights" became too well known as a euphemism so the new watchword is "federalism".
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
As for a social safety net, if the people of Georgia want a better safety net, then the Georgia state government can raise taxes on people living in places like Buckhead.
quote:you act as if they don't already!
Originally posted by no_prophet:
If corporations are officially people in the USA, do they get to vote?
quote:oooh... now you've got me rethinking my position on the death penalty...
Originally posted by no_prophet:
(While I am at it, I should probably ask when Texas will start executing them.)
quote:This seems to implicitly accept the idea that the federal government should not be legitimately interested in the rights or wellbeing of its citizens. I reject the idea that the Civil Rights Act was an unconstitutional power grab by Congress, rather than a perfectly legitimate and logical consequence of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
In the 1960s, it was unlikely that the Southern states were going to pass some sort of law requiring businesses to serve all regardless of race. That is a very bad situation. So in that instance, most of us would agree that Congress did the right thing in trumping federalism and passing the civil rights act. In that case, the ends justified the means.
quote:The big problem with BA's definition of "federalism" is that it denies the legitimacy of the federal goverment on any level. That's a pretty counter-intuitive use of the term, at least in an American context.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I guess my question for Croesos, or anyone else who wants to take this up, is, does that good law that came out of an extremely bad circumstance justify throwing out the entire idea of federalism? Or are there areas which, in your view, could be handled by the states, even if the legislature of those states is dominated by the party you don’t vote for?
quote:Congress didn’t insert a reference to interstate commerce in the civil rights act for fun. Nor did the Supreme Court decide that it was constitutional for reasons related to the 14th amendment; those cases are commerce clause cases. So that may be your interpretation, but it isn’t based on the actual history of the civil rights act.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:This seems to implicitly accept the idea that the federal government should not be legitimately interested in the rights or wellbeing of its citizens. I reject the idea that the Civil Rights Act was an unconstitutional power grab by Congress, rather than a perfectly legitimate and logical consequence of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
In the 1960s, it was unlikely that the Southern states were going to pass some sort of law requiring businesses to serve all regardless of race. That is a very bad situation. So in that instance, most of us would agree that Congress did the right thing in trumping federalism and passing the civil rights act. In that case, the ends justified the means.
quote:Does it, BA, or do you think that there are areas that are best left to the Feds?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The big problem with BA's definition of "federalism" is that it denies the legitimacy of the federal goverment on any level. That's a pretty counter-intuitive use of the term, at least in an American context.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I guess my question for Croesos, or anyone else who wants to take this up, is, does that good law that came out of an extremely bad circumstance justify throwing out the entire idea of federalism? Or are there areas which, in your view, could be handled by the states, even if the legislature of those states is dominated by the party you don’t vote for?
quote:What if Buckhead doesn't have the tax base to be able to support a safety net? Does the rest of the country have any obligation to the citizens of Buckhead?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
... As for a social safety net, if the people of Georgia want a better safety net, then the Georgia state government can raise taxes on people living in places like Buckhead.
quote:Why would they bother? Voting is for little people who can't afford to buy power.
Originally posted by no_prophet:
If corporations are officially people in the USA, do they get to vote?
(While I am at it, I should probably ask when Texas will start executing them.)
quote:I like Corbett's idea. A state's electoral votes equal its number of seats in the House of Representative plus its two senators. So, assign each congressional district an electoral vote and give the other two electoral votes to the candidate that wins the most votes.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Governor Corbett of Pennsylvania wants to begin awarding electoral college points by congressional district, with the two votes corresponding to senate seats to follow the majority of district decisions, instead of the usual "winner-take-all." Apparently this isn't unconstitutional. Two small States already do it; although one has to wonder, if a State has the power to choose another way than the usual, why they don't just go with the proportion of popular vote. It's whatever the Republicans figure will be best for themselves, of course.
Pennsylvania is known as "Pittsburgh on the west, Philadelphia on the east, and Alabama in between." Aside from these two cities and their environs, every congressional district went for McCain in 2008.
Actually, some Republican congressmen aren't too keen on this idea. The Democrats would focus more attention than ever on the contested districts. The change could backfire on them. Watching them duke this proposal out will be interesting.
quote:Or even more cynically - voting is to give little people the idea that they live in a democracy and have some influence. It's to stop them rising up and causing trouble.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Voting is for little people who can't afford to buy power.
quote:It's a second-best idea to just doing away with the electoral college altogether (though it does have the advantage of not needing a Constitutional amendment to implement). That said, it's only a good idea if widely implemented. If done on a piecemeal basis to split the electoral votes of certain states while leaving others as winner-take-all it's just the kind of 'fair in principle but deeply unfair in practice' sort of voting reform favored by elites distrustful of democratic elections.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I like Corbett's idea. A state's electoral votes equal its number of seats in the House of Representative plus its two senators. So, assign each congressional district an electoral vote and give the other two electoral votes to the candidate that wins the most votes.
quote:That is a rather old wheeze, which some Democrats tried here in Colorado back in 2004, when this state tended to be reliably red. Now they would probably regret the move had it passed, as the state has become more competitive, and their candidate has a real shot at pulling in all the votes. It seems to me that any “fix” which is based on reversing one recent undesirable result is set to backfire- let’s call that the Lazy Jack principle.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Governor Corbett of Pennsylvania wants to begin awarding electoral college points by congressional district, with the two votes corresponding to senate seats to follow the majority of district decisions, instead of the usual "winner-take-all." Apparently this isn't unconstitutional. Two small States already do it; although one has to wonder, if a State has the power to choose another way than the usual, why they don't just go with the proportion of popular vote. It's whatever the Republicans figure will be best for themselves, of course.
Pennsylvania is known as "Pittsburgh on the west, Philadelphia on the east, and Alabama in between." Aside from these two cities and their environs, every congressional district went for McCain in 2008.
Actually, some Republican congressmen aren't too keen on this idea. The Democrats would focus more attention than ever on the contested districts. The change could backfire on them. Watching them duke this proposal out will be interesting.
quote:No, it's a genuinely terrible idea. The states have been gerrymandering congressional districts for two centuries -- at least back as far as our own Massachusetts Governor Gerry, for whom the term was coined.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:It's a second-best idea to just doing away with the electoral college altogether (though it does have the advantage of not needing a Constitutional amendment to implement). That said, it's only a good idea if widely implemented. If done on a piecemeal basis to split the electoral votes of certain states while leaving others as winner-take-all it's just the kind of 'fair in principle but deeply unfair in practice' sort of voting reform favored by elites distrustful of democratic elections.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I like Corbett's idea. A state's electoral votes equal its number of seats in the House of Representative plus its two senators. So, assign each congressional district an electoral vote and give the other two electoral votes to the candidate that wins the most votes.
quote:A distrust of the people and a desire to inflate the influence of slave states?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
It is a bad idea if you assume electing the president simply by popular vote is the best way to go. I don't and for many of the same reasons the Framers decided not to do it in the first place.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:It should also be noted that, according to the 2000 census, there are twenty-nine states whose population is greater than the number of free citizens in the whole U.S. according to the 1790 census. (Thirty-eight, if you factor in the disenfranchisement of women in the early republic.) Despite this, states very rarely have any difficulty electing their chief executive by straight-up popular vote and none have resorted to anything as Byzantine as the electoral college on a state level. The idea that electing officials by popular vote is alien or disagreeable to Americans is laughable on its face.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If 13 colonies up and down the Atlantic seaboard couldn't agree to elect a president purely by popular vote, it seems unlikely that 50 states spanning the length of a continent will agree to do it. Corbett's scenario disenfranchises far fewer people than the status quo.
quote:This is simply false, unless you adopt the bizarre notion that getting electoral votes from other districts somehow "enfranchises" those who voted for the candidate that lost in their own.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Corbett's scenario disenfranchises far fewer people than the status quo.
quote:But this simply ignores the biggest unfairness in the electoral college system in the first place -- someone in a small state has a much bigger vote than someone in a large state. The difference between how much one person's vote counts in Nevada is something like 3 times as much as someone in California. It's just an anachronistic perversion that was part of accommodating slave states, and should be done away with entirely.
Originally posted by malik3000:
Re choosing electors via by district vs. bywinner-take all...
ISTM the problem is the plan's selectiveness. If states are going to go to electors based on who wins in districts within a specific states, then all states should have to. It shouldn't be some states doing a percentage and others doing winner-take-all.
quote:Gerrymandering isn't an issue. State legislatures decide the makeup of congressional districts. The makeup of the state legislature reflects the leanings of the state as a whole. The presidential candidate will likely get a significant number of votes in a state where his or her party controls the state legislature.
originally posted by tclune:
This is simply false, unless you adopt the bizarre notion that getting electoral votes from other districts somehow "enfranchises" those who voted for the candidate that lost in their own.
The motivation for adopting this scheme is clearly to capitalize on the disenfranchising that the states have institutionalized in their redistricting. It is quite easy to imagine a candidate literally winning the popular vote by a landslide and losing the electoral vote, also by a landslide, in this scenario.
quote:The constitution allows the state legislatures to decide how a states electors are chosen. Though I agree, it would be better if all the states adopted the same method. Og is correct that the current plan by Pennsylvania Republicans is both partisan and shortsighted.
originally posted by malik3000:
In this case the democrats would be helped. So the fair thing is, whatever is decided, it should be applied accross the board.
quote:Wait, you're arguing that there's no such thing as gerrymandering in the U.S.? I think you have to go into a little more depth than simply asserting that state legislatures, by their nature, can't fiddle electoral outcomes by redrawing electoral boundaries.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Gerrymandering isn't an issue. State legislatures decide the makeup of congressional districts. The makeup of the state legislature reflects the leanings of the state as a whole.
quote:That IS gerrymandering!
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Gerrymandering isn't an issue. State legislatures decide the makeup of congressional districts.
quote:The state legislators also draw up the districts for the state legislature. Thus Florida, which is pretty evenly divided population-wise between the Republicans and Democrats, has a consistently Republican legislature. The party in power in the State thus acts to perpetuate its power through questionable means. Then, because they dominate power at the State level for extended periods of time, the party in power can then draw its federal Congressional districts in such a way to benefit that party disproportionately.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Gerrymandering isn't an issue. State legislatures decide the makeup of congressional districts. The makeup of the state legislature reflects the leanings of the state as a whole. The presidential candidate will likely get a significant number of votes in a state where his or her party controls the state legislature.
quote:State legislatures drawing congressional districts is not gerrymandering. Drawing the districts with weird shapes for political purposes is gerrymandering. It still doesn't matter. A partisan controlled state legislature can limit the number of congressional seats the opposition party gets. However, the opposition party will get some congressional districts and the electoral votes that go with them.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:That IS gerrymandering!
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Gerrymandering isn't an issue. State legislatures decide the makeup of congressional districts.
quote:How would the 3rd party be selected?
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Having a 3rd unelected party set it up would help, but that would require getting beyond the idea that only elected people should do anything of import.
quote:
I stand corrected, thanks!
quote:Wow! I thought Republicans had some sort of genetic defect, no doubt due to excessive inbreeding, that rendered their vocal chords incapable of framing those words.
Originally posted by 205:
I only heard bits but last night IMO Gary Johnson made as much sense as anyone. The more palatable Ron Paul?
And how can you not love a guy who can say this
quote:
I stand corrected, thanks!
quote:Clearly, what he meant to say is that mistakes have been made...
Originally posted by 205:
I only heard bits but last night IMO Gary Johnson made as much sense as anyone. The more palatable Ron Paul?
And how can you not love a guy who can say this
quote:
I stand corrected, thanks!
quote:A pizza on every kitchen table...
Originally posted by New Yorker:
President Herman Cain? I could live with that.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:New Yorker, this is something I can directly agree with you on! The length of the campaign time of US federal elections is getting ridiculous. It almost seems like the minute one election ends, the campaign for the next one has already started.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
The primaries are starting way too early. I kind of admire the UK election process. As I understand it, the election is called and held a few weeks later.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:Dick has predicted elsewhere Obama would lose in a landslide.
I asked a top Democratic strategist if it were possible that President Obama might “pull a Lyndon Johnson” and soberly face the cameras, telling America that he has decided that the demands of partisan politics are interfering with his efforts to right our economy and that he has decided to withdraw to devote full time to our recovery. His answer: “Yes. It’s possible. If things continue as they are and have not turned around by January, it is certainly possible.”
quote:Who is Dick Morris? And why should I believe him?
Originally posted by 205:
Well, since the thread has been bumped...
Dick Morris: OBAMA MIGHT PULL OUT
quote:He's a former Bill Clinton advisor, Fox News "Democrat", and noted foot fetishist. His most notable achievement in the field of politics was upstaging Bill Clinton in a sex scandal. (No small feat! Feet?) These days his whole schtick is making outrageous predictions and pronouncements.
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:Who is Dick Morris? And why should I believe him?
Originally posted by 205:
Well, since the thread has been bumped...
Dick Morris: OBAMA MIGHT PULL OUT
quote:I'm not so sure. The Vice Presidency is a dubious vehicle for grooming a Presidential successor. In post-war American politics there have been three attempts at this, one successful (George Bush senior) and two not (Nixon in 1960 and Humphrey in 1968).
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
What I'd really like to see would be a change in the VP part of the ticket, so we might have someone well placed for 2016.
quote:And so our President's call for civility remains unanswered.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As much as I am irked by Obama's constant giving away the store in negotiations w/ the GOP thugs
quote:I think you are way too parochial. ISTM that the real point is that Obama, like essentially all of humanity, is a hypocrite.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
He only wanted the Republicans to be civil. His side can say whatever it wants. Obama, like most politicians, is a hypocrite.
quote:You've reminded me again why I ought post here: someone needs to be the exception to the rule.*
Originally posted by tclune:
ISTM that the real point is that Obama, like essentially all of humanity, is a hypocrite.
quote:Although not a particularly skilled one, unlike most politicians. Give the man his propers.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
He only wanted the Republicans to be civil. His side can say whatever it wants. Obama, like most politicians, is a hypocrite.
quote:I'm not sure he limited it to Republicans. But if he did...well, let's see...which side of the aisle was the least civil?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
He only wanted the Republicans to be civil. His side can say whatever it wants. Obama, like most politicians, is a hypocrite.
quote:Technically, this is really because the UK (and Australian) equivalent of 'primaries' happens within each political party, without any public involvement. The 'preselection' process, whereby a party decides who its candidates will be for parliamentary elections, happens WAY before the actual election. But most of the time the general public just sees the end result - which name the party puts forward for the ballot paper.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
The primaries are starting way too early. I kind of admire the UK election process. As I understand it, the election is called and held a few weeks later.
quote:She can still change her mind, though. The crazy dingbat.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And in the least surprising political news of the season, Sarah Palin won't be running for President.
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:A very sad day for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And in the least surprising political news of the season, Sarah Palin won't be running for President.
quote:I don't think either of them will be short on material as long as Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry are still in the race.
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
quote:A very sad day for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And in the least surprising political news of the season, Sarah Palin won't be running for President.
quote:I heard a non-wildly partisan guy on NPR talking about this some weeks ago: his take was a lot of the alleged wrongdoing wasn't prosecutorially actionable, but damned if I know.
Originally posted by tclune:
Obama as been a truly awful President in many ways -- even Bush Senior was not so clueless as to let the S&L thieves get off unscathed.
quote:If you thought she had a realistic chance of being elected, you have a lower opinion of American voters and electoral process than I do.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I, New Yorker, am very depressed today. I was hoping to see America's first female president after this election. But, alas, Sarah chose not to run.
Sigh.
quote:In this country, we don't assassinate Presidents because they are idiots. We assassinate them because they are competent and don't play ball with us.
Originally posted by ken:
She'd never have got there - the Secret Service would have accidentally assassinated her before she could take the oath. Not worth the risk that she might be as moronic an old slag as she looks.
quote:They didn't shoot Obama and, unlike Sarah Palin, he's a board certified moron.
Originally posted by ken:
She'd never have got there - the Secret Service would have accidentally assassinated her before she could take the oath. Not worth the risk that she might be as moronic an old slag as she looks.
quote:What an interesting utterance. From what galaxy did that come?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:They didn't shoot Obama and, unlike Sarah Palin, he's a board certified moron.
Originally posted by ken:
She'd never have got there - the Secret Service would have accidentally assassinated her before she could take the oath. Not worth the risk that she might be as moronic an old slag as she looks.
quote:The Glennbekian system of the Limbaughmedia galaxy.
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:What an interesting utterance. From what galaxy did that come?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:They didn't shoot Obama and, unlike Sarah Palin, he's a board certified moron.
Originally posted by ken:
She'd never have got there - the Secret Service would have accidentally assassinated her before she could take the oath. Not worth the risk that she might be as moronic an old slag as she looks.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Dick Durbin, the "other" Illinois senator, would make a good candidate. He's vertically-challenged, though, if that makes any difference!
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Even if Obama drops out of the race, what Democratic politician has a better chance of winning the 2012 presidential election than the incumbent president? All of them will be open to the same criticism as Obama. Few of them will have the name recognition. Democrats disillusioned with Obama might hope he will be replaced by Hillary Clinton but it isn't going to happen.
quote:No, they're just as stupid, credulous, gullible, lacking in discernemnt and willing to make important decisions specious grounds as any other group of people. They mostly happen to have been born in a place, or of parents with a particular nationality, which they didn't choose and then been fortunate enough to have survived to adulthood.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Generally speaking, in the end, the American voters do the right thing.
quote:It does--the historical record shows that the taller candidate usually wins.
Originally posted by Martin L:
quote:Dick Durbin, the "other" Illinois senator, would make a good candidate. He's vertically-challenged, though, if that makes any difference!
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Even if Obama drops out of the race, what Democratic politician has a better chance of winning the 2012 presidential election than the incumbent president? All of them will be open to the same criticism as Obama. Few of them will have the name recognition. Democrats disillusioned with Obama might hope he will be replaced by Hillary Clinton but it isn't going to happen.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:from two Democratic pollsters (a breath of fresh air - admitting their Hillary bias
When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion.
He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president's accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Never before has there been such an obvious potential successor—one who has been a loyal and effective member of the president's administration, who has the stature to take on the office, and who is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy.
snip
Having unique experience in government as first lady, senator and now as Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton is more qualified than any presidential candidate in recent memory, including her husband. Her election would arguably be as historic an event as the election of President Obama in 2008.
By going down the re-election road and into partisan mode, the president has effectively guaranteed that the remainder of his term will be marred by the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity, common purpose, and most of all, our economic strength. If he continues on this course it is certain that the 2012 campaign will exacerbate the divisions in our country and weaken our national identity to such a degree that the scorched-earth campaign that President George W. Bush ran in the 2002 midterms and the 2004 presidential election will pale in comparison.
We write as patriots and Democrats—concerned about the fate of our party and, most of all, our country
) may be onto something - all I can say is ISTM at this writing if the Repubs can put up someone who can consistently fog a mirror Obama is in trouble.quote:But as I see it any of the GOP nominees - even bonkers Ron Paul - would trounce the current president.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Unfortunately, the Republicans don't have anybody.
quote:Recent polling data suggests the way you see it isn't well supported.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:But as I see it any of the GOP nominees - even bonkers Ron Paul - would trounce the current president.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Unfortunately, the Republicans don't have anybody.
quote:As you see it John McCain would have trounced Obama in 2008 by a landside.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
But as I see it any of the GOP nominees - even bonkers Ron Paul - would trounce the current president.
quote:Given the weak economy, high unemployment rate, and Obama's lack of action on the jobs front, his re-election should be somewhere between "difficult" and "impossible". The fact that it apparently isn't is a testament to the weakness of the current Republican slate of potential candidates.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Recent polling data suggests the way you see it isn't well supported.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:But as I see it any of the GOP nominees - even bonkers Ron Paul - would trounce the current president.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Unfortunately, the Republicans don't have anybody.
quote:Well, yes. President Obama is not equal to his job. I think we Democrats have realized this. And, yes, Hillary Clinton has been a remarkably effective Secretary of State.
Originally posted by 205:
And this
quote:from two Democratic pollsters
When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion.
He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most important of the president's accomplishments. He should step aside for the one candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Never before has there been such an obvious potential successor—one who has been a loyal and effective member of the president's administration, who has the stature to take on the office, and who is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy.
snip
Having unique experience in government as first lady, senator and now as Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton is more qualified than any presidential candidate in recent memory, including her husband. Her election would arguably be as historic an event as the election of President Obama in 2008.
By going down the re-election road and into partisan mode, the president has effectively guaranteed that the remainder of his term will be marred by the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity, common purpose, and most of all, our economic strength. If he continues on this course it is certain that the 2012 campaign will exacerbate the divisions in our country and weaken our national identity to such a degree that the scorched-earth campaign that President George W. Bush ran in the 2002 midterms and the 2004 presidential election will pale in comparison.
We write as patriots and Democrats—concerned about the fate of our party and, most of all, our country
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:Here you go.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is he the same person as the man who some years ago managed to push through a vote that temporarily froze all government expenditure and caused day to day administration to seize up? Or am I imagining that?
quote:Yep, same guy. His given name is actually "Newton", from which "Newt" is derived. It's a custom in certain parts of the American south that the first male child born to marriage is given the mother's maiden name as a first name. Another notable beneficiary/victim of this system was Truman Capote.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I've asked this once before, but I don't think anyone ever answered my question. Is he the same person as the man who some years ago managed to push through a vote that temporarily froze all government expenditure and caused day to day administration to seize up? Or am I imagining that?
Also, how does someone end up being called Newt?
quote:Oh please. The media never did that with the Clinton affair. They can't resist a good sex scandal no matter where it comes from or who it's directed at.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
If he'd been a white Democrat, the news media would have gone all out to discredit the women who made the allegations against Cain.
quote:True. Just like Gary Hart.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Oh please. The media never did that with the Clinton affair. They can't resist a good sex scandal no matter where it comes from or who it's directed at.
quote:You mean being torn to shreds for having an affair while his wife is dying of cancer. Elizabeth was elevated to saint status and John became the scum of the earth. He's facing criminal charges with a court date scheduled for January.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What romanlion and New Yorker are trying to say is, "We really wish the media would have treated Herman Cain the same way they treated John Edwards."
quote:
Originally posted by JSwift:
quote:True. Just like Gary Hart.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Oh please. The media never did that with the Clinton affair. They can't resist a good sex scandal no matter where it comes from or who it's directed at.
If that's sarcasm, I don't get it? Though as a disclaimer, Gary Hart's a bit before my time (well, before I got interested in national affairs: I was more interested in Lego's at the time), I looked him up on the all-knowing wikipedia, but can't see what you're driving at?quote:No... New Yorker's claim was that the media would have done everything they could have to discredit the women making the allegations. When has the media ever done that for a white Democrat? Or for any politician?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What romanlion and New Yorker are trying to say is, "We really wish the media would have treated Herman Cain the same way they treated John Edwards."
quote:No sarcasm at all. Just agreeing with you and providing another example. The press didn't suppress his shenanigans but instead exposed them.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:In both Cain's and Clinton's cases women were coming out of the woodwork to report the affairs or mistreatment. In Edward's case it was one mistress and both went to extraordinary efforts to hide the affair. The Inquirer shadowed his every move for months before they finally caught him - but they initially had no proof and a woman who claimed the child was someone elses. There hadn't been a whiff of sexual impropriety before for Edwards where everyone around Clinton and Cain all knew, even if they didn't report to the media until after their candidacy for President was in full swing. Major differences in these cases.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The National Inquirer broke the story because the rest of the media wasn't looking for any dirt on John Edwards. The New York Times ran a hit piece on John McCain with virtually no evidence at all but missed the fact John Edwards had a child with his mistress? The Times and company missed it because they weren't looking for it.
quote:The GOP voters hate their candidates, the Democrat voters dislike their President - what are the chances of everyone staying home on election day? Or will everyone go, hold their noses and vote? People ridicule me for my habit of either voting 3rd party or doing write ins, but I'm sick of the losers and scumbags who end up running. I value my right to vote, which is the only reason I show up to do my duty.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Isn't it more like the end of Carter's presidential term? Obama is, objectively, vulnerable on his record; there's a lot of disappointment amongst his supporters (some of which has been reflected in this thread).
quote:This is how I recall it. Paula Jones and Monica being torn to shreds and Clinton being praised to high heaven for perjury. Of course, the whole point of the impeachment was perjury not sex. That got lost in the whole story. Sad days for journalism.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
When did they do it for the Democrats? I'll bet Paula Jones would have loved to be treated as well as the women making allegations against Herman Cain. By the time it was all said and done, the national media was arguing Bill Clinton had a right to commit perjury provided he only lied about sex. Sure, the case in question was about sex...but...he needed to get back to running the country (yeah, that's the ticket).
quote:If I've been following things accurately I believe a comment like that pretty much means you are 'racist'.
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Well, yes. President Obama is not equal to his job. I think we Democrats have realized this.
quote:Newt on the news.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Sad days for journalism.
quote:This could well mean he's absolutely locked up the nomination and the Presidency.
Gingrich said he would inform himself on the issue, and then joked, “One of the real changes that comes when you start running for president – as opposed to being an analyst on Fox – is I have to actually know what I’m talking about.”
quote:I seem to recall Clinton being ridiculed quite a lot.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Who are the subjects of ridicule and derision? Monica and Paula.
quote:If the attack ads by the Dem's are anything to go by, I'm sure Obama et al feel the same way. They've done all they can to keep Romney from winning the GOP nomination.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But I should think Obama and team would be happier fighting Gingrich. More to aim at. And not just because he's put on a few pounds.
quote:I believe the correct quote here is: "It's the economy, stupid."
Originally posted by romanlion:
Leave aside for a moment Clinton's multiple affairs, rape accusations, and perjurious grand jury testimony and imagine if you will the idea of the shrub, Bush I, or even Reagan being blown in the oval office by a 19 year old volunteer intern.
Do you truly believe that they would continue to enjoy the kind of media treatment and credibility provided Bill Clinton?
quote:No, no, it simply means he's not equal to his job. Dear heavens, man! But you know that.
Originally posted by 205:
quote:If I've been following things accurately I believe a comment like that pretty much means you are 'racist'.
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Well, yes. President Obama is not equal to his job. I think we Democrats have realized this.
And furthermore if you'd just admit it we could all move on to ignoring anything else you ever say.
quote:The big difference is Jimmy Carter faced a primary challenge from Ted Kennedy. While both liberals and blue dogs are unhappy with him, Obama still doesn't have a primary challenger. The only incumbent president in the last century that lost his bid for reelection after facing no challenge for his parties nomination was Herbert Hoover.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Isn't it more like the end of Carter's presidential term? Obama is, objectively, vulnerable on his record; there's a lot of disappointment amongst his supporters (some of which has been reflected in this thread).
quote:Andrew Johnson was impeached but he was never elected president.
originally posted by Gramps49:
A point of information: Bill Clinton was not the only president to be impeached. Andrew Johnson was the first president to be impeached. The reason why Andrew was impeached was because he tried to remove Secretary of War Stranton. The House Republicans, in reality, did not like him because he was a former Democrat. He was found not guilty by one vote in the Senate. After he left the presidency he became a Senator.
quote:2nd point of information: I never said that Clinton was the only POTUS to be impeached.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
A point of information: Bill Clinton was not the only president to be impeached. Andrew Johnson was the first president to be impeached. The reason why Andrew was impeached was because he tried to remove Secretary of War Stranton. The House Republicans, in reality, did not like him because he was a former Democrat. He was found not guilty by one vote in the Senate. After he left the presidency he became a Senator.
quote:I know I'm quoting from a ways up thread, so feel free to ignore me
Originally posted by Grammatica:
But wouldn't it be much more productive for the Clinton faction in the Democratic Party to "support" this young man until he finishes out his second term in dignity, running things for him behind the scenes, using (for example) Bill Clinton's most recent book as the script for his second term, positioning Hillary Clinton as his successor, and uniting the entire party behind her?
but...quote:Which is an expression of the great democratic dilemma: Is an election a referendum on the past performance of the incumbent, or a choice between options for who will be best (or least bad) in the next term?
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Obama may be a big disappointment for me, but I'll be volunteering to get out the vote for him.
quote:Unfortunately, we don't have the option of voting "none of the above." So one of these fools is going to end up as POTUS. I'll probably vote for Obama. but I would seriously consider voting for a third party candidate if there were one -- the extent to which Obama has enraged me is more than I thought possible. His smarmy insistence that no laws were broken in the Wall Street meltdown has alienated me for good.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:Which is an expression of the great democratic dilemma: Is an election a referendum on the past performance of the incumbent, or a choice between options for who will be best (or least bad) in the next term?
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Obama may be a big disappointment for me, but I'll be volunteering to get out the vote for him.
The Dems have got to hope it's the latter; the GOP will be mercilessly pursuing the former.
quote:To be honest, I don't remember the last time that wasn't the case. I think a lot of liberals were taken in by Obama's rhetoric, but in the end I think he ended up being another Tweedle.
Originally posted by tclune:
But I don't expect anything other than a Tweedle-Dee/Tweedle-Dum choice.
quote:Yep, Hillary is a polarizing figure.
originally posted by Gramps49:
Hillary is one of the most polarizing political figures...?
quote:Newt was a polarizing figure in the late 90's. He may still be. We will see. As Speaker's of the House go, Boehner isn't all that polarizing. Rove and Norquist definitely are. Cantor probably is. Trump? To be polarizing, somebody has to really like you. I don't know anybody who really likes Trump.
originally posted by Gramps49:
If you want to talk about polarizing figures, how about Newt, Boehner, Rove, Trump, Cantor, Grover Norquist?
quote:or something like that
originally posted by Gramps49:
But, then again, you would probably accuse me of being a Democrat.
quote:But he isn't. Insantorum is still standing. He is intelligent, although widely regarded as a sanctimonious asshole obsessed with social "issues". When have the Republicans let the latter traits stop them before?
Originally posted by Enoch:
Our papers have recently been saying that Newt Gingrich has quite a good chance of being the Republican candidate in next year's election, simply as the last man standing.
quote:By the time he was in the White House, Reagan was probably past it--but he was an adulterer (Nancy Reagan gave birth to a full-term baby seven months after Ronnie's divorce from Jane Wyman).
Originally posted by romanlion:
Leave aside for a moment Clinton's multiple affairs, rape accusations, and perjurious grand jury testimony and imagine if you will the idea of the shrub, Bush I, or even Reagan being blown in the oval office by a 19 year old volunteer intern.
quote:Huh? Did he lose the attention because he remained in the single digits, or did he remain in the single digits because he lost the attention?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Huntsman got plenty of attention when he announced but lost it because he remained in single digits. Paul deserves more attention but probably can't win the nomination. Tim Pawlenty got out of the race too soon. The Tea Party likely convinced some of the better Republicans candidates to stay out of the race.
quote:I thought John Stewart had it just about right on Huntsman's campaign -- it appealed to those Republicans who wanted a Mormon ex-governor who wasn't as well known as Romney.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Huntsman just isn't appealing to Republican primary voters.
quote:ISTM that Mormons are better-known than are JWs. The fact that Romney's dad was governor of Michigan and ran for POTUS decades ago gives some idea of how long people have had to get used to the idea that Mormons are a common part of American life. In all honesty, I can't think of a single JW who is well-known in this country. So I suspect it's mostly a matter of folks having seen them in positions of authority without being green-eyed monsters, while there is no similar history with JWs.
Originally posted by romanlion:
With two Mormons running for the GOP nomination I am curious about the (perceived) difference between views about Mormonism and views about Jehovah’s Witnesses.
I can’t help but believe that a JW candidate would be subject to a greater degree of scrutiny/criticism regarding their faith than the current Mormon candidates are, although I could be mistaken about that.
quote:I understand that Huntsman has an adopted daughter of Indian origin. If that is what you are using to identify him as a Hindu, you should be ashamed of yourself. If you have any substantive basis for this claim that holds more water than the claims that Obama is a Moslem, I would like to see the source.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Huntsman is a Mormon/Hindu...
quote:Considering that both sects grew (roughly) out of the Enlightenment, would it be fair to say that it comes down to wealth, then?
Originally posted by tclune:
So I suspect it's mostly a matter of folks having seen them in positions of authority without being green-eyed monsters, while there is no similar history with JWs.
--Tom Clune
quote:(etc etc stuff about JWs, Hindus & so on)
Originally posted by tclune:
.... those Republicans who wanted a Mormon ex-governor who wasn't as well known as Romney.
quote:Given the dynamics of the situation I'd say it's more akin to "John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child" than "Obama is a secret Moslem".
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:I understand that Huntsman has an adopted daughter of Indian origin. If that is what you are using to identify him as a Hindu, you should be ashamed of yourself. If you have any substantive basis for this claim that holds more water than the claims that Obama is a Moslem, I would like to see the source.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Huntsman is a Mormon/Hindu...
quote:Huntsman's Indian daughter is only 5. She has been raised as a Hindu and the family celebrates Diwali with her. I think Huntsman and his wife have sort of an eclectic spirituality. To most conservative Christian voters, Mormon, Hindu, and generic spirituality are all equally bad.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:I understand that Huntsman has an adopted daughter of Indian origin. If that is what you are using to identify him as a Hindu, you should be ashamed of yourself. If you have any substantive basis for this claim that holds more water than the claims that Obama is a Moslem, I would like to see the source.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Huntsman is a Mormon/Hindu...
--Tom Clune
quote:...and then they would nominate somebody who just happens to fit most of the criteria on Ken's list.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Ken I don't know where you conjoured your list of requirements to be a good candidate for the most committed Republicans, but most committed Republicans would laugh at that list and wonder how out of touch one must be to imagine that those criteria exist.
quote:I think one of them is President.
Originally posted by ken:
Looked at like that you wonder what the minimum conditions are for being a credible candidate from the point of view of most committed Republicans? Someone they media could big up into a challenger come election time.
Maybe they'd have to be:
- male
- white
- rich
- aged between about 40 and 60 (older people can get re-elected, but not first time)
- a governor or a senator (or recently have been such)
- a member in good standing of a not obviously weirdo Christian church. Any denomination will do and you don't actually have to believe any of it as long as you can smile and pose for the cameras in front of the church door on a couple of Sunday mornings. Mormons doesn't cut it.
- either married, or else divorced and remarried to the woman you left your previous wife for. These days divorce cures adultery in the eyes of the voters.
There must be at least fifty such people in the USA. They can't all be insane. Some of them must want to be President.
quote:Your classification seems to be based on this statement to Newsweek:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Huntsman's Indian daughter is only 5. She has been raised as a Hindu and the family celebrates Diwali with her. I think Huntsman and his wife have sort of an eclectic spirituality. To most conservative Christian voters, Mormon, Hindu, and generic spirituality are all equally bad.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:I understand that Huntsman has an adopted daughter of Indian origin. If that is what you are using to identify him as a Hindu, you should be ashamed of yourself. If you have any substantive basis for this claim that holds more water than the claims that Obama is a Moslem, I would like to see the source.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Huntsman is a Mormon/Hindu...
--Tom Clune
quote:For whatever reason you don't classify John Huntsman as a Mormon/Episcopalian/Catholic/Lutheran/Hindu. Is there any particular reason you decided to exclude the middle three from your description?
I was raised a Mormon, Mary Kaye was raised Episcopalian, our kids have gone to Catholic school, I went to a Lutheran school growing up in Los Angeles. I have [an adopted] daughter from India who has a very distinct Hindu tradition, one that we would celebrate during Diwali. So you kind of bind all this together.
quote:You don't really believe that do you?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Ken I don't know where you conjoured your list of requirements to be a good candidate for the most committed Republicans, but most committed Republicans would laugh at that list and wonder how out of touch one must be to imagine that those criteria exist.
quote:Yes, I do believe it.
Originally posted by ken:
You don't really believe that do you?
quote:She was certainly serious as a VP candidate and I and lot of people I know were serious supporters of her.
(Ther delusion that Palin would have been a serious candidate had she ever got the nomination is irrelevant, because she never did and never will)
quote:It appears that you've already bought one! The religion issue, it seems to me, is being debated by the chattering opionin and news folks but not by the average voter. Most Republicans that I know could care less about Romney's religion.
And as for the religious affiliation, its being debated all over the place, not just here. Do you really think they are likely to nominate an atheist or a Muslim? Really? Hey, you seem to live in New York - do you want to buy a bridge?
quote:This would appear to be true, but I wonder...
Originally posted by New Yorker:
The religion issue, it seems to me, is being debated by the chattering opionin and news folks but not by the average voter. Most Republicans that I know could care less about Romney's religion.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:On Facebook the other day I suggested that, now that The Donald is hosting -- oops, I mean moderating [snort] the Republican debates, the TV producers go all the way, and create a hybrid of the debates and "Dancing With the Stars," since both endeavors have an equivalent gravitas and reality-vs.-showbiz ratio.
And don't get me started on the so-called "debates," especially one with The Donald running the show. As a nation, we should just bite the bullet and turn the whole bloody business over to Reality TV producers:
quote:Lawrence O'Donnell did a bit last night where he called Mitt the Marilyn Munster of the GOP. The seemingly normal one...
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I just don't like Romney's hair.
quote:I have found the debates pretty substantive -- and, frankly, kind of brave in this "gotcha" sound bite age. I don't share the views of the Republican candidates on a lot of issues, but they are really giving the primary voters a chance to look them over in detail. DT is certainly not my idea of a heavyweight, but I'm willing to suspend judgment on the debate until it happens. And, given that it is just one of a substantial series, it won't be a terrible thing if it is on the fluffy side.
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
quote:On Facebook the other day I suggested that, now that The Donald is hosting -- oops, I mean moderating [snort] the Republican debates, the TV producers go all the way, and create a hybrid of the debates and "Dancing With the Stars," since both endeavors have an equivalent gravitas and reality-vs.-showbiz ratio.
And don't get me started on the so-called "debates," especially one with The Donald running the show. As a nation, we should just bite the bullet and turn the whole bloody business over to Reality TV producers:
quote:The English embassy in Tehran was sacked November 30th.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The problem with the debate format is that it has revealed that the GOP not-Romneys are all incompetent to be the Leader of The Free World.
quote:The deal of it is Republicans do not vote in the Democratic primary process, so their hatred of her had no direct impact in the nomination of Obama. Judging from the caucus I participated in, the reason why Obama one was because of his promise of change--now it can be debated if we got what he promised, agreed.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Republicans hated her long before she defended her husband. They hated her after she defended her husband. Hillary being a polarizing figure was one of the reasons Obama won the nomination.
quote:What does the sacking of the United Kingdom embassy in Iran have to do with anything? Obama isn't Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The Republicans in the debates are running for President of United States not standing for election as Witney's representative in parliament.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:The English embassy in Tehran was sacked November 30th.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The problem with the debate format is that it has revealed that the GOP not-Romneys are all incompetent to be the Leader of The Free World.
Sorry, the United Kingdom embassy.
And Mr. Cain has dropped out of the race.
There is no one up there that isn't at least Obama's equal in terms of competence.
quote:Hillarycare? You talking about her approach to healthcare? It was innovative, but it did not pass.
-"Two for the price of one"
-Hillarycare
-Travelgate
-Futures trading
-"Vast right wing conspiracy"
-Carpetbagging
-Debate with Lazio
-Insulting Gen. Petraeus
Those are the ones I recall off the top of my head. [/QB]
quote:I bow to your superior wisdom. Surely The Donald will provide better costumes than DWTS. (But keep whoever does that thing he wears on his head faaaaaar away from the debaters.)
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
quote:On Facebook the other day I suggested that, now that The Donald is hosting -- oops, I mean moderating [snort] the Republican debates, the TV producers go all the way, and create a hybrid of the debates and "Dancing With the Stars," since both endeavors have an equivalent gravitas and reality-vs.-showbiz ratio.
And don't get me started on the so-called "debates," especially one with The Donald running the show. As a nation, we should just bite the bullet and turn the whole bloody business over to Reality TV producers:
quote:So, you represent one pole. People who see all of those things differently represent another pole. Hence, Hillary Clinton is a polarizing figure.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
You are asking why she is a polarizing figure?
quote:Hillarycare? You talking about her approach to healthcare? It was innovative, but it did not pass.
-"Two for the price of one"
-Hillarycare
-Travelgate
-Futures trading
-"Vast right wing conspiracy"
-Carpetbagging
-Debate with Lazio
-Insulting Gen. Petraeus
Those are the ones I recall off the top of my head.
Travelgate? Investigated, no laws broken
Vast right wing conspiracy? It was the truth--still is.
Lazio? What happened?
A decisive moment that was detrimental to {Lazio's) campaign came during a September 13, 2000 debate when he left his podium, walked over to Clinton with a piece of paper that he called the "New York Freedom From Soft Money Pledge" and demanded she sign it. Clinton refused. Some debate viewers were turned off by Lazio's demeanor towards Clinton – and as a result, Clinton's support among women voters solidified.
Lazio has since expressed regret for his conduct, widely regarded as "bullying and chauvinistic", during the debate:
"At the time, I was making a point about a campaign finance pledge that Mrs. Clinton had made and I didn't feel that it was being honored. I thought that was the opportunity to make the point. On substance, it was right - and on style and perception, it was a mistake, which I regret."
Insulting Petreaus? He's a big man. He can handle himself. (If he brings in charts that are suspect, what is she supposed to do, compliment him?
Futures Trading? Investigated, no wrong doing found. [/QB]
quote:I couldn't agree more. If the Republicans don't get more excited about a candidate and if the unemployment rate continues to go the right direction, Obama stands a very good chance of being re-elected. If he has to fend off a primary challenge, the Republican candidate's chances get a lot better.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Obama said on national television that Hillary was a polarizing figure! She isn't a polarizing figure among Democrats. You got that right. Hillary running in the primary would be worse for Obama than Kennedy's primary challenge was to Carter. Kennedy didn't wasn't part of the Carter administration.
quote:I have to admit, the thought of Bill Clinton running around the White House again gave me pause in 2008.
You are asking why she is a polarizing figure?
-"Two for the price of one"
quote:In the future I should put my tea down before reading things like this. Obama is, as Rush says, always, without question, the least competent person into whatever room he walks. Any of the GOP field, even the bonkers Ron Paul, would be a much more competent Leader of the Free World.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The problem with the debate format is that it has revealed that the GOP not-Romneys are all incompetent to be the Leader of The Free World.
quote:Well, this is the sort of thing you get when you take your analysis from a drug addict...
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Obama is, as Rush says, always, without question, the least competent person into whatever room he walks.
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Leader of the Free World.
Now I get it! You're from the Fifties!!!!!
quote:No. Simply quoting H. Bree.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Leader of the Free World.
quote:Hardly possible. Obama has been in the same room as Rush.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Obama is, as Rush says, always, without question, the least competent person into whatever room he walks. Any of the GOP field, even the bonkers Ron Paul, would be a much more competent Leader of the Free World.
quote:Dear New Yorker, do you really believe the things you write?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Obama is, as Rush says, always, without question, the least competent person into whatever room he walks. Any of the GOP field, even the bonkers Ron Paul, would be a much more competent Leader of the Free World.
quote:The bonkers Ron Paul knows better than to play into the ego of someone who is considering running as an independent candidate. He has declined to appear in Trump's debate, explaining that it is beneath the office of President. So have Huntsman and Romney. The others are too in love with the limelight and/or the smell of money to refuse the invitation.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Any of the GOP field, even the bonkers Ron Paul, would be a much more competent Leader of the Free World.
quote:Not all!
Originally posted by malik3000:
Dear New Yorker, do you really believe the things you write?
quote:Ah yes, Rep. Schlafly: "a woman's place is in the House!"
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Phyllis Schlafly, a woman best known for pursuing a successful media relations career telling other women they should stay home and not pursue careers, has endorsed Michele Bachmann for president.
quote:Republicans in the 1950s were a quite different bunch. Today, to be an Eisenhower Republican I have to be a Democrat.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:No. Simply quoting H. Bree.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Leader of the Free World.
quote:Serena and Venus Williams?
Originally posted by tclune:
In all honesty, I can't think of a single JW who is well-known in this country.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:The artist formerly known as Prince. Michael Jackson when he was alive.
Originally posted by Tukai:
quote:Serena and Venus Williams?
Originally posted by tclune:
In all honesty, I can't think of a single JW who is well-known in this country.
quote:Actually, that's pretty good for a Republican Presidential candidate...
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But unless Huntsman knows something about a recent report which nobody else seems to know, he appears to have also placed the University of East Anglia in Scotland.
quote:I'm not sure how to interpret Rick Perry's latest ad except in this light. Here's a transcript.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
The religion issue, it seems to me, is being debated by the chattering opionin and news folks but not by the average voter. Most Republicans that I know could care less about Romney's religion.
quote:So I guess what we're supposted to take away from this is:
I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian, but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.
As President, I'll end Obama's war on religion. And I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage.
Faith made America strong. It can make her strong again.
I'm Rick Perry and I approve this message.
quote:It could be worse.
Originally posted by tclune:
Actually, that's pretty good for a Republican Presidential candidate...
quote:Please document your '98%' assertion.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
He wasn't claiming that an assertion (climate change) that is accepted by 98% of the scientific community and has been the subject of much analysis and numerous academic papers over several decades, hasn't fully been explained because of some university, somewhere, that he can't be bothered to look up, said something that seems inadequate, for some reason.
quote:Reported by (which gives more info than is in the extract):
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
quote:You really believe all that stuff, don't you?
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
It would be my pleasure:
From: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: Expert credibility in climate change
quote:Reported by (which gives more info than is in the extract):
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
USA Today: Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real
But you know, some university, somewhere, said something, about something that totally invalidates all the empirical data, research, analysis and peer reviewed papers of this 98% of climate change scientists, so it's all a wash.
quote:Actually I'm pretty sure TJD's last paragraph there is a form of expression known as "sarcasm", representing not what he "really believe[s]", but an exagerating mockery of an position being derided.
Originally posted by 205:
quote:You really believe all that stuff, don't you?
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
It would be my pleasure:
From: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: Expert credibility in climate change
quote:Reported by (which gives more info than is in the extract):
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
USA Today: Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real
But you know, some university, somewhere, said something, about something that totally invalidates all the empirical data, research, analysis and peer reviewed papers of this 98% of climate change scientists, so it's all a wash.
quote:Fair enough but IIRC last time I started an 'ACC' thread I lacked the skill necessary to perpetuate it for more than a few dozen posts.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Think it over, Shipmates.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
quote:I think that leaning so heavily on the Jesus button is more a sign that Perry knows his political prospects are sinking and this is a last-ditch attempt to revive with some culture war resentment. Interestingly, the like/dislike proportions are almost exactly reversed in this popular parody (contains NSFW language).
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
So just to slightly change the subject, has Rick Perry's "Strong" video, which has set new records for the most disliked video ever posted on youtube, totally sunk his political prospects for good?
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Interestingly, the like/dislike proportions are almost exactly reversed in this popular parody (contains NSFW language).
quote:Well for starters there is no U.K. embassy in Iran, nor is there an English embassy there, or anywhere else for that matter.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:What does the sacking of the United Kingdom embassy in Iran have to do with anything? Obama isn't Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The Republicans in the debates are running for President of United States not standing for election as Witney's representative in parliament.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:The English embassy in Tehran was sacked November 30th.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The problem with the debate format is that it has revealed that the GOP not-Romneys are all incompetent to be the Leader of The Free World.
Sorry, the United Kingdom embassy.
And Mr. Cain has dropped out of the race.
There is no one up there that isn't at least Obama's equal in terms of competence.
quote:Given the uncertainties you detail IMO about the most we can do is to ask whether s/he is adhering to what I believe is the foundational concept of this country: are they encouraging, or discouraging, a more intrusive government? Do they seem to grasp the notion of 'live and let live' or do they seem to believe their 'vision' for the country is the one they, and the rest of the bureaucratically minded legislators, believe ought to be pursued (read: forced on the people by regulatory fiat)?
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Serious question: How do we measure competence in a President?
quote:I note that in the story you link to, the attackers were shouting "Death to England".
Originally posted by romanlion:
If it is important for these candidates to know the names of obscure leaders or the location of obscure universities, surely it is important for Barry to correctly identify the embassy of our closest ally when it is sacked.
He was unable to do so.
A poster said that none of the GOP numbskulls were competent to be "leader of the free world". My point was that they are all at least as competent as Obama. [/QB]
quote:And the Scots. Or am I missing something?
Originally posted by ken:
And no-one over here gives a dam. Except the Welsh of course. The rest of us mistakenly mix up "England" and "Britain" all the time. Pisses off the Welsh no end.
quote:Just so I fully appreciate the whackiness asserted here. Per the Daily Mail's (
Well for starters there is no U.K. embassy in Iran, nor is there an English embassy there, or anywhere else for that matter.
) offending quote itself:quote:
In an interview yesterday, Mr Obama said: 'All of us are deeply disturbed by the, err, crashing of, err, the English Embassy, err, the embassy of the United Kingdom.'
quote:Yes he was able to do so. He was talking about an embassy that was sacked. And he correctly named the country after an initial mistake in the same sentence.
...surely it is important for Barry to correctly identify the embassy of our closest ally when it is sacked. He was unable to do so.
quote:For starters there bloody well is, and has been for a very long time.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Well for starters there is no U.K. embassy in Iran...
quote:Considering the term is used by the British Embassy itself, you'd think it would be equivalent.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't this equivalent to throwing a fit about Obama being described as "the American President" when his official title is "the President of the United States of America"?
quote:From: British Embassy, Washington DC
The flags at the UK Embassy in Washington DC and at the Consulates General in the US were lowered on Sunday September 11 as a mark of remembrance for the 9/11 attacks that took place on US soil a decade ago.
quote:As has been noted by others, he made a similar pledge twice before, at his weddings to his two previous wives, but this time he really means it!
I also pledge to uphold the institution of marriage through personal fidelity to my spouse and respect for the marital bonds of others*.
quote:It's actually three times before -- his current wife as well as the two previous ones.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
As has been noted by others, he made a similar pledge twice before, at his weddings to his two previous wives, but this time he really means it!
quote:Yes, but so far he hasn't been publicly exposed as having cheated on wife #3. He's cheated with her while married to wife #2, but as far as I know there's no fourth Mrs. Gingrich waiting in the wings at this time.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:It's actually three times before -- his current wife as well as the two previous ones.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
As has been noted by others, he made a similar pledge twice before, at his weddings to his two previous wives, but this time he really means it!
quote:If we are being pedantic the Falklands are not part of the UK, they are a self-governing Overseas Territory.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Great Britain simply refers to the largest island in the United Kingdom - and does not include, for instance, Northern Ireland or the Falkland Islands which are part of the United Kingdom.
quote:As you note, so far as you know. My guess is he's getting past it, or his girth is, so he may be making a pledge he can actually keep.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Yes, but so far he hasn't been publicly exposed as having cheated on wife #3. He's cheated with her while married to wife #2, but as far as I know there's no fourth Mrs. Gingrich waiting in the wings at this time.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:It's actually three times before -- his current wife as well as the two previous ones.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
As has been noted by others, he made a similar pledge twice before, at his weddings to his two previous wives, but this time he really means it!
quote:As others have pointed out, Newt already promised not to cheat with #3 at the wedding. Maybe #3 should pledge that she won't try to break up anyone else's marriage if she is First Lady.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, but so far he hasn't been publicly exposed as having cheated on wife #3. He's cheated with her while married to wife #2, but as far as I know there's no fourth Mrs. Gingrich waiting in the wings at this time.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Keep in mind that this is a feature, not a bug in the programming.
Originally posted by Justinian:
And the people objecting are not only trying to be pedants, they are demonstrating that they are simply ignorant and have no problem at all displaying this ignorance in a cheap effort to gain political points.
quote:Admittedly Virginia has some of the toughest ballot access requirements in the U.S., but wouldn't a true state's rights advocate concede that it's their right to do so? This also demonstrates that "judicial activism" is just shorthand for "judgifying I don't like".
Perry files suit to get on primary ballot
Texas Gov. Rick Perry filed suit Tuesday in federal court in Richmond against the State Board of Elections and the chairman of the state Republican Party over his exclusion from the March 6 primary ballot.
Perry's suit challenges a provision of state law that says campaign workers who collect voters' signatures for ballot access must be eligible to vote in Virginia.
The board is scheduled to meet this morning at the state Capitol for a drawing to determine the ballot placement of the only two candidates that the state GOP certified for the primary, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Rep. Ron Paul.
quote:At this time, I doubt this will hurt the GOP.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
This might seriously hurt the Republican chances of winning the White House. Mitt Romney doesn't excite very many Republicans but he will likely win the nomination. The Libertarians never have a legitimate candidate. Gary Johnson is a two term governor of a swing state. Once Ron Paul calls it quits, a significant number of his supporters will go for Johnson as a third party candidate. He will struggle to raise money and register enough support to get in the debates.
quote:Well, I'm no friend of "state's rights," but the question of disenfranchising voters is a legitimate federal one -- whether it is exclusionary practices aimed at denying ballot space to serious candidates or voter ID requirements aimed at excluding poor folks and students from voting. ISTM that it is important to stand for the principles that one finds important, even if they may in the particular instance help people that one does not much care for.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Admittedly Virginia has some of the toughest ballot access requirements in the U.S., but wouldn't a true state's rights advocate concede that it's their right to do so? This also demonstrates that "judicial activism" is just shorthand for "judgifying I don't like".
quote:I agree with that sentiment, but feel it's also important to point out the hypocrisy of those who suggest eliminating whole federal circuits because they feel the court are too "political" running to the federal courts demanding they get involved in a political question, particularly when they claim the kind of voter suppression techniques popular with the modern Republican party are inherently unfair.
Originally posted by tclune:
Well, I'm no friend of "state's rights," but the question of disenfranchising voters is a legitimate federal one -- whether it is exclusionary practices aimed at denying ballot space to serious candidates or voter ID requirements aimed at excluding poor folks and students from voting. ISTM that it is important to stand for the principles that one finds important, even if they may in the particular instance help people that one does not much care for.
quote:If Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry were serious candidates, they would have had people in Virginia taking care of this. It's not as though the rules for qualifying for the primary ballot there have been some big secret. And if the numbers of signatures required -- 10,000, including 400 from each of the state's 10 Congressional districts -- were really too many, candidates in the past would have run into similar trouble.
Originally posted by tclune:
I'm no friend of "state's rights," but the question of disenfranchising voters is a legitimate federal one -- whether it is exclusionary practices aimed at denying ballot space to serious candidates or voter ID requirements aimed at excluding poor folks and students from voting. ISTM that it is important to stand for the principles that one finds important, even if they may in the particular instance help people that one does not much care for.
quote:I think you're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The importance of early primaries and caucuses is usually not in who they choose, but who they eliminate from the pack of wannabes. Their main function is to thin the herd.
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Are the Iowa caucuses worth any serious consideration at all? The past "winners" include Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, Pat Robertson, and Pat Buchanan: all of whom never made a dent in the final election results. With the cast of clowns available now, how can any results of the caucus be taken seriously?
quote:I have no idea how much warning they've had. You don't need to show a driver's license to vote here in California. I do think the Republicans' efforts to tighten up restrictions on voter registration are a blatant effort to reduce certain people's access to the polls, and as such are unfair in a way that Virginia's ballot qualification requirements are not.
Originally posted by tclune:
Ruth, would you also say that students and poor people have had plenty of warning that they need to get a driver's license if they want to vote, so they clearly aren't serious about voting?
quote:The problem with the Iowa caucuses is that the opinions of a very small number of people who are not the least bit representative of the country get a lot of say in who gets to continue to compete.
Originally posted by tclune:
The importance of early primaries and caucuses is usually not in who they choose, but who they eliminate from the pack of wannabes. Their main function is to thin the herd.
quote:I think a rule similar to the "signature collectors must be registered (or registerable) voters" has been ruled unconstitutional, though in another federal circuit in a case that didn't go to the Supreme Court. (Details elude me at the moment.) So someone has been protesting, just not in the Fourth Circuit so far. At any rate, that requirement seems the least likely to pass Constitutional muster in any serious challenge.
Originally posted by RuthW:
The question is, are Virginia's requirements for appearing on a primary ballot unreasonable? You have to have 10,000 signatures in a state with more than 5 million registered voters, and you have to have 400 from each of the state's Congressional districts. Also, you can't use out-of-state signature collectors. If these restrictions were onerous, surely someone would have protested before?
quote:According to Ballotpedia, "Residency requirements are an active area of ballot access law," and several courts have overthrown residency requirements. That said, only eight states have no residency requirements for petition circulators, so it remains to be seen how this will play out.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I think a rule similar to the "signature collectors must be registered (or registerable) voters" has been ruled unconstitutional, though in another federal circuit in a case that didn't go to the Supreme Court. (Details elude me at the moment.) So someone has been protesting, just not in the Fourth Circuit so far. At any rate, that requirement seems the least likely to pass Constitutional muster in any serious challenge.
Originally posted by RuthW:
The question is, are Virginia's requirements for appearing on a primary ballot unreasonable? You have to have 10,000 signatures in a state with more than 5 million registered voters, and you have to have 400 from each of the state's Congressional districts. Also, you can't use out-of-state signature collectors. If these restrictions were onerous, surely someone would have protested before?
quote:Virginia has the right to determine criteria for ballot access. So long as Virginia doesn't have one criteria for Romney and another for Perry, Virginia isn't being unfair to Perry. As far as I can remember, this election is the first time candidates have had a hard time getting on the ballot in Virginia. Usually, New York causes all the problems.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Well, I'm no friend of "state's rights," but the question of disenfranchising voters is a legitimate federal one -- whether it is exclusionary practices aimed at denying ballot space to serious candidates or voter ID requirements aimed at excluding poor folks and students from voting. ISTM that it is important to stand for the principles that one finds important, even if they may in the particular instance help people that one does not much care for.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Admittedly Virginia has some of the toughest ballot access requirements in the U.S., but wouldn't a true state's rights advocate concede that it's their right to do so? This also demonstrates that "judicial activism" is just shorthand for "judgifying I don't like".
--Tom Clune
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
You aren't going to have Michelle Bachmann to kick around for much longer.
And there are those who would belittle Dick, a player if there ever was one.quote:Welcome, Palimpsest - and a good question! A yearning for a simpler world, a reaction against modern complexities? A certain romanticism about the "good old days"?
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Where did all this nostalgia for life in the 18th and 19th century come from?
quote:No, not from what I hear. The thing that prompts this urge toward the "good old days" is not nostalgia for some lost golden time; it's a longing to go back to the devil we knew -- we imagine we'd figured out how to deal with him.
Originally posted by PeteC:
The good old days weren't really so good, you know.
quote:"moot" is one of those English words that can mean its own exact opposite depending on context. (There are more than you might think: "sanction", "cleave", "table [a motion]" etc). For "moot" mostly but not entirely a difference between British and American English, there is a lot of overlap depending on context.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
...there's a movement afoot to moot the electoral college...
quote:According to the media hype last time around, when Obama was doing well at caucus time and primary time in Iowa, it was like a dawning prophetic vision of the Second Coming. Iowa was sooooo important and historical and absolutely vital and the best thing since sliced bread.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:... The importance of early primaries and caucuses is... in... who they eliminate... Their main function is to thin the herd...
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Are the Iowa caucuses worth any serious consideration at all? The past "winners" include ...(several who) ...never made a dent in the final election... how can... results of the caucus be taken seriously?
quote:You're comparing apples and oranges. A win in Iowa means something different for a Democratic candidate than for a Republican candidate. Iowa Democrats are on the more conservative side of their party, so a Democrat who can win Iowa tends to look like he/she appeals enough to the political center to get elected. But Iowa Republicans are not similarly on the more liberal side of their party, so winning in Iowa doesn't mean the same thing there.
Originally posted by Janine:
According to the media hype last time around, when Obama was doing well at caucus time and primary time in Iowa, it was like a dawning prophetic vision of the Second Coming. Iowa was sooooo important and historical and absolutely vital and the best thing since sliced bread.
Now, of course, that Ron Paul keeps popping so inconsiderately up on the high side in so many different polls, Iowa means squat.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:"moot" is one of those English words that can mean its own exact opposite depending on context.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
...there's a movement afoot to moot the electoral college...
But its still hard to see what mooting the college might mean.
quote:Sorry for the duplicates, I'm hitting time outs in this edit system.
Originally posted by ken:
"moot" is one of those English words that can mean its own exact opposite depending on context.
But its still hard to see what mooting the college might mean.
quote:All vote with the national majority? Wouldn't the fair way be for them to split their vote according to the split of the popular vote in their state? That seems a lot more democratic to me.
If a majority of the electors are compelled by state law to vote in accordance with the result of the popular vote then the deliberations of the college are of little significance.
quote:That is in fact the sense I meant; the issue is pre-decided, so the electoral college election is already decided and becomes ceremonial. In fact it's already ceremonial in that the electors rarely stray from their sworn decision to reflect the state decision.
Originally posted by ken:
Yes, sorry fot the digression. I'm used to the (mainly American) usage of declaring something "moot" to mean saying that it isn't relevant to discuss in court. (*) And I guesss that easily turns into "mooting" the issue. But here you seemed to be talking about mooting the court (i.e. the college) not the question. Which seemed odd at 2am.
All vote with the national majority? Wouldn't the fair way be for them to split their vote according to the split of the popular vote in their state? That seems a lot more democratic to me.
(*) Also irrelevant but fascinating history."Moot" is an old noun form of "meet" so the primary meaning is (more or less) a meeting. In particular a meeting to discuss something. Its old-fashioned but not entirely obsolete. One of the main modern uses is a "moot court" or a "law moot" or just a "moot" which is when lawyers get together to consider a case amongst themselves in a kind of live-action role-playing trial, going over an imaginary case or one that is already decided. They do it for practice or study or even for fun (I'm sure there is usually a drink afterwards and I suspect there are competitions and leagues and even prizes).
quote:This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the electoral system. The difference between the popular vote results and the electoral college results is first and foremost due to the fact that votes are weighted heavily in favor of small states. I forgot the exact number, but the "value" of a vote in Alaska is something like three times the value of a vote in California. The electoral system was designed to increase the power of small states relative to the larger states.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Making the vote depend on the national results is actually more democratic than having each state split its electors for two reasons.
...
The second is just the mathematics. Dividing the state vote by the state number of electors to calculate an interim result produces roundoff errors. Having them all follow the national result eliminates these errors.
quote:I used the phrase "more democratic" which is generally taken in modern politics to mean rule of the people and not rule of the demes.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the electoral system. The difference between the popular vote results and the electoral college results is first and foremost due to the fact that votes are weighted heavily in favor of small states. I forgot the exact number, but the "value" of a vote in Alaska is something like three times the value of a vote in California. The electoral system was designed to increase the power of small states relative to the larger states.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Making the vote depend on the national results is actually more democratic than having each state split its electors for two reasons.
Now, whether you see this as a good thing or a bad thing largely boils down to how you feel about states being the unit of significance in our republic. If that floats your boat, you presumably want to even out the differences between the states. If you see the unit of significance as the individual, you may wish to depricate the power of the state in these things.
But, until you ask the right question, you're just spewing nonsense.
--Tom Clune
quote:But it also gives a lot of power to the larger states, such as New York, California or Florida. A candidate can't ignore a winner-take-all state with that many electoral votes, so the large states get a disproportionate attention, especially if it looks like a close race.
Originally posted by tclune:
The difference between the popular vote results and the electoral college results is first and foremost due to the fact that votes are weighted heavily in favor of small states. I forgot the exact number, but the "value" of a vote in Alaska is something like three times the value of a vote in California. The electoral system was designed to increase the power of small states relative to the larger states.
quote:Well, power in proportion to their population, which is more or less what democracy strives for. Still, I can't remember the last presidential election in which California or Texas (to pick two obvious examples) were realistically considered swing states. In other words, a candidate can and should ignore those states and concentrate on states he has a genuine chance of carrying. I'm not sure why it's considered optimal to have a system that rewards candidates for catering to the electoral whims of voters in Florida and Ohio over those in Texas, California, and New York.
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:But it also gives a lot of power to the larger states, such as New York, California or Florida. A candidate can't ignore a winner-take-all state with that many electoral votes, so the large states get a disproportionate attention, especially if it looks like a close race.
Originally posted by tclune:
The difference between the popular vote results and the electoral college results is first and foremost due to the fact that votes are weighted heavily in favor of small states. I forgot the exact number, but the "value" of a vote in Alaska is something like three times the value of a vote in California. The electoral system was designed to increase the power of small states relative to the larger states.
quote:That's the real reason: it's about money! Not the campaign but the distribution of pork in Congress. In a large state that is split, the attention(and pork) goes to the small homogeneous states.
But it also gives a lot of power to the larger states, such as New York, California or Florida. A candidate can't ignore a winner-take-all state with that many electoral votes, so the large states get a disproportionate attention, especially if it looks like a close race.
quote:As well as what tclune said, you are assuming a two-party race. So you can say that the candidate who gets more than half the votes actually cast nationally is the true democratic choice.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Making the vote depend on the national results is actually more democratic than having each state split its electors for two reasons.
quote:Well, if candidates can't ignore the large states and they also can't ignore the small states it sounds as if the system is working!
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:But it also gives a lot of power to the larger states, such as New York, California or Florida. A candidate can't ignore a winner-take-all state with that many electoral votes, so the large states get a disproportionate attention, especially if it looks like a close race.
Originally posted by tclune:
The difference between the popular vote results and the electoral college results is first and foremost due to the fact that votes are weighted heavily in favor of small states. I forgot the exact number, but the "value" of a vote in Alaska is something like three times the value of a vote in California. The electoral system was designed to increase the power of small states relative to the larger states.
quote:They can safely ignore the large states that aren't swing states. Candidates come to California to raise money. They don't have to campaign here, and they don't have to care about our issues the way they have to care about Iowa's. I wonder how long the unconscionable federal subsidy for growing corn would last if Iowa didn't get to vote first.
Originally posted by ken:
Well, if candidates can't ignore the large states and they also can't ignore the small states it sounds as if the system is working!
quote:Was it here that someone quoted someone who said that choosing between these proposed candidates is like being asked which sexually transmitted disease you would like to have?
Originally posted by RuthW:
...and half of the Republican candidates will be gone tomorrow. [ ...] Considering this year's offerings, this is probably just as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As Jon Stewart said; it's like trying to decide which sexual transmitted disease you would want to have.
quote:I learned from NPR today that the ethanol subsidy actually expired over the weekend, as did the tariffs on foreign ethanol. So we don't have that to gripe about anymore. Who says this do-nothing Congress is a bad thing?
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:They can safely ignore the large states that aren't swing states. Candidates come to California to raise money. They don't have to campaign here, and they don't have to care about our issues the way they have to care about Iowa's. I wonder how long the unconscionable federal subsidy for growing corn would last if Iowa didn't get to vote first.
Originally posted by ken:
Well, if candidates can't ignore the large states and they also can't ignore the small states it sounds as if the system is working!
quote:which is why i hope someone like Ron Paul wins (or it would be better yet if it were Bachman or Perry) but in the end the GOP's corporate pimps will probably make sure Romney gets it for the reasons you cited.
Originally posted by ken:
Romney is probably the one of the three most likely to appeal to swing Democrat voters.
quote:Thought this was apropos.
Originally posted by malik3000:
But sometimes i feel like "why do i care?". Barak Iscariot is doing more than Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld did to enable -- quite willingly -- the surveillance state, among other things.
quote:I already predicted that Santorum would have his day early in 2012.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Anyone care to predict what's going to happen in Iowa today?
quote:The current electoral college enforces a two party system. See this article by someone who is in favor of of the Electoral College which cites that as an advantage.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:As well as what tclune said, you are assuming a two-party race. So you can say that the candidate who gets more than half the votes actually cast nationally is the true democratic choice.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
[qb] Making the vote depend on the national results is actually more democratic than having each state split its electors for two reasons.
But if no candidate gets an absolute majority that is not the case.
Imagine there are candidates A, B, and C who get 32%, 33% and 35% of the total vote. Your system automatically gives the presidency to candidate C. But it might be that those who voted for A or B tend to prefer either A or B to C. In that case the most democratic candidate to be chosen would be B. An electoral college can accomodate that. (Preference voting would be even fairer of course but that isn't on the cards)
That sort of thing rarely happens in the USA even at a local level. But it does in other countries and it might at some time in the future in the US. Your proposed electoral system would act to lock in the two-party structure and make it much harder for third or fourth parties to organise.
quote:Its very practical, and easy to implement. For a one-seat election, such as a Presidential election, the fairest system is AV as proposed here last year for Parliamentary elections.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Finally you mention preference voting as impractical.
quote:It doesn't matter whether implemented at the national, state, or local level. A winner-take-all system tends to encourage exactly two parties to come into existence. It's not even clear that a regional third party would be feasible, given the negative effects such an institution would have when operating in a national legislature.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The proposed new system would actually allow a third party to emerge over several elections. With the current winner take all at the state level minority votes can't get visibility. It's similar to the problem of British under-representation of third parties in Parlimentary districts.
quote:Which makes me wonder what happens next. I guess it's pretty obvious that Mitt will comfortably win in NH, since he's been leading the polls there for ever. But what about SC? If Perry and Bachmann both drop out (they've canceled campaign events in SC today) and their combined 15% share of the vote transfers mostly to Santorum, then he could challenge, right? Two wins in the first three makes him look pretty strong, but I guess he has a long way to catch up in money and organization which will matter in FL.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In other news, the voters of Iowa seem to be nearly evenly split between Say Anything and Man On Dog, with Newsletter close behind in third place and Three Wives in the number four position. All other contenders had vote percentages in the single digits.
quote:Right, and there's no way that the GOP establishment will allow Paul to get the nomination. Late run from Huntsman? A comeback from one of the other non-Romneys? I honestly don't think so - this thing is Mitt's.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I did notice that Deval Patrick spent most of his interview with CBS this morning telling us that Mitt Romney is not a moderate, so I don’t think the Democrats see Santorum surviving a few weeks under the microscope.
quote:When i said i hoped Ron Paul would win the GOP nomination, it was because i'd love the GOP to pick the biggest loonie-tunes loser they can find. In hindsight i can see where my post might have looked like something of an endorsement of Paul since i then mentioned Obama's betrayal in approving a bill further empowering the surveillance state, among other things (there have been other things as well but that one popped into my sieve of a mind)
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Thought this was apropos.
Originally posted by malik3000:
But sometimes i feel like "why do i care?". Barak Iscariot is doing more than Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld did to enable -- quite willingly -- the surveillance state, among other things.
quote:The thing that really needs to be emphasized in that article is the Update at the bottom:
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Thought this was apropos.
Originally posted by malik3000:
But sometimes i feel like "why do i care?". Barak Iscariot is doing more than Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld did to enable -- quite willingly -- the surveillance state, among other things.
quote:This most recent outrage has gone largely unremarked in the press -- I caught it on the Daily Show last night, which seems to do a better job at covering the important news than the so-called news programs do. How is it possible to have 24-hour news channels that don't cover this stuff?
UPDATE: Also, President Obama today signed the NDAA and its indefinite detention provisions into law (a law which Paul vehemently opposed); the ACLU statement — explaining that “President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law” and “Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today” – is here.
quote:Are you surprised? If a Republican president signed this law the media would be advocating a revolution. But, hey, it's Obama and the media adores him and takes their orders from him.
Originally posted by tclune:
This most recent outrage has gone largely unremarked in the press -- I caught it on the Daily Show last night, which seems to do a better job at covering the important news than the so-called news programs do. How is it possible to have 24-hour news channels that don't cover this stuff?
quote:That's more your ideology than fact AFAICS. However, this was a big event and should have been covered. If the press is gaga for Obama, they can cover it and say that it's wonderful. But not covering it at all is just shocking. In truth, I should have expected it -- the press didn't cover the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan except as it was handed to them by the military public relations people.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Are you surprised? If a Republican president signed this law the media would be advocating a revolution. But, hey, it's Obama and the media adores him and takes their orders from him.
Originally posted by tclune:
This most recent outrage has gone largely unremarked in the press -- I caught it on the Daily Show last night, which seems to do a better job at covering the important news than the so-called news programs do. How is it possible to have 24-hour news channels that don't cover this stuff?
quote:Damn those corporate pimps for making the Republicans pick a candidate who average Americans might be likely to vote for. Damn them all!
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:which is why i hope someone like Ron Paul wins (or it would be better yet if it were Bachman or Perry) but in the end the GOP's corporate pimps will probably make sure Romney gets it for the reasons you cited.
Originally posted by ken:
Romney is probably the one of the three most likely to appeal to swing Democrat voters.
quote:No, damn those corporate pimps for doing everything possible, including very deliberate falsifying, to pander to the lowest instincts of the average American to fool them into voting for the very candidates who least have their interests at heart.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Damn those corporate pimps for making the Republicans pick a candidate who average Americans might be likely to vote for. Damn them all!
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:which is why i hope someone like Ron Paul wins (or it would be better yet if it were Bachman or Perry) but in the end the GOP's corporate pimps will probably make sure Romney gets it for the reasons you cited.
Originally posted by ken:
Romney is probably the one of the three most likely to appeal to swing Democrat voters.
quote:I'm ignorant of the main topic of this thread, but I have to agree with this. Overall, I find the best source of news and analysis with the best links to further reading is Fark.
Originally posted by tclune:
So I get my news from a comedy show, and watch the news shows for entertainment. What a world!
quote:Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite. - Joseph de Maistre
Originally posted by malik3000:
No, damn those corporate pimps for doing everything possible, including very deliberate falsifying, to pander to the lowest instincts of the average American to fool them into voting for the very candidates who least have their interests at heart.
quote:Helas, mais bien sur!
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite. - Joseph de Maistre
Originally posted by malik3000:
No, damn those corporate pimps for doing everything possible, including very deliberate falsifying, to pander to the lowest instincts of the average American to fool them into voting for the very candidates who least have their interests at heart.
(Every nation gets the government it deserves.)
quote:I’m just saying that it is pretty silly to root for one side to run an unqualified candidate because you think it will help your guy. I'd rather either candidate win in a election where each candidate is qualified and the issues are seriously debated than my guy win because the other guy lacked basic competence. I guess if you think that no one on the other side is competent to govern, this might change, but I am not that cynical.
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:No, damn those corporate pimps for doing everything possible, including very deliberate falsifying, to pander to the lowest instincts of the average American to fool them into voting for the very candidates who least have their interests at heart.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Damn those corporate pimps for making the Republicans pick a candidate who average Americans might be likely to vote for. Damn them all!
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:which is why i hope someone like Ron Paul wins (or it would be better yet if it were Bachman or Perry) but in the end the GOP's corporate pimps will probably make sure Romney gets it for the reasons you cited.
Originally posted by ken:
Romney is probably the one of the three most likely to appeal to swing Democrat voters.
quote:I think we're in violent agreement.Preference voting would work, but it's not going to happen due to vested interests.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Its very practical, and easy to implement. For a one-seat election, such as a Presidential election, the fairest system is AV as proposed here last year for Parliamentary elections.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Finally you mention preference voting as impractical.
What's not practical is getting the existing governments to willingly change to it. As here, it would be scuppered by the winners from the old system who have no interest in changing to a better one. From their point of view there cannot be a "better" system than the one that elected them!
quote:The other interesting question for Ron Paul is how open each state is to cross registration from Democrats and Independents. I don't think the rules are uniform. He did get a bump in Iowa.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The only scenario preventing Romney from walking away with the nomination is Ron Paul winning in South Carolina and Florida. A Ron Paul win puts Romney and Santorum out of the race. Ron Paul becomes the Not-Romney. Paul will do well in the caucus states like Nevada, Minnesota, and Washington. In addition to the support he already has, Paul will pick up the Not-Romney vote and possibly win most of those caucus states and gain momentum going into Super Tuesday. Unlike Santorum, Ron Paul has money and organization. All Ron Paul has to do is convince Republican voters he can be their answer to Barack Obama. College students like Ron Paul. Tea Party likes Ron Paul. Some of the Occupy people like Ron Paul. People who would vote for no other Republican candiate will vote for Ron Paul.
Yeah, it ain't going to happen. Romney is the second choice of many Republican primary voters. Therefore, the actual Not-Romney vote isn't as big as some think it is. While Ron Paul can attract a motley crew of new faces to the Republican Party, everybody else will be terrified of him.
quote:Really? You have a surprisingly poor view of Republicans. I'm a nasty foreign lefty intellectual and I rate them higher than that.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Santorum probably represents the views of most rank and file Republicans...
quote:Don't speak too quickly.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Well, the Republican primary is over.
quote:I never thought Mormonism was an issue. Being a RINO on the other hand .....
Romney's Mormonism and Rockefeller Republican past didn't prevent him from winning Iowa and won't prevent him from winning other conservative states.
quote:Indeed he probably represents the views of the majority of Americans!
Santorum probably represents the views of most rank and file Republicans
quote:What would those strikes be?
but he has too many strikes against him.
quote:Very true. In the end, that's the main thing that must be done to save America.
Republicans think they have to nominate Romney to beat Obama.
quote:Again, don't speak too quickly!
Obama will win a second term.
quote:<limey tangent>
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
How many Republicans, married or divorced, know that? How many voters, Democrat or Republican, have looked beyond the headline issues of gay marriage and abortion -- neither of which a President has any say over except when it comes to signing or vetoing bills?
quote:If that is so we are deeper in the shit than I ever thought. And we're sinking.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Indeed he probably represents the views of the majority of Americans!
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Santorum probably represents the views of most rank and file Republicans
quote:Yep
originally posted by ken:
Do you really think they would mostly feel represented bvy someone who wants Cold War with China, US miltary in Afghanistan more or less for ever, aggression against Iran and commit the USA to a permanent war against Islam, increased military spending and guarded fences along all borders, to close down the national weather service and not use government money or troops to evacuate people from hurricane or flood zones, to use torture as a regular interrogation technique, to increase income taxes on the middle class to pay for all that, and to suspend the Bill of Rights to allow the government to get away with it?
quote:See
originally posted by New Yorker:
Indeed he probably represents the views of the majority of Americans!
quote:He doesn't have the money or organization to compete with Romney. His views on social issues are extreme. He lost his Senate seat.
originally posted by New Yorker:
What would those strikes be?
quote:Actually, President Clinton signed the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), which doesn't actually outlaw gay marriage -- it just allows every other state to refuse to acknowledge the gay marriages of any state that legalizes them.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:<limey tangent>
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
How many Republicans, married or divorced, know that? How many voters, Democrat or Republican, have looked beyond the headline issues of gay marriage and abortion -- neither of which a President has any say over except when it comes to signing or vetoing bills?
How many presidents have had bills on either subject put in front of them?
AFAIK they get to appoint Supreme Court Justices, and I think they get more say in these matters.
</limey tangent>
quote:I would argue that Santorum's views on social issues (outlawing contraception, forcibly divorcing same-sex couples in jurisdictions that have legalized their marriages, etc.) are pretty much in line with the median Republican voter. He's just more open about what those views are than your typical Republican candidate.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:He doesn't have the money or organization to compete with Romney. His views on social issues are extreme. He lost his Senate seat.
originally posted by New Yorker:
What would those strikes be?
WTF?quote:yes, and... he also authorized an abortion for his wife (under conditions which certainly would justify it for most people.. but conditions which his own position on abortions (i.e. no exceptions) would not allow. oh, he says it was just an "induced pre-term delivery" which just happened to lead to the death of the fetus (which happened to be too premature to be viable). In other words.. exactly what most late term abortions are.
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
Clearly I haven't been paying enough attention to the GOP race -- Santorum wants to outlaw both abortion and contraception??
quote:Here's the interview in question. The bit about contraception starts around 17:45.
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
Clearly I haven't been paying enough attention to the GOP race -- Santorum wants to outlaw both abortion and contraception??
quote:Well, here's an excerpt from the interview on this point.
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
Does he imagine that this would make people say "Oh, I guess we'd better not" and zip up? Is he acquainted with any actual human beings?
quote:So yes, apparently Santorum thinks that in the absence of reliable contraception people will stop fucking. Coupled with his position on Lawrence v. Texas, it seems that President Santorum would regard having a national Condom Police searching couples' bedrooms for contraceptives as both perfectly Constitutional and a good use of national resources.
One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country.
<snip>
Many of the Christian faith have said, well, that’s okay, contraception is okay. It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.
quote:I don't know about Americans generally, but this seems to be a popular line with Americans who show up to participate in Republican primaries/caucuses. It's helped along with a strong dose of ". . . but this only applies to other people".
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
If this is anywhere near the majority view of Americans, I'm flabbergasted.
quote:Oh, thank goodness. After agreeing with your last two posts on every point, I was feeling a bit faint and was going to go lie down with a cool, damp hankie on my forehead, but I feel all better now.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Yep
originally posted by ken:
Do you really think they would mostly feel represented bvy someone who wants Cold War with China, US miltary in Afghanistan more or less for ever, aggression against Iran and commit the USA to a permanent war against Islam, increased military spending and guarded fences along all borders, to close down the national weather service and not use government money or troops to evacuate people from hurricane or flood zones, to use torture as a regular interrogation technique, to increase income taxes on the middle class to pay for all that, and to suspend the Bill of Rights to allow the government to get away with it?
quote:That's the charge, but as to contraception, it is overblown.
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
Clearly I haven't been paying enough attention to the GOP race -- Santorum wants to outlaw both abortion and contraception??
Does he imagine that this would make people say "Oh, I guess we'd better not" and zip up? Is he acquainted with any actual human beings?
If this is anywhere near the majority view of Americans, I'm flabbergasted.
quote:Right. It's completely crazy to imagine that something like the Comstock law could ever be passed in this country, and just fear-mongering to suggest such a thing....
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
But it is easier and more effective to scare people into believing that a politico is going to come to your house and take your condoms from you, so the blogosphere naturally runs with the distorted version of the truth (also known as a lie, in some circles).
quote:This argument requires a maximalist theory of state power and a minimalist concept of indvidual liberty. In short, it's an argument that individuals possess only the rights explicitly spelled out in the U.S. Constitution and all other human activity is potentially subject to government control. This kind of thinking was actually at the root of the initial Federalist opposition to including a bill of rights in the Constitution. They feared that explicitly spelling out certain rights would lead those with an authoritarian bent to claim that those were the only rights possessed by citizens, rather than representing the bare minimum of a free society. As a check against this, they included the Ninth Amendment.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
This goes to the original right to privacy case, Griswold v. Connecticut. In that case, the Supreme Court determined that the Constitution protects a married couple's right to purchase contraception, despite the fact that you wouldn't find such a right in the text of the Constitution. Roe v. Wade and other abortion cases naturally followed from that case.
quote:We've got further commentary on this from James Madison, known as the Father of the Constitution and the man most responsible for shepherding the Bill of Rights through the Congress. He explained:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
quote:"[T]he last clause of the fourth resolution" is what we know today as the Ninth Amendment. Yet despite all this planning and anticipation we get people like Santorum and Og doing exactly what the Ninth Amendment says you shouln't do: "disparage" rights retained by the people despite the fact that they're not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.
quote:Imagining a law is one thing. But people are telling anyone who will listen that Rick Santorum wants to ban birth control.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Right. It's completely crazy to imagine that something like the Comstock law could ever be passed in this country, and just fear-mongering to suggest such a thing....
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
But it is easier and more effective to scare people into believing that a politico is going to come to your house and take your condoms from you, so the blogosphere naturally runs with the distorted version of the truth (also known as a lie, in some circles).
--Tom Clune
quote:I'm not sure which is supposed to scare people more, the idea that Santorum wants to ban birth control, or Og's suggestion that Santorum does indeed see contraception as dangerous but plans to do nothing to adress that danger.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Imagining a law is one thing. But people are telling anyone who will listen that Rick Santorum wants to ban birth control.
This despite the fact that he openly says that he would not support banning birth control.
Sounds like a lie designed to scare people to me.
quote:This does not sound like a man in any way opposed to states outlawing contraception. The only difference I can see is that in 2003 he was in a very different electoral position than he is in 2012 and probably felt more able to be open about his position.
We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families.
quote:At this point, outlawing birth control even at the state level would require a constitutional amendment. The president has little to do with constitutional amendments. The Senate does. When in the Senate, Santorum didn't try to introduce a constitutional amendment banning the use of birth control. Santorum believes the Supreme Court erred in Griswold v. Connecticut in finding a right to privacy in the constitution. However, he also believes the Connecticut law in question was badly written and he wouldn't have supported it or its intent. Suggesting that if elected president Santorum would spend anytime at all trying to ban birth control is simply a scare tactic.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
You (generic, but certainly applied to politicians) can say you don't intend to do something. But that would appear to have nothing to do with whether you actually refuse to do just that. The apparent front-runner in the GOP primaries is the prime current example of this, but he is not alone.
quote:But if it came up in his state, would he vote for it? Clearly he thinks states should have the power to outlaw contraception. The accusation I am addressing is that Rick Santorum himself is in favor of laws banning contraception. Unless you can find an actual instance where he said that he would support a law banning contraception (not just that such a law would be constitutional), in contrast his clear statement that I have found that he would not support such a law, it is a step too far to say that he wants to outlaw contraception.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This does not sound like a man in any way opposed to states outlawing contraception.
quote:The POTUS just signed a law authorizing indefinite detention of American citizens without due process. Anyone able to read would have to believe that this is a direct violation of the Consitution and could only be accomplished via amending the Constitution. But your friends and neighbors may begin disappearing at any time. Since they need not appear before a magistrate, you may never know where they went or how you could retrieve them.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
At this point, outlawing birth control even at the state level would require a constitutional amendment. The president has little to do with constitutional amendments.
quote:What was his stand on the morning-after pill?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
The accusation I am addressing is that Rick Santorum himself is in favor of laws banning contraception. Unless you can find an actual instance where he said that he would support a law banning contraception (not just that such a law would be constitutional), in contrast his clear statement that I have found that he would not support such a law, it is a step too far to say that he wants to outlaw contraception.
quote:Let's try this. Describe a remotely plausible scenario in which Santorum ignores Griswold v. Connecticut, bans the use of contraception in the United States, and isn't impeached. Rick Santorum wants to take your condoms and birth control pills is on par with Barack Obama wants to take your guns.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:The POTUS just signed a law authorizing indefinite detention of American citizens without due process. Anyone able to read would have to believe that this is a direct violation of the Consitution and could only be accomplished via amending the Constitution. But your friends and neighbors may begin disappearing at any time. Since they need not appear before a magistrate, you may never know where they went or how you could retrieve them.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
At this point, outlawing birth control even at the state level would require a constitutional amendment. The president has little to do with constitutional amendments.
If this can be done by simple legislation, what makes you think that an IMPLIED Constitutional right is safe?
--Tom Clune
quote:Or the Supreme Court reversing itself.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
At this point, outlawing birth control even at the state level would require a constitutional amendment.
quote:But he does get to appoint Supreme Court justices. Four of the current justices are over seventy years old. We can be fairly confident that a President Santorum would appoint justices with a similar theory of the Constitution to the one oulined in his "man on dog" interview.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The president has little to do with constitutional amendments.
quote:Not true. I've cited an interview Santorum gave in which he clearly supported the intent of that law. He argues that allowing such freedoms literally "undermine[s] the fabric of our society". To accept your (thus far unsupported) assertion tha Santorum doesn't support the intent of anti-contraception laws I would also have to accept that he supports undermining American society.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Santorum believes the Supreme Court erred in Griswold v. Connecticut in finding a right to privacy in the constitution. However, he also believes the Connecticut law in question was badly written and he wouldn't have supported it or its intent.
quote:Sorry, you are wrong. It is entirel true. Santorum explains his view of Griswold v. Connecticut here. Note the following.
originally posted by Croesos:
Not true.
quote:
On the questions of marriage, family, and sex, that string begins with the 1965 Griswold decision. In that case, a Connecticut law that outlawed the use of contraceptives, even by married couples, was ruled unconstitutional. Now, before you jump to conclusions, let me clearly state that this law was badly written, and I would not have supported it or its intent.
quote:There you go. Straight from the horses pen.
Justices Stewart and Black were scathing in dissent, observing that while both disagreed with the law personally (as do I), they could find nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prevented the Connecticut legislature from making such a law (which had been on the books in the state since 1879).
quote:Typical waffle. Santorum claims not to agree with the "intent" of the law, without explaining what he thinks that intent is or why he would disagree with it. Then he goes on to explain in depth why he agrees with the intent of the law. To put it plainly, the intent of Connecticut's law was to prevent people from using contraception, and was based in the idea that sex is not a private act between individuals but subject to state regulation, both of which Santorum claims to wholeheartedly agree with.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Sorry, you are wrong. It is entirel true. Santorum explains his view of Griswold v. Connecticut here. Note the following.
originally posted by Croesos:
Not true.
quote:
On the questions of marriage, family, and sex, that string begins with the 1965 Griswold decision. In that case, a Connecticut law that outlawed the use of contraceptives, even by married couples, was ruled unconstitutional. Now, before you jump to conclusions, let me clearly state that this law was badly written, and I would not have supported it or its intent.quote:There you go. Straight from the horses pen.
Justices Stewart and Black were scathing in dissent, observing that while both disagreed with the law personally (as do I), they could find nothing in the U.S. Constitution that prevented the Connecticut legislature from making such a law (which had been on the books in the state since 1879).
quote:"You can take this diaphragm when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers." Nope, does't have the same ring.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Describe a remotely plausible scenario in which Santorum ignores Griswold v. Connecticut, bans the use of contraception in the United States, and isn't impeached. Rick Santorum wants to take your condoms and birth control pills is on par with Barack Obama wants to take your guns.
quote:
originally posted by Croesos:
Typical waffle. Santorum claims not to agree with the "intent" of the law, without explaining what he thinks that intent is or why he would disagree with it. Then he goes on to explain in depth why he agrees with the intent of the law. To put it plainly, the intent of Connecticut's law was to prevent people from using contraception, and was based in the idea that sex is not a private act between individuals but subject to state regulation, both of which Santorum claims to wholeheartedly agree with.
quote:He's three points behind Romney in a poll (Rasmussen, I think) I saw this morning. As I see it, his big problem (apart from being a raving tosser) is lack of money and organization. If he can ride the wave through South Carolina that might buy him time before Super Tuesday, but there's surely no way that he can compete in Florida.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I never thought Santorum would have a chance because he is so extremist and I have to believe that aside from South Carolina he doesn't stand a chance of winning another primary/caucus.
quote:Right, but that faction needs to pick someone to unite behind, and do it fast, otherwise their fragmentation is going to gift the thing to Romney.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
The only fly in that ointment is the faction of the GOP that wants somebody, anybody but Romney.
quote:Santorum may have just lost South Carlina. Nullification is a cherished legacy among South Carolinian conservatives, and to today's Republican party being against nullification makes one a dangerous radical.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
[Santorum]'s three points behind Romney in a poll (Rasmussen, I think) I saw this morning. As I see it, his big problem (apart from being a raving tosser) is lack of money and organization. If he can ride the wave through South Carolina that might buy him time before Super Tuesday, but there's surely no way that he can compete in Florida.
quote:Huh? Would you unpack that statement please?
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Santorum and Perry scare me with their dominion theology ties ...
quote:But there is a very strong Republican custom that the last campaign's runner-up gets his turn the next time (it didn't happen in 2000 because Pat Buchanan was such a distant second in 1996 and hardly anybody ever took him seriously in the first place).
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Again, I don't get why people anybody is supporting Romney. Few people really like him.
quote:Because the others (with the exception of Huntsman) are utterly unelectable. Ergo, if your primary motivation is to get a Republican in the White House (as opposed to, say, having someone with sufficient ideological purity as president) then you support him.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Again, I don't get why people anybody is supporting Romney.
quote:Well, that and the nepotism factor. Plus his attempt to mount a primary challenge to incumbent President Bush, Sr. in 1992 was seen as bad form.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
But there is a very strong Republican custom that the last campaign's runner-up gets his turn the next time (it didn't happen in 2000 because Pat Buchanan was such a distant second in 1996 and hardly anybody ever took him seriously in the first place).
quote:Huntsman is also unelectable, as shown by the fact that he can't get anyone to vote for him.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:Because the others (with the exception of Huntsman) are utterly unelectable.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Again, I don't get why people anybody is supporting Romney.
quote:If your primary motivation is to get a Republican in the White House, then the logical choice is Huntsman not Romney. I don't buy Romney being more conservative than Huntsman. Huntsman was elected in conservative Utah with virtually the same positions he has now. Romney was elected in Massachusetts running as a liberal Republican. Now, Romney expects us to believe he either lied then, is lying now, or just plain wishy washy.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:Because the others (with the exception of Huntsman) are utterly unelectable. Ergo, if your primary motivation is to get a Republican in the White House (as opposed to, say, having someone with sufficient ideological purity as president) then you support him.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Again, I don't get why people anybody is supporting Romney.
quote:Not if you want the guy to have a chance of actually getting into the White House. As has already been pointed out, no one wants to vote for Huntsman. He doesn't even have much national name recognition. The Republicans pick the last election's runner-up in part because everyone knows who he is.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If your primary motivation is to get a Republican in the White House, then the logical choice is Huntsman not Romney.
quote:I don't think Romney really believes in anything but his own desire to be in charge of stuff.
[b]I don't buy Romney being more conservative than Huntsman. Huntsman was elected in conservative Utah with virtually the same positions he has now. Romney was elected in Massachusetts running as a liberal Republican. Now, Romney expects us to believe he either lied then, is lying now, or just plain wishy washy. [/QB]
quote:Ditto for most politicians.
Originally posted by RuthW:
I don't think Romney really believes in anything but his own desire to be in charge of stuff.
quote:And because that person has had all his (or her?!) dirty laundry aired once before in a primary so presumably all the bad stuff is already known about, and because he (or she?!) has spent four years fundraising and can outspend everyone else.
Originally posted by RuthW:
The Republicans pick the last election's runner-up in part because everyone knows who he is.
quote:Not sure I agree, for the (probably circular) reason that it is Romney that has the backing of the GOP establishment and hence all the money.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If your primary motivation is to get a Republican in the White House, then the logical choice is Huntsman not Romney.
quote:No one wants to vote for Romney either. Romney has been running for president ever since he left the governor's mansion. So, yeah, he has money and name recognition. However, winning the nomination would bring Huntsman both money and name recognition. Once Huntsman's name got recognized, he'd make a better Romney than Romney. If you are going to hold your nose and vote for somebody, vote the person who has the best chance of winning. Romney isn't that person.
originally posted by RuthW:
Not if you want the guy to have a chance of actually getting into the White House. As has already been pointed out, no one wants to vote for Huntsman. He doesn't even have much national name recognition. The Republicans pick the last election's runner-up in part because everyone knows who he is.
quote:The people who put together Perry's prayer summit prior to his throwing his hat in the ring officially and who continue to be his spiritual advisors are dominion theologists. The Response website originally named the backers and participants, but that page has since been removed. Many of those openly stated they backed laws requiring the bending of the knee to Christ. I'll have to double back and see if I can find that list of names again. I researched them at the time.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Huh? Would you unpack that statement please?
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Santorum and Perry scare me with their dominion theology ties ...
quote:And yet he won the Iowa caucuses and is projected to win the New Hampshire primaries, so obviously someone is voting for him. Do you know of any states where Huntsman is projected to win?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No one wants to vote for Romney either.
quote:No, those things are already illegal, Bible or not. But I guess you'd like to see pork and rabbit banned from butcher shops (along with camel and hyrax)? Leviticus 11:4-8.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I believe that the laws of the US should line up with the Bible. You shall not kill. You shall not steal. You shall not commit adultery. You're in favor of murder, theft, and adultery?
quote:Being "against" something is not the same as wanting to make it illegal. I am content for murder and theft to be illegal, but while my wife and I have an agreement which says adultery is not a Good Thing™, I wouldn't want to prescribe that for anyone else.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I am not a Dominionist and I believe that the laws of the US should line up with the Bible. You shall not kill. You shall not steal. You shall not commit adultery. You're in favor of murder, theft, and adultery?
quote:Because?
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
...I wouldn't want to prescribe that for anyone else.
quote:You are confusing rather bog standard Roman Catholicism with a miniscule sect of ultra fundamentalist Independent Baptists and Orthodox Presbyterians.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:No, those things are already illegal, Bible or not. But I guess you'd like to see pork and rabbit banned from butcher shops (along with camel and hyrax)? Leviticus 11:4-8.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I believe that the laws of the US should line up with the Bible. You shall not kill. You shall not steal. You shall not commit adultery. You're in favor of murder, theft, and adultery?
But oh, I forgot. Republicans would rather not spend money on ensuring a safe food supply.
quote:Is this because you believe marriage to be essentially a private agreement in which society as a whole or the state has no interest?
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Because it's none of my business.
quote:I would separate things. Firstly, I would do away with marriage as a state-sponsored institution and have civil unions instituted in their place. From that point of view, a union can be between anyone and all the tax and inheritance and next-of-kin type issues go with it.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:Is this because you believe marriage to be essentially a private agreement in which society as a whole or the state has no interest?
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Because it's none of my business.
quote:. . . you shall not worship other gods, you shall worship in a specific, prescribed manner (no idols, honor the Sabbath, etc.)
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I am not a Dominionist and I believe that the laws of the US should line up with the Bible. You shall not kill. You shall not steal. You shall not commit adultery.
quote:Only if I could head the Inquisition.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yep, I'm sure no one would have any problem with criminalizing every religion except whichever Christian sect managed to come out on top.
quote:---James 5
Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.
quote:Murder and theft are illegal, but not necessarily because of the Bible. Adultery is not illegal and shouldn't be, IMO. That's between husband and wife and should be resolved between them - whether they divorce or work it out and stay married. You also forget the rest of the 10 commandments, most of which aren't and shouldn't be a matter of law within the U.S. It doesn't matter what I believe about the Bible or the 10 commandments, there should be no forcing of others to believe the same things through U.S. law.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
So, saying that the laws of the US must line up with Biblical principles makes you a Dominionist?
I am not a Dominionist and I believe that the laws of the US should line up with the Bible. You shall not kill. You shall not steal. You shall not commit adultery. You're in favor of murder, theft, and adultery?
quote:Sadly, I think this is on point. I just read this entire thread and I think one thing missing is recognition of just how dumb and partisan the average American voter is. I'm more in touch with the blue collar world than most of you and I'm here to say -- it's dire. My son works at Wal-mart and the ever present word in the breakroom is, "Damn lazy welfare slobs buying steaks on my dollar." My husband volunteers with the Veterans of Foreign Wars and hears this, "You know who pays for those hippies? The American tax payer -- that's who!" Oddly, many of these folk are too low income to pay taxes at all. These people will vote for whoever seems to hate those baby killing liberals the most. That's why they love people like Newt Gingrich so much. He even looks hateful.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
The GOP at this point want a rabid right wing extremist to occupy the WH - or anyone but Romney or Huntsman.
quote:Tangent: the reason poor people of all colours buy steaks with food stamps is because they can resell the steaks and get cash which they can use for anything, not just food. I have no idea what the rules say about this behaviour, but it should certainly be admired for its capitalistic initiative and financial shrewdness.
Originally posted by Twilight:
... My son works at Wal-mart and the ever present word in the breakroom is, "Damn lazy welfare slobs buying steaks on my dollar." ...
OliviaG
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:When I was working for a major medical center I saw a good portion of not only WalMart employees, but many underemployed retail employees on Medicaid/Medi-Cal as they couldn't get enough hours to qualify for health insurance through the employer and made little enough to qualify for Medicaid. Even if they could afford it, many had pre-existing health conditions that made buying individual plans impossible. I have no doubt many were also on Food Stamps. As to buying steak, one can't say if it was a rare buy for a celebration of a birthday, anniversary, etc. I don't begrudge anyone a rare celebration especially for one those family events. Or even buying steak and selling it at a profit to buy other essentials. I know a lot of people who can't afford needed medications and if they can buy that medication doing this, more power to 'em. Sadly, Americans these days want to believe the worst of their fellow citizens. I also notice the racial throw ins by Gingrich and Santorum on the issue of Food Stamps and welfare. Tell you what politicians - let's get out of the economic mess that both parties have gotten us into and then start your judgments. Especially when y'all are millionaires and have absolutely no clue!
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Second Tangent: And WalMart is well-known to do whatever it can to secure government benefits for itself and its employees. What I find particularly odious is the practice of keeping employees under a certain number of hours / income level and actively counselling them to apply for government benefits. Way to go, WalMart, making all the US taxpayers provide its employee benefits.
And sad to say, I think Twilight's characterization is spot-on. There's a lot of hate and fear out there -- I'm feeling generous, so I'll just say that the world is changing too fast for a lot of people. OliviaG
quote:I noticed this too at my Italian butcher's a few days ago when I was buying some rabbit. As far as the ten commandments go, I would be intrigued to see the prison system dealing with adulterers and those who took the Lord's name in vain.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Don't know about down there but up here steaks of a certain cut are often cheaper then chicken price per pound.
That and I thank God for our health care system.
quote:I think people understood that, Twilight, and were responding to the sentiments expressed in the break room, not to you personally.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Er. I quoted what my son hears in the break room as an example of the type of thinking that is common among poor, working class, minimum wage workers and not as an expression of what I think, myself.
quote:Wal-Mart is the Devil.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Er. I quoted what my son hears in the break room as an example of the type of thinking that is common among poor, working class, minimum wage workers and not as an expression of what I think, myself.
I am a liberal democrat who is very much in favor of food stamp progams, plus I believe we should pay much more in taxes so that everyone has free medicare and plenty of food.
As for Wal-mart itself, I don't really need lectures about that either. After ten years of steady employment with them my son finally made enough money to be over the wage eligability for Medicare, so he signed up for Wal-mart's health insurance. Now his meds that were free on Medicare, cost him $600 per month out of pocket after Wal-mart pays their 20%. That's more than half his monthly wage.
quote:Yeah. Sorry. It was Olivia's raspberry smiley that threw me off.
Originally posted by RuthW:
I think people understood that, Twilight, and were responding to the sentiments expressed in the break room, not to you personally.
quote:How old is your son?
Originally posted by Twilight:
After ten years of steady employment with them my son finally made enough money to be over the wage eligability for Medicare, so he signed up for Wal-mart's health insurance. Now his meds that were free on Medicare, cost him $600 per month out of pocket after Wal-mart pays their 20%.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:In part it's because the Republicans regard the presidency as rightfully theirs. Clinton and Obama were/are viewed as illegitimate interlopers by Republicans in a way Reagan and Bush Sr. never were by Democrats. (Bush Jr. was regarded as such for his first term but that was largely because of the electoral skullduggery surrounding his (s)election, not because his party membership automatically made him un-presidential or un-American).
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
I'm still struggling to understand why the Republicans want the White House, when the 'devil you know' has a built-in advantage. Why not focus on winning as many House and Senate seats as possible... with a theoretical 2/3rds, veto-busting majority, the White House becomes completely irrelevant...
quote:And there’s your problem: you seem to be indulging in the fantasy that liberalism exists somewhere in the U.S. It doesn’t, except among a few antique hippies too stoned to get to the polls.
Originally posted by PD:
My major problem with the US political situation at the moment is that neither of the major parties lines up well with my sort of Liberalism.
PD
quote:Surely rendering the White House irrelevant was one of Obama’s chief accomplishments in this term . . .
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
... with a theoretical 2/3rds, veto-busting majority, the White House becomes completely irrelevant...
quote:It depends how you depend liberalism. I tend to define it in 18th century terms as 'a benign and comfortable air of liberty and toleration.' Both of which would tend to regard over much interference from the government in and with what I do, say, or earn is a bad thing. Using the tax system to redistribute wealth, or give breaks to the rich both irritate me as it is the guvmint playing favourites and, if taken far enough, the guvmint deciding who succeeds and who does not.
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
quote:And there’s your problem: you seem to be indulging in the fantasy that liberalism exists somewhere in the U.S. It doesn’t, except among a few antique hippies too stoned to get to the polls.
Originally posted by PD:
My major problem with the US political situation at the moment is that neither of the major parties lines up well with my sort of Liberalism.
PD
quote:Surely rendering the White House irrelevant was one of Obama’s chief accomplishments in this term . . .
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
... with a theoretical 2/3rds, veto-busting majority, the White House becomes completely irrelevant...
quote:
Today, we are faced with the disappointing record of a failed President. The last three years have held a lot of change, but they haven’t offered much hope.
quote:
We know that the future of this country is better than 8 or 9% unemployment. It is better than $15 trillion in debt.
quote:
The President has run out of ideas. Now, he’s running out of excuses.
quote:
We still believe in the America that is a land of opportunity and a beacon of freedom. We believe in the America that challenges each of us to be better and bigger than ourselves.
quote:From a strategic standpoint what Romney is doing here is using his two recent wins (one close, the other substantial) to present his nomination as a fait accompli to the press. By starting to run against Obama he is implicitly saying that the Republican nominating process is over and he's the candidate. Given how often this kind of tactic works, Romney would be foolish not to go for it.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I am not Romney's biggest fan, but he had some good lines in his victory speech last night.
quote:
[Series of criticisms of President Obama]
quote:Of course, Ron Paul has recently been cagey when asked about his willingness to support whoever the eventual Republican nominee is. Some speculate that he's leaving open the possibility of a third party run on the Constitution Party ticket, a possibility he laid the groundwork for in 2008.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
It will be interesting to see who Romney picks as VP. Ron Paul would appeal to moderates but turn off the Tea Party/Fundagelical vote. Gingrich, Santorum and Perry might do the opposite. Or he could pull a McCain and pick someone out of nowhere (though that didn't work out well for John.)
quote:Which has us Dems clicking our heels together and crying, "oh, yes, puhleeeze!!!"
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Of course, Ron Paul has recently been cagey when asked about his willingness to support whoever the eventual Republican nominee is. Some speculate that he's leaving open the possibility of a third party run on the Constitution Party ticket, a possibility he laid the groundwork for in 2008.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
It will be interesting to see who Romney picks as VP. Ron Paul would appeal to moderates but turn off the Tea Party/Fundagelical vote. Gingrich, Santorum and Perry might do the opposite. Or he could pull a McCain and pick someone out of nowhere (though that didn't work out well for John.)
quote:Either Huntsman or a a token black person no-one has yet thought of. If he wants to win he needs to get votes from people who would otherwise vote for the President, not from the teabaggers who never will.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
It will be interesting to see who Romney picks as VP. Ron Paul would appeal to moderates ...
quote:The risk here though is by going too moderate, the fundagelicals/Tea Party constituency may sit out the election, handing it back to Obama anyway. Their presence can't be ignored.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Either Huntsman or a a token black person no-one has yet thought of. If he wants to win he needs to get votes from people who would otherwise vote for the President, not from the teabaggers who never will.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
It will be interesting to see who Romney picks as VP. Ron Paul would appeal to moderates ...
quote:I think I might take some issue with the idea that Ron Paul would appeal to moderates, if by that you mean people who are to immediate left of the GOP.
Ron Paul would appeal to moderates ...
quote:When the narrative of the primaries has been that the field of candidates is weak, picking a running mate out of that field would seem odd.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
It will be interesting to see who Romney picks as VP. Ron Paul would appeal to moderates but turn off the Tea Party/Fundagelical vote. Gingrich, Santorum and Perry might do the opposite. Or he could pull a McCain and pick someone out of nowhere (though that didn't work out well for John.)
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:I think I might take some issue with the idea that Ron Paul would appeal to moderates, if by that you mean people who are to immediate left of the GOP.
Ron Paul would appeal to moderates ...
His foreign-policy proposals include cutting all foreign aid, including to Israel, and shutting down every US military base in the world. That would appeal to the far left, not to Rockefeller Republicans or even centrist Democrats.(And the far left would oppose him on general cuts to foreign-aid, even if they liked the "no money to Israel" overlap.)
quote:I predict J.C. Watts.
Originally posted by ken:
Either Huntsman or a a token black person no-one has yet thought of.
quote:Sort of like driving out of your way just to rubberneck a massive pile-up on the fwy.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I do have to say that I would schedule my night around a Joe Biden-Chris Christy debate, simply to see who delivers the most unfiltered line of the night.
quote:Yes, but shutting down all military bases, and eliminating social security, goes considerably beyond what the average moderate would understand by "cutting wasteful spending".
By moderates I mean voters who are concerned about "wasteful spending" on the military and social programmes, but are turned off by the religious right/social conservative rhetoric.
quote:True. And then, he's slso got some de facto liberal positions on social issues, like for example he opposes the federal Defense Of Marriage Act, presumably since it infringes upon state's rights. So he ends up with these varying social policies that sorta cancel each other out, in terms of electoral support. Most people who oppose the DOMA want abortion to remain subject to federal protection(via the courts), and Planned Parenthood to continue being funded.
Ron Paul is not shy about the fact that he is strongly pro-life, that he would support various sanctity of life acts, and that he would cut off federal funding for planned parenthood. So he is hardly a moderate on social issues.
quote:I think you're right, insofar as we are talking about Ron Paul in the primaries. But it would be a different story if he was actually on a GOP ticket, facing a national electorate as the main threat to Obama's continued reign. I can hear the attack ads right now...
I think you're giving voters too much credit. These people hear "freedom" and don't go much further. He's seen as an alternative to "big government" conservatism and "big government" liberalism. But I don't think many have thought through what his positions would mean in their lives (or in our world.)
quote:Yeah, I thought about Quayle. But he didn't really have any outrageous(by mainstream standards) opinions that could serve as a lightning rod. Even his Murphy Brown speech was more a case of just sounding goofy, rather than people being terrified by his policy prescriptions.
The U.S. has elected tickets with some pretty weak VPs who probably would never be president (like Dan Quayle).
quote:Watts has been out of politics too long. I can't remember the last time I saw him on television. My guess would be Marco Rubio. Rubio can get more national exposure. When Romney loses, Rubio, while still the senator from Florida, would become the odds on favorite to win the nomination in 2016 and face a new candidate on the Democratic ticket.
Originally posted by 205:
quote:I predict J.C. Watts.
Originally posted by ken:
Either Huntsman or a a token black person no-one has yet thought of.
Black and hardly token due to his role in the Gingrich revolution, and the Baptist thing helps gloss over Mitt Happens' Mormonism.
quote:In fairness to Paul, he actually is on record as opposing Medicare, along with Medicaid and Social Security. So, he's not open to quite the same charge of hypocrisy as other Republicans, who rail against the inner-city "welfare queens", while not daring to say a discouraging word about those aspects of the welfare-state that their blue-rinse supporters like.
The other day I was reading about a poll of Medicare subscribers, and how about 30 percent of them flatly denied that they've ever received help from the government. That's the mentality that powers candidates like Paul -- a knee-jerk, illogical fear and hatred of government
quote:But Paul is also on record as telling those who are on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid that they have nothing to worry about. He won't pull the rug out from under them by cancelling the programmes straight away.
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:In fairness to Paul, he actually is on record as opposing Medicare, along with Medicaid and Social Security. So, he's not open to quite the same charge of hypocrisy as other Republicans, who rail against the inner-city "welfare queens", while not daring to say a discouraging word about those aspects of the welfare-state that their blue-rinse supporters like.
The other day I was reading about a poll of Medicare subscribers, and how about 30 percent of them flatly denied that they've ever received help from the government. That's the mentality that powers candidates like Paul -- a knee-jerk, illogical fear and hatred of government
quote:I see your point. And I agree that a lot of RP's current supporters do seem to be young, straight, white males, attracted solely to his uncompromising anti-war stance and sorta kinda pro-legalization of drugs policy(I say "sorta kinda" because what he really favours is reurning drup policy to the states, which would probably weaken drug laws, but not neccessarily eliminate them), but without having really thought through his other policies.
But Paul is also on record as telling those who are on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid that they have nothing to worry about. He won't pull the rug out from under them by cancelling the programmes straight away.
It's the next generation (those who are currently paying payroll taxes to fund those who are currently on these programs) who will keep paying into the system but get nothing back, who are going to get screwed. It's a bit of generational warfare, which again, makes me wonder if his followers (who are mostly youngish straight white males) are paying attention to what the implications of his policies are.
quote:Social Security has always run a surplus and is solvent through 2038. The government has been borrowing from the Social Security fund to fund other services since the 1980s. If that hadn't happened, SS could easily cover the population through 2060. But even so, it could be funded indefinitely if the wage cap was raised above the current $110,000/yr, to maybe $200,000.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
My guess is Social Security and Medicare will be tapped out long before the current generation of people in their prime wage earning years would be ready to realize the benefits of what they paid in. That will happen without Ron Paul being elected.
He doesn't have a realistic chance of getting the nomination, but his strong finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire to me are extremely encouraging.
quote:The one thing you can't accuse Ron Paul of is hypocrisy. Being batshit crazy and advocating policies that would lead to mass homelessness and possibly mass starvation? Sure. But never hypocrisy...
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:In fairness to Paul, he actually is on record as opposing Medicare, along with Medicaid and Social Security. So, he's not open to quite the same charge of hypocrisy as other Republicans, who rail against the inner-city "welfare queens", while not daring to say a discouraging word about those aspects of the welfare-state that their blue-rinse supporters like.
The other day I was reading about a poll of Medicare subscribers, and how about 30 percent of them flatly denied that they've ever received help from the government. That's the mentality that powers candidates like Paul -- a knee-jerk, illogical fear and hatred of government
quote:The real attack ad leaves out the last line. Teabaggers will assume that the fake Mullah is meant to be a parody of the President.
Originally posted by Stetson:
SOME VOICE-ACTOR READING FROM A SCRIPTWRITER'S IDEA OF AN AL QAEDA COMMUNIQUE: The American infidels must remove their army from all Muslim lands!
NEWS FOOTAGE OF RON PAUL SPEAKING SOMEWHERE: The US must remove all its troops from the Middle East.
ANNOUNCER: Obama. The only sane choice.
quote:Two more cons:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
... doing a switcheroo with Hillary and Joe on the Obama-headed ticket.
quote:"Token black" was a bit unfair of me. What I really meant was something like "regionally prominent politician with no track record of far-right ranting and some easily definable personal characteristic that some Democrat voters might identify with"
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Watts has been out of politics too long. I can't remember the last time I saw him on television. My guess would be Marco Rubio. Rubio can get more national exposure.
Originally posted by 205:
quote:I predict J.C. Watts.
Originally posted by ken:
Either Huntsman or a a token black person no-one has yet thought of.
Black and hardly token due to his role in the Gingrich revolution, and the Baptist thing helps gloss over Mitt Happens' Mormonism.
quote:May I remind everyone that the word "teabaggers" is considered highly offensive. I would ask that it not be used on this forum just as I would not use other offensive words. Thank you.
Originally posted by ken:
The real attack ad leaves out the last line. Teabaggers will assume that the fake Mullah is meant to be a parody of the President.
quote:In your dreams. If I meant to offend right-wingers that is not a word I would choose.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:May I remind everyone that the word "teabaggers" is considered highly offensive. I would ask that it not be used on this forum just as I would not use other offensive words. Thank you.
Originally posted by ken:
The real attack ad leaves out the last line. Teabaggers will assume that the fake Mullah is meant to be a parody of the President.
quote:Yeah. The way I wrote it could be confusing.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:The real attack ad leaves out the last line. Teabaggers will assume that the fake Mullah is meant to be a parody of the President.
Originally posted by Stetson:
SOME VOICE-ACTOR READING FROM A SCRIPTWRITER'S IDEA OF AN AL QAEDA COMMUNIQUE: The American infidels must remove their army from all Muslim lands!
NEWS FOOTAGE OF RON PAUL SPEAKING SOMEWHERE: The US must remove all its troops from the Middle East.
ANNOUNCER: Obama. The only sane choice.
Just show Paul making comments similar to the bad quys and say nothing positive about anyone.
quote:Or you could end it with a token negativism, like "Ron Paul. Whose side is he on?"
Just show Paul making comments similar to the bad quys and say nothing positive about anyone.
quote:I hadn't considered this before, but I can see how practitioners of the sex act of that name would be offended to be associated with the moral depravity of the Tea Party movement. What would you consider a more politically correct term?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:May I remind everyone that the word "teabaggers" is considered highly offensive. I would ask that it not be used on this forum just as I would not use other offensive words. Thank you.
Originally posted by ken:
The real attack ad leaves out the last line. Teabaggers will assume that the fake Mullah is meant to be a parody of the President.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I hadn't considered this before, but I can see how practitioners of the sex act of that name would be offended to be associated with the moral depravity of the Tea Party movement. What would you consider a more politically correct term?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:May I remind everyone that the word "teabaggers" is considered highly offensive. I would ask that it not be used on this forum just as I would not use other offensive words. Thank you.
Originally posted by ken:
The real attack ad leaves out the last line. Teabaggers will assume that the fake Mullah is meant to be a parody of the President.
quote:While it sticks in my craw to agree w/ NYer, he's right on this one. I was naive/sheltered enough to have no idea what the term meant until I heard the snickers from my fellow lefties and looked it up. The Tea Party had a similar epiphany, my Tea Party friends (yes, I have some) have been insistent that the correct term would be Tea Partier.
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
@ NYer: Could you then suggest an alternative? AFAIK, you are the only conservative I've encountered thus far who claims to find the term offensive.
quote:Thanks. I (along with my own more conservative acquaintances) was unaware of the sexual meaning.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:While it sticks in my craw to agree w/ NYer, he's right on this one. I was naive/sheltered enough to have no idea what the term meant until I heard the snickers from my fellow lefties and looked it up. The Tea Party had a similar epiphany, my Tea Party friends (yes, I have some) have been insistent that the correct term would be Tea Partier.
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
@ NYer: Could you then suggest an alternative? AFAIK, you are the only conservative I've encountered thus far who claims to find the term offensive.
quote:Firstly, if it ever meant that at all it was probably only to a few drunken high-school kids in Beaver Creek, Colorado until the teabaggers dredged it up to use in their campaign to suppress free speech for left-wingers. Most of them probably never knew that obscure usage either. Why should we let their manufactured sensitivity control our language?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
. I was naive/sheltered enough to have no idea what the term meant until I heard the snickers from my fellow lefties and looked it up.
quote:I agree with the hypocrisy expressed here. The right wing is every bit as obsessed with political correctness as the left, while whinging about it from the other side all the while.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:When the left tries to ask people to talk decently then the right whinges about "political correctness". But their sense of conservative entitlement blinds them to when they are using the same strategy they pretend to be offended by in others.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
. I was naive/sheltered enough to have no idea what the term meant until I heard the snickers from my fellow lefties and looked it up.
quote:What caused you to pull Beaver Creek out of your hat? I just have to ask.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Firstly, if it ever meant that at all it was probably only to a few drunken high-school kids in Beaver Creek, Colorado until the teabaggers dredged it up to use in their campaign to suppress free speech for left-wingers. Most of them probably never knew that obscure usage either. Why should we let their manufactured sensitivity control our language?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
. I was naive/sheltered enough to have no idea what the term meant until I heard the snickers from my fellow lefties and looked it up.
quote:If you sense of humor is so stuck in 2003 that you insist upon using it, I suppose I won't object.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Is it all right to use Santorum's name?
quote:I'm sure a quick google search could turn up a bevy of substantive arguments from different economists outlining the reasons why raising the wage cap actually would not keep Social Security afloat. I have no idea who from either party is pursuing this (raising the wage cap), but I can't recall hearing it be debated in a way that would lead me to believe there is a serious movement afoot to raise the wage cap.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Social Security has always run a surplus and is solvent through 2038. The government has been borrowing from the Social Security fund to fund other services since the 1980s. If that hadn't happened, SS could easily cover the population through 2060. But even so, it could be funded indefinitely if the wage cap was raised above the current $110,000/yr, to maybe $200,000.
quote:As long as Santorum insists on a sense of morals stuck in a by-gone age, I have no problem with associating his name with lube and feces.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:If you sense of humor is so stuck in 2003 that you insist upon using it, I suppose I won't object.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Is it all right to use Santorum's name?
quote:Host Hat On
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I am going to have to disagree with Barnabas on this. The term is very offensive in that it describes a sexual act. I have always used tea partier even through my spell check does not seem to like the term. While the host is allowing the use, I will continue to use t p in my posts. (Opps t p is probably offensive too)
quote:Barnabas62
3. Stick to the point!
Please do not wander off into unrelated issues or social banter. There are other boards on the ship for these pursuits.
quote:Frankly in '08 the Republicans were going to loose anyway. Uncle Festus and Sarah Palin simply made sure they did so handsomely.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I don't think Ron Paul will ever make it to the top of a ticket. He could conceivably be a VP. The U.S. has elected tickets with some pretty weak VPs who probably would never be president (like Dan Quayle).
The only recent example of a VP dragging down a ticket I can think of was Palin.
quote:a.k.a. one creepy, old-school racist predicts the actions of another.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Pat Buchanan has an interesting article about ultimate goal of Ron Paul.
quote:You beat me to it. Where are these imbeciles' guardians? They obviously shouldn't be allowed out into the grown-up world without supervision. They might hurt themselves or somebody else. When will sanity and maturity ever gain the upper hand in this big playpen of a political entity?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well, it looks as though Mitt Romney has just been the victim of the ultimate insult.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:A Googlesearch will actually show substantive arguments of both pros and cons to raising the payroll cap. They are based on ideological preference. I see right wing sources arguing against it (Heritage, National Review, etc.) and left wing sources (Economic Policy Institute, Ezra Klein, etc.) arguing in favour. Those right wing sources are generally against any tax increases and government social services, so it's no surprise that they would oppose this as well.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:I'm sure a quick google search could turn up a bevy of substantive arguments from different economists outlining the reasons why raising the wage cap actually would not keep Social Security afloat. I have no idea who from either party is pursuing this (raising the wage cap), but I can't recall hearing it be debated in a way that would lead me to believe there is a serious movement afoot to raise the wage cap.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Social Security has always run a surplus and is solvent through 2038. The government has been borrowing from the Social Security fund to fund other services since the 1980s. If that hadn't happened, SS could easily cover the population through 2060. But even so, it could be funded indefinitely if the wage cap was raised above the current $110,000/yr, to maybe $200,000.
I am not expecting SS to be there when I retire, and I expect the "if it hadn't happened" scenario (borrowing against it) you outlined to keep happening and get worse until something knocks the underpinnings out of the governments ability finance its debt.
quote:Is it accurate to say "often" here? What about living with family? What about children's obligation to care for parents?
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
They often lived on the streets, or if they were lucky, in poor houses and work farms.
quote:I don't mean to be nit-picky but wouldn't it be more accurate to say that we copied Bismarck whose plan has been copied around the world? I'm not 100% certain, but I think Prussia started the concept.
Social Security did a great job at remedying this problem and was copied around the world.
quote:I agree, but hasn't the horse left the barn and is halfway across the planet by now?
We should pass a law that bans the government from borrowing from the SS fund ...
quote:That's right- Prussia was the pioneer - you were actually quite late in the day in setting up a Social Security system (1935, I think?)- for example, here in the UK we had unemployment and health insurance from 1912 and contributory old-age pensions from 1926.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:I don't mean to be nit-picky but wouldn't it be more accurate to say that we copied Bismarck whose plan has been copied around the world? I'm not 100% certain, but I think Prussia started the concept.
Social Security did a great job at remedying this problem and was copied around the world.
quote:We don't need leaders to speak foreign languages, just our two official ones.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
...Obama is on record saying that he does not speak a foreign language (good thing he isn't Canadian, because I guess he would be considered unfit to serve there ...
quote:Absolutely, as one would expect with any debate regarding public policy and economics. I personally believe that raising the wage cap would help in the short term, but make no difference in the long run since theoretically (meaning if the fund doesn’t run out of money) one will draw out as one contributes. I haven't read the arguments, but I'm guessing some of the left wing arguments for raising the wage cap hinge on changing this model so that the high income earners do not draw out proportionally to what they contribute. This change would mean social security is no longer social security, but a form of welfare. The problem is really the borrowing against the fund though.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
A Googlesearch will actually show substantive arguments of both pros and cons to raising the payroll cap. They are based on ideological preference. I see right wing sources arguing against it (Heritage, National Review, etc.) and left wing sources (Economic Policy Institute, Ezra Klein, etc.) arguing in favour. Those right wing sources are generally against any tax increases and government social services, so it's no surprise that they would oppose this as well.
quote:I can only say I don’t think minor tweaks to our tax structure will remedy our ills. I think we need a radical downsizing of our expenditures and therefore the scope of government itself.
It can be turned around with a few minor tax changes, or we can let SS/Medicare/Medicaid die and see the ranks of our urban homeless populations explode.
quote:The simple answer is you can stop being the world's policeman.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Seriously, though, how can you be the World's Policeman and not speak something besides English?
quote:Yes, all 300 million-plus Americans have one mindset.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
But no, to the American mindset, even learning a second language is apparently traitorous.
quote:Well I'm sure you can too, but I don't think having a list of national stereotypes always ready to deploy is really something you should be especially proud of.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I'm sure we could find a few more activities or attitudes that make America look as if it has a mindset.
quote:The ruling doesn't prevent them being on the ballot, the candidates did that themselves by not meeting the requirements to qualify.
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
No one has commented on the ruling by a Virginia judge that prevents Perry, Santorum, Gingrich and Huntsman from being on the VA primary ballot.
quote:Well, I guess "the rest of the world" doesn't include Canada, since as you must surely know, Canadians calls the gridiron sport "football" as well. And I daresay it's the second most popular sport after hockey.
Judging by the worship of that strange activity known as "football" in the US, yes, Americans have one mindset.
Obviously, "football" (that rarely involves foot hitting ball) is different from what the rest of the world knows as football.
quote:I'd guess that was an artifact of the education of the time, and the decreasing (read: now nonexistent) emphasis on learning those languages. Truth is, the educated Brit (and perhaps? American) of 100 years ago would have had Greek, Latin, and French from very early in their schooling.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
This table showing foreign languages spoken by United States presidents shows an interesting change- the more recent the President, the fewer languages spoken. Many of the first Presidents knew Latin, Greek, and French.
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Judging by the worship of that strange activity known as "football" in the US, yes, Americans have one mindset.
Obviously, "football" (that rarely involves foot hitting ball) is different from what the rest of the world knows as football.
I'm sure we could find a few more activities or attitudes that make America look as if it has a mindset. How about "guns for all"? or "Manifest Destiny"?
One don't have to have universal 100% agreement for outsiders to see one as having a mindset. It just may not be obvious to those within the gate.
quote:Drink!
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Judging by the worship of that strange activity known as "football" in the US, yes, Americans have one mindset.
Obviously, "football" (that rarely involves foot hitting ball) is different from what the rest of the world knows as football.
quote:Depends on what you mean by "educated." In the U.S. 100 years ago, most people didn't get more than an 8th-grade education, but that was basically what most people needed. The few people who did go to high school were there for a classical college-prep education and did get the Latin, etc. The number of people attending high school in the U.S. grew tremendously in the early 20th century, and the curriculum changed -- it was oriented toward preparing people for life instead of for college, so there was a lot of vocational education. But that didn't really get going until the 1920s.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I'd guess that was an artifact of the education of the time, and the decreasing (read: now nonexistent) emphasis on learning those languages. Truth is, the educated Brit (and perhaps? American) of 100 years ago would have had Greek, Latin, and French from very early in their schooling.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
This table showing foreign languages spoken by United States presidents shows an interesting change- the more recent the President, the fewer languages spoken. Many of the first Presidents knew Latin, Greek, and French.
quote:It's certainly my perception, although maybe the GOP's xenophobic idiot contingent is just noisier.
Okay, not all Americans have the same mindset, but there are enough registered Republicans with this mindset?
quote:Could it be the American mindset is that they don't have one? Everybody is obviously like them so....
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
...
One don't have to have universal 100% agreement for outsiders to see one as having a mindset. It just may not be obvious to those within the gate.
quote:It's a well-known fact (or it would be if TJ hadn't been edited out of the history books) that Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic Party, was fluent in French and actually served as ambassador to France (he was also quite an enthusiast of French wine). Therefore, Real Republicans Don't Speak French.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Newt Gingrich has launched ads attacking Romney because Romney speaks French.
Romney spent two years in France in the 1960's as a Mormon missionary.
Up here, speaking French is a necessity for high political office. The NDP just dropped one leadership candidate because he was unilingual.
quote:Besides, doing this has the unfortunate effect of making one look like a yahoo oneself.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
...Which is a long way of saying "don't mistake the idiocy and manipulation of some yahoos for the attitude of the whole country".
quote:I would have, but I was sputtering with laughter.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Drink!
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Judging by the worship of that strange activity known as "football" in the US, yes, Americans have one mindset.
Obviously, "football" (that rarely involves foot hitting ball) is different from what the rest of the world knows as football.
quote:Really? Did you have to summon him? Couldn't you have just gone into a darkened bathroom and whispered "Bloody Mary" three times instead? Now he'll show up and I can't remember the exorcism rite.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I have fond memories of the discussion about a year ago where somebody from the US was saying to us Canadians we are not distinctive because they couldn't see the differences.
quote:Whaaa????
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Most of the need for Spanish and French has been along our north and south borders...and most people don't live there.
quote:I also remember when the New Hampshire Primary was held in Dundas, Ontario. [Season 6]. I loved those episodes because I knew all the locations, but I hated them because I missed the location filming. I lived in West Hamilton at the time.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Do shipmates not recall how President Jed Bartlett could speak Latin?
quote:I'm not sure why a Republican opponent who can't even get other Republicans to vote for him "have made Obama's re-election a deeply uncertain proposition".
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
The one Republican candidate I could have taken seriously, and (possibly) the one candidate who could have made Obama's re-election a deeply uncertain proposition.
quote:Also in Stouffville, Ontario. The Fickle Pickle is a real restaurant there.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:I also remember when the New Hampshire Primary was held in Dundas, Ontario. [Season 6]. I loved those episodes because I knew all the locations, but I hated them because I missed the location filming. I lived in West Hamilton at the time.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Do shipmates not recall how President Jed Bartlett could speak Latin?
quote:Without the side shows and clown cars distracting those voters who elect on the basis of who-knows-what (since I cannot figure out for the life of me why, outside a circus tent, anyone would take a Bachman or Cain or Perry seriously), Huntsman would have got some traction and would have been listened to.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I'm not sure why a Republican opponent who can't even get other Republicans to vote for him "have made Obama's re-election a deeply uncertain proposition".
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
The one Republican candidate I could have taken seriously, and (possibly) the one candidate who could have made Obama's re-election a deeply uncertain proposition.
quote:In fairness to the US, I have to wonder what conclusions we would draw about Canadian culture if we extrapolated from the way hockey is usually played there.
I find that what the US (and as Stetson rightly notes, Canada) calls football is, if i analyse it closely, a depressing phenomenon. The heaviness, the complicated rules which are quite inscrutable, the injurious violence, etc. I've never cared for it myself.
It seems like the kind of sport that only a heavy, militaristic, violence-prone country like the US would be likely to come up with.
quote:Well, if you look at market share, I'd have to say that the Number 2 sport is football. If I'm not mistaken, Canada currently has one MLB team, whereas the CFL has nine teams.
I can't real speak to the level of popularity of the CFL. Among the folks i ran with when i lived in Canada i'd say that baseball was number 2 after hockey. (But that was a few centuries ago.)
quote:ISTM that the "side shows and clown cars" aspect of elections is nothing compared to the side shows and clown cars aspect of actually governing. If Huntsman couldn't get himself heard above the noise of a campaign, how could he have cut through the partisan shenanigans that accompany actually being POTUS? And, if that would not be possible for him, why would anyone want him to be POTUS?
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Without the side shows and clown cars distracting those voters who elect on the basis of who-knows-what (since I cannot figure out for the life of me why, outside a circus tent, anyone would take a Bachman or Cain or Perry seriously), Huntsman would have got some traction and would have been listened to.
quote:But the constituency of the GOP is different from the constituency of the country as a whole. The Tea Party agenda, for example, is disproportionately represented and influential in the GOP, when the country as a whole has come to look upon the group w/ disfavor. So someone who is unable to draw a consensus among the GOP might represent quite well the country as a whole.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:ISTM that the "side shows and clown cars" aspect of elections is nothing compared to the side shows and clown cars aspect of actually governing. If Huntsman couldn't get himself heard above the noise of a campaign, how could he have cut through the partisan shenanigans that accompany actually being POTUS? And, if that would not be possible for him, why would anyone want him to be POTUS?
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Without the side shows and clown cars distracting those voters who elect on the basis of who-knows-what (since I cannot figure out for the life of me why, outside a circus tent, anyone would take a Bachman or Cain or Perry seriously), Huntsman would have got some traction and would have been listened to.
--Tom Clune
quote:Me too. Bring it on, Rick and Newt -- tell us what you think about EVERYTHING, in a venue where some cell phone Twitterers can record it and post the videos of you saying it on the Internet.
otoh, as a Dem, I'm perfectly happy for the GOP to weed out all the centrist and rational candidates and put forward one of the several wingnuts you're currently overstocked in, thus ensuring a 2nd Obama administration.
quote:Okay, I have to ask, because I've heard this before from crowing Dems, but...
otoh, as a Dem, I'm perfectly happy for the GOP to weed out all the centrist and rational candidates and put forward one of the several wingnuts you're currently overstocked in, thus ensuring a 2nd Obama administration.
quote:Romney (and Huntsman) are the rational centrists I'm talking about. But the GOP faithful-- especially the disproportionately influential Tea Partiers-- seem to be trying to find the "anyone but Romney" candidate. Those are the wingnuts-- Perry, Cain, Bachman, the unfortunately named Santorum, and yes, loose-cannon Gingrich.
Originally posted by Stetson:
[QUOTE]Okay, I have to ask, because I've heard this before from crowing Dems, but...
Why exactly would Romney be considered a wingnut? As far as I can tell, within the parameters of American politics, he's a centrist, and, unlike all the other remaining GOP candidates, is not dogged by a history of making bizarre statements or advancing oddball policies. He seems to have been pretty much a moderate New England governor.
...I think the odds are still in favor of an Obama re-election, but I still wouldn't count Romney out entirely. Especially if the economy remains in the doldrums.
quote:Gotcha. You were talking about a scenario where Romney gets tossed out and a wingnut gets the nod, not Romney being the wingnut.
Romney (and Huntsman) are the rational centrists I'm talking about.
quote:I take a lot of it as crowing. I always hope that Germany will lose in the group stage of the World Cup, simply because I know they will likely beat my team in the elimination stage, if they make it that far. I can tell you how well that works...
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Wouldn't it be better to have a rational campaign talking about some issues, with the potential for the other side to win, rather then have an irrational campaign with a better chance of winning but that focuses on unimportant things?
quote:fyi: here's the final paragraph of my post you responded to, which I think shows I agree a centrist, rational choice would be better for the country-- but a one-sided election w/ one of the assorted wingnuts would be more fun:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Wouldn't it be better to have a rational campaign talking about some issues, with the potential for the other side to win, rather then have an irrational campaign with a better chance of winning but that focuses on unimportant things?
quote:
Romney would give Obama a good run for his money, and could engender a very useful debate about how to address the real problems of the nation. But one of the wingnuts would be wicked fun-- at least for the Dems.
quote:Well, if I'm correctly reading this US population density map (via Wikipedia), most Americans do not live along the Canadian and Mexican borders.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Whaaa????
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Most of the need for Spanish and French has been along our north and south borders...and most people don't live there.
California population
quote:I'm always dubious about these sort of "if only you would treat batshit insane ideas as if they're reasonable everything would be so much better" arguments. Contemptible ideas should be treated with contempt.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Dems who complain about the tone of politics gotta look in the mirror.
quote:Precisely my reaction. Because better or more edifying for the country is hardly the same as better for a person whose primary goal is to win office (and then, possibly, figure out later what they're going to do once they get there).
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Better for whom?
quote:Look at southern California in the map. The part of California along the Mexican border is one of the most densely populated areas in the country; California itself has the highest population in the country. Californians generally are interacting w/ Spanish (and Mandarin & Korean) speakers on a daily basis.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:Well, if I'm correctly reading this US population density map (via Wikipedia), most Americans do not live along the Canadian and Mexican borders.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Whaaa????
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Most of the need for Spanish and French has been along our north and south borders...and most people don't live there.
California population
I was just trying to say that folks who live along the borders are more apt to have a daily need for dealing with folks from over the border, or who speak an over-the-border language.
quote:Don't be absurd. No true Californian interacts with the help...
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Californians generally are interacting w/ Spanish (and Mandarin & Korean) speakers on a daily basis.
quote:You're thinking of Orange County, not California. That's a nation all to itself.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Don't be absurd. No true Californian interacts with the help...
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Californians generally are interacting w/ Spanish (and Mandarin & Korean) speakers on a daily basis.
--Tom Clune
quote:Actually Californians and Texans and so on generally are interacting with English-speakers on a dailly basis.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Californians generally are interacting w/ Spanish (and Mandarin & Korean) speakers on a daily basis.
quote:Actually, I was responding to a comment, wording it your way, while an accurate statement, would have been nonsensical in context. I referred to Spanish and Mandarin and Korean speaker w/o any suggestion of whether they are American or not.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Actually Californians and Texans and so on generally are interacting with English-speakers on a dailly basis.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Californians generally are interacting w/ Spanish (and Mandarin & Korean) speakers on a daily basis.
You seem to be assuming that the Anglos are the real Americans and the Spanish-speakers some exotic rarities, rather than just as American as anyone else.
quote:Yeah, I just wish they'd use it in the South...
Originally posted by RuthW:
...English is still mainly what you need to know, and the point about being able to travel great distances in most of North America and not needing any language but English still stands.
quote:And yet a vote for a Green or a Libertarian is a "wasted" vote. Funny that.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I don't find the Mormon thing interesting in the slightest. Romney will get the nomination. End of story.
I can only think of a handful of minor things that might be different if Romney is elected vs. Obama or vice versa. In other words, I don't think it really matters one way or the other who is elected. Romney is not a culture warrior (read sad Evangelicals) and Obama is not about change (read sad whoever was fooled in to believing that).
I would give Obama the slight advantage given that he's an incumbent, the economy is improving slightly and he's building up a huge mountain of cash. It will probably be close though.
quote:I'm not talking about fools. What I'm pointing out is the tendancy to demonise is making compromise and working things out far more difficult, and making the polarisation thing far worse, at least from the perspective of this observor north of the border.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
..
For example, how should a gay politician react to someone like Rick Santorum who believes homosexuals should be imprisoned? (Google his comments on Lawrence v. Texas if you think this is an exaggeration.) Is there some compromise position to be reached at the halfway point between "prison" and "no prison"?
quote:I had to go back and re-read this. For a minute there, I thought you were describing Congress, not delegates.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
A large part of the resistance to Romney is a rather childish desire, on the part of a lot of thedelegates, to have things exactly their way, and to throw tantrums when they discover that the goals of throwing away all government, all "other races" and all "other relgions" can't be met by any candidate this side of Betelgeuse.
quote:I would love it if we could have a rational debate between 2 parties.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
[QB] I was lamenting the tendency by Dems to want the wingnut.{/QB]
quote:Wait, isn't calling Rick Santorum (a viable presidential candidate with a sizable backing in the Republican party) a "fool" demonizing him and making compromise with his faction more difficult?
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:I'm not talking about fools. What I'm pointing out is the tendancy to demonise is making compromise and working things out far more difficult, and making the polarisation thing far worse, at least from the perspective of this observor north of the border.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For example, how should a gay politician react to someone like Rick Santorum who believes homosexuals should be imprisoned? (Google his comments on Lawrence v. Texas if you think this is an exaggeration.) Is there some compromise position to be reached at the halfway point between "prison" and "no prison"?
quote:(My italics)
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:I would love it if we could have a rational debate between 2 parties.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
[QB] I was lamenting the tendency by Dems to want the wingnut.{/QB]
We need to have a 2nd rational party for such a debate to take place. The Republican Party is not such an organisation.
As someone whose life may depend on the availability of decently affordable medical care, i want the current Republican Party with its avowedly cruel inhuman policies to delf-destruct before they destroy even more lives than the millions already ruined, both in the country they claim to serve, and around the world. For us, they are bigger terrorists than some Islamic radicals.
quote:Romney is going to win the nomination.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
A large part of the resistance to Romney is a rather childish desire, on the part of a lot of thedelegates, to have things exactly their way, and to throw tantrums when they discover that the goals of throwing away all government, all "other races" and all "other relgions" can't be met by any candidate this side of Betelgeuse.
Most of the candidates offered so far have had no faintly realistc chance of getting votes outside of the base of the GOP, except Romeny and Huntsman. The reasons those two aren't being considered seem to be that they are most likely to be electable.
quote:Not an unreasonable answer to the "What's Wrong With Mitt?" question.
"If the far right thought that Romney could win, they might be more enthusiastic about him," she said. "But they question what he stands for, and they don't think he's going to win, so what's the sell?
"They don't think he's going to win in November, so they're like, 'Why should we compromise who we are?,' " Pelosi added. "Let's be who we want to be and get ready for four years from now … when it's a clean slate, [there's] no incumbent and we can start to get ready building our candidate."
quote:Have you seen this, RuthW? About 9 minutes in, there is an excerpt from a Santorum comment about the setting aside of due process (habeas corpus) in Civil Courts. He's (correctly) very critical.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Which is pretty sad. Bad public policy can kill a whole lot of people and make other people's lives difficult and miserable, and that alone ought to motivate people toward rational discussion of our real problems and potential solutions. Instead, Rick Santorum demonizes gay people and Newt Gingrich plays on people's racism. They could be talking about the fact that a guy who taught constitutional law signed indefinite detention into law, but no, that would make too much sense.
quote:How does Santorum demonize gay people? How does Gingrich play on racism? Quite the opposite in both cases from what they have said in the recent debates.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Rick Santorum demonizes gay people and Newt Gingrich plays on people's racism.
quote:His position is that same-sex marriage should be illegal for the same reason that child rape and dog fucking should be illegal. That's either demonizing gay people or a remarkable degree of tolerance for pædophiles and bestialists.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:How does Santorum demonize gay people?
Originally posted by RuthW:
Rick Santorum demonizes gay people and Newt Gingrich plays on people's racism.
quote:For some reason the only group he thinks needs to be lectured by him about getting off food stamps and getting a job is "the African American community". He didn't feel the need to send that message to the Value Voters Summit, which he addressed in October, or any of the largely white crowds he addressed in Iowa and New Hampshire. You seem to be saying that the fact that this is wholly consistent with the "shiftless negroes would rather get a handout than job" racist trope is a pure coincidence that somehow eluded Gingrich, an alleged historian.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
How does Gingrich play on racism?
quote:Apparently you think he meant that in a negative sense...
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Or compare them to people who screw the pooch, literally.
quote:I'm going to let you in on a secret. Santorum intends to demonize certain groups so as to get votes from other groups. Not actually 'divide and rule' but 'divide and get votes'.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It should also be noted that Santorum has claimed that same-sex marriage "is an issue just like 9-11" and asked "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"
Here's a helpful hint for not demonizing a group: If you don't want to demonize a group, don't make analogies comparing them to a bunch of murderous terrorists.
quote:Tell it to New Yorker. He's the one claiming there's no such demonization going on.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:I'm going to let you in on a secret. Santorum intends to demonize certain groups so as to get votes from other groups. Not actually 'divide and rule' but 'divide and get votes'.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It should also be noted that Santorum has claimed that same-sex marriage "is an issue just like 9-11" and asked "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"
Here's a helpful hint for not demonizing a group: If you don't want to demonize a group, don't make analogies comparing them to a bunch of murderous terrorists.
quote:That's what's interesting about the Republican primary process. It brings to the fore the fact that Republicans really don't consider equating gays who want to marry with child rapists or dog fuckers to be "demonizing" or that "the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps" isn't racist. Also that using a Constitutional amendment to forcibly divorce all legally married same-sex couples in the country or preventing gays from serving in the U.S. military is treating gay people "fairly", just like every other American.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I have watched most of the debates. In them and elsewhere, I have never heard Santorum say anything that I would consider a demonizing of gays. In the last debate he went out of his way to say that gay people should be treated fairly as should all Americans.
Gingrich, in responding to Juan Williams' questions on race and economic status, did mention blacks, but he went on to say that all Americans should have the ability to work and achieve success. There was nothing racist in what he said.
quote:Right, and Strom Thurmond wasn't racist because he had a black man working in his mail room. The whole "I've got [black/gay/jewish/whatever] [friends/employees/campaign donors]" thing gets old after a while.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I have never heard Santorum equate gay marriage with any of those things. In fact, I think his chief of staff while in the Senate was gay. So much for hating gays.
quote:Hey, he's courageously risking losing the blah vote to tell it like it is about those bland bastards.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
of course, Santorum has his own racial "issues", as well as convoluted & implausible explanations that would make an Italian cruise ship capt proud:
Santorum on "blah people"
quote:Well that is his major selling point... Much like Cameron/Clegg's main selling point was they looked about fifty years younger than Gordon Brown (and had the ability to smile...)
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
As long as he continues to not sound like Bush internationally, he'll get a free ride for awhile longer.
quote:In my estimation Rick Perry performed a valuable political experiment. He proved that someone can, in fact, be too stupid/ignorant to be the Republican presidential nominee. This was something I was actually uncertain about before.
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Huge Shake-up (yawn):
Rick Perry, Texas NitWit, with draws from race.
quote:Under normal circumstances, I would say that it would not. Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy were largely immune from these things because their well-known character flaws had already been fully discounted -- anyone who cared about the issue was already voting for someone else.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Will the "open-marriage" interview hurt Gingrich? We'll see I suppose.
quote:Didn't know that jail time for gay sex was "[s]traight forward RC teaching". Learn something new every day.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I just read the Man on Dog interview. Santorum went out of his way to state that he does not hate gay people. He then went on to state his opposition to sexual acts outside of one-man/one-woman marriage. Straight forward RC teaching.
quote:How many South Carolina voters are actually going to decide "hey, that Santorum fellow has some momentum, I should vote for him" because he went from second place by 7 votes to first place by 12 votes? If it were a winner take all primary, it would make a difference. But since Iowa went early, the delegates were split by percentage of votes won, and there will not be any delegate shift due to the 19 vote shift, as far as I know. This is going to be a political footnote, nothing more.
Originally posted by tclune:
Now that it appears that Santorum actually won Iowa, he may find that he's got enough of a tail wind to push him over the top in SC. That's my prediction, anyway.
--Tom Clune
quote:It should also be noted that when Santorum (or similar) starts off "I have no problem with homosexuality", it's a rhetorical flourish similar to "I'm not a racist". Just as surely as "I'm not a racist" is followed by a "but . . . " that will inevitably be incredibly racist, "I have no problem with homosexuality" will inevitably be followed by a catalog of the speaker's various problems with homosexuality. Santorum does not disappoint, as he goes on to lament the loss of the state's power to jail gays and equates adult homosexuals in loving, consensual relationships with child rapist and dog fuckers.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Santorum went out of his way to state that he does not hate gay people.
quote:from your lips to the GOP demigods ear!
Originally posted by Caissa:
Perry supports Gingrich who should disappear by Super Tuesday.
quote:followed, no doubt, by "some of my best friends are dog f*****s, uh, I mean, homosexuals..."
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:It should also be noted that when Santorum (or similar) starts off "I have no problem with homosexuality", it's a rhetorical flourish similar to "I'm not a racist". Just as surely as "I'm not a racist" is followed by a "but . . . " that will inevitably be incredibly racist, "I have no problem with homosexuality" will inevitably be followed by a catalog of the speaker's various problems with homosexuality. Santorum does not disappoint, as he goes on to lament the loss of the state's power to jail gays and equates adult homosexuals in loving, consensual relationships with child rapist and dog fuckers.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Santorum went out of his way to state that he does not hate gay people.
quote:Croesos, this is incredibly unfair. Clearly, Santorum has no problem with pedophiles or dog fuckers, either. Why must you always think the worst of people?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:It should also be noted that when Santorum (or similar) starts off "I have no problem with homosexuality", it's a rhetorical flourish similar to "I'm not a racist". Just as surely as "I'm not a racist" is followed by a "but . . . " that will inevitably be incredibly racist, "I have no problem with homosexuality" will inevitably be followed by a catalog of the speaker's various problems with homosexuality. Santorum does not disappoint, as he goes on to lament the loss of the state's power to jail gays and equates adult homosexuals in loving, consensual relationships with child rapist and dog fuckers.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Santorum went out of his way to state that he does not hate gay people.
quote:Gingrich obviously takes a very traditional view of marriage as a sacred bond between one man and three women [. . . several mistresses, a couple "handmaidens", the occasional call girl sent to his hotel room by generous campaign donors, . . . ]
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
So what about Newt and this "open marriage" thing? What happened to the sanctity of marriage and all that?
quote:I'm still trying to fathom why so many women would want to have sex with him. I mean -- uugghh! Even when he was younger -- uugghh!
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Gingrich obviously takes a very traditional view of marriage as a sacred bond between one man and three women [. . . several mistresses, a couple "handmaidens", the occasional call girl sent to his hotel room by generous campaign donors, . . . ]
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
So what about Newt and this "open marriage" thing? What happened to the sanctity of marriage and all that?
quote:Agreed, but the hypocrasy of it all grates. This was all happening at the precise same time he was personally leading the charge to impeach Clinton for his extramarital dalliances, and waxing poetic about character and family values.
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
It's a mark of character to ask his wife's permission to see another woman not only after he'd already been seeing her for some time, but to continue seeing her after his wife flatly refuses to give that permission?
What mark would that be? A triple six?
Mind you, I'm not persuaded that anybody's sexual ethics (if that's not an oxymoron in this case) has to be one of the determining factors in a run for POTUS.
quote:Yes. Even his friends seem to be worried about that.
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
His shooting from the hip at political foes and allies alike, though -- that should give anybody pause. How long after Gingrich takes office will it be before we're at war with Iran, or North Korea, or somebody, because The White-Haired Wonder shot his mouth off first and then tried to backfill after?
quote:As cliffdweller points out, Gingrich spent most of the 1990s making sure that sexual ethics are a determining factor of one's fitness to be president. This is simply holding him to the standard he himself has advocated.
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Mind you, I'm not persuaded that anybody's sexual ethics (if that's not an oxymoron in this case) has to be one of the determining factors in a run for POTUS.
quote:You'll have to be more specific. There are two former Mrs. Gingriches.
Originally posted by Caissa:
Didn't Macbeth's witches throw eye of newt into the cauldron? I'm sure the former Mrs. Gingrich would have preferred using another part of the Newt's anatomy.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
when teh gayz are undermining marriage, it's important for all right-thinking people to uphold marriage and The Family by getting married as many times as possible. But obviously right-thinking people have to divorce their wives between each marriage because otherwise they'd be married to more than one woman at once and that would make them Mormons.
My next tagline is in there.quote:Oh, all of those are nothing!!! Didn't the old Irish kings have sex with white horses at their coronations?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
The Clinton scandal was a real mess. Gingrich was charging against Bill, whilst having an affair and Jesse Jackson was offering spiritual advice to Billy Boy while having an affair that would lead to a love child.
Makes me think of that short-run tv show "Sordid Lives!"
quote:Really? Yuck.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Oh, all of those are nothing!!! Didn't the old Irish kings have sex with white horses at their coronations?
quote:Nope, they're the former legatee of emancipation for African-Americans and of enfranchisement for American women. Perhaps you've heard of something called "the Southern Strategy".
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
You know, I find this pretty disillusioning.
Isn't the Republican Party the current legatee of emancipation for African-Americans and of enfranchisement for American women?
quote:She's not running for president.
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Why isn't anybody outraged by HER behavior?
quote:Personally, I see far more correlation here. The character (aka: selfish pig) that can cooly upgrade wife 1.0 when she inconveniently gets cancer, followed by a trade-in of wife 2.0 when she inconveniently gets MS-- that's precisely what we saw in the 90s-- the guy who can shut down the US govt, w/ cool disregard for the needs of federal employees or retirees, in service of his own political agenda. The single-minded focus (read: self) is what's driving his campaign even now.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I see poor Newt thinks it's despicable to bring up his despicable extra-martial behavior. He's changed his mind from when he did the exact same thing to Clinton, apparently. Shoe on the other foot and all that. F***ing hypocrite.
quote:Part of the problem is that a lot more of the Republican primaries are structured as winner-take-all contests, while the Democratic primaries have a lot more states that will split their delegations. In theory this allows the Republicans to settle on one candidate very quickly and then spend spring and most of summer getting ready for the general election while the Democrats squabble amongst themselves. As you've pointed out, in the 2008 primary season the Democrats figured out a way to turn this to their advantage, largely using things like 24-hour cable news and social networking that didn't exist when the primary system was established in the mid-twentieth century, plus keeping it contested enough to be interesting, but not so much that it was divisive.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Last time the Democrats had a wide-open primary and it turned into a knock-down, drag out battle of epic proportions.
The media coverage was tremendous. Free media coverage too.
The Republicans try to have some of the same fire and all they manage is a damp-squib farce.
Mousethief, how about some coolers?
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
- Three Wives 32%
- Say Anything 26%
- Newsletter 11%
- Man On Dog 9%
quote:Glad you found it amusing, but credit where credit is due.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
- Three Wives 32%
- Say Anything 26%
- Newsletter 11%
- Man On Dog 9%
quote:She's running for First Lady.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:She's not running for president.
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Why isn't anybody outraged by HER behavior?
quote:And?
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
quote:She's running for First Lady.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:She's not running for president.
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Why isn't anybody outraged by HER behavior?
quote:What you're saying is, basically, this is It's a Knockout?
Originally posted by Alogon:
Following the Republican primaries has become one of my guilty plebeian pleasures, akin the imperial Romans thronging into the colosseum to watch the gladiators. Or maybe a demolition derby at the county fairgrounds.
quote:C'mon, Rodent-Robber, you know perfectly well that sooner or later in a campaign Teh Me-de-a trot out candidate wives for a look-see. Callista's bio's gonna say she runs Gingrich Media, sure; but how are they going to handle questions about The Relationship and So How Did You Meet Him and so on? The same demographic that's inclined to see the Salamander as a serial polygamist is going to have noses rubbed in the fact that Callista put in 8 years as The Other Woman.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:And?
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
quote:She's running for First Lady.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:She's not running for president.
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Why isn't anybody outraged by HER behavior?
quote:I suppose the same could be said of Marianne, who married the guy who fools around then leaves his wife when she was battling cancer, and *shock!* he does the same to her. Karma's a bitch.
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Personally, I have to wonder about Callista. I mean, it's not like his marriage was a secret. Yet here's this sweet devout little Catholic girl carrying on with a married man for 8 years before she finally marries the a$$.
Why isn't anybody outraged by HER behavior?
quote:I don't have any reason to believe that the mainstream Republicans won't follow the same pattern of expanding government and attacking civil liberties that the Obama administration is currently following.
Originally posted by romanlion:
I will vote for Ron Paul on Saturday, and likely Gary Johnson next year.
quote:No, but apparently he had the chutzpah to ask...
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
They weren't annulled, because they didn't need to be.
quote:I think that speaks to Gingrich, who I don't doubt is an a-hole and a hypocrite. I don't view that as a reason not to vote for him though, and find the interest in his marital affairs to be more of the Entertainment Tonight variety of of discourse.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
No, but apparently he had the chutzpah to ask...
quote:Why?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The notion of a Gingrich presidency scares the daylight outta me.
quote:My comments are only observations of the political scene, since observing and commenting are about all i can do. They can't propel us in the direction of rational debate. Only the formation of a 2nd rational side can do that.
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
quote:(My italics)
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:I would love it if we could have a rational debate between 2 parties.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
[QB] I was lamenting the tendency by Dems to want the wingnut.{/QB]
We need to have a 2nd rational party for such a debate to take place. The Republican Party is not such an organisation.
As someone whose life may depend on the availability of decently affordable medical care, i want the current Republican Party with its avowedly cruel inhuman policies to delf-destruct before they destroy even more lives than the millions already ruined, both in the country they claim to serve, and around the world. For us, they are bigger terrorists than some Islamic radicals.
While I completely agree with your sentiments, I have to say they don't seem to propel us in the direction of rational debate.
quote:Normally I would agree, but again, there seems to be way too much continuity. The way he treats wives seems directly analogous to the way he treated the country in the 90s when he shut down the govt. for his own political gain. He's able to discard a wife when she becomes inconveniently ill, why would we expect him to care about some anonymous cancer patient who can't get health insurance? All of his statements so far on the campaign trail-- from "let's solve poverty by rolling back child labor laws" to "let's denounce the president thru a skillful use of racial codewords" show the same level of shrewdly amoral political guile. He's Dick Cheney w/o the warm fuzzies.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:I think that speaks to Gingrich, who I don't doubt is an a-hole and a hypocrite. I don't view that as a reason not to vote for him though, and find the interest in his marital affairs to be more of the Entertainment Tonight variety of of discourse.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
No, but apparently he had the chutzpah to ask...
quote:So, how was George able to win two terms as governor? (Sincere question, since I'm not doubting what you say). Were the Michigan Republicans of his day less hostile to LDS?
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Michigan disowned Romney a long time ago.
The Repubs here are of the ueber-social-conservative variety -- heavily funded by the DeVos family of Amway fame -- and don't trust Romney, both because of his religious beliefs and because of his track record.
quote:The constitutional requirement is for a native-born American, not just citizenship. Wiki says Geo. R. was born in mormon colonies in Mexico prior to the revolution, so I'm guessing they were considered a US territory at the time-- much as McCain's birth in the panama canal zone worked since it was on a US military base.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I lived in Michigan when George Romney was governor--his religion was a non-issue. When he ran for president in 1968, there was a brief fuss about his having been born in Mexico (where many Mormons went to escape what they considered persecution--this was not that long after the federal government sent troops to stop polygamy). However, this evaporated when it was clearly explained by knowledgeable people that being born to parents who were US citizens makes you a citizen even if you are born elsewhere. Everybody said "Oh--OK, never mind." (That would never happen now, obviously.)
quote:Why would Mormon colonies be considered American territory? Did they have some official sponsorship by the American government?
Wiki says Geo. R. was born in mormon colonies in Mexico prior to the revolution, so I'm guessing they were considered a US territory at the time
quote:No, not "native-born" either; the actual Constitutional phrase is "natural-born."
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:The constitutional requirement is for a native-born American, not just citizenship. Wiki says Geo. R. was born in mormon colonies in Mexico prior to the revolution, so I'm guessing they were considered a US territory at the time-- much as McCain's birth in the panama canal zone worked since it was on a US military base.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I lived in Michigan when George Romney was governor--his religion was a non-issue. When he ran for president in 1968, there was a brief fuss about his having been born in Mexico (where many Mormons went to escape what they considered persecution--this was not that long after the federal government sent troops to stop polygamy). However, this evaporated when it was clearly explained by knowledgeable people that being born to parents who were US citizens makes you a citizen even if you are born elsewhere. Everybody said "Oh--OK, never mind." (That would never happen now, obviously.)
quote:Ah, a quick wiki search confirms your point, and includes in that definition children born abroad to even one US citizen (as opposed to both parents). Which should render the birther movement moot... but we all know it won't.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
No, the Constitution says "natural-born," and does not define "natural born." It has always been interpreted to include children born to US citizens abroad.
quote:... and now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Why?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The notion of a Gingrich presidency scares the daylight outta me.
quote:He's a supreme bullshitter.... taking credit for all the good stuff in the '90s by co-operating with the President whom he tried to impeach for two-timing while he was carrying on himself... attacking the "elite media," whatever that is supposed to mean.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Why?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The notion of a Gingrich presidency scares the daylight outta me.
quote:So we now consider trailer trash "elite?" I think you are confusing reality TV "celebrity" with merit.
Originally posted by Alogon:
In what possible sense is Gingrich himself not among the elite?
quote:I think you are confusing the "Jes' plain folks" image Gingrich has carefully cultivated with "trailer trash". I can't think of any meaningful definition of 'elite' (especially in a political context) that wouldn't include someone with a net worth of at least US$6.7 million and powerful political connections.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:So we now consider trailer trash "elite?" I think you are confusing reality TV "celebrity" with merit.
Originally posted by Alogon:
In what possible sense is Gingrich himself not among the elite?
--Tom Clune
quote:I guess we have different notions of "elite." Gingrich (or, from the other side of the aisle, Bill Clinton) can't wash the stench off with money or connections. It is quite possible for trash to become powerful, but that should never be confused with being respectable. To my mind, if you are disreputable, you cannot be among the society's elite. Obviously, YMMV.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think you are confusing the "Jes' plain folks" image Gingrich has carefully cultivated with "trailer trash". I can't think of any meaningful definition of 'elite' (especially in a political context) that wouldn't include someone with a net worth of at least US$6.7 million and powerful political connections.
quote:Now you've got me wondering: does anyone know what Obama's net worth was when he was a candidate?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I can't think of any meaningful definition of 'elite' (especially in a political context) that wouldn't include someone with a net worth of at least US$6.7 million and powerful political connections.
quote:According to this, you'd be disappointed. In 2007 (the last year for which figures were available during the 2008 campaign) Senator Obama was worth just shy of US$800,000. Given the way his book sales have taken off he's probably worth a lot more now, though.
Originally posted by 205:
quote:Now you've got me wondering: does anyone know what Obama's net worth was when he was a candidate?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I can't think of any meaningful definition of 'elite' (especially in a political context) that wouldn't include someone with a net worth of at least US$6.7 million and powerful political connections.
I may be considering a career in community organizing.
quote:Koff! You must know me better than me cause 800k would make me seriously reconsider career plans.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
According to this, you'd be disappointed. In 2007 (the last year for which figures were available during the 2008 campaign) Senator Obama was worth just shy of US$800,000. Given the way his book sales have taken off he's probably worth a lot more now, though.
quote:Not at all. Anyone who can attend Harvard Law is almost certainly in the elite, doubly so if they're picked to edit the Harvard Law Review. Plus being in the U.S. Senate almost definitionally makes you a member of the elite. I'm just pointing out that if you're motivated by the accumulation of wealth there are a lot more effective paths to pursue than 'community organizer'.
Originally posted by 205:
quote:Koff! You must know me better than me cause 800k would make me seriously reconsider career plans.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
According to this, you'd be disappointed. In 2007 (the last year for which figures were available during the 2008 campaign) Senator Obama was worth just shy of US$800,000. Given the way his book sales have taken off he's probably worth a lot more now, though.
Although I think you're really trying to insinuate Obama wasn't 'elite', when he ran.
Nice try.
quote:So: what are Harvard Law Review Editor qualifications?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Anyone who can attend Harvard Law is almost certainly in the elite, doubly so if they're picked to edit the Harvard Law Review.
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
Now you've got me wondering: does anyone know what Obama's net worth was when he was a candidate?
quote:Has Google stopped working for you? Is Wikipedia shut down again? No? Then look it up for yourself.
Originally posted by 205:
So: what are Harvard Law Review Editor qualifications?
quote:I don't see how being disreputable excludes someone from the elite. In fact, being a member of the elite frequently gives someone a pass on bad behavior. Was Teddy Kennedy not a member of the elite after Chappaquiddick?
Originally posted by tclune:
I guess we have different notions of "elite." Gingrich (or, from the other side of the aisle, Bill Clinton) can't wash the stench off with money or connections. It is quite possible for trash to become powerful, but that should never be confused with being respectable. To my mind, if you are disreputable, you cannot be among the society's elite. Obviously, YMMV.
quote:From what I presented, it is by definition. I am quite comfortable with the notion that Teddy Kennedy, while a powerful Senator, was not among the elite. By my definition, it would also be possible to be both President and disreputable. I suggested one good example of this as Bill Clinton, but I'm sure you could come up with another example or two if you put your mind to it.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:I don't see how being disreputable excludes someone from the elite. In fact, being a member of the elite frequently gives someone a pass on bad behavior. Was Teddy Kennedy not a member of the elite after Chappaquiddick?
Originally posted by tclune:
To my mind, if you are disreputable, you cannot be among the society's elite. Obviously, YMMV.
quote:Going back to this old post, blogger Evangeline Morphos points out that Newt Gingrich is either fluent in French or got his Ph.D. through academic fraud.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Newt Gingrich has launched ads attacking Romney because Romney speaks French.
Romney spent two years in France in the 1960's as a Mormon missionary.
quote:So he's either intellectually dishonest in his attack on Romney, or he was intellectually dishonest in getting his Ph.D.
Gingrich should know this. He spent several years in New Orleans getting his Ph.D. in history (we are constantly reminded) from Tulane University in 1971. The university’s requirements for this include at least one, often two, foreign languages. So we know that Gingrich is at least “bi” — if not trilingual.
My father was a French literature professor at Tulane and had been chairman of the Romance Languages Department. I can assure you this department would not have certified Gingrich unless he could actually speak French.
Gingrich’s dissertation surely demanded knowledge of French. His topic was “Belgian Education Policy in the Congo: 1945-1960.” Like any graduate student, he must have immersed himself in his subject — a French-speaking country. He cites more than 100 French-language sources in footnotes.
Is he hiding his own Francophone secret? Or did he play fast and loose with his research — citing sources he could not possibly have read with comprehension?
quote:I find myself in the awkward position of needing to defend an honor that I don't believe exists... FWIW, I passed an exam "proving" that I was fluent in German as part of qualifying for candidacy in grad school many years back. I was hardly fluent then, and am completely incompetent in the language now. Nonetheless, I met the requirement as it existed and did not misrepresent my qualifications in the process.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So he's either intellectually dishonest in his attack on Romney, or he was intellectually dishonest in getting his Ph.D.
quote:Far be it for me to argue with someone from Massachusetts about the Kennedys, but I'm curious as to what reason you'd have for exempting Ted from the elite.
I am quite comfortable with the notion that Teddy Kennedy, while a powerful Senator, was not among the elite.
quote:I think the point of that New York Times article, Malik, is that the dissertation is poorly written, not pro-colonialist. You might have missed the sentence where the author says:
Originally posted by malik3000:
I find it interesting that the topic of Newt's PhD dissertation was “Belgian Education Policy in the Congo: 1945-1960.” Given the social views he expresses i would be interested in his perspective on the Belgian colonialism of the time. So i dug up a couple of links.
From the New York Times
He has criticised Obama for having an anti-colonial attitude so i guess he thinks colonialism is a good thing -- makes for a bigger supply of child workers.
From Mother Jones - "Gingin au Congo"
quote:Hardly a sentence which backs up your statements with which you interspersed the link.
A curious document it is — but not in ways that Mr. Gingrich’s enemies might hope for, since the dissertation is not filled with racism or drum-beating for colonialism’s glories.
quote:Careful. Because the way politics seems to be going, sooner or later someone will start running this argument and we'll start having demands to see proof not only that the birth took place in the correct location, but in the correct way. And probably under the supervision of a genuine all-American doctor not a nasty foreign imported one.
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Maybe you can't be POTUS if your mom had a Ceasarian section.
quote:Listen, we're already there in the state where I live. Our legislature is not only busy backing right-to-work bills and trying to repeal gay marriage, it's also been pondering a requirement that forces legislators to show that any new proposed law is backed up by the Magna Carta -- I am not making this up.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Careful. Because the way politics seems to be going, sooner or later someone will start running this argument and we'll start having demands to see proof not only that the birth took place in the correct location, but in the correct way. And probably under the supervision of a genuine all-American doctor not a nasty foreign imported one.
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Maybe you can't be POTUS if your mom had a Ceasarian section.
quote:As I stated, to my mind it requires both social prominence and exemplary character. I liked Teddy a lot. But he was so flawed personally that the notion of "elite" seems quite out of place with him. He was devoted to public service, and should be given full props for that. But he was so extravagantly flawed in his personal life that we should be reluctant to praise him too much. Or so ISTM.
Originally posted by Stetson:
tclune wrote:
quote:Far be it for me to argue with someone from Massachusetts about the Kennedys, but I'm curious as to what reason you'd have for exempting Ted from the elite.
I am quite comfortable with the notion that Teddy Kennedy, while a powerful Senator, was not among the elite.
quote:And in theological terms, it's interesting that the New England Puritans, often held up as the par excellente example of bigotry and intolerance, in fact gave rise to the most progressive trends in American religion.
It is noticeable, however, that those states that had such an elite are also the ones that have the most progressive ideas in favour of the most people, Massachusetts and health care being one of the more noticeable examples.
quote:Really? Standing behind him with a knife, perhaps.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Just got an email from Obama thanking me for standing behind him. I guess he's got a sense of humor that I can admire.
quote:You are standing behind him, though. Much in the same way as the Senate stood behind Caesar...
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Just got an email from Obama thanking me for standing behind him. I guess he's got a sense of humor that I can admire.
)quote:Was it an evolution, or was it a reaction? While I've heard that both the UCCs and the UUs claim that lineage, the Puritans' theological underpinnings (as opposed to their polity, which was more-or-less congregational in nature) have more in common with TULIP than anything most UUs would touch with a barge-pole. Some UCC congregations are very conservative, though.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Horseman wrote:
quote:And in theological terms, it's interesting that the New England Puritans, often held up as the par excellente example of bigotry and intolerance, in fact gave rise to the most progressive trends in American religion.
It is noticeable, however, that those states that had such an elite are also the ones that have the most progressive ideas in favour of the most people, Massachusetts and health care being one of the more noticeable examples.
If I'm not mistaken, the direct descendants of the Puritans were the Congregationalists, who in the US evolved into the Uuited Church Of Christ and Unitarians(that latter requiring a bit of a shift in theology), and in Canada merged into the United Church Of Canada, arguably the most liberal of the mainstream denominations.
quote:Back in the 60's and 70's the Michigan Republican leadership tended toward moderate Chamber of Commerce types -- William Milliken (Romney's successor)is an example; not the insane clown posse we have today.
So, how was George able to win two terms as governor? (Sincere question, since I'm not doubting what you say). Were the Michigan Republicans of his day less hostile to LDS?
quote:I'll let you in on a little secret: the United Church of Christ is more liberal and left-leaning than the United Church of Canada is.
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
quote:Was it an evolution, or was it a reaction? While I've heard that both the UCCs and the UUs claim that lineage, the Puritans' theological underpinnings (as opposed to their polity, which was more-or-less congregational in nature) have more in common with TULIP than anything most UUs would touch with a barge-pole. Some UCC congregations are very conservative, though.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Horseman wrote:
quote:And in theological terms, it's interesting that the New England Puritans, often held up as the par excellente example of bigotry and intolerance, in fact gave rise to the most progressive trends in American religion.
It is noticeable, however, that those states that had such an elite are also the ones that have the most progressive ideas in favour of the most people, Massachusetts and health care being one of the more noticeable examples.
If I'm not mistaken, the direct descendants of the Puritans were the Congregationalists, who in the US evolved into the Uuited Church Of Christ and Unitarians(that latter requiring a bit of a shift in theology), and in Canada merged into the United Church Of Canada, arguably the most liberal of the mainstream denominations.
Massachusetts was a theocracy early on; the Salem witch trials, however, seem to have brought about some changed hearts and minds in their aftermath. I suspect more reaction than evolution myself (but of course I wasn't there, so who knows?).
quote:Speech was decent. I agreed with most of what he said. At this point, Obama's ideas are better overall than the Republican ideas. If I could trust him to appoint judges, I might even vote for him. I can't. So, I won't.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Anyone catch the SOTU?
It was incredible. Gave me goose bumps.
quote:Curious definition of "elite"--I've never taken it to mean "good." The Kennedys were (are) certainly members of the social elite (people with high social status), the economic elite (rich people), and the political elite (people with much political influence). The moral elite is harder to identify.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:As I stated, to my mind it requires both social prominence and exemplary character. I liked Teddy a lot. But he was so flawed personally that the notion of "elite" seems quite out of place with him. He was devoted to public service, and should be given full props for that. But he was so extravagantly flawed in his personal life that we should be reluctant to praise him too much. Or so ISTM.
Originally posted by Stetson:
tclune wrote:
quote:Far be it for me to argue with someone from Massachusetts about the Kennedys, but I'm curious as to what reason you'd have for exempting Ted from the elite.
I am quite comfortable with the notion that Teddy Kennedy, while a powerful Senator, was not among the elite.
--Tom Clune
quote:What's your problem with his judge appointments? Not that the Republicans are letting him do much in that area anyway.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Speech was decent. I agreed with most of what he said. At this point, Obama's ideas are better overall than the Republican ideas. If I could trust him to appoint judges, I might even vote for him. I can't. So, I won't.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Anyone catch the SOTU?
It was incredible. Gave me goose bumps.
quote:So your overriding factor is not the view of the President himself about States' Rights, but the view of the judges appointed by him? Or rather the view of the judges appointed by his party?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I want judges who take the 10th Amendment seriously and aren't given to legislating from the bench. Generally, Republican appointed judges do that better than Democratic appointed judges.
quote:I'd argue that it wasn't the witch trials but rather the reaction to the dictatorial theocracy of the Massachusetts Colonies that is the more direct antecedent of New England liberalism. Reaction to and rejection of that kind of totalitarian Christianity is why Connecticut and Rhode Island exist as separate political entities instead of being part of Massachusetts.
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
quote:Was it an evolution, or was it a reaction? While I've heard that both the UCCs and the UUs claim that lineage, the Puritans' theological underpinnings (as opposed to their polity, which was more-or-less congregational in nature) have more in common with TULIP than anything most UUs would touch with a barge-pole. Some UCC congregations are very conservative, though.
Originally posted by Stetson:
And in theological terms, it's interesting that the New England Puritans, often held up as the par excellente example of bigotry and intolerance, in fact gave rise to the most progressive trends in American religion.
Massachusetts was a theocracy early on; the Salem witch trials, however, seem to have brought about some changed hearts and minds in their aftermath. I suspect more reaction than evolution myself (but of course I wasn't there, so who knows?).
quote:If that were the case we wouldn't have Gonzales v. Raich or the Supreme Court opinion that dare not speak its name. I think what you mean is that Republican-appointed judges pay more lip service to the Tenth Amendment when justifying their desired outcome.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I want judges who take the 10th Amendment seriously and aren't given to legislating from the bench. Generally, Republican appointed judges do that better than Democratic appointed judges.
quote:Then you're just wrong. Republican-appointed judges support the Tenth Amendment only insofar as it can be used as a club to pummel individual liberty. They seem to regard the ". . . or the people" at the end the same kind of meaningless "inkblot" Robert Bork considered the whole of the Ninth Amendment to be.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, I said what I meant and meant what I said.
quote:Given that there were seven supposedly Tenth Amendment loving Republican-appointed justices on the court at the time, how was that six justice majority reached? How did the majority of those state-supporting Republican appointees get it wrong?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, I'm right. You're wrong.
Gonzalez v. Raich?
6-3
Guess the party of the president who appointed all 3 of the dissenters. I'll give you a hint. It wasn't Democratic.
quote:That's a fairly deceptive and incomplete way of describing the Florida Supreme Court's decision. A more accurate description would be that they upheld Florida's law regarding election recounts whereas the plaintiff preferred them to uphold Florida's law on election deadlines.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Bush v. Gore?
Note the second part of my statement. I prefer judges who don't legislate from the bench. The Florida Supreme Court wanted to legislate from the bench.
quote:Rather interesting demonstration of the flexibility of statistics. Taking the figures provided by Beeswax Altar and Croesos it seems we have:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Given that there were seven supposedly Tenth Amendment loving Republican-appointed justices on the court at the time, how was that six justice majority reached? How did the majority of those state-supporting Republican appointees get it wrong?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, I'm right. You're wrong.
Gonzalez v. Raich?
6-3
Guess the party of the president who appointed all 3 of the dissenters. I'll give you a hint. It wasn't Democratic.
quote:As a follower of Jesus, I'm more interested in the rights of humans than of political entities. (Tho I'd still feel that way if i weren't a christian.)
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I want judges who take the 10th Amendment seriously and aren't given to legislating from the bench. Generally, Republican appointed judges do that better than Democratic appointed judges.
quote:I don't think this is a Republican problem. In truth, I think one of the main reasons that Obama was nominated over Clinton was because Clinton had more of a paper trail. The extreme efficiency of opposition research makes it very hard to both do anything and run for office without being constantly smeared. No candidate can spend his or her time explaining past complex compromises and still have the time to present their vision of what they want to see happen in the future. By having all things that they have done in public office far enough in the past, the candidates can at least claim that what they did then is "old news" and focus on their current aspirations (or, more likely, their opponent's imagined flaws.)
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Having made this observation I'm still not sure what it means. Is it just the relative weakness of the specific current office holders who decided to run this year or an actual preference among Republican voters? Thoughts?
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:As a follower of Jesus, I'm more interested in the rights of humans than of political entities. (Tho I'd still feel that way if i weren't a christian.)
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I want judges who take the 10th Amendment seriously and aren't given to legislating from the bench. Generally, Republican appointed judges do that better than Democratic appointed judges.
quote:Fundraising is a full-time job? (Campaigning on work time seems to be no problem.) OliviaG
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... Having made this observation I'm still not sure what it means. Is it just the relative weakness of the specific current office holders who decided to run this year or an actual preference among Republican voters? Thoughts?
quote:I'm not sure that's an adequate explanation. Opposition research isn't that much better today than it was four or eight years ago. Besides, if that were the case wouldn't those who have never held elected office (e.g. Donald Trump or Herman Cain) have an even greater advantage than retired politicians? The last major party presidential nominee who wasn't holding some political office at the time of his nomination was Walter Mondale in 1984. The last Republican nominee of that description was Ronald Reagan. I'm not seeing any development in opposition research in the last four years big enough to disrupt what's been an obvious preference for the last three decades.
Originally posted by tclune:
I don't think this is a Republican problem. In truth, I think one of the main reasons that Obama was nominated over Clinton was because Clinton had more of a paper trail. The extreme efficiency of opposition research makes it very hard to both do anything and run for office without being constantly smeared. No candidate can spend his or her time explaining past complex compromises and still have the time to present their vision of what they want to see happen in the future. By having all things that they have done in public office far enough in the past, the candidates can at least claim that what they did then is "old news" and focus on their current aspirations (or, more likely, their opponent's imagined flaws.)
--Tom Clune
quote:Possibly. Unlike incremental changes in opposition research capabilities, the Citizens United decision has radically altered the fundraising terrain of U.S. elections since the last presidential campaign.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:Fundraising is a full-time job? (Campaigning on work time seems to be no problem.) OliviaG
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... Having made this observation I'm still not sure what it means. Is it just the relative weakness of the specific current office holders who decided to run this year or an actual preference among Republican voters? Thoughts?
quote:I did find something to agree with. Warren Buffett's secretary should pay the same 15% effective tax rate he does.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Anyone catch the SOTU?
It was incredible. Gave me goose bumps.
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
On being elite: It might have been Deartes who said "I think I am elite, therefore I am."
quote:Yes, Father, Jesus' love of his fellow human beings is so boring, isn't it.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:As a follower of Jesus, I'm more interested in the rights of humans than of political entities. (Tho I'd still feel that way if i weren't a christian.)
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I want judges who take the 10th Amendment seriously and aren't given to legislating from the bench. Generally, Republican appointed judges do that better than Democratic appointed judges.
quote:You would be able to if you were rich.
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Why not reverse things? An argument can be made that she should pay 15%, but he should pay at a higher rate. There are strong reasons for having a progressive tax rate. I find it impossible to justify a regressive effective rate.
quote:During the whole Contract With America thing in the mid-90s, Gingrich was cited as listing Alvin Toffler as an influence.
Besides, being out of politics for a while hasn't stopped things like this hit piece from the Romney campaign on Gingrich's past egotism.
quote:Republicans... gotta love the complete and total lack of self-awareness, doncha?
Originally posted by tclune:
Politico has an interesting round-up of the many right-wing attacks on Gingrich that are coming out today. My favorite is Ann Coulter bemoaning Gigrich's hot-headed arrogance!
quote:Someone made the obsevation recently that despite his years as a prominent Congressman, very few of his old political associates have endorsed Gingrich. In other words, his strongest support comes from those who don't know him.
Originally posted by tclune:
Politico has an interesting round-up of the many right-wing attacks on Gingrich that are coming out today.
quote:There was a very interesting short article in the Economist this week about the people studying how to impose progressive tax rates without losing investment or revenue through loopholes. It is harder than just saying "anyone who makes x or more has to pay this rate." We are going to have to get beyond the slogans and get serious about reforming the tax code if we are going to get out of the mess we are in.
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Why not reverse things? An argument can be made that she should pay 15%, but he should pay at a higher rate. There are strong reasons for having a progressive tax rate. I find it impossible to justify a regressive effective rate.
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I did find something to agree with. Warren Buffett's secretary should pay the same 15% effective tax rate he does.
quote:Funnily enough, I happened to see some economic writers/journalists discussing the State of the Union and this issue over here in Australia.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:There was a very interesting short article in the Economist this week about the people studying how to impose progressive tax rates without losing investment or revenue through loopholes. It is harder than just saying "anyone who makes x or more has to pay this rate." We are going to have to get beyond the slogans and get serious about reforming the tax code if we are going to get out of the mess we are in.
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Why not reverse things? An argument can be made that she should pay 15%, but he should pay at a higher rate. There are strong reasons for having a progressive tax rate. I find it impossible to justify a regressive effective rate.
quote:I've recently moved from the UK to the USA and am preparing for my first US tax return, lucky me. Comparing the two systems, yes, I have no hope of completing a US Tax return without professional advice, whereas I can complete my UK tax return in about 20 minutes. Complex is an understatement, but I've found it isn't an unusual description to apply to any US government related process (visa, social security number, driving license etc).
Originally posted by orfeo:
What they DID say could be changed, though, is that they regarded the United States' tax system as insanely complex (much more so than Australia's apparently, and ours isn't as straightforward as it might be) and has far too many loopholes and exemptions. As one of them put it, you want people to be out there making their money and time be productive, not spend inordinate amounts of time navigating their way through tax minimisation and paying batteries of accountants to help them do it.
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:Yes, Father, Jesus' love of his fellow human beings is so boring, isn't it.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:As a follower of Jesus, I'm more interested in the rights of humans than of political entities. (Tho I'd still feel that way if i weren't a christian.)
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I want judges who take the 10th Amendment seriously and aren't given to legislating from the bench. Generally, Republican appointed judges do that better than Democratic appointed judges.
quote:Actually the US has tax-advantaged Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) which look similar to the UK ISAs.
Originally posted by yellowroom:
For example, there is no US tax-free allowance for such things as Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax, nor is there such things as ISA (tax free savings accounts).
quote:Um, kind of, but as with many taxation issues ISAs are a lot simpler -You can tell from the relative length of the wiki page! There are a lot less rules for ISAs and I think the main difference is that you can get your money out any time you like with no tax liability. I had a cash ISA - just like a normal savings account but interest paid tax free. I know less about Stocks and Shares ISAs I must admit, never having had one.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Actually the US has tax-advantaged Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) which look similar to the UK ISAs.
quote:yellowroom, I hate to break it to you but tax for an American residing and working in the UK - at least one like myself who simultaneously had significant US-domiciled income-generating assets - is likewise extraordinarily vexatious and complicated. HMRC was not immediately taxing off-shore assets the last I knew, but were doing so after a total of 7 years cumulative residence in the UK (not even 7 years consecutive residence). I won't go into the details of my tax situation, but I spent a bundle on UK tax accountants, in addition to my American CPA (my UK accountants were far pricier too), and also went through one UK-based quack who couldn't figure anything out. The main thing is that the intractability of my tax difficulties in the UK were the major reason I made the decision to move my partner and myself back to the States. I would have been happy to have stayed in Britain had it not been for financial, i.e. primarily tax, issues.
Originally posted by yellowroom:
quote:I've recently moved from the UK to the USA and am preparing for my first US tax return, lucky me. Comparing the two systems, yes, I have no hope of completing a US Tax return without professional advice, whereas I can complete my UK tax return in about 20 minutes. Complex is an understatement, but I've found it isn't an unusual description to apply to any US government related process (visa, social security number, driving license etc).
Originally posted by orfeo:
What they DID say could be changed, though, is that they regarded the United States' tax system as insanely complex (much more so than Australia's apparently, and ours isn't as straightforward as it might be) and has far too many loopholes and exemptions. As one of them put it, you want people to be out there making their money and time be productive, not spend inordinate amounts of time navigating their way through tax minimisation and paying batteries of accountants to help them do it.
Also, while the received wisdom is that the tax burden in the UK is higher in the USA, there are some differences that make it feel that isn't necessarily so. For example, there is no US tax-free allowance for such things as Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax, nor is there such things as ISA (tax free savings accounts). Your personal tax-free allowance does not increase with age post-retirement here. The Federal government taxes your world-wide income, not just the income earned in the US. I got a bit cross when I found that the Federal government wants a share of my modest payout from my company share scheme (earned before my current job was a twinkle in my boss's eyes) because they count it as Capital Gains. And unfortunately I also live in a state which also has a state income tax.
It's surprising how much this makes HMRC look "fair" in comparison, not something I would have ever considered before coming here!! My perception is that whatever I do, if it involves a financial transaction then someone somewhere in the US wants a cut. Whereas in the UK "average" people have far more opportunity to manage finances to reduce liability for tax without having to pay accountants and lawyers to arrange it.
quote:Thanks for the welcome, and sorry you had problems with HMRC. I'm sure a lot of the seeming complexity is due to unfamiliarity - on both sides of the Atlantic!
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Glad to have you on this side of the pond. Hope your tax sailing on the left side of the pond ultimately proves smoother than mine was on the right side.
quote:The main reason for the restriction on withdrawals from IRAs is that the money deposited is pre-tax income, whereas an ISA is money that's already been taxed. Without restrictions on withdrawal, an IRA becomes an incredibly efficient method of tax evasion. Simply deposit the money and withdraw it the next day and voilà, you've just rendered those funds completely exempt from income tax!
Originally posted by yellowroom:
quote:Um, kind of, but as with many taxation issues ISAs are a lot simpler -You can tell from the relative length of the wiki page! There are a lot less rules for ISAs and I think the main difference is that you can get your money out any time you like with no tax liability. I had a cash ISA - just like a normal savings account but interest paid tax free. I know less about Stocks and Shares ISAs I must admit, never having had one.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Actually the US has tax-advantaged Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) which look similar to the UK ISAs.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:Really? I tried googling this and couldn't find anything that suggests such. Do you have a link? This would be quite a shift for Bono.
Originally posted by 205:
Who can say but I just saw Bono endorse Huckabee.
If he were only running.
quote:ISA's are like Roth IRA's in which contributions are paid after-tax and the income received is tax-free.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The main reason for the restriction on withdrawals from IRAs is that the money deposited is pre-tax income, whereas an ISA is money that's already been taxed. Without restrictions on withdrawal, an IRA becomes an incredibly efficient method of tax evasion. Simply deposit the money and withdraw it the next day and voilà, you've just rendered those funds completely exempt from income tax!
Originally posted by yellowroom:
quote:Um, kind of, but as with many taxation issues ISAs are a lot simpler -You can tell from the relative length of the wiki page! There are a lot less rules for ISAs and I think the main difference is that you can get your money out any time you like with no tax liability. I had a cash ISA - just like a normal savings account but interest paid tax free. I know less about Stocks and Shares ISAs I must admit, never having had one.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Actually the US has tax-advantaged Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) which look similar to the UK ISAs.
quote:This is something I always wonder about with US elections, where the fight to be selected as your party's candidate is so open and public. While transparency certainly has its merits, it ends up being an open invitation to whomever you face in the NEXT round - the actual election - to sit there taking notes on which strategies will work best against you.
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Meanwhile, back to the election:
How much will the Newt-on-Mitt and Mitt-on-Newt attacks in the run-up to Florida (or the support of the ever-entertaining endorsers, Pain and Kalin) assure said candidates' mutual destructability by the Democrats after the Goofy Oddball Pinheads finally select their Flavor of the Month?
quote:Yes, I thought that too, especially elections where the incumbent President is seeking their second term and not facing a nomination battle of their own. It makes the challenge of the "opposition" even more of an uphill struggle.
Originally posted by orfeo:
This is something I always wonder about with US elections, where the fight to be selected as your party's candidate is so open and public. While transparency certainly has its merits, it ends up being an open invitation to whomever you face in the NEXT round - the actual election - to sit there taking notes on which strategies will work best against you.
quote:Countered, though, by the practice of the "October Surprise", wherein some devastating fact about an opponent is leaked the month before the general election.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The conventional wisdom is it allows the party to vet the candidates thoroughly to see who will be able to withstand the pummeling in the general election, the idea being by the time it gets to the general whatever skeletons came rattling out of the closet in the primary will be old news.
quote:He probably meant Hucknall, Mick Hucknall of Simply Red. Musos do stick together.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Really? I tried googling this and couldn't find anything that suggests such. Do you have a link? This would be quite a shift for Bono.
Originally posted by 205:
Who can say but I just saw Bono endorse Huckabee.
If he were only running.
quote:I trust y'all'll forgive my poetic license.
Originally posted by Barnabas62: Check out the last 30 secs of this Huckabee-Bono interview (Dec 2011).
I think it was Bono just responding to a Huckabee compliment.
quote:I'm not sure it's that big of a risk. Most American Catholics use contraception themselves, and any who are motivated to cast their vote on that basis will probably be voting Republican no matter what Obama does.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Obama is taking a big risk in forcing the Roman Catholic Church to provide health insurance coverage that includes free contraception, morning after pills, and sterilization to its employees.
quote:Seems trivial compared to the risk he took when he started using drones to kill innocent Americans, and that doesn't seem to have hurt him much.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure it's that big of a risk.
quote:The guy with the guy in Yemen was also an unindicted American citizen.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The guy in Yemen was a US citizen.
quote:Does the RCC have it's own insurance benefits fund? My denomination (PCUSA) did for a long time, but like most every other organization, denom., or company, even very large ones, we ended up long ago simply buying a group policy from a large HMO. If that's the case for RCC, then it really is moot. Kaiser/ Blue Cross/ whoever will be the ones who ultimately will decide what's covered or not. And they will always choose to cover contraception & abortion rather than childbirth.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Obama is taking a big risk in forcing the Roman Catholic Church to provide health insurance coverage that includes free contraception, morning after pills, and sterilization to its employees. The bishops have already ordered priests to read a letter from the pulpit denouncing this action. The letter might be only their first salvo. A challenge in federal court is inevitable. If the RCC puts her weight behind opposition to Obama, Florida would likely go to the GOP and even several states in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic might come into play. I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama and Democrats as a whole get a smaller percentage of the Latino vote.
quote:This line of thinking seems to be based on the dubious proposition that Gingrich is running a serious political campaign, instead of a PR campaign designed to raise his speaking fees for the next four years, increase his book sales, and draw more clients for his lobbying firms.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm guessing his lack of organization made it hard for him to get the required number of signatures on the petition. Come to think of it, the Missouri primary isn't binding. Gingrich might have decided competing in a non-binding primary was the best use of his limited resources.
quote:Is it? Given the Obama administration's reluctance to discuss the drone program in any detail, I don't think the process or determining factors for targeting are "clear" at all.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes, well, if romanlion's concern is collateral damage then he could make that a bit clearer in terms of the difference between intent and result. Or if he's referring to the intended target, it's clear that the REASON for being a target was not 'being American'.
quote:I suppose that might explain the parsimony. Trouble is, Crœsos, he still might win. Through GOP eyes, as far as I can judge, Romney looks "safe but a bit boring". Gingrich isn't boring. Sometimes factors like that can cause strange switches of momentum.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:This line of thinking seems to be based on the dubious proposition that Gingrich is running a serious political campaign, instead of a PR campaign designed to raise his speaking fees for the next four years, increase his book sales, and draw more clients for his lobbying firms.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm guessing his lack of organization made it hard for him to get the required number of signatures on the petition. Come to think of it, the Missouri primary isn't binding. Gingrich might have decided competing in a non-binding primary was the best use of his limited resources.
quote:Quite frankly, any statement that reminds voters about where Gingrich has been grinding his "sausage" is a net negative for Newt.
"I hereby officially and enthusiastically endorse Newt Gingrich for president of the United States," Cain told the cheering crowd here. "Gingrich is a patriot. Speaker Gingrich is not afraid of bold ideas," he said.
"And I also know that Speaker Gingrich is running for president and going through this sausage grinder — I know what this sausage grinder is all about. I know he is going through this sausage grinder because he cares about the future of the United States of America."
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Quite frankly, any statement that reminds voters about where Gingrich has been grinding his "sausage" is a net negative for Newt.
quote:Unfortunately it was given last week (could that explain Newt's performance in Florida?) so if anyone was going to take a whack they'd already have done so.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Unbelievable. I'm looking forward to seeing just how much fun Jon Stewart and others will have with that truly terrible endorsement.
quote:I have been trying to explain to my husband that it is an election year which means that I can never, ever, ever miss a segment of the Daily show between now and Nov.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Unbelievable. I'm looking forward to seeing just how much fun Jon Stewart and others will have with that truly terrible endorsement.
quote:Even though I regularly vote third party based on what little principle I can muster, I'd be tempted to vote for nOOt for the 'what WILL he say next factor'.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Gingrich isn't boring.
quote:I am a big Jon Stewart fan. Loved the demolition job on O'Reilly and Fox news when Jon ventured into Foxland.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I have been trying to explain to my husband that it is an election year which means that I can never, ever, ever miss a segment of the Daily show between now and Nov.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Unbelievable. I'm looking forward to seeing just how much fun Jon Stewart and others will have with that truly terrible endorsement.
quote:Romney should pick Gingrich to be his running mate just so we can watch Gingrich and Biden debate.
Originally posted by 205:
quote:Even though I regularly vote third party based on what little principle I can muster, I'd be tempted to vote for nOOt for the 'what WILL he say next factor'.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Gingrich isn't boring.
Which reminds me: anyone hear much from Biden lately?
quote:"Whatever became of Hubert? Has anyone heard a thing? Once he shone on his own, Now he sits home alone, And waits for the phone to ring." The on target political wit of Tom Lehrer is sorely missed.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Tom Lehrer did a song about veeps falling into black holes -- "Whatever Became of Hubert Humphrey" or something like that. It was true in 1965. It's true now.
quote:I wasn't wondering what became of Hubert, was just quoting the first verse of the Tom Lehrer song from way back when. (That alone probably gives away my age)
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Hubert died. .
quote:The article goes too far when it mentions Gore. Romney may be a lot of things good or bad but when it comes to being an assholish blowhard Gore is in a class all by himself.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Jacob Weisber says what I've been thinking for months.
Romney is like Kerry
quote:Ah, Jacob Weisberg! What would he do without an underlying narrative to tell him what he thinks? I particularly like the correction at the end.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Jacob Weisber says what I've been thinking for months.
Romney is like Kerry
quote:Or, to put it in abbreviated form, "the 'fact' I based this whole column on was grossly wrong, but I'm sticking with my opinion anyway".
Correction, Feb. 1, 2012: The article originally said that said only 51 percent of Romney voters were satisfied with Romney. This was a misreading of the poll results. In fact, 95 percent of Romney voters said they would be satisfied with him as the nominee, and Romney won 51 percent of the Republican voters satisfied with the current field.
quote:Frankly, I don't understand why the federal government is forcing anyone to provide health insurance coverage that includes free contraception or morning after pills. As for sterilization, if you want that, just diddle a kid and the government will probably take care of it for ya.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Obama is taking a big risk in forcing the Roman Catholic Church to provide health insurance coverage that includes free contraception, morning after pills, and sterilization
quote:Good idea. Furthermore, if Romney is President and Gingrich next in line, no one in his right mind would dare to assassinate him.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Romney should pick Gingrich to be his running mate just so we can watch Gingrich and Biden debate.
His best strategy now is probably to make Gingrich a frenemy: trash the Democrats and Romney the RINO but don't say a word against Gingrich. Hope that Gingrich rises... and then stumbles, as seems inevitable. At that point Rick the white workhorse would be the only one left to pick up the "conservative" mantle.
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:Good idea. Furthermore, if Romney is President and Gingrich next in line, no one in his right mind would dare to assassinate him.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Romney should pick Gingrich to be his running mate just so we can watch Gingrich and Biden debate.
quote:Tomorrow is Friday. I'll gladly endorse whatever who buys me two pints of Guinness wants me to.
Originally posted by Amos:
So. Cain's endorsed Gingrich.
Trump's endorsed Romney.
Any more endorsements this week?
quote:I am less than surprised that the Donald decided to tie his endorsement in with the Nevada caucus, which I think everyone has counted as a sure-thing for Romney from the start. I guarantee that Trump's people are already booking him on any Sunday morning program that will take him, so that he can go on and tell us that he spoke, and the people listened.
Originally posted by Amos:
Trump's endorsed Romney.
quote:This is also known as the Dan Quayle or Spiro Agnew strategy.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:Good idea. Furthermore, if Romney is President and Gingrich next in line, no one in his right mind would dare to assassinate him.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Romney should pick Gingrich to be his running mate just so we can watch Gingrich and Biden debate.
quote:I thought it was the Dick Cheney strategy
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:This is also known as the Dan Quayle or Spiro Agnew strategy.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:Good idea. Furthermore, if Romney is President and Gingrich next in line, no one in his right mind would dare to assassinate him.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Romney should pick Gingrich to be his running mate just so we can watch Gingrich and Biden debate.
quote:There was one survey that found that 27% of Republicans said that Trump's endorsement would make them less likely to support the recipient (victim?) of that endorsement. A final, desperate attempt to save Gingrich's candidacy?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:I am less than surprised that the Donald decided to tie his endorsement in with the Nevada caucus, which I think everyone has counted as a sure-thing for Romney from the start. I guarantee that Trump's people are already booking him on any Sunday morning program that will take him, so that he can go on and tell us that he spoke, and the people listened.
Originally posted by Amos:
Trump's endorsed Romney.
quote:When I see Trump and Romney together I think; two guys who made fortunes driving companies into Bankruptcy. That's bound to be useful for a president.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:There was one survey that found that 27% of Republicans said that Trump's endorsement would make them less likely to support the recipient (victim?) of that endorsement. A final, desperate attempt to save Gingrich's candidacy?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:I am less than surprised that the Donald decided to tie his endorsement in with the Nevada caucus, which I think everyone has counted as a sure-thing for Romney from the start. I guarantee that Trump's people are already booking him on any Sunday morning program that will take him, so that he can go on and tell us that he spoke, and the people listened.
Originally posted by Amos:
Trump's endorsed Romney.
quote:Good taste in brews!
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Tomorrow is Friday. I'll gladly endorse whatever who buys me two pints of Guinness wants me to.
Originally posted by Amos:
So. Cain's endorsed Gingrich.
Trump's endorsed Romney.
Any more endorsements this week?
quote:Turns out I had to buy my own and withhold the endorsements. Local candidates for Dog Catcher are on their own.
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:Good taste in brews!
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Tomorrow is Friday. I'll gladly endorse whatever who buys me two pints of Guinness wants me to.
Originally posted by Amos:
So. Cain's endorsed Gingrich.
Trump's endorsed Romney.
Any more endorsements this week?
quote:Whatever the strategy is called it is not entirely successful. Exhibit A: LBJ.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
]This is also known as the Dan Quayle or Spiro Agnew strategy.
quote:See also "Roosevelt, Theodore" and "Johnson, Andrew".
Originally posted by JSwift:
quote:Whatever the strategy is called it is not entirely successful. Exhibit A: LBJ.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
This is also known as the Dan Quayle or Spiro Agnew strategy.
quote:Ah, that explains it. Because I swear that just a few hours before the Romney endorsement was announced, I read on teh webz (which, as we all know, are infallible and never wrong) that Trump was about to endorse Gingrich.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:There was one survey that found that 27% of Republicans said that Trump's endorsement would make them less likely to support the recipient (victim?) of that endorsement. A final, desperate attempt to save Gingrich's candidacy?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:I am less than surprised that the Donald decided to tie his endorsement in with the Nevada caucus, which I think everyone has counted as a sure-thing for Romney from the start. I guarantee that Trump's people are already booking him on any Sunday morning program that will take him, so that he can go on and tell us that he spoke, and the people listened.
Originally posted by Amos:
Trump's endorsed Romney.
quote:Of those 3, Teddy and LBJ did a decent enough job all things considered.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:See also "Roosevelt, Theodore" and "Johnson, Andrew".
Originally posted by JSwift:
quote:Whatever the strategy is called it is not entirely successful. Exhibit A: LBJ.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
This is also known as the Dan Quayle or Spiro Agnew strategy.
quote:I could sleep at night w/ a President Biden. Indeed, watching the nightly news recap of the day's "Bidenisms" would be a pleasant way to end the day.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
As much as I think Biden is a fool, he would at least be competent and somewhat less circumspect in comparison to Gingrich.
quote:Umm.. you do know that Andrew Johnson was impeached because he was not stringent enough against former Confederates, right?
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:Of those 3, Teddy and LBJ did a decent enough job all things considered.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:See also "Roosevelt, Theodore" and "Johnson, Andrew".
Originally posted by JSwift:
quote:Whatever the strategy is called it is not entirely successful. Exhibit A: LBJ.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
This is also known as the Dan Quayle or Spiro Agnew strategy.
Johnson was like going from Obama to Palin - pragmatist to avenging idealist.
quote:There are two schools of thought on Johnson, one being he was only relatively less radical then those who impeached him. That we are talking in a time when a guy who supposedly had to read French to do his thesis complains about his opponent speaking French is somewhat instructive here.
Originally posted by JSwift:
quote:Umm.. you do know that Andrew Johnson was impeached because he was not stringent enough against former Confederates, right?
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:Of those 3, Teddy and LBJ did a decent enough job all things considered.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:See also "Roosevelt, Theodore" and "Johnson, Andrew".
Originally posted by JSwift:
quote:Whatever the strategy is called it is not entirely successful. Exhibit A: LBJ.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
This is also known as the Dan Quayle or Spiro Agnew strategy.
Johnson was like going from Obama to Palin - pragmatist to avenging idealist.
LBJ sunk us further into Vietnam.
quote:The same Nixon who pushed the Philadelphia Plan through?
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Oh, yeah, Nixon "opened up" China, and got you out of Vietnam while sponsoring active racism in his own country.
Guess what? They're all flawed...
but some are less so than others.
quote:Ultimately we will never know. I am no fan of Kennedy but I would like to think he would not have manufactured an excuse for war (Tonkin Gulf)or at least handled it's execution more adroitly than his successor did.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
That and that Kennedy would have done any differently is wishful thinking.
quote:There's another school of thought on that one. According to the NPR It's All Politics podcast that I just listened to, Trump was attention whoring himself (who'd've thought?!
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Because I swear that just a few hours before the Romney endorsement was announced, I read on teh webz (which, as we all know, are infallible and never wrong) that Trump was about to endorse Gingrich.
) before the announcement by having his staff hint to some news organizations that he would endorse Mitt and to others that he would go for Newt. If that's true then it makes it less about some grand plan to unsettle Romney and more about the guy being a complete nonce.
quote:Trump is once again using the 2012 election as means of drawing attention to his upcoming season of Celebrity Apprentice - anything to keep the public's attention on him and ratings for his shows.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:There's another school of thought on that one. According to the NPR It's All Politics podcast that I just listened to, Trump was attention whoring himself (who'd've thought?!
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Because I swear that just a few hours before the Romney endorsement was announced, I read on teh webz (which, as we all know, are infallible and never wrong) that Trump was about to endorse Gingrich.
quote:I couldn't even attempt an explanation. I have absolutely no clue what in the world they are thinking. I used to be able to at least follow the train of thought to it's logical conclusion, even if I disagreed with it or with the starting premises. But lately the whole thing seems utterly, completely incomprehensible to me. Is it really all just about "winning"? They really don't care who is president, how much he screws them over, as long as it's "our" guy doing the screwing?
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
I watched some Talking Heads earlier today yarfing about Romney's Big Win n Nevada, and after the standard discussion on how The Repugnicans have accepted the Hair Apparent, they still don't love him. All they're interested in is beating Obama, and they think The Mitt can do it.
I wish Somebody would explain to me, in words I can understand, why the Repubs hate Obama so much when, as far as I can tell, he IS one, and has basically handed them pretty much whatever they've wanted for the last three years.
quote:And as far as Republican political operatives go, even if they don't personally hate blacks...
One significant part of it, which they will not actually say, is the colour of his skin. It is a shame and a degradation for whites to be led by a black, did't you know?
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
One significant part of it, which they will not actually say, is the colour of his skin. It is a shame and a degradation for whites to be led by a black, did't you know?
But they have to pussyfoot around that, because they know that enough voters will be driven away by an open admission.
Just like Gingrich's dog whistles in South Carolina, which notably did not work well in Florida.
quote:Yeah HB! You're acting like there's some longstanding Republican strategy to appeal to white racists.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
One significant part of it, which they will not actually say, is the colour of his skin. It is a shame and a degradation for whites to be led by a black, did't you know?
But they have to pussyfoot around that, because they know that enough voters will be driven away by an open admission.
Just like Gingrich's dog whistles in South Carolina, which notably did not work well in Florida.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Romney. Just about preferable to Gingrich.
quote:There's more overlap than most people think. Most of the evangelical Protestant private religious schools in the U.S. were started as a reaction to school integration. It was felt at the time that having an explicitly religious private institution would make maintaining racially segregated schools easier, since the First Amendment would come into play and the school could claim that segregation was a religious principle. In short, religious conservatives, particularly in the American south, started organizing and concentrating resources along racist lines about the time the Republican party decided it could pry the Solid South away from the Democrats. The benefits of partnership seemed obvious.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
From this side of the pond, the Southern Strategy (for which the evidence is impressive) and the cosying up to the Religious Right both have a similar sort of feel - and of course there is some overlap.
quote:Polling information collected in February is pretty useless, as all of the factors you cite will be old news by election day.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
A poll published today puts Obama ahead of Romney nationally among registered voters for the first time. It seems that the lumps that Gingrich has been taking out of him are the significant factor, along with a reasonably favorable reception for the State of the Union.
Game on for November!
quote:From personal observation and experience living in this area on and off for most of my life i think you hit the nail on the head.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:There's more overlap than most people think. Most of the evangelical Protestant private religious schools in the U.S. were started as a reaction to school integration. It was felt at the time that having an explicitly religious private institution would make maintaining racially segregated schools easier, since the First Amendment would come into play and the school could claim that segregation was a religious principle. In short, religious conservatives, particularly in the American south, started organizing and concentrating resources along racist lines about the time the Republican party decided it could pry the Solid South away from the Democrats. The benefits of partnership seemed obvious.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
From this side of the pond, the Southern Strategy (for which the evidence is impressive) and the cosying up to the Religious Right both have a similar sort of feel - and of course there is some overlap.
quote:The Catholic hospital order is totally something a Republican would do. Same with the Keystone XL order. Kagan and Sotomayor were always high on the wish lists of the Federalist Society, right? And Republican appointees to the NLRB would surely have stuck their foot into the South Carolina Boeing plant matter. You're right, Obama might as well be a Republican.
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
I wish Somebody would explain to me, in words I can understand, why the Repubs hate Obama so much when, as far as I can tell, he IS one, and has basically handed them pretty much whatever they've wanted for the last three years.
quote:Agreed. Which could be Romney. But Gingrich??? Seriously??? Unless the economy does more than just double-dip or fail to rebound, but actually tanks worse than it is already, I can't see the Newt being attractive to any but the most diehard tea partier. Then again, the man is an evil genius so who knows how he could work his magic.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Polling information collected in February is pretty useless, as all of the factors you cite will be old news by election day.
Honestly, I see this coming down to the economic numbers in October. If the economy shows improvement, Obama wins. If economic numbers are down, voters consider looking elsewhere. All the Republicans can do is nominate someone who an independent might vote for if the economic numbers are not good.
quote:Which is why I said "game on" not "it's gonna be Barack".
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Polling information collected in February is pretty useless, as all of the factors you cite will be old news by election day.
quote:That is true. The non realistic employment numbers are looking better which augers well for his re-election. I assume the same people who voted for him in 2008 will likely overlook (or may even support)
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Honestly, I see this coming down to the economic numbers in October. If the economy shows improvement, Obama wins.
quote:This is false. The Obama administration maintains a open, publicly acknowledged kill list of American citizens. Calling it "secret" is just inflamatory!
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
- Maintaining a secret kill list of American citizens and actually carrying out extrajudicial killings of people on that list.
quote:Again, a blatant falsehood. It's well known that John Ashcroft had no shame.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
- Harrassment of Bush era whistleblowers that would put Ashcroft to shame.
quote:Extension of the much hated "Bush" tax cuts, as well as an explosion of debt well beyond what Obama himself described as "unpatriotic" when it was someone else doing it.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I'm sure I'm missing some other things.
quote:Not true. Naked statues caused him shame.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Again, a blatant falsehood. It's well known that John Ashcroft had no shame.
quote:Changing times we do live in - again. Eerie resonances in some of those words. Shouldn't think sinking like a stone is on the Big O's agenda right now.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The proper response to the Big O walking on water is that it becomes obvious that he can't swim.
quote:I will try and control the level of inflamation!
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Calling it "secret" is just inflamatory!
quote:Which really tells you something when the treatment of the Bush era whistleblowers has been outdone.
It's well known that John Ashcroft had no shame.
quote:Yes those as well; and Super PAC's are Democracy destroying entities, when used by other people that is. I also left out DEA raids on medicinal marijuana growers.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Extension of the much hated "Bush" tax cuts, as well as an explosion of debt well beyond what Obama himself described as "unpatriotic" when it was someone else doing it.
quote:If you keep reading your source past the headline, you will see that only one American has been on it. It is a list of militants. Not a list of American militants.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:I will try and control the level of inflamation!
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Calling it "secret" is just inflamatory!
The existence the list is not a secret, but of course much about it is not only secret but highly shady in terms of its basis in actual law.
For instance in this Reuters article
American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.
There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.
The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.
The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.
Source
Nothing really troublesome with any of that.
quote:Name one person who would vote for Obama if he was white. If you can't and I'm almost positive you can't, then my eye roll stands. And it has nothing to do with it being a Black thing. Only blacks can realize that white people don't vote for Obama because he's black? I do believe that is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
Originally posted by malik3000:
And (Beeswax Altar's rolling eyes notwithstanding) there is a hell of alot of White racism involved in some (though by no means all) of the the opposition to Obama.
I am tempted to chalk it up to "It's a Black thing, you wouldn't understand" but i won't, because some non-Blacks do understand.
quote:There may be a Pond Difference but here in Britain there are plenty of racists who aren't conservative or even right-wing. It's what people do, not what they say or sign-up for that counts.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
... most racists are conservative.
quote:Indeed. Some of the most die-hard racists can be found in solid Labour districts.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:There may be a Pond Difference but here in Britain there are plenty of racists who aren't conservative or even right-wing. It's what people do, not what they say or sign-up for that counts.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
... most racists are conservative.
quote:it may well be worth looking in more detail at the evidence it is based upon.
Looking at the data for whites collected in 2008 and 2010, we see some rather weird trends. On the whole, 4.9 percent of whites said they would not vote for a black president. Middle-of-the-road independents were above this mark at 6.8 percent. However, Republican- and Democrat-leaning independents were the least (admittedly) racist groups, at 3.1 and 3.2 percent respectively. Republicans and strong Republicans were indeed a bit above the average (5.6 and 6.1 percent), but Democrats and strong Democrats weren’t far behind (4.7 and 4.9 percent). So, it’s entirely conceivable that “the people looking up the n-word” might be “the type who would vote Democrat.”
quote:I find it hilarious that by Barry's own statements he is an unpatriotic threat to democracy.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Super PAC's are Democracy destroying entities, when used by other people that is.
quote:I'm sure there's an interesting set of assumptions behind the claim that in a nation of more than 230 million voting age citizens, Barrack Obama would receive exactly zero votes (not even his own, apparently) if he were white, but I'm not sure they're assumptions that support BA's underlying thesis that there's no such thing as racism in the U.S. anymore.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Name one person who would vote for Obama if he was white. If you can't and I'm almost positive you can't, then my eye roll stands.
quote:The whole "Barry" thing is childish and petulant. He's the President of the United States, even if you didn't vote for him, and even if you don't like him.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:I find it hilarious that by Barry's own statements he is an unpatriotic threat to democracy.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Super PAC's are Democracy destroying entities, when used by other people that is.
By his actions he is far worse than that.
The fact that he is half black doesn't even make the list of reasons not to vote for him, even for the racists.
quote:I'm pretty sure you could replace 'Obama' with the name of any recent president and be just as accurate. The names on the lists may change a little though.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
My statement doesn't make any assumption about racism in the United States. I stated that resistance to Obama is not based on racism. Resistance to Obama is based on differences of opinion. The same people who oppose Obama would oppose a white president. Besides, I think a number of people in the United States oppose Obama because they believe he has a list of American citizens slated for death because they are US citizens. Earlier on this thread, you even implied Obama might be ordering the deaths of people who are American citizens just because they are American citizens.
quote:More petulant and childish than referring to George W. Bush as "Dubya" throughout his entire term?
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:The whole "Barry" thing is childish and petulant. He's the President of the United States, even if you didn't vote for him, and even if you don't like him.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:I find it hilarious that by Barry's own statements he is an unpatriotic threat to democracy.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Super PAC's are Democracy destroying entities, when used by other people that is.
By his actions he is far worse than that.
The fact that he is half black doesn't even make the list of reasons not to vote for him, even for the racists.
quote:I'm not entirely sure, but I think the 'Dubya' thing was actually started by Bush's supporters as a way to imply a certain folksy charm and to link the Ivy Leaguer with the "common man" (and to distinguish him from his same-named father). The 2004 campaign even used the letter W in promotional material in place of the candidate's name. The fact that it's now considered insulting is due more to how George W. Bush is regarded as a miserable failure by most people these days than how the nickname was used at the time.
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
More petulant and childish than referring to George W. Bush as "Dubya" throughout his entire term?
quote:I'm fairly sure the Obama 2008 campaign didn't put out any promotional materials bearing the moniker "Barry". Can you provide examples?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Same with Barry.
quote:What about "Shrub"? My point remains unchanged: whether a nickname originated with a president's supporters or his detractors, derogatory use of a condescending nickname cannot be acceptable for a President you dislike and unacceptable when used for a President you like. That's just ridiculous.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I'm not entirely sure, but I think the 'Dubya' thing was actually started by Bush's supporters as a way to imply a certain folksy charm and to link the Ivy Leaguer with the "common man" (and to distinguish him from his same-named father). The 2004 campaign even used the letter W in promotional material in place of the candidate's name. The fact that it's now considered insulting is due more to how George W. Bush is regarded as a miserable failure by most people these days than how the nickname was used at the time.
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
More petulant and childish than referring to George W. Bush as "Dubya" throughout his entire term?
quote:Not in 2008. Barack Obama used to go by Barry. His friends called him Barry. Same as with W.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I'm fairly sure the Obama 2008 campaign didn't put out any promotional materials bearing the moniker "Barry". Can you provide examples?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Same with Barry.
quote:Agh! My eyes! My eyes! Time to invent that brain scrubber.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This new spattering of Santorum delgates has made a frothy mess out of the Republican primary process.
quote:I know several people in LutheranChik's part of the state who voted for Obama. Most of them would qualify as racists. Obama carried Michigan. Unlike Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis and Mondale, Obama carried Indiana. In the 20th century, the KKK had more power in Indiana than it did in any Southern state.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
In response to BA's eye-rolling I'd like to quote our own LutheranChik, except that i can't remember exactly when she posted her comment.
so, paraphrasing, she indicated that a significant number within her area and congregation were "sp truamtised by the idea of a Black President" that they couldn't think of anything else - and that is in rural Michigan, AIUI, not the Deep South
quote:According to the stats I quoted above, it is for about 1 in 20 of white American citizens, and that is more or less independent of Democratic of GOP affiliation. In a way, that's quite heartening, but if the statistic is sound and durable, it invalidates your statement. Those stats support an argument that the great majority of resistance to Obama is not based on racism. Is that what you really meant?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
My statement doesn't make any assumption about racism in the United States. I stated that resistance to Obama is not based on racism.
quote:.
What percentage of the voters casting a vote for John Kerry or Al Gore didn't vote for Obama because he's black? The outcome of the 2008 election suggests not very many.
quote:Firstly, by no means do i think Obama is a great candidate at this moment. At the moment i am barely supporting him, but i am very troubled by certain tendencies in the current administration, in some cases things that are worse than they were under the G.W. Bush administration. I refer particularly to troubling trends in regard to human rights cover-up by the U.S. gov't.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Name one person who would vote for Obama if he was white. If you can't and I'm almost positive you can't, then my eye roll stands. And it has nothing to do with it being a Black thing. Only blacks can realize that white people don't vote for Obama because he's black? I do believe that is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
Originally posted by malik3000:
And (Beeswax Altar's rolling eyes notwithstanding) there is a hell of alot of White racism involved in some (though by no means all) of the the opposition to Obama.
I am tempted to chalk it up to "It's a Black thing, you wouldn't understand" but i won't, because some non-Blacks do understand.
quote:This is my biggest question. Let's just say, for the sake of argument that Obama didn't do all he could to fix things.. how is it better to replace him with those whose policies got us into the mess in the first place? I just don't get that logic.
Originally posted by malik3000:
What amazes me is that even if the economy tanks by November, how could one then want to turn back to the party which was the cause of the tanking process in the first place?
quote:I think there's a substantial difference between 'support' and 'not completely insulting every time they have the slightest chance to'. Some of my american friends have suggested that the issue is not those who don't support him, it's the higher-than-average proportion of people who take their opposition of him to almost lunacy. There's plenty of things one can criticise about both Bush and Obama's policies. But the number of total crazies attacking Obama seems disproportionate, and I can't help but feel that a few of them are racially motivated. Maybe not all, maybe not even most, but certainly a few.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm not aware of a single person who would have supported Obama or any one of his polices if only he were white. In theory, I suppose such people might be out there. Hard to say that people existing only in theory are responsible for any remotely significant opposition to anything. If every last one of those theoretical people didn't exist or had a dramatic conversion, not one thing about the last four years would be noticeably different.
quote:I'm constantly bemused by this. Obama is not a socialist, by any reasonable measure. He's probably more right that David Cameron, and more right than all but the lunatic fringe of the Conservative party.
Originally posted by Anyuta:
I have heard criticism of Obama from a number of people whose only answer to the question "so what's wrong with him" is "well, he's a socialist".. with no actual specific evidence to back that up.
quote:I don't know what percentage of black voters over-all, but I'd guess a lot of left-leaning African-American's would have voted for a conservative black candidate provided he wasn't as bat-crap crazy as Herman Cain.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I wonder what would have been the result of the last presidential election if the Democratic nominee had been a left-leaning white man but the Republican nominee had been a right-leaning black man? What percentage of black voters would have voted for the the black candidate?
quote:I don't know, I was posing a hypothetical.
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Who would that conservative African-American be? I can't think of a single one who has any popularity at all in the African-American community.
Colin Powell would likely have received major support (and from left-leaning voters generally - no pun intrended), but he is far from conservative. If he is still a nominal Republican, I'd guess he is hanging on to the party by his fingernails.
quote:Colin Powell endorsed Obama. I think that effectively eliminated any shot at a GOP candidacy. Not that he minds, I suspect.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
As for Colin Powell, I guess it depends on what your definition of 'conservative' means. Personally, I don't think Reagan would be considered 'conservative enough' by tea-party standards today.
quote:I'm guessing these friends weren't Republican.
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
quote:I think there's a substantial difference between 'support' and 'not completely insulting every time they have the slightest chance to'. Some of my american friends have suggested that the issue is not those who don't support him, it's the higher-than-average proportion of people who take their opposition of him to almost lunacy. There's plenty of things one can criticise about both Bush and Obama's policies. But the number of total crazies attacking Obama seems disproportionate, and I can't help but feel that a few of them are racially motivated. Maybe not all, maybe not even most, but certainly a few.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm not aware of a single person who would have supported Obama or any one of his polices if only he were white. In theory, I suppose such people might be out there. Hard to say that people existing only in theory are responsible for any remotely significant opposition to anything. If every last one of those theoretical people didn't exist or had a dramatic conversion, not one thing about the last four years would be noticeably different.
quote:Sure, there have been crazy conspiracists waxing on and on in every presidency. But did the crazies in those previous administration every manage to convince 31% of Republicans on one insane and easily disproved theory, or 30% of Republicans of yet another ludicrous one?
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
[qb]
It simply isn't true. Bush II and Clinton were both attacked as much if not more than Barack Obama. Bush's opponents accused him of ordering the destruction of the twin towers as an excuse for going to war. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Kanye West said George W. Bush hated black people on national television. People actually testified before congress that the military (George W. Bush was the Commander in Chief) destroyed the levies. Clinton's opponents essentially accused him of running the Dixie Mafia from the Arkansas Governor's mansion. During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton was accused of ordering attacks on Somalia and Afghanistan to distract the nation from the scandal. Bush I was accused of convincing the Iranians to wait until after the 1980 elections before releasing the American hostages.
quote:Those numbers are about right for the crazification factor.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Sure, there have been crazy conspiracists waxing on and on in every presidency. But did the crazies in those previous administration every manage to convince 31% of Republicans on one insane and easily disproved theory, or 30% of Republicans of yet another ludicrous one?
To be honest, I don't know if it's racism. I don't know what it is. It's mass lunacy, that's for sure.
quote:Yep
originally posted by cliffdweller:
But did the crazies in those previous administration every manage to convince 31% of Republicans on one insane and easily disproved theory, or 30% of Republicans of yet another ludicrous one?
quote:I'm waiting for Romney to get desperate enough to try a radical approach and talk about being a Mormon the way JFK talked about being a Catholic.
Originally posted by malik3000:
While no political scientist, i sort of had an inkling that Santorum just might pull off something like he did last night precisely due to hard-boiled conservatives not thinking Romney was conservative enough and evangelicals' dubiousness over Gingrich's morals.
The GOP primary process is entertaining at least.
quote:One that is known of. The article makes it clear that most everything about the list - who is on it, how decisions are made, the exact legality of it - are entirely unclear. Even if there had been only one citizen, that is a dangerous precedent.
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you keep reading your source past the headline, you will see that only one American has been on it. It is a list of militants. Not a list of American militants.
Which I've pointed out once before as a matter of logic, but it's pretty darn nice for someone to provide me a Reuters article as proof.
Which also shows that the lead paragraph is poorly written: there are no 'American militants like Awlaki'. There is just Awlaki... and a whole bunch of non-Americans that we apparently don't care about so much.
quote:Note to self: don't read such over-the-top crazy stuff while drinking. The tea does not set well with the keyboard.
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
But the number of total crazies attacking Obama seems disproportionate....
quote:Uh, except to the outside world, it all but appears he wasn't, at least until 9/11. Then things started to change, but I genuinely think that Bush was given a markedly easier ride than Obama has been before 9/11. And directly afterwards, actually. I definitely don't think the vitriol was of the 'I refuse to recognise him as my president' level. Sure, there were insults, and his competence level is still being questioned, possibly justifiably, but there's a big difference between attacking based on a record, and being a birther.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Bush was attacked in the most savage way every day he was in office and - get this - he's still being savaged by the left and even by Obama to this day. Attacks on Obama can't even hold a candle to the attacks on W.
quote:In addition to which, the liberals who attacked Bush for his policies are now attacking Obama for the same policies, and in pretty much the same terms. At least I am...
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
I definitely don't think the vitriol was of the 'I refuse to recognise him as my president' level. Sure, there were insults, and his competence level is still being questioned, possibly justifiably, but there's a big difference between attacking based on a record, and being a birther.
quote:I'm afraid you are wrong again. After the 2000 and 2004 elections, many Progressives refused to recognize Bush as president. Bush was only in office for 9 months before 911. Saying Bush was responsible for 911 is far worse than saying Obama wasn't born in this country.
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
quote:Uh, except to the outside world, it all but appears he wasn't, at least until 9/11. Then things started to change, but I genuinely think that Bush was given a markedly easier ride than Obama has been before 9/11. And directly afterwards, actually. I definitely don't think the vitriol was of the 'I refuse to recognise him as my president' level. Sure, there were insults, and his competence level is still being questioned, possibly justifiably, but there's a big difference between attacking based on a record, and being a birther.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Bush was attacked in the most savage way every day he was in office and - get this - he's still being savaged by the left and even by Obama to this day. Attacks on Obama can't even hold a candle to the attacks on W.
quote:Nice straw man you have there: Nobody's saying Bush was responsible for the attacks. People criticize him for responding to the attacks poorly.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Saying Bush was responsible for 911 is far worse than saying Obama wasn't born in this country.
quote:The idiots I saw that were following that line were unhinged folk from the far, extreme sides of both political bents. I haven't seen many left wing Obama conspiracy nuts.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Only some did blame Bush for 911.
Are you unfamiliar with Trutherism?
quote:What idiot would even suggest such a thing? Everyone knows it was Karl Rove.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Nobody's saying Bush was responsible for the attacks.
quote:The place where this notion seemed to have had some real currency was in the middle east, not in the US.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Only some did blame Bush for 911.
quote:They exist, but again, in nowhere near the 30% of GOP found in the two studies I cited earlier.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:The idiots I saw that were following that line were unhinged folk from the far, extreme sides of both political bents. I haven't seen many left wing Obama conspiracy nuts.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Only some did blame Bush for 911.
Are you unfamiliar with Trutherism?
quote:The cite doesn't say much so it's hard to know precisely what it is showing. It says that a good % of Americans wanted (at the time of the survey) Bush/Cheney investigated as per their prior knowledge of the attacks. This is different than saying they caused them or were co-conspirators. Rather, it seems to be a reference to the well documented fact that there were prior CIA email warnings to the Bush admin.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Yep
originally posted by cliffdweller:
But did the crazies in those previous administration every manage to convince 31% of Republicans on one insane and easily disproved theory, or 30% of Republicans of yet another ludicrous one?
Not Republicans of course but...
quote:This is probably true, based on my own experience with the Colorado caucus build up. I received one call from a Ron Paul supporter, two robo-calls from Gingrich, 5 or 6 personal calls or robo-calls from Rick Santorum or supporters, and exactly 0 calls from the Romney camp.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I suspect that the explanation for Santorum's victories last night have more to do with Romney not closely contesting the races in these states. Missouri was a "beauty contest" that assigned no delegates, so look to see what happens in March when they do the whole thing over again. Minnesota and Colorado held non-binding primaries, which means whoever ends up the eventual nominee will get those delegates regardless of how he did in those actual states. Look for what happens in Arizona and Michigan (big states with binding primaries) at the end of the month for a better indication of whether Republicans are really in a lather over Santorum or if he gets wiped out by Romney's superior resources.
quote:One has to discuss events in a fact-based way for there to be citations available.
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Savaged by Obama?? Citations would be appreciated.
quote:I read it, BA, which is why I drew the parallel I did here. Competitive comparison of crazies is crap cogitation.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Read the Zogby poll. 40% believed the 911 Commission was a cover up. 36% believed federal officials caused or allowed the 911 attacks to happen in order to justify war in the Middle East.
quote:Obama calmly quoting facts that disprove something that some conservative has said is savaging. I'm surprised y'all didn't know that.
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:One has to discuss events in a fact-based way for there to be citations available.
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Savaged by Obama?? Citations would be appreciated.
quote:He's a moderate right of center Republican. They've been driving those out of the Republican Party for years.
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
I wish Somebody would explain to me, in words I can understand, why the Repubs hate Obama so much when, as far as I can tell, he IS one, and has basically handed them pretty much whatever they've wanted for the last three years.
quote:I continue to maintain that this is an absurd point. No Republican president would have made the Catholic Hospital order. No Republican president would have said no to Keystone XL. No Republican president would have appointed people with the judicial philosophies of Kagen and Sotomayor to the Court. No Republican president's Labor Relations head would have messed with the South Carolina Boeing plant.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:He's a moderate right of center Republican. They've been driving those out of the Republican Party for years.
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
I wish Somebody would explain to me, in words I can understand, why the Repubs hate Obama so much when, as far as I can tell, he IS one, and has basically handed them pretty much whatever they've wanted for the last three years.
quote:I am not really sure what these kinds of assessments are intended to convey. Is it the mass of chattering over the airwaves that determines what counts as "the center?" Is it the results of various polls? Is it the make-up of Congress? These each would seem to suggest very different notions of "the center."
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I agree the point is absurd. In the United States, Obama is on the left of the political spectrum.
quote:So let's refine it to the original point I was calling absurd, that Obama basically is a Republican. Left or right aside, is Obama really so like the Republicans, and has he handed the Republicans so much that they want, that they have no reason not to like him?
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:So, after all is said and done, I just can't figure out how one would decide what left/right/center actually would mean in our country.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I agree the point is absurd. In the United States, Obama is on the left of the political spectrum.
--Tom Clune
quote:But not within the Democrat party he isn't.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
In the United States, Obama is on the left of the political spectrum.
quote:Well, I find Obama and Romney pretty much two peas in a pod as far as ideology goes. Of course, run-of-the-mill Republican primary voters are having a very hard time warming up to Romney, so I don't quite know what to make of that, either.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
So let's refine it to the original point I was calling absurd, that Obama basically is a Republican. Left or right aside, is Obama really so like the Republicans, and has he handed the Republicans so much that they want, that they have no reason not to like him?
quote:Yes, he is. A few Senators and Representatives are more progressive than Obama. The Blue Dogs are to the right of Obama. There are more Blue Dog Democrats than Democrats to the left of Barack Obama.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:But not within the Democrat party he isn't.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
In the United States, Obama is on the left of the political spectrum.
quote:Put some meat on that statement. I have listed a number of Obama's actions that I don't think any Republican would have taken. Can you honestly say that Romney would have taken those acts if he were President?
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Well, I find Obama and Romney pretty much two peas in a pod as far as ideology goes.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
So let's refine it to the original point I was calling absurd, that Obama basically is a Republican. Left or right aside, is Obama really so like the Republicans, and has he handed the Republicans so much that they want, that they have no reason not to like him?
(Snip)
--Tom Clune
quote:Well, ISTM you're asking for rather virtual meat. Of course I can't say that Romney would have done any of those things, any more than you can accurately report that he would not have.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Put some meat on that statement. I have listed a number of Obama's actions that I don't think any Republican would have taken. Can you honestly say that Romney would have taken those acts if he were President?
quote:Not at all sure I agree with this even when only looking at Congress (let alone the population at large). Blue Dogs are to the right, that's true, but only on certain issues. and there are a LOT more non-blue dog democrats than blue dogs.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Yes, he is. A few Senators and Representatives are more progressive than Obama. The Blue Dogs are to the right of Obama. There are more Blue Dog Democrats than Democrats to the left of Barack Obama.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:But not within the Democrat party he isn't.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
In the United States, Obama is on the left of the political spectrum.
quote:So Obama's middle of the road results may not have been to his preference, and were the result of compromise with a party that has its own direction. That is essentially my point. Obama and the Republicans have policy differences. To say that Obama might as well be a Republican is a huge stretch of reality.
Originally posted by Anyuta:
Obama is fairly middle of the road overall, something which is a bit of a disappointment to many of us on the left. I think some of that is not necessarily his preference. His style is to try to compromise and meet in the middle.. and when you are negotiation with those who do not feel likewise, you invariably end up moving further in their direction than you might prefer. but I think even his starting positions are not nearly as far left as some in the "news" paint him.
quote:He might as well be a moderate Republican--but that's like saying he might as well be a triceratops.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:So Obama's middle of the road results may not have been to his preference, and were the result of compromise with a party that has its own direction. That is essentially my point. Obama and the Republicans have policy differences. To say that Obama might as well be a Republican is a huge stretch of reality.
Originally posted by Anyuta:
Obama is fairly middle of the road overall, something which is a bit of a disappointment to many of us on the left. I think some of that is not necessarily his preference. His style is to try to compromise and meet in the middle.. and when you are negotiation with those who do not feel likewise, you invariably end up moving further in their direction than you might prefer. but I think even his starting positions are not nearly as far left as some in the "news" paint him.
quote:Of course he would have-- if they were politically expedient at the moment. He can always undo them and switch directions later. If we've learned nothing about Romney the last few months, we've at least learned that.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I have listed a number of Obama's actions that I don't think any Republican would have taken. Can you honestly say that Romney would have taken those acts if he were President?
quote:Perhaps Triceratops is too drastic--calling Obama a Moderate Republican is more like calling him an Ivory-Billed Woodpecker. There are rumored sightings from time to time, but most reasonable people assume the species to be extinct. In my youth, there were even Liberal Republicans, and I once voted for one for Congress (it was a mistake--he ended up being one of Nixon's most ardent defenders). But the truth is, Obama came up with the Affordable Care Act precisely because it was a Republican-style plan. It's more conservative than Nixon's national health care plan, and arguably more conservative than Eisenhower's. But since the GOP has been taken over by right-wing looneys who cheer for letting uninsured people die in the street and boo the Golden Rule, he was being naive.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Obama isn't a moderate or a Republican. He struggles to get moderate Democratic support and he rarely ever gets moderate Republican support. Why? Because he's not a moderate.
Obamacare is Romneycare at a national level and that's Romney's problem with it. I don't know if that really is his problem with it or not. It's my problem with it.
The only candidate in the election calling for drastic changes on how the US fights terrorism or conducts foreign policy is Ron Paul. Ron Paul is neither a liberal nor a Democrat. So, I don't see how Obama's policies on those issues are uniquely Democratic or progressive when the only candidate making a big deal out of them is a conservative Republican. If Obama is really a moderate Republican and these are important issues for Progressive Democrats, then why isn't Obama being challenged in the primary?
quote:perhaps because it's generally recognized that challenging an incumbent in a primary tends to lessen support for that incumbent during the general election. and even someone who acts like a moderate Republican is better than having the far right take over again. It's a case of "he's not what we'd like him to be by a long shot, but he's still a lot better than the alternative".
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If Obama is really a moderate Republican and these are important issues for Progressive Democrats, then why isn't Obama being challenged in the primary?
quote:Okay, name 20 nationally known moderate Republicans.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So, reasonable people know moderate Republicans are hardly in danger of extinction.
quote:So name five moderate Republicans currently holding elective office.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
By reasonable people, you mean people who agree with you?
Well, I define reasonable people as people who agree with me.
So, reasonable people know moderate Republicans are hardly in danger of extinction.
quote:Ho hum. Such bogus statements don't help your cause. No Republican, moderate or conservative, wants to let people die in the streets.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
But since the GOP has been taken over by right-wing looneys who cheer for letting uninsured people die in the street and boo the Golden Rule, he was being naive.
quote:I've already played this game on Ship of Fools. Any person I say is a moderate will be called a conservative. So, why take the time to make the list in the first place?
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:So name five moderate Republicans currently holding elective office.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
By reasonable people, you mean people who agree with you?
Well, I define reasonable people as people who agree with me.
So, reasonable people know moderate Republicans are hardly in danger of extinction.
quote:If a claim is going to be made that there are a significant number of moderate Republicans still in existence, ISTM that such a claim falls by the wayside if the claimant refuses to name any individuals because others do not accept the claimant's definition of a moderate Republican. Therefore I propose the following steps:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I've already played this game on Ship of Fools. Any person I say is a moderate will be called a conservative. So, why take the time to make the list in the first place?
quote:I think Obama might have gone just a teensy bit too far with that one - it sounds to me like quite a few folk are riled.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
No Republican president would have made the Catholic Hospital order.
quote:I'm not so sure about that. People are starting to wonder, "if he's capable of doing that before the election, what is he capable of doing after it?".
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
No, he's moderated the position enough that it won't cost him enough votes in the lower Midwest and Mid-Atlantic.
<snip>
However, the compromise position of the Obama administration should be enough to assuage the anger of liberal and even moderate Roman Catholics.
quote:I'll concede Snowe and Collins--but as Abe Lincoln said, "You can always tell a Mainer, but you can't tell him much."
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Olympia Snowe of Maine, but people accuse her of being a RINO. RINO's are an endangered species....
quote:I would think so, especially given the huge majority of Roman Catholics who are against that particular Vatican position
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
However, the compromise position of the Obama administration should be enough to assuage the anger of liberal and even moderate Roman Catholics.
quote:Let's get it clear, it isn't a "particular Vatican position". It is the consistent moral teaching of the Catholic Church and whether a "huge majority of Roman Catholics" are for it or against it might have a political significance but it says nothing about the authority or otherwise of the teaching.
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:I would think so, especially given the huge majority of Roman Catholics who are against that particular Vatican position
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
However, the compromise position of the Obama administration should be enough to assuage the anger of liberal and even moderate Roman Catholics.
quote:Authority comes from the acceptance of influence. Institutions can claim it and say it comes from wherever. People can choose to follow that authority or not and thus give it whatever power they want to give it.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:Let's get it clear, it isn't a "particular Vatican position". It is the consistent moral teaching of the Catholic Church and whether a "huge majority of Roman Catholics" are for it or against it might have a political significance but it says nothing about the authority or otherwise of the teaching.
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:I would think so, especially given the huge majority of Roman Catholics who are against that particular Vatican position
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
However, the compromise position of the Obama administration should be enough to assuage the anger of liberal and even moderate Roman Catholics.
quote:That is, for political authority, unarguable. The point I was making is that Catholic teaching on contraception and on abortion is not simply a "Vatican position" capable of being altered in the way a political position can be altered, and that the consent of this claimed "huge majority of Roman Catholics" doesn't alter that one bit.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Authority comes from the acceptance of influence. Institutions can claim it and say it comes from wherever. People can choose to follow that authority or not and thus give it whatever power they want to give it.
Which is why for a vast swath of Americans, it seems, if the other guy gets in, he's not legitimate in some way and they question his authority.
quote:The official position of the Vatican, as unconvincing as it may seem to most of us, is that contraception is a secular wrong and can be known to be a secular wrong by the use of secular reason.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
But the position taken by the Vatican is that it can also judge what is appropriate for persons not of that faith segment, while the position of the majority of Americans is that no authority outside of the elected legilature has the right to impose those decisions.
quote:I'm not sure that "secular wrong" is the issue. What the American Bishops are saying is that Catholic organisations shouldn't be compelled to spend their funds on the provision of healthcare that is contrary to the Church's teaching and that being compelled so to do is an infringement of religious liberty to which those Catholic organisations are entitled.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:The official position of the Vatican, as unconvincing as it may seem to most of us, is that contraception is a secular wrong and can be known to be a secular wrong by the use of secular reason.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
But the position taken by the Vatican is that it can also judge what is appropriate for persons not of that faith segment, while the position of the majority of Americans is that no authority outside of the elected legilature has the right to impose those decisions.
quote:But such compromises are inherent to Democracy. Millions of Americans have paid for wars they believed immoral, for example. However many Catholics there are working for Catholic institutions, there are millions more who pay for health insurance at large for-profit companies like Blue Cross or Aetna-- who will use their premiums to pay for abortions and contraception.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:I'm not sure that "secular wrong" is the issue. What the American Bishops are saying is that Catholic organisations shouldn't be compelled to spend their funds on the provision of healthcare that is contrary to the Church's teaching and that being compelled so to do is an infringement of religious liberty to which those Catholic organisations are entitled.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:The official position of the Vatican, as unconvincing as it may seem to most of us, is that contraception is a secular wrong and can be known to be a secular wrong by the use of secular reason.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
But the position taken by the Vatican is that it can also judge what is appropriate for persons not of that faith segment, while the position of the majority of Americans is that no authority outside of the elected legilature has the right to impose those decisions.
quote:Whereas the crass overplaying of the hand by Sebelius and the naked attempt to separate off CINO fellow-travellers from their bishops is the POTUS acting in a noble manner.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
This feels like political muscle flexing to me.
quote:You mean the 98% or so of American Catholic women who use contraceptives?
Originally posted by Trisagion:
CINO fellow-travellers
quote:Pardon the tangent: are they 'condemned to Hell' or is there some kind of le way?
Originally posted by RuthW:
You mean the 98% or so of American Catholic women who use contraceptives?
quote:No. Biden, Pelosi and Sebelius. Catholics who are happy to parade their Catholicism when there are votes to be gleaned but whose Catholicism doesn't extend as far as actually believing what the Church teaches or acting accordingly. Fellow traveller seems a fairly mild expression to cover such hypocrites.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:You mean the 98% or so of American Catholic women who use contraceptives?
Originally posted by Trisagion:
CINO fellow-travellers
quote:Not half so disgusting as redefining the conscientious objection to killing other human beings as unlawfully standing in the way of preventative care.
ETA: The Catholic bishops efforts to impose their morality on others under the guise of "religious liberty" is disgusting.
quote:I about have to go with 'condemned to Hell'.
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm so fucking tired of this.
quote:But the vast majority of American Catholics don't believe what the Church teaches in this area, nor do they act accordingly. You going to tag them all as hypocrites as well?
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:No. Biden, Pelosi and Sebelius. Catholics who are happy to parade their Catholicism when there are votes to be gleaned but whose Catholicism doesn't extend as far as actually believing what the Church teaches or acting accordingly. Fellow traveller seems a fairly mild expression to cover such hypocrites.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:You mean the 98% or so of American Catholic women who use contraceptives?
Originally posted by Trisagion:
CINO fellow-travellers
quote:That's exactly what it is.
quote:Not half so disgusting as redefining the conscientious objection to killing other human beings as unlawfully standing in the way of preventative care.
ETA: The Catholic bishops efforts to impose their morality on others under the guise of "religious liberty" is disgusting.
quote:If they seek to trade on their Catholicism to obtain an advantage whilst living in contravention of Catholic teaching what else would you call it?
Originally posted by RuthW:
But the vast majority of American Catholics don't believe what the Church teaches in this area, nor do they act accordingly. You going to tag them all as hypocrites as well?
quote:No it isn't. It is a lifestyle choice in all but a tiny number of cases. If you want it then pay for it yourself or work for somebody who doesn't think it's morally objectionable
That's exactly what it is.
quote:If you want to contracept that's your business. If you want me to pay for it, all of a sudden your morals aren't the only ones in play.
So exactly what do you propose? Should women working for Catholic institutions who want birth control just pay for it out of pocket? Last time I filled a prescription for a name-brand birth control pill, it was $50/month (generics are cheaper, of course, but sometimes the doc wants to give you a very specific thing). That's pretty expensive for someone making her living in the kitchen at St. Mary's hospital.
quote:Then any religious minority can demand that the majority accommodate them.
Be interesting to see how all this plays out. The bishops could accept the compromise and that be the end of it. The bishops could decide to challenge it in court. I hope they would win but there's no guarantee.
quote:Most of them don't "trade on their Catholicism," but they do claim to be Catholic, while ignoring, apparently quite blithely, RCC teaching on contraception. But I wouldn't call it hypocrisy so much as just being sensible.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
If they seek to trade on their Catholicism to obtain an advantage whilst living in contravention of Catholic teaching what else would you call it?
quote:You mean like all the money this pacifist pays in taxes that goes to the military? Stand up just as loudly and strongly for me not having to pay for that death machine and maybe I'll have a little time for your position.
quote:No it isn't. It is a lifestyle choice in all but a tiny number of cases. If you want it then pay for it yourself or work for somebody who doesn't think it's morally objectionable
That's exactly what it is.
quote:If you want to contracept that's your business. If you want me to pay for it, all of a sudden your morals aren't the only ones in play.
So exactly what do you propose? Should women working for Catholic institutions who want birth control just pay for it out of pocket? Last time I filled a prescription for a name-brand birth control pill, it was $50/month (generics are cheaper, of course, but sometimes the doc wants to give you a very specific thing). That's pretty expensive for someone making her living in the kitchen at St. Mary's hospital.
quote:And do employees of Catholic hospitals really have any advantage resulting from their religion(ie. do they "trade on their Catholicism")? I would have thought that those hospitals are required to hire with no prejudice in favor of any particular religion.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Most of them don't "trade on their Catholicism," but they do claim to be Catholic, while ignoring, apparently quite blithely, RCC teaching on contraception. But I wouldn't call it hypocrisy so much as just being sensible.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
[qb]If they seek to trade on their Catholicism to obtain an advantage whilst living in contravention of Catholic teaching what else would you call it?
quote:Oh, I agree it was politically foolish-- to stand up for employees freedom over the employer's. We're not feeling partciularly pro-labor these days.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:Whereas the crass overplaying of the hand by Sebelius and the naked attempt to separate off CINO fellow-travellers from their bishops is the POTUS acting in a noble manner.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
This feels like political muscle flexing to me.
quote:I keep hearing that Roman Catholics who disagree with the Church on contraception aren't really Catholic, that they are Catholic in name only, or that they're in fact lying about being Catholic, because if you're really Catholic you accept 100% of every teaching of the Church.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Whereas the crass overplaying of the hand by Sebelius and the naked attempt to separate off CINO fellow-travellers from their bishops is the POTUS acting in a noble manner.
quote:But again, the vast majority of Americans, Catholic or otherwise, haven't had that option for decades. The vast majority of Americans get their health insurance (if they are fortunate enough to have health insurance) from one of a few large insurance companies-- all of whom cover both contraception and abortions. So regardless of what those Americans, Catholic or otherwise, believe about abortion or contraception, they are paying for it through their insurance premiums, and have been doing so for decades.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
If you want me to pay for it, all of a sudden your morals aren't the only ones in play.
quote:Religious minorities have demanded for decades the majority accommodate them. Federal judges forced the majority to accommodate them. What's good for the goose...
originally posted by Tojours Dan:
Then any religious minority can demand that the majority accommodate them.
quote:On a public bus...no
originally posted by Tojours Dan:
Here in New York there is a case where a private bus line (that contracts with the city, serves the public and has a city-designated bus line number) forces women to sit in the back of the bus because it goes through Hasidic neighbourhoods and their equally deeply held religious custom demands that men and women must not mix. Is this acceptable as well?
quote:If US government believes women have a right to contraception, then let the US government provide free contraception for women. It's as simple as that. The US government does not have the right to force the Roman Catholic Church to provide women with contraception.
originally posted by Tojours Dan:
IMHO, religious accommodation should be "reasonable" but not when it infringes on the rights of those who don't follow the religion. It must go both ways.
quote:Even if that private bus serves the public? What about private restaurants? Do you believe they could choose not to serve Black people? Was Martin Luther King wrong for staging sit-in at lunch counters in the deep South? Should private business be able to force black people to drink at different water fountains if their conscience compels them too?
On a private bus...yes
quote:The US government isn't forcing the RC to provide women with contraception. It mandated that insurance companies do so at RC institutions that serve the public, as many have been doing all along to comply with the law in several states.
If US government believes women have a right to contraception, then let the US government provide free contraception for women. It's as simple as that. The US government does not have the right to force the Roman Catholic Church to provide women with contraception.
quote:The RCC isn't being forced to provide women with contraception. The RCC itself isn't the parent company for places like St. Mary's in Long Beach. That particular hospital is owned by Dignity Health (formerly Catholic Healthcare West), a non-profit company that operates both Catholic and non-Catholic hospitals.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The US government does not have the right to force the Roman Catholic Church to provide women with contraception.
quote:Works for me. Single-payer is the way to go.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If US government believes women have a right to contraception, then let the US government provide free contraception for women. It's as simple as that.
quote:The private bus line in question paid the city for the route. So, the bus line should follow the same rules as any city bus. Private businesses should have the right to refuse service to anybody they want. A person wanting to start a restaurant catering to racists should have an opportunity to do just that. Helps the rest of us, white and black, know where not to spend our money.
originally posted by Tojours Dan:
Even if that private bus serves the public? What about private restaurants? Do you believe they could choose not to serve Black people? Was Martin Luther King wrong for staging sit-in at lunch counters in the deep South? Should private business be able to force black people to drink at different water fountains if their conscience compels them too?
quote:Women have access to contraception by virtue of being employed at a Roman Catholic institution. Some Roman Catholics are happy with the compromise. Others are not. I can see reasons for accepting the compromise. I can see reasons for rejecting it. The bishops will make the official decision.
originally posted by Tojours Dan:
The US government isn't forcing the RC to provide women with contraception. It mandated that insurance companies do so at RC institutions that serve the public, as many have been doing all along to comply with the law in several states.
quote:I'd prefer that to Obamacare. Better yet, each state should decide what kind of health care system to have. Massachusetts has something like Obamacare. Vermont is considering a single payer. Let's see which works best. Maybe another state will try something else that works for them.
originally posted by mousethief:
Works for me. Single-payer is the way to go.
quote:It didn't help those in the South where racism was widespread and where they were often denied service anywhere. It doesn't help gay people in Utah, or Mexicans in Arizona, or Muslims in Tennessee. Sometimes bigotry is so widespread that minorities are left with nowhere to go.
The private bus line in question paid the city for the route. So, the bus line should follow the same rules as any city bus. Private businesses should have the right to refuse service to anybody they want. A person wanting to start a restaurant catering to racists should have an opportunity to do just that. Helps the rest of us, white and black, know where not to spend our money.
quote:Women have access to contraception by virtue of paying into an insurance plan and receiving coverage that doesn't discriminate on the basis of gender. The money for that plan comes the work these women do, ultimately and the money should be directed as these women choose to see fit.
Women have access to contraception by virtue of being employed at a Roman Catholic institution. Some Roman Catholics are happy with the compromise. Others are not. I can see reasons for accepting the compromise. I can see reasons for rejecting it. The bishops will make the official decision.
quote:Which businesses support through taxes
originally posted by TojoursDan:
All business, even private ones, ultimately rely on the State to generate wealth and as such form a contract with the government.
quote:They deserve to be treated fairly by the government that collects their taxes. The government should guarantee them the same rights as the majority. I don't see how they have a right to give their money to a bigot who doesn't want it. White business owners were usually willing to take money from African-Americans just in a humiliating way. Boycotting businesses that don't want to serve you in the first place is counterproductive. Now, let's assume this is a major problem in the 21st Century which it isn't. Let's pretend a business of any type could maintain a monopoly in an area while maintaining a policy of discrimination. Let's assume state or local ordinances don't forbid the discrimination in question. Let's assume this is a business that manages to maintain a monopoly and only do business in one state. OK...I'll assume all of that. The federal government should offer a small business loan to somebody wanting to provide whatever service is being denied to the people denied it. Wouldn't it make more sense to provide competition for the bigot rather than forcing him to make more money? I'm convinced the federal government started fucking up how it aided African-Americans and other minorities shortly after the Emancipation Proclamation and haven't stopped since.
originally posted by TojoursDan:
Property rights and assets don't fall from heaven and aren't maintained by God. It takes the resources and efforts of the State to guard and secure them. A portion of those resources come from minority communities through taxes and labour, and they deserve equal treatment in the public sphere for that support.
quote:Women have access to contraception by paying into an insurance plan provided as a benefit by their employers. Roman Catholic institutions should not be forced to offer benefits they believe to be immoral. Now, you appear to be saying the Roman Catholic Church is denying women something they've earned. In which case, health savings accounts would be an excellent solution to the problem.
originally posted by TojoursDan:
Women have access to contraception by virtue of paying into an insurance plan and receiving coverage that doesn't discriminate on the basis of gender. The money for that plan comes the work these women do, ultimately and the money should be directed as these women choose to see fit.
quote:Which comes from income they couldn't earn without State support in the first place.
Which businesses support through taxes
quote:These minorities who pay taxes that fund services and support mechanisms that allow these businesses to operate deserve the same treatment as anyone else. If a business serves the public, the public should be served equally.
They deserve to be treated fairly by the government that collects their taxes. The government should guarantee them the same rights as the majority. I don't see how they have a right to give their money to a bigot who doesn't want it.
quote:
Now, let's assume this is a major problem in the 21st Century which it isn't.
Oh dear.quote:
Let's pretend a business of any type could maintain a monopoly in an area while maintaining a policy of discrimination.
Oh dear. In rural America you don't believe this was/is true? Really? Did you sleep through U.S. history? Are you wearing earmuffs when the news is on?quote:Ordinances which you say you oppose.
Let's assume state or local ordinances don't forbid the discrimination in question.
quote:Not sure how being in one state matters when local people are denied service based on who they are.
Let's assume this is a business that manages to maintain a monopoly and only do business in one state. OK...I'll assume all of that.
quote:No. It would make sense for people to understand that in a civilized society, my right to hate you ends when it affects your right to be served equally, just like your right to play loud music at 3am ends when it disturbs my sleep and I call the police who ticket you and tell you to stop.
Wouldn't it make more sense to provide competition for the bigot rather than forcing him to make more money?
quote:Right. Jim Crow laws, local poll taxes, the activities of the KKK and other racist groups, and institutionalized business and school discrimination had nothing to do with it.
I'm convinced the federal government started fucking up how it aided African-Americans and other minorities shortly after the Emancipation Proclamation and haven't stopped since.
quote:Employers that wouldn't exist without the labour and expertise of women generating income for those employers.
Women have access to contraception by paying into an insurance plan provided as a benefit by their employers.
quote:Roman Catholic institutions offer health insurance through (mostly secular) health insurance companies. If health insurance itself was immoral you might have a case, but the oligarchy of U.S. insurance companies serve many different companies and institutions - RC and non-RC. They should serve all the members who pay them premiums equally without interference by the employer.
Roman Catholic institutions should not be forced to offer benefits they believe to be immoral.
quote:Except that women would have to put aside part of their own income into these accounts, instead of having it covered through their premiums thus double dipping into their income; and 2) at the end of the year, if they don't use everything in that account, they lose it. So they are penalized further. It's still discriminatory and puts an extra burden on the freedom of women who choose to use birth control, some specifically for religious reasons.
Now, you appear to be saying the Roman Catholic Church is denying women something they've earned. In which case, health savings accounts would be an excellent solution to the problem.
quote:That's why I say he is, in effect, a moderate Republican.
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Timothy,
Aren't those the values of a vast number of Democrats these days? I'm a rock-solid Democrat, and I think I'm in agreement with that list. It seems to me that Pres. Obama would be quite comfortable with those positions.
quote:Hes not leaning left, he's missing in acton on marriage equality.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Seems to me that Obama definitely leans left on some social issues such as marriage equality, but right on military policy and certain fiscal stuff. So he seems very left to the right, especially those who are most concerned about controlling other people's sexuality, and too far right to the left, especially the pansy-ass pacifists and such.
quote:This is absolute idiocy. Everyone who was against the Vietnam War had to pay the taxes to support it. Everyone who felt that the US was wrong to go to war with Iraq had to pay the taxes to support it. Everyone who thought the US was wrong to bail out the Wall Street banks had to pay the taxes to support it, etc. What makes the prigs in the RC heirarchy so special? We live in a democracy. They are free to rant and rave like a radio talk-show host in hopes of changing the political representation to be more to their liking, and they do. But that's as far as it goes AFAICS.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Roman Catholic institutions should not be forced to offer benefits they believe to be immoral.
quote:The State couldn't do anything without the taxes.
originally posted by TojoursDan:
Which comes from income they couldn't earn without State support in the first place.
quote:No, I grew up in the rural South. I saw the buildings that were once segregated in white and black sections. My parents grew up under segregation. I had African-American teachers who grew up in the same and similar communities under segregation. They all talked about what it was like. They never complained about actually being denied service but rather how the service was given.
originally posted by TojoursDan:
Oh dear. In rural America you don't believe this was/is true? Really? Did you sleep through U.S. history? Are you wearing earmuffs when the news is on?
quote:At the federal level. I believe in the 10th Amendment.
originally posted by TojoursDan:
Ordinances which you say you oppose.
quote:My solution to the problem is to provide minorities with the money to start their own business, become self reliant, compete against the bigots, and provide opportunities for others within their communities. Your solution is to make the bigot accept money he doesn't want and keep minorities dependent on bigots and the federal government. OK...I'll guess we have to agree to disagree.
originally posted by TojoursDan:
No. It would make sense for people to understand that in a civilized society, my right to hate you ends when it affects your right to be served equally, just like your right to play loud music at 3am ends when it disturbs my sleep and I call the police who ticket you and tell you to stop.
quote:The federal government did have the right to force state and local governments to treat African-Americans equally. That was the actual purpose of the amendment. Jim Crow, poll taxes, and school discrimination should have never been allowed in the first place. The activities of the KKK never were legal.
originally posted by TojoursDan:
Right. Jim Crow laws, local poll taxes, the activities of the KKK and other racist groups, and institutionalized business and school discrimination had nothing to do with it.
quote:You think the federal involvement started in the 60's? I believe it is you who slept through US History covering Reconstruction. You think the black middle class didn't exist prior to the Great Society? You think all African-Americans benefited all that much from integration?
originally posted by TojoursDan:
I'm convinced that African Americans made the largest political and economic gains when the federal government finally overrode state and local laws and gave them equal access to public education, ended discrimination in the public and private sector and forced legal agencies to treat them [more] equally. There still may be many African Americans living in poverty, but the growth of the Black middle class since the 1960s has been nothing short of miraculous, and it was because of the Great Society programmes that this foundation was laid.
quote:For which they are payed a salary...
originally posted by TojoursDan:
Employers that wouldn't exist without the labour and expertise of women generating income for those employers.
quote:That's the key part of that
originally posted by TojoursDan:
Roman Catholic institutions offer health insurance
quote:Students and seniors are the chief beneficiaries of financial aid and Medicare. Limiting the choices of where students can attend college or where seniors can get health care would be counterproductive. The Supreme Court is set to decide if federal incentives to states are coercive or not. That said, it will be interesting to see if Roman Catholic institutions are willing to stop receiving federal money in order to maintain its stance on birth control.
originally posted by TojoursDan:
These Roman Catholic hospitals and universities also receive large amounts of federal government money in student grants and federally subsidized loans, Medicare payments, etc. If they want to become institutions employing and serving only Catholics and not on the government teat, then they'd be exempt. But they want to have the taxpayer cake and eat it too.
quote:No, women working for Roman Catholic institutions are free to purchase contraceptives or additional insurance providing contraception coverage. They are free to seek employment where coverage of contraception is part of the benefits package. I'm assuming it would be easy for them to find alternative employment. After all, you said earlier those Roman Catholic institutions wouldn't exist without women willing to work in them.
originally posted by TojoursDan:
Does religious freedom not apply to individuals whose income is paid into these premiums, who choose to exercise their God-given consciences by using birth control?
quote:That's not my understanding of health savings account. If your understanding is correct, my understanding would fix all the problems in your understanding. People already contribute out of pocket for insurance. Health savings accounts provide catastrophic health insurance. Both employer and employee pay a portion into the savings account. The money sure doesn't disappear if used at the end of the year. One of the selling points for health savings accounts is you get to keep what's left after a certain amount of time.
originally posted by TojoursDan:
Except that women would have to put aside part of their own income into these accounts, instead of having it covered through their premiums thus double dipping into their income; and 2) at the end of the year, if they don't use everything in that account, they lose it. So they are penalized further. It's still discriminatory and puts an extra burden on the freedom of women who choose to use birth control, some specifically for religious reasons.
quote:They aren't different. The Roman Catholic hierarchy pays taxes. The federal government can use tax payer money to provide free contraception for all women. I'm sure I've said that repeatedly.
originally posted by tclune:
This is absolute idiocy. Everyone who was against the Vietnam War had to pay the taxes to support it. Everyone who felt that the US was wrong to go to war with Iraq had to pay the taxes to support it. Everyone who thought the US was wrong to bail out the Wall Street banks had to pay the taxes to support it, etc. What makes the prigs in the RC heirarchy so special?
quote:The money DOES disappear if UNUSED by the end of the year. It's like "use it or lose it" vacation time. One of my friends got very chi-chi prescription sunglasses at the end of last year because it was either that or entirely forfeit the money left in her health savings account.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The money sure doesn't disappear if used at the end of the year.
quote:I don't think you remember the health care debate at all. For a while there, there were enough Democrats in Congress to pass the bill on a party-line vote. But getting even a party line vote was tough, because moderate Democrats (Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, the Stupak Dozen, etc.) knew that they wouldn't win re-election if they voted for the bill as proposed. So he had to engineer compromises with members of his own party (the Cornhusker buy-off, for one)- not Republicans- to get health care passed.
Originally posted by RuthW:
The bishops have already rejected this compromise. It reminds me of the healthcare debate -- Obama kept compromising, the Republicans kept holding out, and in the end he got no Republican votes. I'm so fucking tired of this. Why can't Obama grow a fucking spine and maybe some principles while he's at it?
quote:Does not
originally posted by RuthW:
The money DOES disappear if UNUSED by the end of the year.
quote:BA, Ruth was thinking of the much more common flexible spending accounts. The HSAs are available only with very limited insurance accounts. At our workplace, for example, only one medical plan qualifies for use in an HSA, and it is actively discouraged by the employer by making the premiums of the high-deductable account equal to the premiums on their regular accounts. It's a bad deal (and apparently a real PITA for employers to administer), so no-one in my group uses it. I would not be surprised if the dynamic is pretty similar in most workplaces.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Does not
originally posted by RuthW:
The money DOES disappear if UNUSED by the end of the year.
Just google health savings accounts. The articles all say the same thing. Health Savings Accounts are similar to IRA's and even pushed as supplemental retirement. Who would invest money in an IRA if the money disappeared at the end of the year? How would a disappearing fund supplement retirement?
quote:Ah. Yes, I was. Thanks!
Originally posted by tclune:
BA, Ruth was thinking of the much more common flexible spending accounts.
quote:This is why I'd rather the government kept out. As far as I know, Catholic teaching is not o.k. with contraceptives, but it is o.k. with labor unions. If the church or whoever really wants to run a hospital, then it must offer attractive enough terms to prospective employees that they will come and work there. And when a certain condition is unpopular enough that it discourages qualified applicants, the employer will eventually have to improve its terms, especially if a union applies pressure.
Originally posted by RuthW:
One of the biggest hospitals in the town where I live is Catholic-owned. I suppose if women want their contraceptives covered by their health insurance they can just decide not to apply for jobs there, but even if that were a realistic option, it would leave the hospital so under-staffed it probably couldn't operate.
quote:Who provides minorities money to start their own business? The government? How does this not create the very dependency you condemn?
My solution to the problem is to provide minorities with the money to start their own business, become self reliant, compete against the bigots, and provide opportunities for others within their communities. Your solution is to make the bigot accept money he doesn't want and keep minorities dependent on bigots and the federal government. OK...I'll guess we have to agree to disagree.
quote:That was initially my fault. None of our insurance plans offer HSAs; the only options are FSAs.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:BA, Ruth was thinking of the much more common flexible spending accounts. The HSAs are available only with very limited insurance accounts. At our workplace, for example, only one medical plan qualifies for use in an HSA, and it is actively discouraged by the employer by making the premiums of the high-deductable account equal to the premiums on their regular accounts. It's a bad deal (and apparently a real PITA for employers to administer), so no-one in my group uses it. I would not be surprised if the dynamic is pretty similar in most workplaces.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:Does not
originally posted by RuthW:
The money DOES disappear if UNUSED by the end of the year.
Just google health savings accounts. The articles all say the same thing. Health Savings Accounts are similar to IRA's and even pushed as supplemental retirement. Who would invest money in an IRA if the money disappeared at the end of the year? How would a disappearing fund supplement retirement?
--Tom Clune
quote:Because effective contraception is a life-changer for women, and we're HALF the population. With all due respect to the discussion about minorities' rights, women are not a minority. Just treated like one.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Of all the negotiable options involved in a group health insurance plan, why does the federal government play its trump card around this one? I don't quite get it, all religious questions aside.
quote:Absolutely.
With all due respect to the discussion about minorities' rights, women are not a minority. Just treated like one.
quote:In his column for the New York Times today, Paul Krugman noted that Romney's health-care plan for Massachusetts (which is very similar to Obama's for the country) was based on a proposal from, of all things, the Heritage Foundation.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
That's why I say he is, in effect, a moderate Republican.
quote:Loans get paid back.
originally posted by TojoursDan:
Who provides minorities money to start their own business? The government? How does this not create the very dependency you condemn?
Who insures that there are those who get the seed money are as trained as the established business and can provide equal service? What happens to minority customers if this business provides substandard service and fails? What happens if the business owners no longer want to stay in business? What happens if the bigoted business buys them out?
quote:Yeah. That's why I estimated it costs me $300 a year instead of $600.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Because effective contraception is a life-changer for women, and we're HALF the population.
quote:
I don't know why you have a problem with your health insurance premium money going to prevent pregnancies
quote:But evidently a hell of a lot more expensive than abstinence. So much more, in fact, that people don't want to even think about paying for it themselves, even when they have jobs.
contraceptives are a hell of a lot cheaper than pregnancies
quote:Indeed. Here it is: Heritage Foundation: Laying the Groundwork for Universal Coverage
In his column for the New York Times today, Paul Krugman noted that Romney's health-care plan for Massachusetts (which is very similar to Obama's for the country) was based on a proposal from, of all things, the Heritage Foundation.
quote:Copied almost exactly into the Affordable Healthcare Act.
But as part of that contract, it is also reasonable to expect residents of the society who can do so to contribute an appropriate amount to their own health care. This translates into a requirement on individuals to enroll themselves and their dependents in at least a basic health plan - one that at the minimum should protect the rest of society from large and unexpected medical costs incurred by the family. And as any social contract, there would also be an obligation on society...
The obligations on individuals does not have to be a "hard" mandate, in the sense that failure to obtain coverage would be illegal. It could be a "soft" mandate, meaning that failure to obtain coverage could result in the loss of tax benefits and other government entitlements.
quote:That looks quite similar to the current Australian system.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:Indeed. Here it is: Heritage Foundation: Laying the Groundwork for Universal Coverage
In his column for the New York Times today, Paul Krugman noted that Romney's health-care plan for Massachusetts (which is very similar to Obama's for the country) was based on a proposal from, of all things, the Heritage Foundation.
It even includes the individual mandate:
quote:Copied almost exactly into the Affordable Healthcare Act.
But as part of that contract, it is also reasonable to expect residents of the society who can do so to contribute an appropriate amount to their own health care. This translates into a requirement on individuals to enroll themselves and their dependents in at least a basic health plan - one that at the minimum should protect the rest of society from large and unexpected medical costs incurred by the family. And as any social contract, there would also be an obligation on society...
The obligations on individuals does not have to be a "hard" mandate, in the sense that failure to obtain coverage would be illegal. It could be a "soft" mandate, meaning that failure to obtain coverage could result in the loss of tax benefits and other government entitlements.
quote:Excuse me, this is about contraception here, not abortion. Or do you believe that each little sperm is a human life?
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Not half so disgusting as redefining the conscientious objection to killing other human beings as unlawfully standing in the way of preventative care.
quote:But is it still OK to redefine the conscientious objection to killing other human beings in war as standing in the way of patriotic duty?
Originally posted by Trisagion:
[qb]Not half so disgusting as redefining the conscientious objection to killing other human beings as unlawfully standing in the way of preventative care.
quote:Must. Not. Sing.
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:Excuse me, this is about contraception here, not abortion. Or do you believe that each little sperm is a human life?
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Not half so disgusting as redefining the conscientious objection to killing other human beings as unlawfully standing in the way of preventative care.
quote:Wait, I missed that the first time around.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
No it isn't. It is a lifestyle choice in all but a tiny number of cases. If you want it then pay for it yourself or work for somebody who doesn't think it's morally objectionable
quote:So 72 percent of the women taking the pill either are not using it for contraception, or are using it for some other reason *and* for contraception.
Birth control is the most common reason women use the pill, reported by 86% of current pill users (Figure 1, page 6). However, 14% of pill users—more than 1.5 million women—rely on the method for only noncontraceptive purposes. More than half of pill users, 58%, rely on the method at least in part for purposes other than pregnancy prevention. Thirty-one percent use it for cramps or menstrual pain, 28% for menstrual regulation, 14% for acne, 4% for endometriosis, and 11% for other unspecified reasons.
quote:This was fought out in the drive to integrate public schools and send black children to schools where they were not wanted. Separate but equal accomodation was shown to be not equal, either theoretically or in practice.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm not advocating anything new.
Fine restaurateurs and tailors restrict access to their services based on the ability to pay. Nobody has a right to eat at a fancy restaurant or wear tailor made clothing. I'm white and I wouldn't send my child to a daycare run by a bigot. Would you entrust the care of your child to a person who said, "I don't really want to take your money or care for your child but the federal government makes me?"
What would happen if the bigots business went out of business? What would the white people do? The same government that provides low interest small business loans also offers financial aid to thousands of colleges that can teach the basics of running a business. Besides, you act like their aren't literally millions of enterpreneurs looking for ways to make money who gladly find a way to take the money the bigot refuses to take.
quote:Depends on the job. Some jobs fall under the "ministerial exception" where holding to the tenets of the faith is a job requirement. The name of this exception gives you a general idea of the kinds of jobs this is supposed to cover. At any rate, it seems unreasonable for the Catholic Church to assert that those it employs outside the ministerial exception who, by definition, don't have to adhere to the faith must nonetheless obey Catholic dogma on this point.
Originally posted by Zach82:
It is illegal in the United States for employers to discriminate on the basis of religion. The Roman Catholic Church does not have the right to force its religious beliefs on its employees, and therefore it does not have the the right to force its beliefs on birth control on its employees.
quote:That's true, and the Roman Catholic Church can continue to dictate beliefs on contraception to the people employed by its churches under the new rules. Though they aren't really new rules, but exisiting rules with an arbitrary exception removed.
Depends on the job. Some jobs fall under the "ministerial exception" where holding to the tenets of the faith is a job requirement. The name of this exception gives you a general idea of the kinds of jobs this is supposed to cover. At any rate, it seems unreasonable for the Catholic Church to assert that those it employs outside the ministerial exception who, by definition, don't have to adhere to the faith must nonetheless obey Catholic dogma on this point.
quote:Right, so the Jewish lady who runs the accounting department at the Catholic hospital should be able to get contraception coverage in her health plan regardless of her employer's disapproval, but a nun would still have to pay for her prescription out of pocket.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:That's true, and the Roman Catholic Church can continue to dictate beliefs on contraception to the people employed by its churches under the new rules. Though they aren't really new rules, but exisiting rules with an arbitrary exception removed.
Depends on the job. Some jobs fall under the "ministerial exception" where holding to the tenets of the faith is a job requirement. The name of this exception gives you a general idea of the kinds of jobs this is supposed to cover. At any rate, it seems unreasonable for the Catholic Church to assert that those it employs outside the ministerial exception who, by definition, don't have to adhere to the faith must nonetheless obey Catholic dogma on this point.
quote:No, if your idea of liberty is depriving others of their liberty, suck it up and work for a place that feels like you do and don't expect civilised society to financially support the rest of your organisation. You can then feel good being a "martyr" to your cause.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
No it isn't. It is a lifestyle choice in all but a tiny number of cases. If you want it then pay for it yourself or work for somebody who doesn't think it's morally objectionable
quote:Even that wouldn't be half so disgusting as the Roman Catholic attempt to confuse the issue between abortion and contraception so they can gratuitously accuse their opponents of murder. Contraception is not abortion and does not, contrary to your disingenuous attempt above, lead to abortion. It ensures that a conception never actually takes place.
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Not half so disgusting as redefining the conscientious objection to killing other human beings as unlawfully standing in the way of preventative care.
quote:As a minor derail, would hell also be appropriate?
Originally posted by tclune:
Just a reminder -- abortion and issues related to it are dead horses. If you want to discuss contraception as some kind of weird proactive abortion (pro or con), take it to DH.
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
quote:If this is an honest question, it should be asked in Styx. If it is an attempt to get in one last shot, it is out of line.
Originally posted by Justinian:
As a minor derail, would hell also be appropriate?
quote:It is indeed. It is always appropriate to invite folks to participate in other board discussions.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Is it appropriate to point out that there is already a thread in Dead Horses -- "Contraception is not abortion" -- where the discussion would be welcome?
quote:Hostly Hat ON
Originally posted by ken:
As for the other thing - well, if anyone says they are against abortion and then goes on to also want to deny contraception to the poorest - there really isn't anything to call them other than a hypocrite.
quote:You know that guy at the party who tells the same joke over and over again? At some point, you just ignore him. While I am sure that they aren't happy about the Santorum neologism, I suspect they spend very little time asking "will this photo give the liberal blogosphere another chance to re-hash that old joke?"
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And this is what happens when your PR guy takes a smoke break. Is there any benefit for posing for a photo whose two keywords will almost certainly be 'Google' and 'Santorum', the one thing the Santorum campaign doesn't want potential supporters doing?
quote:If only that would happen! Yet Santorum still gets press coverage no matter how absurd or clownish his behavior is.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:You know that guy at the party who tells the same joke over and over again? At some point, you just ignore him.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And this is what happens when your PR guy takes a smoke break. Is there any benefit for posing for a photo whose two keywords will almost certainly be 'Google' and 'Santorum', the one thing the Santorum campaign doesn't want potential supporters doing?
quote:It should be noted that the Republican nominee in 1968 obsessively counted the number of Jews working for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, so I'm not sure the "discredit the looneys" theory really works that well.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
It is high risk, but it might be the only way to return the GOP to sanity. Every time they lose an election, the radical base complains that it's because the candidate they nominated wasn't conservative enough. If an impeccably conservative candidate goes down in flames, it might discredit the looneys enough to make the GOP safe for moderates again. It worked in 1964, for a while anyway.
quote:After opening the discussion in the Styx, I think the correct place for what I want to say is in hell.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:If this is an honest question, it should be asked in Styx. If it is an attempt to get in one last shot, it is out of line.
Originally posted by Justinian:
As a minor derail, would hell also be appropriate?
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
quote:I don't see how Santorum could beat Obama, and I don't see why war with Iran would up his chances. First, while US fundaloonies may be loud, they are not really all that numerous. Second, when shootin' matches begin (and I hope to the skies that can be avoided) I suspect the electorate usually goes with the devil they know rather than electing the devil they've just been introduced to.
Originally posted by malik3000:
But as scary as it is to contemplate, i think Santorum has now a real shot at the nomination. He hasn't gotten much money compared to others up to now, but that could change if some gazillionaires decide he can win the nomination.
As i see it there is so much criticism of Romney due to his flip-flopping and past moderate history that i think it's becoming increasingly hard for him to get a majority of the GOP behind him at the convention. And while Newt has bonafide right-wing credentials, his loose-cannon persona trouble many in the GOP establishment. (It's been noted within the GOP how few, if any, members of Congress who served when he was Speaker are supporting him.)
And many or most of the religious wing don't like Romney because he's a Mormon and don't like Gingrich because of his marital record.
And Paul isn't not going to get it under any circumstances.
That leaves Santorum -- politically right-wing down the line and right-wing conservative religiously. So what if he's zany? Just about the whole GOP is zany.
Can he beat Obama? If things keep going as they are at present, probably not. But if we get into a war with Iran, a horrible prospect, God knows what will happen.
quote:First off, while it's fairly clear that there's a lot of organized terrorism aimed at the Iranian nuclear program, it's not "clear" that the Israelis are the ones behind it. They're just the most likely candidate.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
The Iran thing is likely more problematic. The Israelis are clearly already engaging in targeted assassinations in the country. The current administration has shown a few different things:
- It's shown that the reward for giving up your WMD is for us to turn on you and support a popular revolt to oust you (and in the case of Gaddhafi getting sodomized and executed). Clearly that should tell the Iranians (and the North Koreans) don't give up your nukes.
quote:Remember the big red plastic reset button that Hillary took to the Russians. She had misspelled the word "reset." Funny.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
It can't reset relations with the Russians
quote:Dick Morris is just wrong on this one. Most Americans oppose the Republican position that abortion should be a felony in all fifty states. On the other hand, a more sane/less conspiracy mongering explanation for Stephanopolous' contraception questions is the fact that Republican candidate Rick Santorum started explicitly campaigning on the importance of contraception as an issue in the presidential race.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Dick Morris has an interesting theory. The Democrats have lost on the abortion issue, most Americans don't care for it anymore, so they're trying to scare Americans into thinking Republicans want to outlaw contraception. That would explain Stephanopolous' contraception questions a few debates ago.
quote:In Russian. But considering how much mastery of a foreign language is appreciated by Republicans (Huntsman's Chinese, Kerry's French, do I have to go on?) makes "funny" even funnier. OliviaG
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Remember the big red plastic reset button that Hillary took to the Russians. She had misspelled the word "reset." Funny. ...
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
It can't reset relations with the Russians
quote:She misspelled the word (in Russian) or the manufacturer? Would you know the difference?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Remember the big red plastic reset button that Hillary took to the Russians. She had misspelled the word "reset." Funny.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
It can't reset relations with the Russians
quote:If Obama lets the US get into a war with Iran, he damn well deserves to lose.
Originally posted by malik3000:
Can he beat Obama? If things keep going as they are at present, probably not. But if we get into a war with Iran, a horrible prospect, God knows what will happen.
quote:Yet only only 26% think it should be legal under any circumstances
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Dick Morris is just wrong on this one. Most Americans oppose the Republican position that abortion should be a felony in all fifty states.
quote:is that Stephanopolous is a partisan hack.
On the other hand, a more sane explanation for Stephanopolous' contraception questions
quote:Obama doesn't think abortion should be available under any circumstances either. He voted to restrict late term abortions as Senator.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Yet only only 26% think it should be legal under any circumstances
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Dick Morris is just wrong on this one. Most Americans oppose the Republican position that abortion should be a felony in all fifty states.
The people are not with Obama on this as much as his teleprompter assumes we are.
quote:is that Stephanopolous is a partisan hack.
On the other hand, a more sane explanation for Stephanopolous' contraception questions
quote:I've read reports of gasoline maybe going to $5 this summer, certainly well over $4. Certainly not good for a struggling economy. It will be very easy to quote Obama and point to certain decisions he has made and blame him for the high price and to compare it to the less than $2 gallon price when he was sworn in.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:If Obama lets the US get into a war with Iran, he damn well deserves to lose.
Originally posted by malik3000:
Can he beat Obama? If things keep going as they are at present, probably not. But if we get into a war with Iran, a horrible prospect, God knows what will happen.
quote:Except that the lower price when he was sworn in was due to less demand, caused by the Financial Crisis of 2008. The higher price now (and this summer) will be caused by increased world demand due to the recovery.
It will be very easy to quote Obama and point to certain decisions he has made and blame him for the high price and to compare it to the less than $2 gallon price when he was sworn in.
quote:And conversely, Republicans are hardly the pro-life party they like to posture themselves to be. They have got the rhetoric down great, and like to make lofty promises, but in 40 years of pro-life saber rattling they delivered up precisely nothing, even when they controlled both houses and the presidency. They didn't even attempt anything. Meaningful restrictions on late-term abortions had to come from a (*gasp!*) adulterous liberal Democrat. Thoughtful meaningful restrictions like the Daschle amendment were opposed because they came from the "wrong" side of the aisle.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
[qb] Obama doesn't think abortion should be available under any circumstances either. He voted to restrict late term abortions as Senator.
quote:If we are actually having a recovery the rise in gasoline prices will certainly not help it and Obama will get the blame.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:Except that the lower price when he was sworn in was due to less demand, caused by the Financial Crisis of 2008. The higher price now (and this summer) will be caused by increased world demand due to the recovery.
It will be very easy to quote Obama and point to certain decisions he has made and blame him for the high price and to compare it to the less than $2 gallon price when he was sworn in.
Going to war with Iran will make the price spike, as it did when we kicked off wars with Iraq.
Even a sitting U.S. President has very little control over the price of oil.
quote:I'd expect to hear both in the same breath since they are both concerning the economy.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Meh....he'll get blamed far more for a continuing recession then he will for higher gas prices.
quote:Barry will have very little choice when/if Israel decides to make a move.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:If Obama lets the US get into a war with Iran, he damn well deserves to lose.
Originally posted by malik3000:
Can he beat Obama? If things keep going as they are at present, probably not. But if we get into a war with Iran, a horrible prospect, God knows what will happen.
quote:And whoever replaces him under those circumstances sure as hell won't deserve to win if he was one of those (e.g. Santorum as just one example) who are now loudly pushing for war with Iran if it doesn't do what Israel/the U.S. wants.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:If Obama lets the US get into a war with Iran, he damn well deserves to lose.
Originally posted by malik3000:
Can he beat Obama? If things keep going as they are at present, probably not. But if we get into a war with Iran, a horrible prospect, God knows what will happen.
quote:Absolutely. His chances would skyrocket up all the way to those of a snowball in Hell...
Originally posted by malik3000:
Here's an interesting conjecture. If the U.S. were to get involved in Iran, would this improve Ron Paul's chances?
quote:My reading of Orwell's 1984-- I don't know whether it's the standard one-- is that there's no world war going on at all, there's just the powers-that-be keeping everyone else convinced that they are in a life-or-death struggle for survival. This ruse keeps the populace forever riled up, slaving away desperately, and enduring subsistence conditions in return for all their toil.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Republicans are hardly the pro-life party they like to posture themselves to be. They have got the rhetoric down great, and like to make lofty promises, but in 40 years of pro-life saber rattling they delivered up precisely nothing, even when they controlled both houses and the presidency.
quote:Any pro rasslin' promoter would probably tell you that nothing sells tickets like a feud.
Originally posted by Alogon:
This ruse keeps the populace forever riled up
quote:Or you could just be discovering things like public transport and bicycles.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I recently skimmed this blog and it appears we are either looking at another economic downturn or we are rapidly turning Amish.
quote:And scantily clad women
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Any pro rasslin' promoter would probably tell you that nothing sells tickets like a feud.
Originally posted by Alogon:
This ruse keeps the populace forever riled up
quote:One blog that I often read is The Oil Drum which is staffed by a team of economists, geologists and petroleum engineers. They have a similar interest in energy trends, particularly peak oil, and tend to host very technical but informative posts and forums.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I recently skimmed this blog and it appears we are either looking at another economic downturn or we are rapidly turning Amish.
quote:Didn't Bush get the so-called "partial birth abortions" banned?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Republicans are hardly the pro-life party they like to posture themselves to be. They have got the rhetoric down great, and like to make lofty promises, but in 40 years of pro-life saber rattling they delivered up precisely nothing, even when they controlled both houses and the presidency.
quote:It's them.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
First off, while it's fairly clear that there's a lot of organized terrorism aimed at the Iranian nuclear program, it's not "clear" that the Israelis are the ones behind it. They're just the most likely candidate.
quote:The lesson is clear, as was the lesson from Obama's undeclared war on Libya. Give up your nukes, play nice and join the international community, and we'll support an uprising to overthrow you. Ironically Libya now is apparently more dangerous a year on than it was before.
At any rate, your description of the current administration's diplomatic bind over Iran is fairly consistent with the message of the previous administration, which was that adversarial nations without WMDs get invaded and occupied while nations that have successfully pursued a WMD program get subjected to multilateral summit meetings. If you were the Iranian government, wouldn't the fate of the other two 'Axis of Evil' charter members provide a fairly obvious object lesson as to which path is the least unpleasant?
quote:I remember seeing in 2010 a graph that showed fossil fuels, particularly oil, peaking in that year and declining. But since then we have new oil fields found in the deep sea, new drilling technology and the advent of new gas drilling technology. How far back has that postponed the decline?
originally posted by ToujoursDan
A president can't do much about oil depletion. This is a finite planet and 7 billion people are burning through its resources much faster than we think.
quote:Those wouldn't even begin to explain the recent drop.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Or you could just be discovering things like public transport and bicycles.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I recently skimmed this blog and it appears we are either looking at another economic downturn or we are rapidly turning Amish.
Or hell, some of you might just be discovering smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.
quote:Thisconservatively estimates US oil shale reserves at 2 trillion barrels. Even if you go with just the 700 billion barrels in concentrations richer than the Alberta tar sands, you're still talking well over 100 years worth. All this is plus all the other things that are being worked on.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The GOP's talk of oil independence is a bit laughable: the U.S. has a total 21 billion barrels of oil both on- and offshore, which sounds like a lot until one notes that the American economy uses 17 million barrels of oil every day. (In other words, even if every drop of crude oil on U.S. soil could be extracted, it would power the U.S. economy for less than 4 years.) Adding oil sands and shale oil would give the U.S. energy independence for about 18 years.
quote:He does choose the oddest things to go on and on about.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Unfortunately, right now there is silence from Obama
quote:Of course they'd begin to. Don't overreach. If you'd said they don't explain the whole drop then fine.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Those wouldn't even begin to explain the recent drop.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Or you could just be discovering things like public transport and bicycles.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I recently skimmed this blog and it appears we are either looking at another economic downturn or we are rapidly turning Amish.
Or hell, some of you might just be discovering smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.
quote:Ok. They explain a very small portion of the drop.
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you'd said they don't explain the whole drop then fine.
quote:He wasn't first to the table. Clinton was. Clinton put thru a reasonable, well-written partial-birth abortion ban, with appropriate exceptions for the life of the mother. Bush allowed the Clinton ban to expire, put forward a fatally flawed ban that removed the exemption, causing it to get mussed up in the court for some time.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Didn't Bush get the so-called "partial birth abortions" banned?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Republicans are hardly the pro-life party they like to posture themselves to be. They have got the rhetoric down great, and like to make lofty promises, but in 40 years of pro-life saber rattling they delivered up precisely nothing, even when they controlled both houses and the presidency.
quote:I doubt if Bush was smart enough to think up a strategy like that... I smell a Cheney!
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Presumably Bush wanted to keep the issue alive, force Dems onto the anti-abortion ban side (by removing an important exception) and be able to claim the "Bush partial birth abortion ban" as opposed to the "Clinton partial birth abortion ban".
quote:It should be noted that the "partial birth abortion ban" didn't actually prevent any abortions. It just forced women needing late-term abortions (medically-necessary abortions, almost by definition) to use other, often less safe, abortion methods. In other words, I'm not sure 'replacing one kind of abortion with a different kind of abortion' counts as advancing the anti-abortion agenda.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Didn't Bush get the so-called "partial birth abortions" banned?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Republicans are hardly the pro-life party they like to posture themselves to be. They have got the rhetoric down great, and like to make lofty promises, but in 40 years of pro-life saber rattling they delivered up precisely nothing, even when they controlled both houses and the presidency.
quote:It takes a lot of oil to dig shale out of the ground and process it, which means you're burning a fairly high percentage of the product to it get to market. (This ratio is called Energy Return on Energy Invested.) So estimates have to take that into account.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Thisconservatively estimates US oil shale reserves at 2 trillion barrels. Even if you go with just the 700 billion barrels in concentrations richer than the Alberta tar sands, you're still talking well over 100 years worth. All this is plus all the other things that are being worked on.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The GOP's talk of oil independence is a bit laughable: the U.S. has a total 21 billion barrels of oil both on- and offshore, which sounds like a lot until one notes that the American economy uses 17 million barrels of oil every day. (In other words, even if every drop of crude oil on U.S. soil could be extracted, it would power the U.S. economy for less than 4 years.) Adding oil sands and shale oil would give the U.S. energy independence for about 18 years.
quote:It's hard to say. Peak Oil can only be seen in hindsight and we don't have reliable data. Arab States don't allow outside auditors to account for their proven reserves as much of their political clout comes from oil, so we're just left with guesswork.
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
quote:I remember seeing in 2010 a graph that showed fossil fuels, particularly oil, peaking in that year and declining. But since then we have new oil fields found in the deep sea, new drilling technology and the advent of new gas drilling technology. How far back has that postponed the decline?
originally posted by ToujoursDan
A president can't do much about oil depletion. This is a finite planet and 7 billion people are burning through its resources much faster than we think.
quote:Oil shale, mainly in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah is different than the Bakken of North Dakota. I think I'll ask my nephew how the shale is going since he's in the oil industry and has overseen some oil shale research.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:It takes a lot of oil to dig shale out of the ground and process it, which means you're burning a fairly high percentage of the product to it get to market. (This ratio is called Energy Return on Energy Invested.) So estimates have to take that into account.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Thisconservatively estimates US oil shale reserves at 2 trillion barrels. Even if you go with just the 700 billion barrels in concentrations richer than the Alberta tar sands, you're still talking well over 100 years worth. All this is plus all the other things that are being worked on.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The GOP's talk of oil independence is a bit laughable: the U.S. has a total 21 billion barrels of oil both on- and offshore, which sounds like a lot until one notes that the American economy uses 17 million barrels of oil every day. (In other words, even if every drop of crude oil on U.S. soil could be extracted, it would power the U.S. economy for less than 4 years.) Adding oil sands and shale oil would give the U.S. energy independence for about 18 years.
At the current time, like the Alberta Oil Sands, recovering it is a dirty, carbon producing process that ultimately destroys the landscape and groundwater. And it takes a lot of water, which is scarce in western North Dakota.
Most of the economists who have discussed Shale say that it may be economically viable to recover in large scale when the price of oil rises to $150-200/barrel, but below that cost, it is only going to pay a small part in the energy matrix, not enough to make us energy independent with the kind of economy we have now.
Discussion of it, though, is at such a fever pitch that snopes.com has a section on it.
Snopes.com: Bakken Formation
quote:Who said it wasn't worthwhile?
Oil shale, mainly in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah is different than the Bakken of North Dakota. I think I'll ask my nephew how the shale is going since he's in the oil industry and has overseen some oil shale research.
You said "it is only going to pay a small part in the energy matrix, not enough to make us energy independent with the kind of economy we have now."
Even if true, so what? One can say the same thing about wind, solar, wave, and any other fuel source but that's not stopping people from finding it worthwhile to pursue them.
quote:It appears the GOP is playing social issues redux with abortion, gay marriage and contraceptives and trying to ignite yet another culture war similar to what got W. elected rather than focus on issues like energy or health care or any number of other issues the general public is really interested in.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Anyway, didn't mean to hijack this thread to discuss peak oil. My point is that I think energy policy and conservation should be a topic.
quote:No. Rather, it appears that the main stream media is trying to damage the GOP by bringing these issues up. The GOP candidates are doing their best to talk about jobs, energy, saving the social safety net.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
It appears the GOP is playing social issues redux with abortion, gay marriage and contraceptives and trying to ignite yet another culture war similar to what got W. elected rather than focus on issues like energy or health care or any number of other issues the general public is really interested in.
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
The GOP candidates are doing their best to talk about jobs, energy, saving the social safety net.
quote:More or less. I don't think they've spent that much time talking about social issues. George Stephanopoulos brought the contraception issue into the Republican campaign even before Obama made the decision about Roman Catholic institutions covering birth control. Doesn't matter what they are talking about really if the media is only interested in reporting on the horse race.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:No. Rather, it appears that the main stream media is trying to damage the GOP by bringing these issues up. The GOP candidates are doing their best to talk about jobs, energy, saving the social safety net.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
It appears the GOP is playing social issues redux with abortion, gay marriage and contraceptives and trying to ignite yet another culture war similar to what got W. elected rather than focus on issues like energy or health care or any number of other issues the general public is really interested in.
quote:I would agree they're talking about those things. And, contrary to your contention, the mainstream media is doing a good job of letting them do precisely that-- and thereby hang themselves by their own inadequate & whacky schemes (remember 9-9-9?), radical extremism (Paul) or absolute apathy to the struggles of Americans ( Romney and Gingrich )
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:No. Rather, it appears that the main stream media is trying to damage the GOP by bringing these issues up. The GOP candidates are doing their best to talk about jobs, energy, saving the social safety net.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
It appears the GOP is playing social issues redux with abortion, gay marriage and contraceptives and trying to ignite yet another culture war similar to what got W. elected rather than focus on issues like energy or health care or any number of other issues the general public is really interested in.
quote:On that we can agree. But I think people get the media, like the government, they deserve. As long as they make more money reporting the horse race than what candidates truly believe about the issues, we can't blame them for reporting the horse race.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Doesn't matter what they are talking about really if the media is only interested in reporting on the horse race.
quote:We may be heading for another downturn, but the plot at the top of that blog is no reason to think so.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I recently skimmed this blog and it appears we are either looking at another economic downturn or we are rapidly turning Amish.
quote:Gingrich and Santorum were talking up the unemployed and middle class in North Carolina and Florida as a way to bash hedge fund Billionaire Romney. In Michigan there's this awkwardness where Romney has previously bashed the auto bailout which has saved a lot of jobs in Michigan. As Santorum has gained attention the topics are shifting to is he an insider and issues that appeal to evangelicals
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
The GOP candidates are doing their best to talk about jobs, energy, saving the social safety net.
quote:You do, of course, have evidence to back up this assertion, right? A link would be nice.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
The administration knew it was coming out with the contraception ruling and that it would cause an uproar so they asked Stephanopholous to ask Romney the contraception question as part of Obama's campaign strategy to damage the GOP.
quote:Actually, I've spent too much time listening to the speeches of Santorum and Gingrich. The evangelical wing of the GOP is driving the social issues which the media is having a field day with. Ron Paul is the one talking about issues, but he's a little too out there for my tastes.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:No. Rather, it appears that the main stream media is trying to damage the GOP by bringing these issues up. The GOP candidates are doing their best to talk about jobs, energy, saving the social safety net.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
It appears the GOP is playing social issues redux with abortion, gay marriage and contraceptives and trying to ignite yet another culture war similar to what got W. elected rather than focus on issues like energy or health care or any number of other issues the general public is really interested in.
quote:Speaking of which, it seems Rick Santorum just flat-out accused American Protestants of being minions of Satan. You can always count on ex-Senator Frothy Mix to bring the crazy in his own understated, sweater-vested way. My favorite part was when he started going on about "a Protestant Judeo-Christian ethic", confirming what we already knew about the cynical meaninglessness of the "Judeo-" prefix.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:Actually, I've spent too much time listening to the speeches of Santorum and Gingrich. The evangelical wing of the GOP is driving the social issues which the media is having a field day with. Ron Paul is the one talking about issues, but he's a little too out there for my tastes.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:No. Rather, it appears that the main stream media is trying to damage the GOP by bringing these issues up. The GOP candidates are doing their best to talk about jobs, energy, saving the social safety net.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
It appears the GOP is playing social issues redux with abortion, gay marriage and contraceptives and trying to ignite yet another culture war similar to what got W. elected rather than focus on issues like energy or health care or any number of other issues the general public is really interested in.
quote:He has also slammed public schools as being an anachronism, although he hasn't said what should replace them.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Speaking of which, it seems Rick Santorum just flat-out accused American Protestants of being minions of Satan.
quote:It's a nifty way to nip that pesky upward mobility in it's tracks, though, which appears to be the prime GOP motive these days. Since every child will be entirely dependent on his/her parents for their education, no child will be able to exceed them. Ivy league parents will be able to educate and raise ivy league kids; high-school drop out parents will raise high school drop outs.
Originally posted by Josephine:
I believe he's said that parents should educate their children. Which is all well and good when you have a married couple where one of them has the ability to teach a full range of subjects at all levels, and the other makes enough money for the one to stay home full-time and buy all the necessary books and curricular materials and the like, and where none of the children require support services such as occupational therapy and speech therapy that the parents can't afford to provide privately and rely on the schools to provide.
I know couples like that. But I suspect that such couples represent a minority of families in this country.
quote:But this is where I hit a
Originally posted by Josephine:
I believe he's said that parents should educate their children. Which is all well and good when you have a married couple where one of them has the ability to teach a full range of subjects at all levels, and the other makes enough money for the one to stay home full-time and buy all the necessary books and curricular materials and the like, and where none of the children require support services such as occupational therapy and speech therapy that the parents can't afford to provide privately and rely on the schools to provide.
I know couples like that. But I suspect that such couples represent a minority of families in this country.
.quote:I live to serve and will gladly point out what you are missing.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
But this is where I hit a
quote:'True' conservatives know that a husband worth his salt will do whatever it takes to provide for the family financially, typically making huge self-sacrifices (such as working in a profession 'beneath' them) to make it happen, EVEN if confiscatory government taxes make it that much more difficult.
On the one hand, conservatives envisage traditional families where the husband works and provides for the family and the wife stays home, maintains the house, provides child care and even home schooling. But then they promote economic policies that make it impossible for people to actually do that.
quote:No. It doesn't. The households that must have two income earner to support a family already earn less than what is needed to provide for a family.
Originally posted by 205:
quote:I live to serve and will gladly point out what you are missing.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
But this is where I hit a
quote:'True' conservatives know that a husband worth his salt will do whatever it takes to provide for the family financially, typically making huge self-sacrifices (such as working in a profession 'beneath' them) to make it happen, EVEN if confiscatory government taxes make it that much more difficult.
On the one hand, conservatives envisage traditional families where the husband works and provides for the family and the wife stays home, maintains the house, provides child care and even home schooling. But then they promote economic policies that make it impossible for people to actually do that.
Does that help?
quote:This is probably another reason why, as Cliffdweller points out, the sex culture wars have been a stalemate for a generation, even when the Republicans have the power.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
On the one hand, conservatives envisage traditional families where the husband works and provides for the family and the wife stays home, maintains the house, provides child care and even home schooling. But then they promote economic policies that make it impossible for people to actually do that.
quote:Even if Santorum isn't part of Quiverfull, he's in full support of the Quiverfull ideals -- eliminate contraception so moms will be pregnant and vulnerable nearly all the time, kill the public school so moms will have to homeschool, persuade people that the idea that women should have the same opportunities as men in the workforce is something that's pushed by "radical feminists."
[D]enying women education and income and putting them in a near-perpetual state of physical vulnerability makes them totally dependent on men. Which is the point: As Libby Anne, a woman raised in the Christian Patriarchy Movement, put it, “a woman is always under male authority, first her father, then her husband, and perhaps, someday, her son.” And if she wants out, she can’t get out, because she’s been systematically denied the economic and social power necessary to escape. Anne got free because her parents took the fairly heretical step of allowing her to attend college.
Page argues that this vision, dystopian and unlikely as it sounds, is essential to understanding anti-choice conservatism. She lists the seemingly paradoxical stances of the anti-choice movement: They’re against abortion, but also against contraception that reduces the likelihood of abortion, but also against child care for working parents.
“None of what they do makes sense,” she says, unless you understand the vision of a forced return to Quiverfull-style family structures.
quote:Indeed. And the fact that there are 4 unemployed workers for each job opening is a plot by the illuminati.
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
Those unemployment stats, you know, are inflated due to so many people simply refusing to work at all . . .
quote:Amen sister. (Just wanted to say that)
Women need to pay attention -- our mothers and grandmothers fought to get us the right to vote. We need to use that right to protect every single other right we have.
quote:This is where I think young women-- and men, and old women and men-- need to rise up as well. There is no reason why education and child development need to be left to dysfunctional arrangements. They have done so because we have allowed it. We need to demand better solutions. And the quiverful movement ain't it.
Originally posted by Alogon:
But if the second option leads inevitably to the consignment of education and acculturation of the young to dysfunctional arrangements, the plot thickens considerably, doesn't it. I don't know the answer. We will probably know better in another hundred years, depending on whether Islam has overrun Europe or not.
quote:Any husband or wife worth their salt will do anything in their power to provide for their families. That's been the agony of this recession. My husband filled out over 300 resumes last year-- everything from those "at his level" (PhD) to those that are I suppose "beneath" him (entry level retail, barrista, custodial). But seems Starbucks, Mickey D's and the like are interested in hiring PhD salesclerks.
Originally posted by 205:
'True' conservatives know that a husband worth his salt will do whatever it takes to provide for the family financially, typically making huge self-sacrifices (such as working in a profession 'beneath' them) to make it happen, EVEN if confiscatory government taxes make it that much more difficult.
quote:Historical puritanism with a scoop of hypocrisy on the side. Remember the hoo-haw over Janet Jackwon's nipple? Hands up, who's still in therapy?
Originally posted by Josephine:
How is it that in a country where 99 percent of women have used birth control we are fighting over whether people should be able to get birth control? ...
quote:It helps. Indeed it helps a lot.
Originally posted by 205:
quote:I live to serve and will gladly point out what you are missing.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
But this is where I hit a
quote:'True' conservatives know that a husband worth his salt will do whatever it takes to provide for the family financially, typically making huge self-sacrifices (such as working in a profession 'beneath' them) to make it happen, EVEN if confiscatory government taxes make it that much more difficult.
On the one hand, conservatives envisage traditional families where the husband works and provides for the family and the wife stays home, maintains the house, provides child care and even home schooling. But then they promote economic policies that make it impossible for people to actually do that.
Does that help?
quote:The whole concept is an artifact of the class warfare the rich wage on the workers.
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Are taxes in the U.S. "confiscatory"?
quote:The whole notion that providing for a family means simply 'providing money' as the one and only priority is a notion that I hope dies out in a generation or two.
Originally posted by 205:
'True' conservatives know that a husband worth his salt will do whatever it takes to provide for the family financially, typically making huge self-sacrifices (such as working in a profession 'beneath' them) to make it happen, EVEN if confiscatory government taxes make it that much more difficult.
Does that help?
quote:Neither party is addressing reality.
The fact that 205 can pratter on and on about men just needing to "take jobs beneath them" as if the real problem were that there was some backlog of undesirable jobs sitting wanting somewhere just shows how very out of touch the GOP is with the current reality. Not that they care much.
quote:spot on.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:The whole notion that providing for a family means simply 'providing money' as the one and only priority is a notion that I hope dies out in a generation or two.
Originally posted by 205:
'True' conservatives know that a husband worth his salt will do whatever it takes to provide for the family financially, typically making huge self-sacrifices (such as working in a profession 'beneath' them) to make it happen, EVEN if confiscatory government taxes make it that much more difficult.
Does that help?
quote:I never heard it being discussed unless I turned on the television.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Remember the hoo-haw over Janet Jackson's nipple?
quote:Does this mean that if I want some condoms, my health insurance will pay for it?
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
And for the second time, the contraception ruling came out in 2000, not 2012.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that denying coverage of contraception was illegal as it discriminated on the basis of gender.
quote:If your health insurance covers non-prescription medical devices (which is the category I think they would belong in), I would think so. But I don't know of any health insurance plans that cover OTC stuff.
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:Does this mean that if I want some condoms, my health insurance will pay for it?
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
And for the second time, the contraception ruling came out in 2000, not 2012.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that denying coverage of contraception was illegal as it discriminated on the basis of gender.
quote:It's not discriminatory if it won't, because it doesn't cover the purchase of condoms when women are buying them either.
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:Does this mean that if I want some condoms, my health insurance will pay for it?
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
And for the second time, the contraception ruling came out in 2000, not 2012.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that denying coverage of contraception was illegal as it discriminated on the basis of gender.
quote:He's not for active duty military members. He leads all candidates (including the current president) in contributions from active duty military personnel.
Ron Paul is the one talking about issues, but he's a little too out there for my tastes.
quote:Really? That's interesting because he is by far the most isolationist. Interesting.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:He's not for active duty military members. He leads all candidates (including the current president) in contributions from active duty military personnel.
Ron Paul is the one talking about issues, but he's a little too out there for my tastes.
quote:It will be interesting to see how the fundraising breaks down when both parties start actively fundraising and campaigning (though, if polling is to be believed Paul's star will have faded by then, as it did in 2008.)
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Really? That's interesting because he is by far the most isolationist. Interesting.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:He's not for active duty military members. He leads all candidates (including the current president) in contributions from active duty military personnel.
Ron Paul is the one talking about issues, but he's a little too out there for my tastes.
quote:But perhaps not surprising - it's quite understandable that active military personnel would prefer not to have wars unless absolutely necessary...
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Really? That's interesting because he is by far the most isolationist. Interesting.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:He's not for active duty military members. He leads all candidates (including the current president) in contributions from active duty military personnel.
Ron Paul is the one talking about issues, but he's a little too out there for my tastes.
quote:It is indeed, but historically that hasn't been the case. Or at least they (military) have not been portrayed that way by the GOP, where "supporting our military" seems to mean, perversely, "fighting any war at any cost". If indeed military personnel in general favor a more isolationist candidate that would pose a huge challenge to one of the GOPs main talking points, which would indeed be a Very Good Thing-- especially for military.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:But perhaps not surprising - it's quite understandable that active military personnel would prefer not to have wars unless absolutely necessary...
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Really? That's interesting because he is by far the most isolationist. Interesting.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:He's not for active duty military members. He leads all candidates (including the current president) in contributions from active duty military personnel.
Ron Paul is the one talking about issues, but he's a little too out there for my tastes.
quote:Seems to me that lots of military personnel would lose their jobs as there would be a huge draw-down in numbers. There would be follow-on economic effects from that, too, depending on how fast it happened, as all those folks would be looking for civilian employment.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The losers wouldn't be the military itself, but the defence contractors, subcontractors and the secondary and tertiary businesses that rely on them.
quote:I remember reading an article which about the inaugaration of a new federal project which included not only the President, but the Republican congressman who had voted against it but who was there to claim credit for helping their district.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
It's quite entertaining to watch Republicans go all Keyneseian and start arguing for government spending as job creation when the jobs in question are with a defense contractor in their district.
quote:Seems to me that can only be a good thing...
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Well, to add to the election craziness in my state, apparently all voter registrations have expired, and new lists have not been created.
So no one is registered to vote in the whole state of Texas!
quote:There was an interesting interview with one of the organizers of the Tea Party movement (remember them?) last summer. He suggested that the way to get the economy moving and create jobs was to build a half a dozen or so aircraft carriers. For some reason the military is magic. Apparently using steel for aircraft carriers stimulates the economy but as soon as it's made into bridges (or whatever) it become "big government deficit spending".
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
It's quite entertaining to watch Republicans go all Keyneseian and start arguing for government spending as job creation when the jobs in question are with a defense contractor in their district.
quote:John Stewart, Steven Colbert and the New Yorker have been doing a lot of heavy lifting in this reqard. The mainstream media have made themselves irrelevant.
Originally posted by malik3000:
To add to what Alogon hand, a big criticism of the US news media (and I am not even including Fox which is not really news) is that they continue to treat so many of these GOP candidates' ideas and proposals as subjects for legitimate debate and they are outlashly incorrect and often deliberate falsehoods, instead of being real investigative news media and documenting their unfactualness / deliberate mendacity. This includes such mainstream media as the New York Times.
The only US news folks doing their job in this regard are folks like Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow and Cenk Uyger ("The Young Turks" on Current TV)
quote:Would that we could.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Don't forget Paul Krugman.
quote:Unlike most of the idiots out their flapping their jaws about economics, he actually has the chops. You just don't like what he says, because reality slants left. Trickle-down economics is morally and financially bankrupt. He's just not afraid to say so. No wonder the right hates him so much. Here's someone in the corporate media they don't have under their thumb. Poor bitches.
Originally posted by 205:
Does he appear as a smug (and I oughta know!) partisan hack to anyone else?
quote:You keep using that word...
Originally posted by mousethief:
reality
)
quote:I used to worry about this but think this will resolve itself over time. 40 years of right-wing talk radio (Rush, Sean, Billo, etc) and Fox News have successfully turned the GOP into the "angry white guys" party that seems more bent on establishing more and more severe right-wing purity credentials than the intend to handle the give and take of democracy. Pew Surveys find that average age of a Fox News viewer is 65 and a Rush Limbaugh listener is 67 and 80% of them are white males. These are the people the GOP seems to be speaking to almost exclusively nowadays.
Originally posted by malik3000:
To add to what Alogon hand, a big criticism of the US news media (and I am not even including Fox which is not really news) is that they continue to treat so many of these GOP candidates' ideas and proposals as subjects for legitimate debate and they are outlashly incorrect and often deliberate falsehoods, instead of being real investigative news media and documenting their unfactualness / deliberate mendacity. This includes such mainstream media as the New York Times.
The only US news folks doing their job in this regard are folks like Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow and Cenk Uyger ("The Young Turks" on Current TV)
quote:Krugman's evolution has been interesting. He started out just writing about technical economic issues from an academic perspective. Gradually he got fed up with people who ought to know better (including professional economists) denying reality in the service of partisan agendas, and eventually he stared calling them out. What's made people mad is that he's called people liars because they said things in public that were demonstrably false, and that they had every reason to believe were false (as he's said, you can't be a conservative in America these days without at least pretending to believe things that are demonstrably false). And, as far as predictions go, he's been right more often than he's been wrong (and he has admitted it when he's been wrong).
Originally posted by 205:
quote:Would that we could.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Don't forget Paul Krugman.
Does he appear as a smug (and I oughta know!) partisan hack to anyone else?
And yes I am envious someone that conceited could get such financially rewarding attention - where did I fail?
quote:Surprise! Surprise! Surprise! As Gomer would say. I agree totally with your statement with one clarification: substitute Democratic Party for GOP. Why? Because the news media investigates the hell out of the GOP (how many reporters moved to Wasilla?) but never investigates the Dems. The news media is a major and integral part of the modern CREEPO (Committee to re-elect President Obama).
Originally posted by malik3000:
To add to what Alogon hand, a big criticism of the US news media (and I am not even including Fox which is not really news) is that they continue to treat so many of these GOP candidates' ideas and proposals as subjects for legitimate debate and they are outlashly incorrect and often deliberate falsehoods, instead of being real investigative news media and documenting their unfactualness / deliberate mendacity. This includes such mainstream media as the New York Times.
The only US news folks doing their job in this regard are folks like Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow and Cenk Uyger ("The Young Turks" on Current TV)
quote:I fear I remember the interview and I concluded that they were simply declaring that their inability to read. Not only had the then-Senator Obama written a book which provided much of that information, but there had been series of articles in the Chicago press over the years commenting on his legislative record, both at the state and federal levels. This was available to the idle web-surfer and, at the behest of a Chicago friend of mine, I recall reading some of this about 2-3 years before he surfaced into the national consciousness. I would refer New Yorker to the archives of the magazine named after him for some interesting pre-election analyses.
Remember the interview on Charlie Rose with Tom Brokaw shortly before the inaguration? They kept talking about how they did not know Obama's world view. They did not know who influenced him. They did not know him at all!
quote:I apologize if I confused you. I don't know a shorter one that means the same thing.
Originally posted by 205:
quote:You keep using that word..
Originally posted by mousethief:
reality
quote:What I want to know is if New Yorker isn't part of the Conspiracy to Re-elect President Obama why doesn't he mention that Obama is a giant green lizard from the planet Xog? Why is he talking about Gingrich and an interview between two people in the media, instead of calling out attention to this fact? Is it to distract us from the truth?
The news media is a major and integral part of the modern CREEPO (Committee to re-elect President Obama).
quote:I forget Paul's response but
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Newt, for all his faults, put it best in the last debate.
quote:Oh that old lie?
When John King raised the issue of contraception Newt pointed out that the news media never investigated Obama's infanticide vote during the last go around
quote:CNN: Fact-checking Gingrich's charge Obama voted in favor of 'infanticide'
Then there's the part of Gingrich's statement that the "elite media" ignored the story in 2008. In fact, a search on Nexis shows at least eight times when it was mentioned or discussed in detail on CNN during the 2008 campaign.
quote:Fred Clark of Slacktivist makes the case that the party of Lincoln is not the party of Lincoln.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Which is a sad fate for the party of Lincoln, the Reconstruction Amendments and the first Civil Rights Acts.
quote:No! No! No! A thousand times no!
Originally posted by Dafyd:
... Obama is a giant green lizard from the planet Xog...
quote:Whereas Mitt Romney is an anteater from the planet Kolob.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:No! No! No! A thousand times no!
Originally posted by Dafyd:
... Obama is a giant green lizard from the planet Xog...
He's a purple newt from the planet Kobol!
quote:Or just completely out of touch with how to bond with (or at least fake having a bond with) the common man/woman. For example, when asked if he followed NASCAR Romney replied:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Whereas Mitt Romney is an anteater from the planet Kolob.
quote:While this may be factually accurate it's not exactly the kind of image attending an event like this is supposed to foster with potential voters. Doesn't anybody know how to play this game?
Not as closely as some of the most ardent fans. But I have some great friends who are NASCAR team owners.
quote:NY, you are a caution...
Originally posted by New Yorker:
It is also very important to note that when the media speaks of "reaching acros the aisle" they always mean Republicans compromising and never Democrats compmromising.
quote:True. The only thing more frightening than the prospect of a truly stoopid president (both Rickys) is one who is brilliant in his evil (the well-named Dick and Newt).
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I would agree that the nature of our political system causes many to pause before getting involved so that would include many intelligent folks. But I would also argue that most of those involved in the political are not unintelligent. (But not all, of course.)
quote:Hehehe. It's an oldie, but still funny.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
It is also very important to note that when the media speaks of "reaching acros the aisle" they always mean Republicans compromising and never Democrats compmromising.
quote:Read William Stringfellow for Lent, who predicted at least the possibility of all this forty years ago.
Originally posted by Tukai:
Do shipmates, particularly those in the USA, agree? If so, what can be done about it?
quote:Quite a contrast from Barry, who seems to think that you should apologise at any opportunity, for any offense, real or perceived, to any offendee, deserving or not, preferably with a deep bow or maybe a ring kiss, whenever it can be construed that the US has passed through the shadow of culpability for some tresspass or another, past or present. (Minus, of course, extra-judicial murder.)
Originally posted by orfeo:
Am I to understand correctly from the reports over here yesterday, that Mr Santorum believes you should only apologise for something if you did it intentionally in the first place? That you shouldn't apologise for unhappy accidents that caused a great deal of offence?
How very legalistic. It's one of the things I'd most like to, ahem, 'apologise' about for the legal profession.
Meanwhile, I'm given to understand that Mr Gingrich thinks you shouldn't apologise until everyone else that has something to apologise for goes first. And even then you probably shouldn't apologise if it wasn't your own cultural values that were offended.
quote:Yeah. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Originally posted by 205:
It may be morning in America!
quote:This is either a reference to the completely manufactured assertion Romney repeats, or a reference to the very real apology he made when US troops burned the Qu'ran in Afghanistan.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Which apologies are you talking about?
But on this occasion we're talking about people the President has direct authority for, and they made a mistake.quote:Yeah? I kind of like the Sam's Choice Free Trade brand.
Originally posted by Choirboy:
Yeah. Wake up and smell the coffee.
quote:It is my understanding that the korans that were burned had been written in by prisoners to send messages back and forth and that the proper way to dispose of defaced korans is to burn them.
Originally posted by orfeo:
It was the burning of the Koran that I was referring to.
quote:According to Muslim sites there are two ways to dispose of Qu'rans:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:It is my understanding that the korans that were burned had been written in by prisoners to send messages back and forth and that the proper way to dispose of defaced korans is to burn them.
Originally posted by orfeo:
It was the burning of the Koran that I was referring to.
quote:Regarding burning:
(1) Wrapping them in a piece of cloth or something pure and burying them respectfully in a place where people normally do not walk upon.
(2) Fastening the items to something heavy such as a stone and placing it respectfully in flowing river.
quote:From: Inter-Islam.org: Disposing of Scripture
. You may also burn [Qu'rans], but in this case, only after erasing the names of Allah, his Angels and his Messengers (peace and blessings be upon them all). As far the old and unusable Qur’ans are concerned, it is not permitted to burn them unless there is no other way to dispose them.
quote:Is it claimed that it was a mistake or an accident? I haven't been following.
Originally posted by orfeo:
It was the burning of the Koran that I was referring to. It makes perfect sense to me to apologise for it, as it caused offence. Whether or not it was a mistake shouldn't make any difference.
quote:Many would say the same thing about Christianity, but I'd hope they'd oppose desecrating the host or defacing a church.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
While I consider Islam to be a cruel and evil ideology there seems to be no reason to purposely thumb the easily enraged in the eye like this.
quote:I'm not sure I'd agree with this. Government actually creates a lot of wealth.
Government does not create wealth it spends it.
quote:Not by much. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that tort reform would lower healthcare costs by about 1%-1.5%.
Obamacare did not do anything the rein in the 'malpractice suit industry' or the health care bureaucracy - both of which drive up the cost of healthcare.
quote:And by doing so, it generates social capital, which is worth far more than money. Are you seriously suggesting that educating a child or healing a sick person doesn't generate wealth? OliviaG
Originally posted by PD:
... Government does not create wealth it spends it. ...
quote:They both pretty much deliver us the same things, which makes me not understand all the hand wringing I see about the mainstream Republican candidates. Would a Romney presidency be really different than what we have now, is what we have now really different than what we had before? No and no.
Originally posted by PD:
Unfortunately, my assessment of both parties right now is that they are both too wrapped up in social issues to talk about practical politics, and still less interested in pragmatic policies designed to foster the general well-being of society.
quote:This is sheer idiocy. Does the government print two currencies -- one that can only be used for private enterprise, and the other for governmental purposes? Most folks who receive a social security check buy groceries from non-governmental stores; virtually all defense contracts are with private industry; the government constructs very few roads -- it contracts with private businesses for that; etc. This line of conservative bull is just about the stupidest crap that even right-wingers peddle, and that says a LOT.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Every dollar spent by the government is a dollar taken from the private economy.
quote:Which came first, Capital or the Capitol?
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:This is sheer idiocy. Does the government print two currencies -- one that can only be used for private enterprise, and the other for governmental purposes? Most folks who receive a social security check buy groceries from non-governmental stores; virtually all defense contracts are with private industry; the government constructs very few roads -- it contracts with private businesses for that; etc. This line of conservative bull is just about the stupidest crap that even right-wingers peddle, and that says a LOT.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Every dollar spent by the government is a dollar taken from the private economy.
--Tom Clune
quote:Do you actually believe that these bumper stickers have anything to do with the discussion?
Originally posted by romanlion:
Which came first, Capital or the Capitol?
Which one continues to exist if you remove the other?
quote:If you remove the Capitol, the Greenback ceases to exist. Period. You have no government and no Federal Reserve to back the Greenback so it's worth the approximate value of the paper it's written on.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Which came first, Capital or the Capitol?
Which one continues to exist if you remove the other?
quote:"Whose image is this? And whose inscription?" (Matthew 22:20)
Originally posted by romanlion:
Which came first, Capital or the Capitol?
Which one continues to exist if you remove the other?
quote:Closely related to the absurdist belief that the best way to lower the unemployment rate is to cut thousands of government jobs.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:This is sheer idiocy. Does the government print two currencies -- one that can only be used for private enterprise, and the other for governmental purposes? Most folks who receive a social security check buy groceries from non-governmental stores; virtually all defense contracts are with private industry; the government constructs very few roads -- it contracts with private businesses for that; etc. This line of conservative bull is just about the stupidest crap that even right-wingers peddle, and that says a LOT.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Every dollar spent by the government is a dollar taken from the private economy.
--Tom Clune
quote:People can not point to anywhere in the life of Christ and find evil. In Mohammed one finds a mass murderer, a rapist, a pedophile and a thief.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:Many would say the same thing about Christianity, but I'd hope they'd oppose desecrating the host or defacing a church.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] While I consider Islam to be a cruel and evil ideology there seems to be no reason to purposely thumb the easily enraged in the eye like this.
quote:It depends. With today's federal budget there is a pretty good chance that it was money borrowed from someone.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:This is sheer idiocy. Does the government print two currencies -- one that can only be used for private enterprise, and the other for governmental purposes? Most folks who receive a social security check buy groceries from non-governmental stores; virtually all defense contracts are with private industry; the government constructs very few roads -- it contracts with private businesses for that; etc. This line of conservative bull is just about the stupidest crap that even right-wingers peddle, and that says a LOT.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Every dollar spent by the government is a dollar taken from the private economy.
--Tom Clune
quote:where do you think the money goes? does it die? does it leave the marketplace to be hidden away in some government vault? was it borrowed? so what.. isn't that what our economy is based on?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:It depends. With today's federal budget there is a pretty good chance that it was money borrowed from someone.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:This is sheer idiocy. Does the government print two currencies -- one that can only be used for private enterprise, and the other for governmental purposes? Most folks who receive a social security check buy groceries from non-governmental stores; virtually all defense contracts are with private industry; the government constructs very few roads -- it contracts with private businesses for that; etc. This line of conservative bull is just about the stupidest crap that even right-wingers peddle, and that says a LOT.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Every dollar spent by the government is a dollar taken from the private economy.
--Tom Clune
What you do describe, though, is a few instances of government deciding it is better at allocating resources than free people acting freely.
On the other hand, I remember when I was but a wee lad hearing some of the grown ups complaining about space exploration while there is still hungry people on this planet. I wondered if rockets were edible.
quote:And the evidence of this comes from his enemies, correct?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:People can not point to anywhere in the life of Christ and find evil. In Mohammed one finds a mass murderer, a rapist, a pedophile and a thief.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:Many would say the same thing about Christianity, but I'd hope they'd oppose desecrating the host or defacing a church.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] While I consider Islam to be a cruel and evil ideology there seems to be no reason to purposely thumb the easily enraged in the eye like this.
quote:No. To all intents and purposes, the value of a country's money is based on the relationship between the money in circulation and the GDP, if I understand these things (which is not all that likely, if the truth were to be told.)
Originally posted by Anyuta:
was it borrowed? so what.. isn't that what our economy is based on?
quote:Your post makes a lot of sense in general, but this statement too often goes unexamined.
Originally posted by PD:
Government does not create wealth it spends it.
quote:It comes from Islamic sources.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:And the evidence of this comes from his enemies, correct?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:People can not point to anywhere in the life of Christ and find evil. In Mohammed one finds a mass murderer, a rapist, a pedophile and a thief.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
[qb]quote:Many would say the same thing about Christianity, but I'd hope they'd oppose desecrating the host or defacing a church.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] While I consider Islam to be a cruel and evil ideology there seems to be no reason to purposely thumb the easily enraged in the eye like this.
quote:Muhammed pointed to Jesus as God?
Even if true you're comparing apples and oranges: Jesus IS God. Muhammad is a prophet who pointed the way to God, according to Islam.
quote:Beyond misbehaved. Yet I don't see anything about them like I see this about Muhammed in the koran, (33:21) "Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah."
There are many Biblical characters who misbehaved too.
quote:Just to be technical about it, books are always in balance. If you add debt in the credit column you either add an asset or expense in the debit column.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I don't believe it's a matter of needing books to be balanced, since that would remove an important source of investment - government bonds - which are held by individuals and institutions alike.
Government debt is far closer to the kind of debt carried in revolving credit. There is nothing wrong with carrying some debt. Many of us are able to do so throughout our lives without any fuss at all. The flat dollar amount doesn't tell us much either: a billionaire can carry far more debt in a flat dollar amount than someone who earns $10,000 without any harm. Historically, the U.S. has carried far higher levels of debt in the past than it does now without much fuss either - mostly after it has fought major wars.
What must be balanced is between the need to borrow for public works that will stimulate the economy (and return more taxation later) vs. the additional cost of interest that much be carried on those bonds.
The problem arises, however, when the level of debt grows faster than the growth in GDP over the long term. Annual deficits shouldn't cause the overall debt to grow faster than the economy is growing. If that is what you mean about balancing books, then I'd agree.
quote:An even shorter answer: ROADS.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:This is sheer idiocy. Does the government print two currencies -- one that can only be used for private enterprise, and the other for governmental purposes? Most folks who receive a social security check buy groceries from non-governmental stores; virtually all defense contracts are with private industry; the government constructs very few roads -- it contracts with private businesses for that; etc. This line of conservative bull is just about the stupidest crap that even right-wingers peddle, and that says a LOT.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Every dollar spent by the government is a dollar taken from the private economy.
--Tom Clune
quote:The revenue all comes from one source, that is the point. It has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal. It just is what it is. Even borrowing, the second great source of revenue, is based on the belief in the government's future ability to continually raise revenue through taxation.
Originally posted by tclune:
Does the government print two currencies -- one that can only be used for private enterprise, and the other for governmental purposes?
quote:An equally short answer: POLICE.
Originally posted by orfeo:
An even shorter answer: ROADS.
Money spent by governments that enables the private sector to make more money.
quote:Mere Nick, it is late, i'm tired, and i have to get up early to go to work in the morning, but i just can't let that pass. I'll assume you didn't mean it personally, because that would involve a Hell call, but in actual fact the above quote is highly insulting and hurtful to members of my family. No member of my family, Muslim or Christian, is either cruel or evil. However intended, your quote highly offends me.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
While I consider Islam to be a cruel and evil ideology ...
quote:No doubt one could find Germans in 1942 who generally treated folks decently. That wouldn't change many people's view that Nazism was a cruel and evil ideology.
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:Mere Nick, it is late, i'm tired, and i have to get up early to go to work in the morning, but i just can't let that pass. I'll assume you didn't mean it personally, because that would involve a Hell call, but in actual fact the above quote is highly insulting and hurtful to members of my family. No member of my family, Muslim or Christian, is either cruel or evil. However intended, your quote highly offends me.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] While I consider Islam to be a cruel and evil ideology ...
quote:It is only refuted if one can prove that all the Islamic sources that say he got it with her when she was nine are wrong.
It is also too late in the night to once against refute that tired "pedophilia" canard. Maybe tomorrow.
quote:Then it appears 99.9% of all Christians should realize Muhammed did not point the way to God if he didn't point to Christ as God.
In response to the quote "Muhammad is a prophet who pointed the way to God, according to Islam." you reply "Muhammed pointed to Jesus as God?" The quote is right there in front of you and you manage to misread it. And the quote clearly asserts that Muhammad pointed the way to God, not to Jesus as God.
quote:Which, to a Christian, shows that Muhammed was wrong.
Islamic sources of which I am aware are pretty unanimous in saying that in Islam Jesus is considered a prophet, as Muhammad is so considered. Neither Jesus nor Muhammad is considered to be more than human.
quote:I believe islam to be a cruel and evil ideology and won't apologize. If anything, Islam owes the world an apology. I get along perfectly well with the muslim family that lives next door, in case you were wondering.
Originally posted by malik3000:
Mere Nick, I won't pursue this anymore on this thread except to say that your horrendous lack of factual knowledge on this subject makes it pointless to discuss this subject with you any further. My family members are not "good Germans" as it were. It is sad when irrational prejudice causes one to veer so wildly into fantasy and is dangerous for a civilised society. Again, i won't speculate on your personal motives because i have better things to do than waste my time on a hell call.
The fact remains that you owe my family and millions of decent people, Muslim andd otherwise, an 100% unconditional apology for your highly insulting and uncalled-for remarks. (Not that i'm holding my breath.)
quote:The point I'm trying to make is that one finds mass murderers, rapists, paedophiles and thieves amongst Noah, Joshua, David, Saul, Samuel and many other Biblical characters revered by Judaism and Christianity alike.
In Mohammed one finds a mass murderer, a rapist, a pedophile and a thief.
quote:The same could be said for every Christian country until about a century ago.
longer treated as less than equal, when non-muslims can openly express their beliefs, in short, when there is not a country in the world where, for Islamic reasons, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not fully respected, get back to me. Until then, Islam is and remains a cruel and evil ideology.
and
quote:Why is that? Did they apologize to you for being muslims? Or for being cruel and evil? I'm not sure I can picture it. Actually I can, it's just so unrealistic I can't believe it.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I believe islam to be a cruel and evil ideology and won't apologize. If anything, Islam owes the world an apology. I get along perfectly well with the muslim family that lives next door, in case you were wondering.
quote:Not true. Manning is charged with (I think) twenty-four violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, mostly regarding mishandling data. He just hasn't been convicted of anything. It should also be noted that even if he had been convicted, his treatment would still likely fall under the rubric of "cruel and unusual punishment".
Originally posted by malik3000:
Just to name a few things Obama needs to answer for:
<snip>
The ongoing torture of Bradley Manning who has yet to even be charged with a crime? I know Obama is under a lot of pressure, but I think he could lift a finger to stop this.
quote:Picture the reality of what I'm saying, then. Islam is a cruel and evil ideology. Yes, that is what I believe. Does that make all muslims cruel and evil? No.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why is that? Did they apologize to you for being muslims? Or for being cruel and evil? I'm not sure I can picture it. Actually I can, it's just so unrealistic I can't believe it.
quote:You made a grammar/logic error. I fixed it for you. You really want to hang your hat on the position that Nazism may have been evil, but being a Nazi is still okay?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I believe if you are being honest you know the difference. So does some 99% of those who look at, say, films on the History Channel about Nazism , WW2 and the like. They don't have to run disclaimers saying that it isn't an indictment of all things [Nazi].
quote:If a Nazi today figured a person had the right to leave Nazism, that people could be honest in the condemnations of Hitler, his life and his teachings, that there was no reason for us non-Nazis to treat Mein Kampf like he says we must, that the teachings of Nazism doesn't have any power or control over the non-Nazi, etc., then he might be on the way to being ok.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:You made a grammar/logic error. I fixed it for you. You really want to hang your hat on the position that Nazism may have been evil, but being a Nazi is still okay?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I believe if you are being honest you know the difference. So does some 99% of those who look at, say, films on the History Channel about Nazism , WW2 and the like. They don't have to run disclaimers saying that it isn't an indictment of all things [Nazi].
quote:Done
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Would anyone care to take this anti-Muslim rant and throw it somewhere, preferably into Hell?
quote:I don't think Keynesian economics and deficit spending in recessionary periods (practised by both U.S. political parties) is all that liberal...
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
[qb] The rest of what you wrote has warmed the cockles of my generally-considered-by-many-to-be-conservative heart.
quote:I was just comparing what you wrote to someone else I've been talking to on another message board. He's a federal reserve conspiracy theorist.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:I don't think Keynesian economics and deficit spending in recessionary periods (practised by both U.S. political parties) is all that liberal...
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
[qb] The rest of what you wrote has warmed the cockles of my generally-considered-by-many-to-be-conservative heart.
quote:From your fingertips to Obama's ears.
Originally posted by PD:
I guess what I am saying is that there is a need for a balanced, fiscally conservative (but not too conservative) approach to the US economy to keep the government's credit rating stable, and to promote economic growth.
quote:I wonder to what extent this stupid Citizens United decision will influence the decision about debates. If Obama can't raise the billion dollars he did last time, he may want to have a fair number of debates. One thing that seems to be true of the Republican primaries is that the debates have been a serious equalizer, where less well-funded candidates can be taken seriously because the debates seem to be given more weight by the electorate than ads -- folks seem to feel that candidates are more reluctant to lie outright than are their anonymous surrogates, and the media seem to be more aggressive in fact-checking the candidates than the super packs.
Originally posted by 205:
And I keep thinking about the campaign upcoming: do you think he'll be willing to debate his opponent much, if at all? I think he'll be reluctant but hope he does - it'll be great entertainment.
quote:You may think the U.S. needs to cut spending to borrow, but the market disagrees with you. Borrowing costs for the U.S. government are phenomenally low right now. The ten year rate on U.S. bonds has been around 2% for quite some time now, which is a lot better indication of U.S. creditworthiness than credit ratings. If you factor in likely inflation, the rate at which the U.S. can borrow is actually negative. In short, people seem to be literally willing to pay the U.S. government in order to lend it money. Given that situation, not borrowing a whole bunch and sinking it in to infrastructure improvements seesm almost criminal.
Originally posted by PD:
I do not think the USA is to that stage yet, but without a sharp drop in the government brrowing requirement, the US's credit rating will fall, and government brrowing costs will rise.
quote:Considering the current bumblers the GOP came up with (those that would cause the electorate to be salivating decided to sit this one out for some reason) I don't think Obama will have much of a problem. They all suffer from foot in mouth or extremist stances.
Originally posted by 205:
quote:From your fingertips to Obama's ears.
Originally posted by PD:
I guess what I am saying is that there is a need for a balanced, fiscally conservative (but not too conservative) approach to the US economy to keep the government's credit rating stable, and to promote economic growth.
And I keep thinking about the campaign upcoming: do you think he'll be willing to debate his opponent much, if at all? I think he'll be reluctant but hope he does - it'll be great entertainment.
quote:What makes you think he'll be reluctant? I wasn't aware that he has form for ducking debates.
Originally posted by 205:
Do you think [Obama]'ll be willing to debate his opponent much, if at all? I think he'll be reluctant but hope he does - it'll be great entertainment.
quote:You say that like it's a bad thing.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
They all suffer from foot in mouth or extremist stances.
quote:And even more of them can't tell the difference between sh*t and Shinola...
Originally posted by 205:
Lots of Americans distrust 'polish'.
quote:Obama was an excellent debater against Hillary and McCain in 2008 and certainly has put a few zingers over on Fox News reporters when they asked loaded questions since then.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:What makes you think he'll be reluctant? I wasn't aware that he has form for ducking debates.
Originally posted by 205:
Do you think [Obama]'ll be willing to debate his opponent much, if at all? I think he'll be reluctant but hope he does - it'll be great entertainment.
quote:That certainly wasn't me. W was quite practiced in his "aw shucks" charm. He was quite another way from cameras.
Originally posted by 205:
quote:You say that like it's a bad thing.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
They all suffer from foot in mouth or extremist stances.
Seriously, I remember someone commenting how much she liked W just because he was so endearingly, erm..., human. Lots of Americans distrust 'polish'.
quote:He's not, but there seems to be a need among American conservatives to see Obama as some kind of "affirmative action hire" who is not really up to the demands of his position. For whatever reason they've decided that he's kind of dumb and doesn't speak well in public. (Wait, maybe they're thinking of the last guy in the job!) Hence all the teleprompter jokes. The downside of this meme is that it requires them to forget Obama's performance in any of the campaign 2008 debates.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:What makes you think he'll be reluctant? I wasn't aware that he has form for ducking debates.
Originally posted by 205:
Do you think [Obama]'ll be willing to debate his opponent much, if at all? I think he'll be reluctant but hope he does - it'll be great entertainment.
quote:I think you misread what I said. What I was saying - perhaps not clearly enough - is that the US Govt. runs a risk of running out of cheap credit some time in the not too distant future. If nothing significant happens my hunch is that at the present rate of borrowing that is maybe 5 to 7 years away, but it is coming. Therefore in order to maintain relatively low rates, the Govt will have to draw its horns in over the next 3 to 5 years. However, if other investments begin to look significantly more attractive than US Govt. Bonds then it will cost more to borrow as the US Treasury will have to adjust to take account of current lending rates.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:You may think the U.S. needs to cut spending to borrow, but the market disagrees with you. Borrowing costs for the U.S. government are phenomenally low right now. The ten year rate on U.S. bonds has been around 2% for quite some time now, which is a lot better indication of U.S. creditworthiness than credit ratings. If you factor in likely inflation, the rate at which the U.S. can borrow is actually negative. In short, people seem to be literally willing to pay the U.S. government in order to lend it money. Given that situation, not borrowing a whole bunch and sinking it in to infrastructure improvements seesm almost criminal.
Originally posted by PD:
I do not think the USA is to that stage yet, but without a sharp drop in the government brrowing requirement, the US's credit rating will fall, and government brrowing costs will rise.
quote:You say that as if living in an alternate universe isn't the conservative specialty.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Hence all the teleprompter jokes. The downside of this meme is that it requires them to forget Obama's performance in any of the campaign 2008 debates.
quote:And it looks as if that run of good fortune will continue. Thank you Georgia, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Tennessee! Even if Mitt stumbles over the winning line, he's been dragged so far to the right that he's basically written all of Obama's ads for him already. And if Rick gets the nomination? Well...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That said, with the obvious exception of the 2008 Democratic primary Barack Obama has always had the good fortune to run against surprisingly weak opponents.
quote:I'm sure Obama is more than happy if they forget the 2008 debates and think he's a teleprompter President. The best thing any debater could hope for is to be underestimated. That will be a great trap of their own making to walk into.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Hence all the teleprompter jokes. The downside of this meme is that it requires them to forget Obama's performance in any of the campaign 2008 debates.
quote:That, and the Rovian technique of turning an opponent's strengths into weaknesses.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The teleprompter jokes may have their origin in the belief that blacks can't be intelligent enough to debate standing up. A large part of the distaste for Obama is clearly racist in origin, whatever they say about it.
quote:It might have. They ran their ads in August, and according to the polls, Bush didn't have a decent margin of support until early September. It was fucking brilliant. Evil, but brilliant.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I wouldn't say that it cost him the election ...
quote:Yes. And it marked a shocking shift in the political arena. Misrepresentation has always been a tool in electorial politics on both sides of the aisle. But the swift boat ads marked a significant shift to the realm of crass, knowing, unabashed lies. Not "gray lies", not coloring the truth, not leaving stuff out or pulling out of context-- but simply and deliberately making up lies. The shocking success of the strategy led directly to the birther movement and a continual parade of such lies. I've tried debating these people, and there simply is no reasoning. There is no source, even conservative ones, authoritative enough to overcome their chosen beliefs.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:It might have. They ran their ads in August, and according to the polls, Bush didn't have a decent margin of support until early September. It was fucking brilliant. Evil, but brilliant.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I wouldn't say that it cost him the election ...
quote:Stephen Colbert satirized that four years later, using the fact that Barack Obama fathered two children with a black woman as a talking point in his faux campaign for the Republican nomination.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Although to be fair, the swift boat ads weren't the first. Bush used the same strategy v. McCain in the primary bid, distributing race-baiting flyers suggesting that his adopted daughter was his illegitimate child from an interracial affair.
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
quote:But the cops have had much more coverage, and are getting away with less, than they used to. It is the politicians who think that everything is OK (for them) that are the problem. The Tea Partyas the reactionary voice isn't that far away from the Occupy people in some ways.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Horseman Bree--
No, no National Guard; but the cops have often been violent when dealing with the Occupy folks. (Sometimes with provocation.) I was a kid in the 60s and 70s, and had a strong sense of deja-vu.
(Tangent re Spider Robinson: one of his Callahan books, by any chance? I know he made some political comments in those.)
quote:Far be it from me to suggest he's not an able talker - he apparently convinced a large number of people he would actually close Gitmo. And they say 'conservatives' are gullible.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
So why might he be reluctant to take either of them on?
) could have a field day.
quote:Perhaps you fail to recall that twas this niggling little thing called the U.S. Senate that blocked his plans?
Originally posted by 205:
quote:Far be it from me to suggest he's not an able talker - he apparently convinced a large number of people he would actually close Gitmo. And they say 'conservatives' are gullible.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
So why might he be reluctant to take either of them on?
quote:He tried. The Senate blocked him.
Originally posted by 205:
quote:Far be it from me to suggest he's not an able talker - he apparently convinced a large number of people he would actually close Gitmo. And they say 'conservatives' are gullible.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
So why might he be reluctant to take either of them on?
quote:Now now Mousethief, don't bring strange little concepts like 'separation of powers' into this, you'll only confuse folk.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Perhaps you fail to recall that twas this niggling little thing called the U.S. Senate that blocked his plans?
Originally posted by 205:
quote:Far be it from me to suggest he's not an able talker - he apparently convinced a large number of people he would actually close Gitmo. And they say 'conservatives' are gullible.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
So why might he be reluctant to take either of them on?
quote:Careful that you don't tell any mainstream journalist this. It'll simultaneously confuse and anger them.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
He's not the Messiah.
quote:God willing, the electorate will come to realize the truth of this and not be swayed by the hysterical rantings of those who, for whatever reason, are unable to approach the facts honestly.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I think that, considering the over-flowing cesspit he was handed (2 wars, crashing economy, Gitmo, Republicans who publicly swore they wouldn't pass anything he was for, etc., etc.), he's done a good job. . . . I voted for him, and will again.
quote:Yes. I could not agree more. To each his own. Miss Amanda happens to favor the Democrats. What no one should condone, though, is resorting to ranting, lying, and name-calling to illustrate why we would rather have one over the other.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Many of us would rather have the do nothing Republicans than the do what they do Democrats!
quote:And anybody you likes indefinite detention, military tribunals and undeclared wars would vote for any of Obama's opponents and get the same thing....
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Anybody who likes indefinite detention, military tribunals and undeclared wars should definitely continue to vote for Obama.
quote:No, Ron Paul is clearly opposed to such things as a matter of principle. He may be unacceptable in many ways, but he's on the side of the angels in this regard.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
And anybody you likes indefinite detention, military tribunals and undeclared wars would vote for any of Obama's opponents and get the same thing....
quote:Indeed. If integrity and consistency were the only criteria, Paul would have the election.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:No, Ron Paul is clearly opposed to such things as a matter of principle. He may be unacceptable in many ways, but he's on the side of the angels in this regard.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
And anybody you likes indefinite detention, military tribunals and undeclared wars would vote for any of Obama's opponents and get the same thing....
--Tom Clune
quote:A man who isn't even prepared to stand up for newsletters sent out for a 20 year period under his own name and from which he personally profited makes your average politician look like a model of integrity.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Indeed. If integrity and consistency were the only criteria, Paul would have the election.
quote:But this is Ron Paul's third try at the Presidency and he hasn't won a single state - and this in a year when libertarianism is probably more in vogue and he's more visible than ever.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Indeed. If integrity and consistency were the only criteria, Paul would have the election.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:No, Ron Paul is clearly opposed to such things as a matter of principle. He may be unacceptable in many ways, but he's on the side of the angels in this regard.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
And anybody you likes indefinite detention, military tribunals and undeclared wars would vote for any of Obama's opponents and get the same thing....
--Tom Clune
quote:The GOP ceased to be the party of Lincoln at least 50 yrs ago.
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I suspect, in another era, many of you Americans on SOF would have voted for Mr Lincoln.
Now that is a Republican to hold up to the present sorry bunch of presidential hopefuls in his party.
quote:I doubt that very many people would confuse the Democrats with Lincoln, either.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:The GOP ceased to be the party of Lincoln at least 50 yrs ago.
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I suspect, in another era, many of you Americans on SOF would have voted for Mr Lincoln.
Now that is a Republican to hold up to the present sorry bunch of presidential hopefuls in his party.
quote:I just love this kind of tu quoque. Conservatives are so good at it. Hey, Tom. The Democrats don't CLAIM to be the Party of Lincoln. Your false equivalence is a big fat FAIL.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:I doubt that very many people would confuse the Democrats with Lincoln, either.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:The GOP ceased to be the party of Lincoln at least 50 yrs ago.
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I suspect, in another era, many of you Americans on SOF would have voted for Mr Lincoln.
Now that is a Republican to hold up to the present sorry bunch of presidential hopefuls in his party.
--Tom Clune
quote:The argument wasn't about what Republicans claim to be, but that the current crop of Republicans are of considerably lower quality than Lincoln. If SirP had said that they don't measure up to Washington, would you respond that the Whig Party no longer exists? Not all posts are fodder for smug platitudinous responses.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I just love this kind of tu quoque. Conservatives are so good at it. Hey, Tom. The Democrats don't CLAIM to be the Party of Lincoln. Your false equivalence is a big fat FAIL.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:I doubt that very many people would confuse the Democrats with Lincoln, either.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:The GOP ceased to be the party of Lincoln at least 50 yrs ago.
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
I suspect, in another era, many of you Americans on SOF would have voted for Mr Lincoln.
Now that is a Republican to hold up to the present sorry bunch of presidential hopefuls in his party.
--Tom Clune
quote:Gingrich and Santorum could come together in a unite the Right move, knock Romney out and create the "pure" right wing ticket both they and their followers want, but I don't think their individual egos will allow it. ETA: Of course I could be wrong...
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
So I'm seeing lots of stories about Santorum's big wins yesterday, and stories about Gingrich saying he is in it until the end, and stories about Mitt Romney's campaign being in a funk, etc. I'm sure everyone else is seeing them too.
When I look at the Delegate Count, however, I note that Romney still picked up 43 delegates yesterday while Santorum took 36 and Gingrich took 24. I can understand why Romney won't claim victory yet, but does Santorum really stand a chance at keeping the nomination open until the convention?
My personal thought would be "no", but he doesn't seem the type to step down before the bitterest of ends--and it seems to me that can only help Obama. If he plays the role of spoiler now, will Republicans give him a second look in four years? Or will they move on?
quote:Well, Santorum just told Puerto Rico to get with the program and speak English.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Santorum and Gingrich--there's a ticket to scare the horses!
No, I don't see it either. There's not a stadium in this country large enough to contain both those egos.
Santorum can appeal to the farthest reaches of the religious right, but he scares a lot of others--even conservative "others". My employer is a not-particularly-religious conservative/libertarian with some Tea Party leanings (don't ask...). Santorum would probably make him write in the name of a cartoon character. He thinks Santorum is a dangerous theocrat.
It isn't very often I find common political ground with my employer...
quote:I'm sure the Puerto Rican Independence Movement is giddy at the potential of the sound-bites while the Statehood movement is slugging down another Mojito and trying to forget it.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:Well, Santorum just told Puerto Rico to get with the program and speak English.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Santorum and Gingrich--there's a ticket to scare the horses!
No, I don't see it either. There's not a stadium in this country large enough to contain both those egos.
Santorum can appeal to the farthest reaches of the religious right, but he scares a lot of others--even conservative "others". My employer is a not-particularly-religious conservative/libertarian with some Tea Party leanings (don't ask...). Santorum would probably make him write in the name of a cartoon character. He thinks Santorum is a dangerous theocrat.
It isn't very often I find common political ground with my employer...
It's been over a hundred years since we stole them from Spain in a completely unprovoked war driven by yellow journalism and territorial ambition. By now they should obey a completely nonexistent Constitutional requirement and stop being so Spanishey.
(Yeah. That should make our growing Hispanic population throughout the country rally behind him.)
quote:How ironic you would say that after answering a post with a smug, platitudinous response.
Originally posted by tclune:
Not all posts are fodder for smug platitudinous responses.
quote:Heck, I'd rumble that about the US news. One more GOP debate and we're all about ready to jump off a cliff.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Er, you guys done yet?
There have been rumblings on both my beloved Radio 4, and on the World Service, that the BBC is spending too long peering at the giblets of USAn politics in general, and the Republican primaries in particular, at the expense of Proper News Which Is Important.
quote:So from this article we can conclude:
Mitt Romney could have assured himself victory months in advance in the now-crucial primary state of Illinois, but instead his Illinois campaign operation chose to allow Rick Santorum's delegates to remain on the ballot despite a failure to meet signature requirements.
Santorum, who has also failed to reach the ballot in Washington, D.C., Virginia, and parts of Ohio, fell short of the required signatures in 10 of the state's 18 congressional districts —and didn't submit any in four of them — Romney's campaign confirmed.
But Illinois Treasurer and Romney state chairman Dan Rutherford withdrew challenges in those districts, allowing Santorum the opportunity to win 30 delegates he would have missed out on.
quote:But that just proves that some posts are fodder for such responses. There's no irony here -- keep moving...
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:How ironic you would say that after answering a post with a smug, platitudinous response.
Originally posted by tclune:
Not all posts are fodder for smug platitudinous responses.
quote:What you don't realise is that the Republicans have a cunning plan, which is to drive all centrist voters into a state of such profound somnolence that they will not wake up until after the election, which the Republicans will have then won by a landslide.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Heck, I'd rumble that about the US news. One more GOP debate and we're all about ready to jump off a cliff.
quote:It's not weird at all -- the Dems have their candidate for this cycle, and the Republicans need to find one. There's a fight in their ranks for who it will be, and there is no fight in the Dem ranks this year. That's pretty much how it usually is when an incumbant is running, with the rare exception of when some malcontnet runs against the incumbant in his own party. That always seems to work out especially badly.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
The Democrats have always been a hot mess when it came to party unity, but in comparison they are standing around with crossed arms singing "Auld Lang Syne".
It's odd to me to see that completely turned around.
quote:Well, Carter and Kennedy had their little tiff in my formative years, so perhaps that's scarred me for life. But I also live in a state where the Democrats are pretty quiet on a local level this year.
Originally posted by tclune:
It's not weird at all -- the Dems have their candidate for this cycle, and the Republicans need to find one. There's a fight in their ranks for who it will be, and there is no fight in the Dem ranks this year. That's pretty much how it usually is when an incumbant is running, with the rare exception of when some malcontnet runs against the incumbant in his own party. That always seems to work out especially badly.
--Tom Clune
quote:Actually, since it became obvious how crazy all the Republican candidates are this time around, I've been waiting to see if they're waiting to spring a new candidate on their party. Just about anybody would look good, after these bozos.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:What you don't realise is that the Republicans have a cunning plan, which is to drive all centrist voters into a state of such profound somnolence that they will not wake up until after the election, which the Republicans will have then won by a landslide.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Heck, I'd rumble that about the US news. One more GOP debate and we're all about ready to jump off a cliff.
quote:It's hard for journalists to ignore a slow motion train wreck. Just be grateful that the UK doesn't have the U.S. style permanent campaign to follow instead.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Heck, I'd rumble that about the US news. One more GOP debate and we're all about ready to jump off a cliff.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Er, you guys done yet?
There have been rumblings on both my beloved Radio 4, and on the World Service, that the BBC is spending too long peering at the giblets of USAn politics in general, and the Republican primaries in particular, at the expense of Proper News Which Is Important.
quote:For a detractor of Santorum to underestimate his industriousness or work ethic would be dangerous. The reason he is behind in national organization is that he spent so much energy and shoe leather to win Iowa (when at first no one thought he had a chance). We have Arlen Specter's word that "Rick" is a prodigiously hard worker. (This was by way of damning him with faint praise, considering that a moment later in the interview, Specter refused to endorse him as suitable Presidental material).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[*]Rick Santorum is either incapable of or not interested in doing the hard work of organizing a Presidential-level campaign effort
quote:For those who weren't aware: through an odd fluke of senatorial politics both Specter and Bob Dole are from Russell KS.
Originally posted by Alogon:
We have Arlen Specter
quote:And so would Santorum if he were to win. In the general election, candidates of either party always run toward the center -- you need to appeal to the voters you don't already have. If anything, I would imagine that this might serve to remind the few remaining Republicans with working synapses what a hard row to hoe Santorum would have if he were to be the nominee.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Romney's closest advisor is now in the news for explaining that once his more right-wing primary rivals are no longer a threat, he will "reset" his message towards the center, shaking it up and starting over as with an Etch-a-Sketch.
quote:I'd say it shows a remarkable level of commitment to his lack of commitment.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Are you really a flip-flopper if you say you are going to do it and then actually do it?
quote:Exactly. The mistake the aide made was talking about it as a complete reset of Romney's views, especially with such a vivid metaphor. If he'd just said, "In the general election we'll work to increase Romney's appeal to independent voters and conservative Democrats" no one would have blinked an eye.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:And so would Santorum if he were to win. In the general election, candidates of either party always run toward the center -- you need to appeal to the voters you don't already have. If anything, I would imagine that this might serve to remind the few remaining Republicans with working synapses what a hard row to hoe Santorum would have if he were to be the nominee.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Romney's closest advisor is now in the news for explaining that once his more right-wing primary rivals are no longer a threat, he will "reset" his message towards the center, shaking it up and starting over as with an Etch-a-Sketch.
--Tom Clune
quote:If what you say you're going to do, and actually do, is flip-flop, then yes.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Are you really a flip-flopper if you say you are going to do it and then actually do it?
quote:Not to mention if you've listened to Romney in this election and in past ones his views have changed depending on who he was speaking to. The other GOP candidates have documented in flip flopping better than any Democrat could.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I'd say it shows a remarkable level of commitment to his lack of commitment.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Are you really a flip-flopper if you say you are going to do it and then actually do it?
quote:Excuse me, but that's my deepest nightmare. Get someone a little less extreme, but solid in their views. Palin proved herself to be nuts and couldn't handle the pressure of the governor's job - yeah I know it was the legal challenges, etc. but if you can't handle everything that comes with your job on a state level you DON"T belong in the WH. The Clintons were forever fighting legal challenges, had to pay out of their own pocket and put in their full 8 years. Santorum, will allow his Catholicism to dictate policy and I believe he will discriminate against those who don't agree.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Romney's flip-flopping means he can't be trusted. That is why I'm dreaming of President Santorum or, resulting from a brokered convention, President Palin.
quote:Exactly! What's wrong with that?
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Santorum, will allow his Catholicism to dictate policy and I believe he will discriminate against those who don't agree.
quote:Stomps on the religious rights of those of us who don't agree with his theology. I'm a Christian woman who doesn't share his view on contraception just as one tiny example. While John Kennedy's speech stating the Catholic church wouldn't dictate his decisions made Santorum throw up. Sorry, the President is to represent ALL Americans and not alienate those who don't agree with his theology - be they other Christians or from other religions or even atheists. FWIW, I don't want Romney's Mormon faith dictating his actions, nor any Muslims faith or any other faith/no faith dictating policy decisions based on their own religious prejudice. Make the best decisions for all Americans and for the rest of the world even if they may ding your own theology.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Exactly! What's wrong with that?
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Santorum, will allow his Catholicism to dictate policy and I believe he will discriminate against those who don't agree.
Just kidding.
quote:I don't think it's at all fair to list supporting the Iraq war as an example of "ignoring Catholic teachings". The private beliefs of the Pope do not automatically become Catholic doctrine, just because he happens to be the Pope.
Originally posted by malik3000:
FYI
Top Ten Catholic Teachings Santorum Ignores
quote:You might dream of it, but you don't have the numbers to get it.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Romney's flip-flopping means he can't be trusted. That is why I'm dreaming of President Santorum or, resulting from a brokered convention, President Palin.
quote:Although, according to this Saturday morning New York Times article, Santorum has the highest percentage of women supporters of any GOP candidate -- although admittedly a very particular subset of women.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I don't think Santorum stands a snowballs chance against Obama because of his extreme religious beliefs that he has stated will dictate policy. Women in general are not having any of it at the moment - even Catholic women.
quote:Santorum's subset are far right Tea Party evangelicals. But Obama has the majority of women voters overall. Add to that most Americans are center right or center left and these extremist candidates will flame out in the general election.
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:Although, according to this Saturday morning New York Times article, Santorum has the highest percentage of women supporters of any GOP candidate -- although admittedly a very particular subset of women.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I don't think Santorum stands a snowballs chance against Obama because of his extreme religious beliefs that he has stated will dictate policy. Women in general are not having any of it at the moment - even Catholic women.
quote:It's a free country (at the moment) so anybody is entitled to be wrong, just as you are.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I'm a Christian woman who doesn't share his view on contraception just as one tiny example.
quote:Is Augustine's "Just War" theory Catholic doctrine?
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
quote:I don't think it's at all fair to list supporting the Iraq war as an example of "ignoring Catholic teachings". The private beliefs of the Pope do not automatically become Catholic doctrine, just because he happens to be the Pope.
Originally posted by malik3000:
FYI
Top Ten Catholic Teachings Santorum Ignores
quote:I'm not wrong and no president has the right to make their religion the proverbial law of the land. Santorum doesn't seem to realize that. I might give some on the issue of contraception when men are denied coverage for viagra or have to prove they have a valid mmedical dignosis to get it.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:It's a free country (at the moment) so anybody is entitled to be wrong, just as you are.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I'm a Christian woman who doesn't share his view on contraception just as one tiny example.
quote:I totally disagree with this Republican war on women, and that's what it is. It's ironic that they probably would be the first to blast Muslims for the custom of the hijab. But just as a point of fact my health plan doesn't cover viagra (or at least it didn't several years ago.)
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:I'm not wrong and no president has the right to make their religion the proverbial law of the land. Santorum doesn't seem to realize that. I might give some on the issue of contraception when men are denied coverage for viagra or have to prove they have a valid mmedical dignosis to get it.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:It's a free country (at the moment) so anybody is entitled to be wrong, just as you are.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I'm a Christian woman who doesn't share his view on contraception just as one tiny example.
quote:Because, after all, Every Sperm is Sacred.
Originally posted by malik3000:
...I would propose a law banning not just vasectomies, but let's go all the way -- there should be a law criminalizing masturbation. Think of the millions of potential lives being wasted!
quote:Ironically, such a law would eventually cause the population to plummet, what with almost every male in the country locked away in prison right about the time they should be meeting a nice girl to settle down with. Conversely, any man in between the ages of 18 and 25 who WASN'T in jail would be avoided by eligible young women because there's clearly something wrong with him.
Originally posted by malik3000:
...I would propose a law banning not just vasectomies, but let's go all the way -- there should be a law criminalizing masturbation. Think of the millions of potential lives being wasted!
quote:What war on women? It's Wag the Dog. There is no war on women. Santorum has said he does not believe in birth control. That is not saying he wants to invade every bedroom and arrest women who take the pill. This is a manufactured issue conjured up by Obama and the lame stream media to shift the focus from the failed policies of a man, in over his head, who, as president, has failed the American people.
Originally posted by malik3000:
I totally disagree with this Republican war on women
quote:Ever heard of Sandra Fluke?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:What war on women?
Originally posted by malik3000:
I totally disagree with this Republican war on women
quote:Wow! For a moment there, I thought we were discussing George Bush again.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
... to shift the focus from the failed policies of a man, in over his head, who, as president, has failed the American people.
quote:No. As much as I disagreed with W, those days look like heaven compared to Zero.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:Wow! For a moment there, I thought we were discussing George Bush again.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
... to shift the focus from the failed policies of a man, in over his head, who, as president, has failed the American people.
quote:How is what Rush said about Sandra equal to a "war on women?" By the way, I think she is a slut. She wants us to pay for her promiscuity. By saying that am I starting a war on women? Not at all. I like women very much. Also, I tend to think I'd lose a war on women.
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
Ever heard of Sandra Fluke?
quote:IMO with 'prostitute' Rush went too far: IME those folk are savvy business people.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
By the way, I think she is a slut.
quote:She was talking about the use of the Pill to treat medical conditions - she never mentioned sex. Do you listen only to Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Beck?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:How is what Rush said about Sandra equal to a "war on women?" By the way, I think she is a slut. She wants us to pay for her promiscuity. By saying that am I starting a war on women? Not at all. I like women very much. Also, I tend to think I'd lose a war on women.
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
Ever heard of Sandra Fluke?
quote:Now I know you're trolling.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Actually, I don't watch Beck. He seems like a likable chap, but I don't watch him.
quote:Are you truly this ignorant of how the pill works?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
How many times is she fornicating every month?
quote:Rush Limbaugh said that he would like her to film it and put it on the internet so that he can watch it because (he believes) he's paying for it. And he wasn't kidding.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Why is it any of your business how many times she is fornicating per month?
quote:I find it hard to reconcile your claim to "like women" with your apparent opposition to covering well-woman visits, screening for gestational diabetes, HPV testing, STD counseling, HIV testing and counseling, breastfeeding support and supplies, contraception, and screening and counseling for domestic violence with insurance (a.k.a. the way most Americans, including women, pay for health care). Those are the services covered by the law you find so objectionable.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
How is what Rush said about Sandra equal to a "war on women?" By the way, I think she is a slut. She wants us to pay for her promiscuity. By saying that am I starting a war on women? Not at all. I like women very much.
quote:Actually the $3,000 is what Georgetown charges its students to buy its mandatory health insurance. (Isn't there something somewhere about a mandate today?) Ms. Fluke's point is simply that if she's going to be forced to buy health coverage as a condition of attending Georgetown, it's a reasonable expectation for it to, you know, cover her health care needs.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
She said, what, it costs $3,000 a year for birth control when she could get a month's supply at Target for $9. How many times is she fornicating every month?
quote:Perhaps they're supposed to hold them between their knees.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
A woman doesn't need a new contraceptive pill every time she has sex.
quote:Oh for fuck sake! Sometimes I have trouble comprehending this level of wilful ignorance. A simple Googlesearch would have told you exactly why Sandra Fluke gave her testimony but people continue to repeat the same right-wing bullshit.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Sandra wants us to pay for her birth control. Specifically she wants Georgetown - a Catholic institution - to pay for it. Georgetown's policies permit insurance to pay for the pill if it is for medical non-birth control purposes, so what is Sandra's beef? She said, what, it costs $3,000 a year for birth control when she could get a month's supply at Target for $9. How many times is she fornicating every month?
quote:Where in her testimony does she advocate contraception coverage for her sexual activity? Why are you bearing false witness by calling her a slut?
In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer dire consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome and has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy. Under many religious institutions’ insurance plans, it wouldn’t be, and under Senator Blunt’s amendment, Senator Rubio’s bill, or Representative Fortenberry’s bill, there’s no requirement that an exception be made for such medical needs. When they do exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose aren’t, a woman’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.
In sixty-five percent of cases, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed these prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room all night in excruciating pain. She wrote, ‘It was so painful, I woke up thinking I’d been shot.’ Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary.
quote:Take a number: there's a line.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I'm tempted to call you to hell.
quote:That would prevent pregnancy.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Perhaps they're supposed to hold them between their knees.
quote:But would be absolutely useless in treating polycystic ovarian syndrome, which AGAIN, was the medical condition Fluke was actually discussing.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:That would prevent pregnancy.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Perhaps they're supposed to hold them between their knees.
quote:^ this.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:But would be absolutely useless in treating polycystic ovarian syndrome, which AGAIN, was the medical condition Fluke was actually discussing.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:That would prevent pregnancy.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Perhaps they're supposed to hold them between their knees.
quote:You clearly are only familiar with missionary position sex. There's a whole new world awaiting you.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:That would prevent pregnancy.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Perhaps they're supposed to hold them between their knees.
quote:So now that you know that every word of that last paragraph is untrue, what? OliviaG
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Actually, I don't watch Beck. He seems like a likable chap, but I don't watch him.
Why call me to hell? What did I say that was wrong?
Sandra wants us to pay for her birth control. Specifically she wants Georgetown - a Catholic institution - to pay for it. Georgetown's policies permit insurance to pay for the pill if it is for medical non-birth control purposes, so what is Sandra's beef? She said, what, it costs $3,000 a year for birth control when she could get a month's supply at Target for $9. How many times is she fornicating every month?
quote:Read. Learn. Inwardly digest.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Are you truly this ignorant of how the pill works?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
How many times is she fornicating every month?
quote:Yes, now that New Yorker knows that this is all completely false, I too would like to know what he thinks about it.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:So now that you know that every word of that last paragraph is untrue, what? OliviaG
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Actually, I don't watch Beck. He seems like a likable chap, but I don't watch him.
Why call me to hell? What did I say that was wrong?
Sandra wants us to pay for her birth control. Specifically she wants Georgetown - a Catholic institution - to pay for it. Georgetown's policies permit insurance to pay for the pill if it is for medical non-birth control purposes, so what is Sandra's beef? She said, what, it costs $3,000 a year for birth control when she could get a month's supply at Target for $9. How many times is she fornicating every month?
ETA: Except Georgetown being Catholic.
quote:Well, you asked....
Yes, now that New Yorker knows that this is all completely false, I too would like to know what he thinks about it.
quote:In reading her testimony she began by praising the HHS mandate that would require religious institutions to violate their conscience and provide birth control. She described how hard it was for female students at Georgetown to afford birth control. Indeed the first third or so of her statement deals with birth control for birth control's sake. The whole point of her being there was to testify on behalf of the mandate, so she wants Catholic institutions to pay for her birth control in violation of their religious belief. So that statement is true.
Sandra wants us to pay for her birth control. Specifically she wants Georgetown - a Catholic institution - to pay for it.
quote:She admits in her testimony that this is true. She does complain that the insurance company sometimes challenges female student claims that the birth control is for non-birth control purposes. To me it's reasonable that the insurance company would ensure that the birth control was in fact for non-birth control purposes. So the above statement is true even if the insurance companies were heavy handed.
Georgetown's policies permit insurance to pay for the pill if it is for medical non-birth control purposes, so what is Sandra's beef?
quote:$9 per month
She said, what, it costs $3,000 a year for birth control when she could get a month's supply at Target for $9.
quote:You're right. Not really my business and I really don't want to know. Not that she's ugly, but not my type. She's a leftie and most likely has no sense of humor.
How many times is she fornicating every month?
quote:Typical liberal nonsense. Every conservative knows that their personality is all the birth control they'll ever need...
Originally posted by RuthW:
Again, you need to educate yourself about birth control before you make pronouncements about what women should be doing.
quote:Are you speaking from experience?
Originally posted by tclune:
Typical liberal nonsense. Every conservative knows that their personality is all the birth control they'll ever need...
quote:Did she really testify or was she really at a Democrat news conference made to look like a congressional hearing?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
In reading her testimony
quote:Oh... my... after about 5 minutes of browsing around those two sites, I just don't know how to respond to the fact that someone has posted those as a source.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
$9 per month
$9 per month
quote:Just ask Newt's former wives.
Originally posted by tclune:
Every conservative knows that their personality is all the birth control they'll ever need...
quote:No, as pointed out upthread, it costs $3000 a year to buy into Georgetown's mandatory health insurance policy. Again, she was suggesting that if Georgetown is requiring her to buy into their policy, it ought to cover her health care needs.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
]She said, what, it costs $3,000 a year for birth control when she could get a month's supply at Target for $9.
quote:It was pretty much SOP when I went to college-- and that was almost 30 yrs ago. Still is SOP at the univ. where I teach. Some univ. will waive the requirement if you can provide proof of some other coverage (e.g. parents) but many do not.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[QUOTE]
Btw, I'd never heard of a university requiring a student buy health insurance. Maybe that's because I don't have any kids over 26 still in college, or something, but I still haven't heard of it.
quote:Thanks, Nick. You are correct. This was not testimony but a press release at a press conference.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Did she really testify or was she really at a Democrat news conference made to look like a congressional hearing?
quote:The Senate rejected the Dear Leader's plea. The Democrats are standing with Big Oil over the American people.
Today, members of Congress have a simple choice to make: They can stand with the big oil companies, or they can stand with the American people.
quote:What kind of fools does Dear Leader think we are? Oil works. Green energy doesn't. Why lose another $500,000,000 of taypayer money - which we have to borrow anyway?
Instead of taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s never been more profitable, we should be using that money to double-down on investments in clean energy technologies that have never been more promising -- investments in wind power and solar power and biofuels; investments in fuel-efficient cars and trucks, and energy-efficient homes and buildings.
quote:Because the committee itself refused to hear her testimony. OliviaG
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Thanks, Nick. You are correct. This was not testimony but a press release at a press conference.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Did she really testify or was she really at a Democrat news conference made to look like a congressional hearing?
quote:My daughter's college requires either $700 per year for their insurance or proof of other coverage.
Btw, I'd never heard of a university requiring a student buy health insurance. Maybe that's because I don't have any kids over 26 still in college, or something, but I still haven't heard of it.
quote:Do you realize how ridiculous this foxnewsspeak sounds?
The Senate rejected the Dear Leader's plea.
quote:Oil only works because it is massively subsidized by taxpayer money. Not only is it subsidized in taxpayer giveaways directly to oil companies, but taxpayer giveaways to the military to make sure the foreign oil pipeline from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Gulf States, etc. remain open. There are also taxpayer giveaways in infrastructure to transport oil and deal with the environmental problems using oil creates. Beyond that, our economy has already suffered several serious oil shocks (1973, 1979, 1989, 2003 and 2008) which have led to the spending of huge amounts of taxpayer money to cope with.
What kind of fools does Dear Leader think we are? Oil works. Green energy doesn't. Why lose another $500,000,000 of taypayer money - which we have to borrow anyway?
quote:Equating the President of the United States with the dictator of a communist country advances the argument not a whit. Will New Yorker ever learn?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
What kind of fools does Dear Leader think we are?
quote:
...according to the latest theories, the “Mitt Romney” who seems poised to be the Republican nominee is but one of countless Mitt Romneys, each occupying his own cosmos, each supporting a different platform, each being compared to a different beloved children’s toy but all of them equally real, all of them equally valid and all of them running for president at the same time, in their own alternative Romnealities, somewhere in the vast Romniverse.
And all of them losing to Barack Obama.
quote:And you know this, how exactly?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Oil works. Green energy doesn't.
quote:It does for us.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Green energy doesn't.
quote:But will it fly a plane?
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:It does for us.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Green energy doesn't.
quote:At present, no. And eventually you will have to decide what is the most important priority for limited petroleum resources.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
But will it fly a plane?
quote:As petroleum sources dwindle and we switch to alternate energies, airplanes should probably be the last thing on the list to go when we run out of oil. Steam- or solar- or battery-powered airplanes just don't seem likely any time soon. If we can find alternate ways to create electricity, we can power most anything on the ground with electricity, but not airplanes.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:But will it fly a plane?
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:It does for us.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Green energy doesn't.
quote:You got a crystal ball, then?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Actually, I am a real "all of the above" guy. Let's develop new sources of energy. But, let's not invest $500M in solar energy companies that go belly up.
quote:At the very least, it seems like a much smaller waste of money than investing billions (or was it trillions) in financial companies when they go belly up!
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Actually, I am a real "all of the above" guy. Let's develop new sources of energy. But, let's not invest $500M in solar energy companies that go belly up.
quote:Yes, good - do not invest in companies which are going to fail.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Actually, I am a real "all of the above" guy. Let's develop new sources of energy. But, let's not invest $500M in [....] companies that go belly up.
Now, where are those dilithium crystals kept?
quote:This is partisan hackery. The reality is that Solyndra stank to high Hell of political cronyism. I'm as Democratic as anyone on this board, but Solyndra was worthy of a full investigation by Congress. There were too many political ties, the reality that the company was foully managed and the likelihood that the company was going belly up had been established and raised as a prominent concern before a massive amount of money was poured into it; etc.
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
quote:Yes, good - do not invest in companies which are going to fail.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Actually, I am a real "all of the above" guy. Let's develop new sources of energy. But, let's not invest $500M in [....] companies that go belly up.
Now, where are those dilithium crystals kept?
quote:Won't petroleum resources be replaced by bioplastics for some of these things?
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Chemical and plastic feedstocks: IRREPLACEABLE. An integral component of pretty much everything you're looking at right now - your computer, your carpet and paint, the jug your orange juice came in, the dyes in your clothing, the soap you washed with this morning.
quote:Tom, do you have a trusted source for that evaluation? I haven't followed the story closely, but it seems to have had rather less of an impact than (say) the Clinton Whitewater affair. If Solyndra were as exceptionally sleazy as all that, wouldn't the Republicans have made more of it?
Originally posted by tclune:
This is partisan hackery. The reality is that Solyndra stank to high Hell of political cronyism. I'm as Democratic as anyone on this board, but Solyndra was worthy of a full investigation by Congress.
quote:Bioplastics are made from plant sources, and so require arable land. The potential catch is that many of these sources are also important food crops, such as corn, wheat, soybeans and canola. OliviaG
Originally posted by RuthW:
Won't petroleum resources be replaced by bioplastics for some of these things?
quote:That, and the amount of petroleum-based fertilizer our agriculture takes these days.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:Bioplastics are made from plant sources, and so require arable land. The potential catch is that many of these sources are also important food crops, such as corn, wheat, soybeans and canola. OliviaG
Originally posted by RuthW:
Won't petroleum resources be replaced by bioplastics for some of these things?
Bioplastics (PDF)
quote:Maryland passed a mandate ten years ago to provide group health coverage on employers over a certain size. That law was struck down in Federal Court as infringing on "Interstate Commerce".
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
His argument, so far, has been that it's not government overreach if states do it, but it is government overreach if the feds do it, oh and he wished he'd never done it, but it's the Dems fault. We'll see how well that survives the media cauldron this autumn.
quote:It's not principle, it's self-interest. If, as the speculation goes, Santorum is angling for the 2016 nomination on the presumption that Romney loses the general election, it won't be any benefit to be too closely associate with the failed campaign. It's much more useful to be an "I told you so" four years later than someone who backed a loser.
Originally posted by Alogon:
There was a rather prescient column in the Philadelphia Inquirer today discussing Santorum's likely behavior if he dropped out of the race. The writer predicts that it would be out of character if he kindly sucked up to Romney, any more than he did with McCain in 2008. He sticks to his guns. I have to respect him for that, even if I disapprove of many of his views.
quote:25 cents says Romney will simply reply, "Thats the problem with you, Mr. President. You don't understand the difference between a state solution for 5 million citizens and a top down one size fits all debt busting behemoth for 310 million citizens that robs half a billion dollars from medicare and includes an unprecedented and unconstitutional federal demand that people buy a product that they may or may not want."
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
$20 says Obama will turn to Romney during the debates and ask how Romney could argue against a program he designed and implemented in Massachusetts.
quote:So is it only unconstitutional if Obama does it? Oh, that's right; when Republicans do the same thing it is awesome.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:25 cents says Romney will simply reply, "Thats the problem with you, Mr. President. You don't understand the difference between a state solution for 5 million citizens and a top down one size fits all debt busting behemoth for 310 million citizens that robs half a billion dollars from medicare and includes an unprecedented and unconstitutional federal demand that people buy a product that they may or may not want."
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
$20 says Obama will turn to Romney during the debates and ask how Romney could argue against a program he designed and implemented in Massachusetts.
quote:You seem to be operating under the rather dubious assumption that just because something is false, Mitt Romney won't use it as a talking point.
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
"...robs half a billion dollars from medicare.."
False , according to non partisan PolitiFact.
quote:Actually, he's said pretty much exactly that. I thought that Romney was a genuinely good governor of our state. The most impressive accomplishment of any MA governor in the last couple of decades was the compromise that Romney engineered to get the health care law passed. And, in truth, he accomplished that very difficult feat by bringing the disparate parties together and building a genuine concensus across the various interests in the state, unlike Obama. It was a tremendous accomplishment.
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
(And Romney wouldn't say that anyway.)
quote:OK, I amend my statement to Romney won't say that. He can't go near the subject of Healthcare without risking a mutually-damaging encounter. It would be easier for him to lie that Obama is soft on national security or similar - something he's not had to dirty his hands with.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Actually, he's said pretty much exactly that...
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
(And Romney wouldn't say that anyway.)
<snip>
...he has to deny his greatest accomplishment in order to placate the fools in his own party,
quote:Assumption shot down in flames.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:You seem to be operating under the rather dubious assumption that just because something is false, Mitt Romney won't use it as a talking point.
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
"...robs half a billion dollars from medicare.."
False , according to non partisan PolitiFact.
quote:Won't it also include a limitation on quality and innovation as well?
Originally posted by tclune:
The big flaw in it is that it doesn't control the run-away costs of health care. Only a single-payer system like Medicare has any hope of that, and it will ultimately necessarily include a limitation on healthcare delivery based on a cost/benefit analysis.
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I can envision a system where the uber-rich can buy health insurance to keep themselves alive and tied to machines for a few more months of "life" at a price of millions of dollars. But, personally, I am quite content to let them feed their megalomania in this way while the rest of us go to meet our Maker after long and healthy lives.
quote:Reminds me of a story that appeared several years ago in the Charlotte, North Carolina, newspaper about ultra-right-wing senator Jesse Helms receiving a heart valve transplant that would extend his life ten years. The story mentioned in passing that the valve came from a pig heart. I noted to myself that anywhere else except North Carolina, the newspaper headline would have read: "Pig to be sacrificed so that Jesse Helms can live 10 more years."
Originally posted by tclune:
I can envision a system where the uber-rich can buy health insurance to keep themselves alive and tied to machines for a few more months of "life" at a price of millions of dollars.
quote:No.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:Maryland passed a mandate ten years ago to provide group health coverage on employers over a certain size. That law was struck down in Federal Court as infringing on "Interstate Commerce".
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
His argument, so far, has been that it's not government overreach if states do it, but it is government overreach if the feds do it, oh and he wished he'd never done it, but it's the Dems fault. We'll see how well that survives the media cauldron this autumn.
I really want to see how Romney, and even more importantly the lawyers in the Supreme Court case dance around that one.
quote:With Senator Helms, it was just a matter of receiving a heart valve from the same species.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Reminds me of a story that appeared several years ago in the Charlotte, North Carolina, newspaper about ultra-right-wing senator Jesse Helms receiving a heart valve transplant that would extend his life ten years. The story mentioned in passing that the valve came from a pig heart. I noted to myself that anywhere else except North Carolina, the newspaper headline would have read: "Pig to be sacrificed so that Jesse Helms can live 10 more years."
quote:Where are all those disgruntled doctors going to go? If we adopt a single-payer Medicare-type system, it becomes the only game in town. I'm certain we will hear lots of grumbling from doctors and other health-care providers, some legit, some not. Hopefully the more reasonable gripes can be addressed in some productive manner. But the system itself will remain intact if for no other reason than that there will be far fewer places for them to flee to.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Won't it also include a limitation on quality and innovation as well?
Originally posted by tclune:
The big flaw in it is that it doesn't control the run-away costs of health care. Only a single-payer system like Medicare has any hope of that, and it will ultimately necessarily include a limitation on healthcare delivery based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Medicare providers are already saying no thanks. Medicaid providers are also more and more difficult to find. When we add 30 million more patients to a system with fewer and fewer doctors it seems obvious that nothing good will happen.
With no financial incentive ISTM that the field of medicine will succumb to mediocrity under a single payer plan, were one ever to be put in place.
quote:No. Why should it? The vast majority of medical research and innovation in the USA is done in universities and publically owned labs and funded by the government through taxes. in fact about half or more of the medical research in the whole world is paid for by your taxpayers, and thanks very much for it because we all benefit from it. Very little come out of private business. And that includes the big pharma companies.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Won't it also include a limitation on quality and innovation as well?
quote:Like it has in Sweden or Germany or Switzerland? Yeah, really.
With no financial incentive ISTM that the field of medicine will succumb to mediocrity under a single payer plan, were one ever to be put in place.
quote:re: innovation: about 58% of medical research $$ comes from private industry, 27% from the NIH, the rest from charitable foundations presumably, according to
Originally posted by romanlion:
]Won't it also include a limitation on quality and innovation as well?
Medicare providers are already saying no thanks. Medicaid providers are also more and more difficult to find. When we add 30 million more patients to a system with fewer and fewer doctors it seems obvious that nothing good will happen.
With no financial incentive ISTM that the field of medicine will succumb to mediocrity under a single payer plan, were one ever to be put in place.
quote:This statement presupposes the current American medical system is superlative. It is not. It is average, at best, unless you are rich.
Originally posted by romanlion:
With no financial incentive ISTM that the field of medicine will succumb to mediocrity under a single payer plan, were one ever to be put in place.
quote:That's an insult to Sus domestica
Originally posted by tclune:
With Senator Helms, it was just a matter of receiving a heart valve from the same species.
quote:But note that much of the business-funded research is clinical trials, product testing, and marketing, which are really part of the cost of production of a drug and ought not count as "research" in the same sense as basic science.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
cross posted w/ ken to say much the same thing.
quote:Idiot that I am. Scratch that word "but". It makes it sound like I think I am correcting you in some way. I mean of course I agree with what you wrote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:But note that much of the business-funded research is clinical trials, product testing, and marketing, which are really part of the cost of production of a drug and ought not count as "research" in the same sense as basic science.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
cross posted w/ ken to say much the same thing.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
A large percentage of that 58% of private industry isn't about curing tragic diseases, but just about marketing-- about trying to find another product to cut into a competitor's business-- e.g. a new boner pill to compete w/ Viagra. iow, solving problems that have already been solved.
quote:Because Medicare is underfunded. This hardly argues your point.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Medicare providers are already saying no thanks.
quote:And, again, because doctors have the option of cherry picking patients with insurers who pay more (I'm guessing the same doctors eschewing Medicare may also eschew HMOs). When that's no longer an option, the power dynamic will change.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Because Medicare is underfunded. This hardly argues your point.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Medicare providers are already saying no thanks.
) will attack Romney's faith? You know it's coming. )
quote:I think it's extremely unlikely that Obama will do anything of the sort. It isn't a matter of being too high-minded, but it would be hard to do without inspiring a bigger backlash, thus being self-defeating. But, if Obama delves into such waters at all, it would undoubtedly be to "defend" Romney from some dingbat right-wing attack on his faith. A well-worded defense should remind everybody that Romney wears funny underwear and baptizes dead people against their will.
Originally posted by 205:
Any thoughts on how Obama/Mainstream Media (yup: pretty much one and the same
quote:No need to. Stand back and let the fundamentalists and evangelicals do it for them. They no longer have a horse in this race. All they need is a few journalists to ask a few preachers what they really think of Mormon religion. Might work with the Catholics as well - though they are usually more guarded about what they say in public about other religions.
Originally posted by 205:
Any thoughts on how Obama/Mainstream Media (yup: pretty much one and the same
quote:Much as I find it odd to support romanlion, it's clear that the distinction is state vs federal, not republican vs democrat.
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
quote:So is it only unconstitutional if Obama does it? Oh, that's right; when Republicans do the same thing it is awesome.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:25 cents says Romney will simply reply, "Thats the problem with you, Mr. President. You don't understand the difference between a state solution for 5 million citizens and a top down one size fits all debt busting behemoth for 310 million citizens that robs half a billion dollars from medicare and includes an unprecedented and unconstitutional federal demand that people buy a product that they may or may not want."
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
$20 says Obama will turn to Romney during the debates and ask how Romney could argue against a program he designed and implemented in Massachusetts.
(And Romney wouldn't say that anyway.)
quote:At the time, many conservatives saw this as a key element of a market-oriented alternative to single-payer plans proposed by the left; it certainly wasn't seen as an obvious imposition of federal tyranny - at least, not until the Democrats adopted it. Now it seems the Republicans have shifted so far to the right they can't even bear to recognize and appreciate their own ideas.
This mandate is based on two important principles. First, that health care protection is a responsibility of individuals ... Second, it assumes that there is an implicit contract between households and society, based on the notion that health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection ... A mandate on individuals recognizes this implicit contract. Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of health care. But on the other hand, each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself.
quote:No, it was seen as a legislative strategy to craft an alterative proposal, thus dividing support for any health care plan the Democrats came up with, which would ensure that neither plan was enacted. The number of times the Republican party has executed this maneuver on health care reform would indicate that this is a deliberate procedural strategy rather than a good faith effort at reforming the American health care system.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
At the time, many conservatives saw this as a key element of a market-oriented alternative to single-payer plans proposed by the left; . . .
quote:Is there still any sense in which the Gingrich campaign can be considered "serious"? Not being able to come up with $500 to get on the ballot in Utah seems like a major fail for a Republican candidate.
Five Republicans have filed the necessary papers and $500 fee to qualify for the June 26 Utah presidential primary election, but with Rick Santorum dropping out of the race Tuesday, only four will be on the ballot.
Or possibly three.
Newt Gingrich’s check bounced.
quote:Still no.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
That case strongly points to the fact that health insurance is interstate commerce.
Maryland Fair Health Care case
quote:I'm not a lawyer, so I apologize if I used legal lingo in unusual ways.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
OK, the case creates an interesting policy problem. And the existence ERISA itself may suggest that health care is interstate commerce, which is an issue for the lawyers at the Supreme Court to dance around. Had you kept it at that, I wouldn't have jumped in. It was your legal reasoning, in trying to use a case that never examines the federal government's power to regulate health insurance to prove that the federal government does have that power, that got me excited.
(Edit: Changed a word that was overly zealous on my part.)
quote:The problem is that the returns for years prior to his planning a presidential campaign will probably indicate a very low effective tax rate, much lower than the typical middle-class working American. This is something of an image problem for s very wealthy presidential candidate from a party whose platform is that taxes on the rich are currently too high. The attack ads practically write themselves.
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
Mr. Romney seems to be having a problem calculating the taxes due on his current return. He needs an extension.
For some reason, he has also been unwilling release any returns other than the one for 2010. Surely he can very access those returns. What seems to be the problem?
quote:Perhaps, but what are the capital gains of sin, and are they taxed on a different schedule than wages?
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Ah, the unforeseen repercussions of using aggressive accountants.
"And the wages of Sin are Death."
quote:I have to go with: the individual who instituted 'populist politicking' had a mother who did not love him adequately.
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
What seems to be the problem?
quote:I'm glad he endeavored to keep costs down, but refusing to accept Medicare and Medicaid only hurts the poor, nothing to brag about there. There are a heck of a lot of plastic surgeons driving Mercedes around Beverly Hills who can say the same.
Originally posted by Janine:
Not so seriously...
I like the fact that he never took government money from his patients. His focus was, rather, to keep his overhead low and his practice efficient and to help people work out payments and things like that.
quote:who is "us" Kemosabe?
Originally posted by Janine:
The Dems joining us in droves will put their money where their votes are.
quote:Yes, I wouldn't have any medical care if others followed suit. And if the gov't cut either one...
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm glad he endeavored to keep costs down, but refusing to accept Medicare and Medicaid only hurts the poor, nothing to brag about there.
quote:I spent years without needed medical care before I finally qualified for Medicare. I truly don't understand those who are against some form of basic universal health care. Part of the reason costs are so freakin high here in the U.S. is because there are many uninsured who are among the working poor who can't afford insurance or regular health care. Those with chronic conditions end up in the E.R. when their conditions get out of control as a result of no regular care and that is the most expensive care on the planet. And I personally got dumped out of one E.R. due to lack of insurance and had to get admitted as an inpatient later - which was WAY more expensive. The major cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. is medical expenses. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:Yes, I wouldn't have any medical care if others followed suit. And if the gov't cut either one...
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm glad he endeavored to keep costs down, but refusing to accept Medicare and Medicaid only hurts the poor, nothing to brag about there.
quote:Democrats who want to see Ron Paul elected president? Puh-leeze. Don't say "droves" -- let's see some actual numbers.
Originally posted by Janine:
Those who'd like to see Ron Paul as President.
quote:I agree. I think Sober Preacher's point was that Dems should contribute to Paul's campaign as he'll make an effective spoiler v. Romney, thus insuring an Obama victory.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Democrats who want to see Ron Paul elected president? Puh-leeze. Don't say "droves" -- let's see some actual numbers.
Originally posted by Janine:
Those who'd like to see Ron Paul as President.
quote:Wait, you're serious?
Originally posted by Janine:
Those who'd like to see Ron Paul as President.
quote:Is there any indication that Ron Paul will run as a third candidate?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I agree. I think Sober Preacher's point was that Dems should contribute to Paul's campaign as he'll make an effective spoiler v. Romney, thus insuring an Obama victory.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Democrats who want to see Ron Paul elected president? Puh-leeze. Don't say "droves" -- let's see some actual numbers.
Originally posted by Janine:
Those who'd like to see Ron Paul as President.
quote:Paul is being actively courted by the Constitution Party, which has the existing party structure to get their candidate on the ballot in most states, but Paul himself has not expressed any interest whatsoever in their offer. Most observers guess that Paul isn't so much running for President as he is running in order to get his ideas accepted into the eventual Republican platform.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Is there any indication that Ron Paul will run as a third candidate?
quote:when you subsidise something, people want more of it, and prices go up.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I spent years without needed medical care before I finally qualified for Medicare. I truly don't understand those who are against some form of basic universal health care. Part of the reason costs are so freakin high here in the U.S. is because....
quote:Interestingly, this matter has been studied and it appears that the real driver of care is supply rather than demand in the case of medicine. This is unusual, but not as odd as it at first sounds.
Originally posted by romanlion:
when you subsidise something, people want more of it, and prices go up.
The explosion in the cost of medical care is directly proportional to GovCo.'s involvement therein.
quote:The mind of someone who would think "I don't need triple bypass surgery, but I'll get it anyway since it's on sale" is only slightly less twisted than someone who hears such an explanation and considers it perfectly reasonable.
Originally posted by romanlion:
when you subsidise something, people want more of it, and prices go up.
The explosion in the cost of medical care is directly proportional to GovCo.'s involvement therein.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Is the Canadian population just naturally more healthy than the US one, are the Canadian governments better managers than the US ones or is the insurance-plus-litigation culture of the US a contributing factor?
quote:Geez and here I hoped just killing the lawyers would be adequate.
Originally posted by tclune:
It is reasonable to ask how we should factor this into our medical care system. I don't really have any clear ideas on the matter.
quote:Yeah, it's all those whiners sucking up free colonoscopies that's driving up the cost of health care. Yeah, that's it. I know I'd get one if only it were free. No, wait a minute, it is free under my plan. So why haven't I rushed right out to get one? hmmmm.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:when you subsidise something, people want more of it, and prices go up.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I spent years without needed medical care before I finally qualified for Medicare. I truly don't understand those who are against some form of basic universal health care. Part of the reason costs are so freakin high here in the U.S. is because....
The explosion in the cost of medical care is directly proportional to GovCo.'s involvement therein.
quote:Problem is that the doctor and insurance lobbies have been howling about litigation and "tort reform" for decades and many states have put in place caps on recovery, requirements that you have an independent practitioner sign off on the merit of your case (few doctors are willing to stick their necks out like that against their colleagues), and heightened standards of pleading and proof, the net result being that it's very hard to sue for malpractice or to find a lawyer who will sue for you, and if you win, you're not going to get a whole lot.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The cost of medical attention in the US is high largely because it is driven by a) insurance companies requiring huge amounts of paperwork as they try to pass costs off to someone else, and by b) litigation, which is always going to be higher cost in the medical field, since so much is opinion rather than fact.
quote:The other factor is the uninsured, who do, of course, receive health care-- but thru the ER system, which is the least effective and most expensive way to address health care needs. Those exploding ER costs are then, of course, passed on to all of us as both consumers and taxpayers.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The cost of medical attention in the US is high largely because it is driven by a) insurance companies requiring huge amounts of paperwork as they try to pass costs off to someone else, and by b) litigation, which is always going to be higher cost in the medical field, since so much is opinion rather than fact.
quote:So why is the cost of medical care cheaper in countries that subsidize it than in the U.S.? Sorry, but I don't buy it. Our system in the U.S. drives costs up at everyone's expense - but a very real physical sense for those who can't afford insurance or pay cash for medical care. I've been there, so please don't tell me different. I've also worked as an auditor in a major medical center where our prices went up to make up for the masses who turned up in the E.R and couldn't pay the bill. And those who can pay cash pay double or triple what the insurance companies pay. Our system is horrible, even if the care is good for those who can afford it or have insurance. The care sucks for those who can't.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:when you subsidise something, people want more of it, and prices go up.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I spent years without needed medical care before I finally qualified for Medicare. I truly don't understand those who are against some form of basic universal health care. Part of the reason costs are so freakin high here in the U.S. is because....
The explosion in the cost of medical care is directly proportional to GovCo.'s involvement therein.
quote:Not to mention that in the states that have passed such legislation with caps have seen increased insurance costs, not less.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:Problem is that the doctor and insurance lobbies have been howling about litigation and "tort reform" for decades and many states have put in place caps on recovery, requirements that you have an independent practitioner sign off on the merit of your case (few doctors are willing to stick their necks out like that against their colleagues), and heightened standards of pleading and proof, the net result being that it's very hard to sue for malpractice or to find a lawyer who will sue for you, and if you win, you're not going to get a whole lot.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The cost of medical attention in the US is high largely because it is driven by a) insurance companies requiring huge amounts of paperwork as they try to pass costs off to someone else, and by b) litigation, which is always going to be higher cost in the medical field, since so much is opinion rather than fact.
Lost both your legs and live in unbelievable pain because your surgeon got tanked before operating and botched a simple procedure? Too bad, here's $100,000.
And did this curb medical costs and insurance premiums? Nope.
quote:My point was that Ron Paul is crazy and some of his positions are nuttier than a fruitcake. He has written six books on Supply-Side (Austrian) economics which means his economic views are contrary to the interests, both personal and collective, of the majority of Americans. Get him started on Social Security/Medicare and watch the seniors vote melt away. Meanwhile the RNC and senior party leaders would be beside themselves trying to shut him up. It would be hilarious.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I agree. I think Sober Preacher's point was that Dems should contribute to Paul's campaign as he'll make an effective spoiler v. Romney, thus insuring an Obama victory.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Democrats who want to see Ron Paul elected president? Puh-leeze. Don't say "droves" -- let's see some actual numbers.
Originally posted by Janine:
Those who'd like to see Ron Paul as President.
quote:
Actually, though, appeals to what supposedly happened somewhere in the distant past are quite common on the goldbug side of economics. And it’s kind of telling.
I mean, history is essential to economic analysis. You really do want to know, say, about the failure of Argentina’s convertibility law, of the effects of Chancellor Brüning’s dedication to the gold standard, and many other episodes.
Somehow, though, people like Ron Paul don’t like to talk about events of the past century, for which we have reasonably good data; they like to talk about events in the dim mists of history, where we don’t really know what happened. And I think that’s no accident. Partly it’s the attempt of the autodidact to show off his esoteric knowledge; but it’s also the fact that because we don’t really know what happened — what really did go down during the Diocletian era? — you can project what you think should have happened onto the sketchy record, then claim vindication for whatever you want to believe.
quote:That was also mentioned on Krugman's blog:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Is is bad that I wanted to scream at Rep. Paul that he was flat wrong about history within the first two minutes? The US did not pay down its raw debt after WWII, it outgrew it so that existing debt payments were no longer a burden. Every other country did the same thing, except for Germany and Japan which plain out defaulted and we didn't want to repeat Versailles.
quote:
A bit of meta on my “debate” with Ron Paul; I think it’s a perfect illustration of a point I’ve thought about a lot, the uselessness of face-to-face debates.
Think about it: you approach what is, in the end, a somewhat technical subject in a format in which no data can be presented, in which there’s no opportunity to check facts (everything Paul said about growth after World War II was wrong, but who will ever call him on it?). So people react based on their prejudices. If Ron Paul got on TV and said “Gah gah goo goo debasement! theft!” — which is a rough summary of what he actually did say — his supporters would say that he won the debate hands down; I don’t think my supporters are quite the same, but opinions may differ.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In other electoral news, Newt Gingrich has abandonned his presidential campaign in favor of a younger, healthier campaign.
quote:Romney's had a few of those. The one that sticks out most for me was up in New Hampshire when he was stumping for the primary.
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
Loved it! Almost as good as the expression on Mitt's face yesterday, when someone in Cleveland asked about the foreign income taxes listed on his 2010 tax return. From stupid grin to deer in the headlights in an instant. Said he didn't know he had paid any.
quote:That moment was actually captured on video, and you can pretty much see the exact moment when Romney's smile goes from being plastic to being frozen.
It started out as a seemingly safe situation. Mitt Romney, working a friendly room at a the Chez Vachon diner here, approached an older man wearing a Vietnam Veteran cap and sidled up next to him.
After some friendly banter about their ages, Bob Garon asked the former Massachusetts governor whether he supports repealing New Hampshire’s same sex marriage law.
Romney said he did, saying, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s my view.”
With that, it started to become clear that a routine campaign conversation could become hostile. Though Romney had no reason to know it, Garon – a 63-year-old from Epsom, N.H. -- was sitting at the table with his husband.
quote:Massachusetts may allow same-sex marriage, but Romney did everything in his power as governor to thwart that, up to and including enforcement of a 1913 statute originally enacted as a barrier to inter-racial marriages.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Romney night have made a good Moderate Republican or a technocrat, but he's out of his league when it comes to social issues. He was Governor of Massachusetts which allows same-sex marriage!
quote:So he's a politician, then, eh?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
As near as I can tell, Mitt Romney has exactly one principle: that Mitt Romney should be president. Anything else is negotiable.
quote:Yes, Romney has indeed mastered the feats of being at least thirty-five years old, a natural born U.S. citizen, and "been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States". Color me impressed!
Originally posted by romanlion:
Yes! And easily as qualified for the job as the current POTUS.
quote:Oh, I had almost forgotten about that!
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Yes, Romney has indeed mastered the feats of being at least thirty-five years old, a natural born U.S. citizen, and "been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States". Color me impressed!
Originally posted by romanlion:
Yes! And easily as qualified for the job as the current POTUS.
quote:Janus.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Who'll be Romney's VP?
quote:Nah, too old school. Mitt is cooler than that. It will be Harvey Dent.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Janus.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Who'll be Romney's VP?
--Tom Clune
quote:I don't think you quite get the idea of wedge issues. Although the majority of the country favors gay marriage, the majority of the passion is on the other side. Very few pro folk will bother going to the polls to vote their preference, but a heap o' hillbillies will turn out to vote their opposition. Obama won't even pick up the vote of the guy who felt he had to resign from Romney's campaign because he was gay.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Obama has just come out in favor of gay marriage. The right thing to do, plus for once the Dems will have a wedge issue.
quote:Maybe where you live there's no passion on the pro-gay marriage side. Where I live, there's passion.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:I don't think you quite get the idea of wedge issues. Although the majority of the country favors gay marriage, the majority of the passion is on the other side. Very few pro folk will bother going to the polls to vote their preference, but a heap o' hillbillies will turn out to vote their opposition. Obama won't even pick up the vote of the guy who felt he had to resign from Romney's campaign because he was gay.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Obama has just come out in favor of gay marriage. The right thing to do, plus for once the Dems will have a wedge issue.
--Tom Clune
quote:I think you're overestimating Obama's ability to pick up votes from the 'ignorant hillbilly' demographic if he hadn't made this statement. Those votes were never in play, and I suspect their enthusiasm was already quite high to vote against "that Atheist Muslim Kenyan Communazi whut wants to take our guns".
Originally posted by tclune:
I don't think you quite get the idea of wedge issues. Although the majority of the country favors gay marriage, the majority of the passion is on the other side. Very few pro folk will bother going to the polls to vote their preference, but a heap o' hillbillies will turn out to vote their opposition. Obama won't even pick up the vote of the guy who felt he had to resign from Romney's campaign because he was gay.
quote:It isn't a matter of getting them to vote for him, but keeping them bored enough to stay home.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think you're overestimating Obama's ability to pick up votes from the 'ignorant hillbilly' demographic if he hadn't made this statement.
quote:. . . and I suspect their enthusiasm was already quite high to vote against "that Atheist Muslim Kenyan Communazi whut wants to take our guns".
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:It isn't a matter of getting them to vote for him, but keeping them bored enough to stay home.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think you're overestimating Obama's ability to pick up votes from the 'ignorant hillbilly' demographic if he hadn't made this statement.
quote:Yes, I think it will energize the youth vote, which to this point has been less enthusiastic than they were in 2008. As I see it, the only group he stands to hurt himself with are people like the 1.9 million or so California voters who voted for Obama and Proposition 8. (I got that number by subtracting the number of no on 8 votes from the number of Obama votes, so it is unscientific and could be a larger number, depending on how many Republican or third party voters were against Prop 8.) Any thoughts about that group?
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Maybe where you live there's no passion on the pro-gay marriage side. Where I live, there's passion.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:I don't think you quite get the idea of wedge issues. Although the majority of the country favors gay marriage, the majority of the passion is on the other side. Very few pro folk will bother going to the polls to vote their preference, but a heap o' hillbillies will turn out to vote their opposition. Obama won't even pick up the vote of the guy who felt he had to resign from Romney's campaign because he was gay.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Obama has just come out in favor of gay marriage. The right thing to do, plus for once the Dems will have a wedge issue.
--Tom Clune
) ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
quote:The President is taking some (very strongly worded) heat from gay marriage supporters because he assents to this exact position. Surely this statement was a huge step in the right direction from the view of gay marriage supporters, but he still hedged his bets slightly.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Second thought... it occurred to me that a rational voter shouldn't really be swayed much by this because what can a federal President really do about the issue? It's handled at State level, right?
quote:There are some federal issues, like the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (repealed by Obama) or the Defense of [Some] Marriage[s] Act (which the Obama administration is no longer defending against legal challenges) or requiring hospitals that accept Medicare or Medicaid funding to allow same-sex couples visitation rights (which Obama has done). On a practical level, almost everything that's within the power of the President to do on this issue, Obama has done.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Second thought... it occurred to me that a rational voter shouldn't really be swayed much by this because what can a federal President really do about the issue? It's handled at State level, right? I sometimes forget that (as it's not the case in this country).
quote:Well, they didn't stay home in '08. They came out and voted for Obama and for prop 8. We may end up with a 2nd term for Obama and another GOP Congress, God forbid.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The article that I read here in Australia about his gay marriage stance said that this could hurt him a lot with black churches. You may well have your Obama/Proposition 8 combination right there.
Such people are, I think, quite capable of being torn enough to stay at home and not vote (given that that's an option).
quote:The problem there is the same one they ran into in '08: the "Obama is a radical liberal Christian endorsing Marxist liberation theology" narrative conflicts badly with the "Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim leading an attack on Christianity, motherhood, and apple pie" narrative.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The gay-marriage bashers had their chance last time around. Obama is affiliated with the United Church of Christ, the most liberal mainline church in North America. It started to ordain GLBT clergy in 1972. The UCChrist wears its liberalism on its sleeve, loudly and proudly.
Where's UCCLynn when you need her?
If that didn't get them going, this won't.
quote:According to poll savant Nate Silver the gap may indeed be a thing of the past:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Maybe where you live there's no passion on the pro-gay marriage side. Where I live, there's passion.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:I don't think you quite get the idea of wedge issues. Although the majority of the country favors gay marriage, the majority of the passion is on the other side. Very few pro folk will bother going to the polls to vote their preference, but a heap o' hillbillies will turn out to vote their opposition. Obama won't even pick up the vote of the guy who felt he had to resign from Romney's campaign because he was gay.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Obama has just come out in favor of gay marriage. The right thing to do, plus for once the Dems will have a wedge issue.
--Tom Clune
quote:
In addition, there is no longer evidence of an “enthusiasm gap” with respect to same-sex marriage: an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll in March found that 32 percent of Americans said they strongly favored same-sex marriage, while 31 percent strongly opposed it.
quote:I think, though, that it's psychologically different when you have Obama explicitly on the side of gay marriage, rather than just suspecting that he might not be quite as anti-gay-marriage as you (the voter) are.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Well, they didn't stay home in '08. They came out and voted for Obama and for prop 8. We may end up with a 2nd term for Obama and another GOP Congress, God forbid.
Originally posted by orfeo:
The article that I read here in Australia about his gay marriage stance said that this could hurt him a lot with black churches. You may well have your Obama/Proposition 8 combination right there.
Such people are, I think, quite capable of being torn enough to stay at home and not vote (given that that's an option).
quote:My experience tells me the same. Whether younger people are leaving or hanging in, the conservative position is generally seen to be in some way unfair.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Indeed-- when it comes to the youth vote, Rachel Held Evans (as well as, fwiw, my own anecdotal experience w/ my Christian college students) would suggest that the enthusiasm is on the other foot. So to speak.
quote:LOL.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Janus.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Who'll be Romney's VP?
quote:This seems mostly correct. Just going by most of the anti-gay shipmates, most of them still blanch at the idea of explicit legal discrimination.
Thus far, the de facto GOP nominee has been content to robotically cite his opposition to gay marriage and his support for a constitutional ban. But his heart is rarely in it. Indeed, he's been pretty determined to duck the issue since Sunday, when Joe Biden shoved it to the center of the national conversation. That’s partly, I think, because Romney’s no bigot. (The guy appointed the first chief diversity officer in the history of his state, for crying out loud.) But it’s mostly because, while swing voters may be ambivalent about gay marriage itself, they’re much less comfortable with displays of intolerance. Many of the same voters who profess squeamishness over the idea would punish a politician for crusading against it.
quote:
Now, a politician with more credibility among conservatives might be willing to take the guff to preserve his general-election prospects. But conservative cred is something Romney distinctly lacks. It’s the reason he had to take a hard-line stance on immigration during the primaries, and to throw his arms around Paul Ryan. I’d guess it’s the reason he didn’t distance himself from a supporter bent on indicting the president for treason this week.
If George W. Bush were the GOP nominee, the response would be a no brainer: Continue to toe the party line when necessary but otherwise pretend the issue doesn’t exist. But Romney has no such luxury. Trying to minimize it will send barely-repressed conservative suspicions spewing forth like a geyser, while using gay marriage to shore up his right-wing bona fides will play pretty badly this fall.
quote:Probably not. That's one of the hazards of the Vice Presidency.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Does anyone else think Biden deserves a medal for this? Obama has been getting all sorts of positive press for his historic stance. Why does Biden not get credit for actually speaking from his heart, political strategy be damned? I hope the history books report his part in this.
quote:The biggest bar to a Biden 2016 campaign is that he'd be seventy-four years old at that point, which would make him the oldest man ever elected to the Presidency by a margin of about five years.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I don't envision Biden becoming the presidential nominee in '16, even though I think he is basically a very good man. I suspect he knows that, which makes him able to be that rarest of all beasts these days: a true public servant.
quote:This issue needs all the generosity of spirit it can muster.
"He probably got out a little over his skis, but out of generosity of spirit," Obama told ABC. "Would I have preferred to have done this in my own way on my own terms without, I think, there being a lot of notice to everybody? Of course. But all's well that ends well."
quote:You're joking, right?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Why does Biden not get credit for actually speaking from his heart, political strategy be damned?
quote:Correct.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Those three things, of course, never exist under a Republican administration.
quote:I loved it, too. BTW, Morris Berman believes that President Carter was (as U.S. Presidents go) unusually perceptive and visionary. He made a last-ditch effort to turn his country away from the infantile, self-destructive trajectory on which it was hell-bent. As could be expected, he failed; hence he is often considered a failure. But making the attempt is the only responsible thing to do. His successor, Reagan, actually cheered us on in that path, and every President since has either done likewise or at least gone along with it for short-term gain.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For further electoral merriment, here's a statement by "Jimmy Carter".
quote:And yet the budget plan offered by Obama's likely challenger, Mitt Romney, would increase the national debt even more according to the CBO. Coupled with Romney's plan to add a bunch of federal workers to the unemployment rolls (hey, it worked at Bain!), I'm not sure either debt or unemployment are winning issues for the Republicans this time around.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Correct.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Those three things, of course, never exist under a Republican administration.
Obama's 42 month debt increase surpassed all 8 years of Bush, and that is some neat trick.
Unemployment has never been >8% for this long.
The US bond rating downgrade was unprecedented.
quote:That was the strategy; if you read my link, the plan was to wait until later this summer to spring the announcement, so that it would have a bigger effect on the election.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:You're joking, right?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Why does Biden not get credit for actually speaking from his heart, political strategy be damned?
The strategy (and thats all it is) is to find anything to make this election about that isn't debt, downgrade, and unemployment.
Good luck with that.
quote:If you're going to make the case that a Republican should replace Obama, you can't cry like a schoolgirl when people point our how Republicans acted the last time they were in power. This is particularly true when the current roster of Republicans not only have not repudiated the financial mismanagement that occurred last time they controlled both the executive and legislative branch, but actually intend to continue the same policies.
Originally posted by romanlion:
Focus Backwards and Bitch
Obama/Biden 2012
quote:Of course, if you're going to try to defend Obama, you can't cry like a schoolgirl when people point out that he has governed like the last Republican POTUS, either. The rest of us, however, can bawl our eyes out about the whole sorry mess...
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
If you're going to make the case that a Republican should replace Obama, you can't cry like a schoolgirl when people point our how Republicans acted the last time they were in power.
quote:Except that I don't believe he's governed much like the last Republican POTUS at all, so I'm not crying.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Of course, if you're going to try to defend Obama, you can't cry like a schoolgirl when people point out that he has governed like the last Republican POTUS, either. The rest of us, however, can bawl our eyes out about the whole sorry mess...
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
If you're going to make the case that a Republican should replace Obama, you can't cry like a schoolgirl when people point our how Republicans acted the last time they were in power.
--Tom Clune
quote:So in your world the Afghan war is over, the banks didn't get a bail-out, the crooks in the banks were prosecuted to the full extent of the law, Guantanimo prison is closed, people (including Americans) are not routinely killed remotely by drones while going about their business in non-belligerant countries around the world, and the routine wire-tapping of American citizens has been halted? Is there room for me to move to your America, because I'm sick and tired of living in this one...
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Except that I don't believe he's governed much like the last Republican POTUS at all, so I'm not crying.
quote:It's worse than that. They also have to chair the Senate.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The Vice President: are they just there in case the President doesn't make it (for whatever reason) to the end of their term?
quote:The Vice President has two and a half Constitutional functions.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Can I just check something with y'all?
The Vice President: are they just there in case the President doesn't make it (for whatever reason) to the end of their term?
quote:Amen!
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Except that I don't believe he's governed much like the last Republican POTUS at all, so I'm not crying.
quote:Amen!
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Except that I don't believe he's governed much like the last Republican POTUS at all, so I'm not crying.
quote:Amen!
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Except that I don't believe he's governed much like the last Republican POTUS at all, so I'm not crying.
quote:Right on.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:Amen!
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Except that I don't believe he's governed much like the last Republican POTUS at all, so I'm not crying.
O. inherited 2 wars, various financial crises; members of Congress who swore from the beginning that they'd never vote for anything O. wanted; detractor movements of people who disparaged or questioned his race (both hating that he's African-American and asking if he's black *enough*), religion, place of birth, parentage, and living overseas; and that's just skimming the most obvious problems from the top.
quote:One VP was quoted as saying "The vice-presidency isn't worth a pitcher of warm spit." I say "was quoted" because he didn't actually say "spit," but what he did say wasn't printable in those days.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The Vice President has two and a half Constitutional functions.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Can I just check something with y'all?
The Vice President: are they just there in case the President doesn't make it (for whatever reason) to the end of their term?
1) He (and they've all been a "he" so far) succeeds the President if the President can't finish his term.
2) He presides over the U.S. Senate but does not get to cast a vote except in the case of a tie. One senator, when asked about the possibility of being put on his party's ticket as Vice President, reputedly declined by saying "I'd rather have a vote than a gavel".
2.5) As the President of the Senate, the Vice President acts as a judge in all impeachments, except when it's the President who's impeached. For Presidential impeachments the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court takes over this function.
quote:Bad news for Obama:
Overall, 51% approve of Obama's new position on same-sex marriage, compared with 45% who disapprove.
quote:
Nearly 13% say his shift in position will make them more likely to vote for him, while 26% say it will make them less likely . . .
quote:And Castro. Seriously.
Originally posted by ChaliceGirl:
Right on.
And now that he is supporting gay marriage, they are REALLY going to get ridiculous with name calling and smokescreens. They are already calling him Hitler and Satan.
quote:Er, what names are they going to call him that are *worse* than Hitler and Satan?
Originally posted by ChaliceGirl:
And now that he is supporting gay marriage, they are REALLY going to get ridiculous with name calling and smokescreens. They are already calling him Hitler and Satan.
quote:My exhaustive research of US politics (I watched West Wing) seemed to show as much. But I just wanted to make sure.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:One VP was quoted as saying "The vice-presidency isn't worth a pitcher of warm spit." I say "was quoted" because he didn't actually say "spit," but what he did say wasn't printable in those days.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The Vice President has two and a half Constitutional functions.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Can I just check something with y'all?
The Vice President: are they just there in case the President doesn't make it (for whatever reason) to the end of their term?
1) He (and they've all been a "he" so far) succeeds the President if the President can't finish his term.
2) He presides over the U.S. Senate but does not get to cast a vote except in the case of a tie. One senator, when asked about the possibility of being put on his party's ticket as Vice President, reputedly declined by saying "I'd rather have a vote than a gavel".
2.5) As the President of the Senate, the Vice President acts as a judge in all impeachments, except when it's the President who's impeached. For Presidential impeachments the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court takes over this function.
quote:I can't say this surprises me much. Those in favour were probably already in favour of him, and are less likely to see it as a critical issue than those against.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Gallup has done a very quick poll of 1,000 Americans about Obama's endorsement of same-sex marriage.
Good news for Obama:
quote:Bad news for Obama:
Overall, 51% approve of Obama's new position on same-sex marriage, compared with 45% who disapprove.
quote:
Nearly 13% say his shift in position will make them more likely to vote for him, while 26% say it will make them less likely . . .
quote:To paraphrase Mark Twain: "There are lies, damn lies, and polls."
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Gallup has done a very quick poll of 1,000 Americans about Obama's endorsement of same-sex marriage.
quote:VP can often (especially in the GOP) be a stepping-stone to the nomination at the top of the ticket.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So apart from its constitutional role, who in their right mind would be VP?
quote:It's even worse than that -- on this issue, a poll of 1000 doesn't even accurately represent the opinions of those 1000. On issues where there is a perceived "correct" answer, people tend to give that answer in public and vote their hearts in private. That, apparently, was the case in NC, where the state constitutional ammendment passed by a lot more than pre-voting polling indicated. For the long-haul, the fact that being pro-same sex marriage is coming to be seen as the "correct" answer probably bodes well for the issue, but the tendency for people to vote other than how they poll on the issue may well bode poorly for Obama this year.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:To paraphrase Mark Twain: "There are lies, damn lies, and polls."
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Gallup has done a very quick poll of 1,000 Americans about Obama's endorsement of same-sex marriage.
I could never understand how it could be claimed that a sampling of 1000 accurately represents the opinion of millions, but then again I'm not Gallup.
quote:It is said that every VP left the office a better golfer than he started. OliviaG
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... So apart from its constitutional role, who in their right mind would be VP?
quote:Yes- this was often seen in North Carolina when Sen. Jesse Helms was still living. He would routinely win by a much bigger margin than he had polled. Nobody in the more liberal parts of the state wanted to admit to a pollster that they were voting for a crafty old racist.
Originally posted by tclune:
On issues where there is a perceived "correct" answer, people tend to give that answer in public and vote their hearts in private. That, apparently, was the case in NC, where the state constitutional ammendment passed by a lot more than pre-voting polling indicated.
quote:That's why polls always come with a margin of error. For a well-constructed poll of 1000 people, I believe the margin is usually around +/-3%.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
I could never understand how it could be claimed that a sampling of 1000 accurately represents the opinion of millions, but then again I'm not Gallup.
quote:By this reasoning black people in the US never would have gotten civil rights. Since gay people turn up in all sorts of people's families and so are far harder to segregate than black people, I think your reasoning is faulty, at least over the long haul. The short term, of course, is another matter.
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's certainly a critical issue for those personally affected, and for some of those close to those personally affected, but the reality is that probably isn't that much of the population. Whereas, on the other hand, there are a very large number of people in no danger of ever attending a same-sex wedding who think it's vitally important that no-one else ever attend a same-sex wedding either.
quote:Where is Al Haig when you need him.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
PS I think constitutionally the VP is the heir, but the Speaker of the House is the spare.
quote:Hmm. I take your point, problem is the percentage of gay people simply isn't very high. I know some people want to claim it's 10%, but the most thorough research I've seen on the topic tended to suggest it was more like 2%.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:By this reasoning black people in the US never would have gotten civil rights. Since gay people turn up in all sorts of people's families and so are far harder to segregate than black people, I think your reasoning is faulty, at least over the long haul. The short term, of course, is another matter.
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's certainly a critical issue for those personally affected, and for some of those close to those personally affected, but the reality is that probably isn't that much of the population. Whereas, on the other hand, there are a very large number of people in no danger of ever attending a same-sex wedding who think it's vitally important that no-one else ever attend a same-sex wedding either.
quote:Loving v Virginia striking down laws against interracial marriage.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Actually the only significant Civil Rights case of the Supreme Court was Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education. Most everything else was addressed through legislation (the Civil Rights Acts and the Voting Rights Act and the 24th Amendment outlawing poll taxes) or changes in federal policy, such as integration of the military or mandating desegregation in interstate travel.
quote:I seem to recall you saying you had no intention of voting for Romney either (IIRC "not if his life depended on it").
Originally posted by romanlion:
Focus Backwards and Bitch
Obama/Biden 2012
quote:Which will remain dysfunctional, so what's the point? Until the Senate rules are changed to allow something close to a simple majority to pass most routine laws and budgets, there won't be any governance to speak of no matter who is in the majority.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The Democrats will keep the Senate
quote:Gideon v Wainwright, unless you think that "civil rights" applies only to people of color.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:Loving v Virginia striking down laws against interracial marriage.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Actually the only significant Civil Rights case of the Supreme Court was Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education. Most everything else was addressed through legislation (the Civil Rights Acts and the Voting Rights Act and the 24th Amendment outlawing poll taxes) or changes in federal policy, such as integration of the military or mandating desegregation in interstate travel.
quote:Nice way to lose the context, Tom. We were talking about black people's civil rights specifically.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Gideon v Wainwright, unless you think that "civil rights" applies only to people of color.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:Loving v Virginia striking down laws against interracial marriage.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Actually the only significant Civil Rights case of the Supreme Court was Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education. Most everything else was addressed through legislation (the Civil Rights Acts and the Voting Rights Act and the 24th Amendment outlawing poll taxes) or changes in federal policy, such as integration of the military or mandating desegregation in interstate travel.
--Tom Clune
quote:I think you're overlooking the massive amount of racial bias in the U.S. criminal justice system as it existed in 1963. Very much like poll taxes or literacy tests for voting, there was a lot of stuff that was prima facie race-neutral but had the effect "on the ground" of reinforcing the American racial caste system of the day. Requiring competent* legal counsel for all criminal defendants had a definite chilling effect on racially-motivated prosecutions.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Nice way to lose the context, Tom. We were talking about black people's civil rights specifically.
Originally posted by tclune:
Gideon v Wainwright, unless you think that "civil rights" applies only to people of color.
--Tom Clune
quote:No, we were talking about gay people's civil rights specifically.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Nice way to lose the context, Tom. We were talking about black people's civil rights specifically.
Originally posted by tclune:
Gideon v Wainwright, unless you think that "civil rights" applies only to people of color.
--Tom Clune
If prior examples count for comparison, why should they be limited to racial issues?
quote:If only...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Requiring competent* legal counsel for all criminal defendants had a definite chilling effect on racially-motivated prosecutions.
--------------------
*Or halfway-competent, as the current level of funding of public defenders seems to provide.
quote:That is correct.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:I seem to recall you saying you had no intention of voting for Romney either (IIRC "not if his life depended on it").
Originally posted by romanlion:
Focus Backwards and Bitch
Obama/Biden 2012
quote:Just wondering.. how is that a "wasted" vote? I mean, I get that you don't' think either one of them is a good candidate, but since they are the two in contention, and presumably people can prefer one over the other, how is their vote "wasted" by being used. Seems to me NOT using ones vote is a bigger waste than using it to choose a whichever candidate one feels is the lesser evil. unless they are literally exactly equal in one's estimation, and even then it doesn't seem like "waste" is the right word to use. waste means giving up something for nothing. seems to me that if you do not vote, you get nothing, but if you vote even between two unsuitable candidates, you are at least making use of your vote, instead of just letting it "waste away" so to speak.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:That is correct.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:I seem to recall you saying you had no intention of voting for Romney either (IIRC "not if his life depended on it").
Originally posted by romanlion:
Focus Backwards and Bitch
Obama/Biden 2012
There has never been a POTUS that I voted for.
I have never voted for a runner-up. I expect that trend to continue.
That any thoughtful citizen would waste their vote on Obama or Romney is equally sad and astounding to me, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy the show.
quote:
... As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government. ...
OliviaG
quote:Well, a few sane/principled Republicans have in fact been advocating that rationale for quite some time.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Obama leads, Republicans follow: Leaked Republican Memo Advises Quick Evolution On Gay Issues. And boy, can they spin:
quote:
... As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government. ...
quote:I'm sure both of them are pleased.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Well, a few sane/principled Republicans have in fact been advocating that rationale for quite some time.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Obama leads, Republicans follow: Leaked Republican Memo Advises Quick Evolution On Gay Issues. And boy, can they spin:
quote:
... As people who promote personal responsibility, family values, commitment and stability, and emphasize freedom and limited government we have to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone. This includes the freedom to decide how you live and to enter into relationships of your choosing, the freedom to live without excessive interference of the regulatory force of government. ...
quote:Republicans: Campaigning Against Marriage is a Losing Strategy
“Governor Mitt Romney’s statement in opposition to not just marriage but civil unions jeopardizes his ability to win moderates, women and younger voters, especially as a large majority of Americans favor some form of relationship recognition for their LGBT friends and neighbors. Ultimately, the response of the Republican candidates this election cycle will determine not just endorsements by Log Cabin Republicans, but the votes of millions of Americans who are simply tired of the culture wars.”
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Republicans: Campaigning Against Marriage is a Losing Strategy
quote:Obama has been so flawlessly competent and all.
That said, Americans can be certain that the President would not have made this decision at this time if it were not in his best political interests.
quote:The "Both Sides Do It", "Shape of the Earth: Opinions Differ" template? I thought that was taught first year in journalism school.
Originally posted by 205:
On Bill Moyer's relatively new show this week Kathleen Hall Jamieson was discussing how to assess when you were hearing bullshit from politicians: it was SO refreshing when, while providing examples by parsing two related but opposing political ads, she chose to demonstrate how the Obama campaign had misled before she demonstrated how the Romney campaign had misled.
Obviously she is ignorant of the template.
quote:I guess it's a question of the time-frame being considered. Using the specific example of California, in 2000 the vote for Proposition 22 was 59-37 (54% voter turnout). In 2008 Proposition 8 (which did the same thing but as an amendment to the state constitution rather than a law) passed 52-48 (79% voter turnout). That's a swing of eighteen percentage points in just eight years. Any Republican strategists thinking beyond the current election cycle have to consider the consequences of being seen as the future's equivalent of the anti-Suffage or pro-Segregation party.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I was making the point that gay marriage is a losing issue to a fellow Republican yesterday; I believe that it is, and politics aside, I have no problem with gay marriage.
His response: if it is a losing issue, then why do anti-gay marriage referendums generally pass, even in states like California?
quote:You must be talking about Californian percentage points. On this coast, it comes to considerably less...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Using the specific example of California, in 2000 the vote for Proposition 22 was 59-37 (54% voter turnout). In 2008 Proposition 8 (which did the same thing but as an amendment to the state constitution rather than a law) passed 52-48 (79% voter turnout). That's a swing of eighteen percentage points in just eight years.
quote:Notice how the goalposts have moved. Horrified that the idea would be accepted in court, they called for same-sex marriage to be enacted by legislation. When that happened, they said it wasn't good enough and called for a referendum. One of these days, a referendum will pass, or at least a proposed het-only constitutional amendment will fail the needed majority. Will that be the end of it, or will they demand a favorable encyclical from the Vatican?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
if it is a losing issue, then why do anti-gay marriage referendums generally pass, even in states like California?
quote:I simply meant the difference between a measure passing by a margin of twenty-two percentage points and passing by four percentage points.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:You must be talking about Californian percentage points. On this coast, it comes to considerably less...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Using the specific example of California, in 2000 the vote for Proposition 22 was 59-37 (54% voter turnout). In 2008 Proposition 8 (which did the same thing but as an amendment to the state constitution rather than a law) passed 52-48 (79% voter turnout). That's a swing of eighteen percentage points in just eight years.
--Tom Clune
quote:Note that the referendum in question failed four years ago (at least in trend-setting California). The landscape on this particular issue, especially among young voters, is changing rapidly. I've noticed a radical shift even among the 18-19 year old conservative evangelicals I teach over just the last two years.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I was making the point that gay marriage is a losing issue to a fellow Republican yesterday; I believe that it is, and politics aside, I have no problem with gay marriage.
His response: if it is a losing issue, then why do anti-gay marriage referendums generally pass, even in states like California?
quote:New York Times columnist/blogger Paul Krugman performs the post-mortem:
Americans Elect, the deep-pocketed nonprofit group that set out to nominate a centrist third-party presidential ticket, admitted early Tuesday that its ballyhooed online nominating process had failed.
The group had qualified for the general election ballot in 27 states, and had generated concern among Democrats and Republicans alike that it could wreak havoc on a close election between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
But just after a midnight deadline Monday, the group acknowledged that its complicated online nominating process had failed to generate sufficient interest to push any of the candidates who had declared an interest in its nomination over the threshold in its rules.
“Because of this, under the rules that AE delegates ratified, the primary process would end today,” said the group’s Kahlil Byrd in a statement issued at 12:01 a.m.
quote:So, amazingly, a political movement created mostly to appeal only to professional pundits failed to get sufficient interest from a large number of voters? Who would have guessed?
What went wrong? Well, there actually is a large constituency in America for a political leader who is willing to take responsible positions — to call for more investment in the nation’s education and infrastructure, to propose bringing down the long-run deficit through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. And there is in fact a political leader ready and willing (maybe too willing) to play that role; his name is Barack Obama.
So why Americans Elect? Because there exists in America a small class of professional centrists, whose stock in trade is denouncing the extremists in both parties and calling for a middle ground. And this class cannot, as a professional matter, admit that there already is a centrist party in America, the Democrats — that the extremism they decry is all coming from one side of the political fence. Because if they admitted that, they’d just be moderate Democrats, with no holier-than-thou pedestal to stand on.
Americans Elect was created to appeal to this class of professional centrists — which meant that it was doomed to go nowhere.
quote:It's important to remember that California is not liberal through and through. The inland empire, the San Joaquin Valley, Orange County and San Diego all tend to be conservative.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
His response: if it is a losing issue, then why do anti-gay marriage referendums generally pass, even in states like California?
quote:Hope remains.
Originally posted by RuthW:
It's important to remember that California is not liberal through and through.
quote:
No balloons. No banners. No cheering crowd. No need for a victory speech to a throng of adoring and loyal supporters.
As he sat in a prison cell in Texas, Keith Judd, inmate # 11593-051, was winning 40% of the vote in the West Virginia Democratic primary last week amid whatever fanfare one could receive in such a place.
snip
"It's about time,' he said. "The message is out there."
"The poor and middle class are being controlled by the wealthy. It's like Monopoly," he said. "When one person gets all the money, the game is over."
snip
"I think some people really voted for me, not just against Obama"
quote:Does this mean I can ignore the circus for around 5 months? I don't know there's much chance of anything interesting happening in the meantime for us overseas folk.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And it's [semi-]official: Mitt Romney now has enough delegates to mathematically insure his nomination, proving that Republican primary voters hate him less than any of the alternative candidates.
quote:Depends on how good you are at filtering out idiocy. For example, the Romney campaign recently released an iPod app that would superimpose the Romney slogan over the picture of various supporters. The problem? Apparently no one at the Romney campaign knows how to spell "America" or knows how to use spell check.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Does this mean I can ignore the circus for around 5 months? I don't know there's much chance of anything interesting happening in the meantime for us overseas folk.
quote:The opponents of gay marriage tend to be much better organized and more passionate about their views than most who are for it. (Obviously many gay people and their closest allies are passionate for gay marriage, but many others who answer "pro-gay marriage" on a survey aren't likely to take the time to go to a poll.)
His response: if it is a losing issue, then why do anti-gay marriage referendums generally pass, even in states like California?
quote:(They're not mutually exclusive, of course.) I think Trump genuinely believes what he says - that 'everyone' thinks Obama is Kenyan. Trouble is that Trump's 'everyone' is his circle of yes-men who agree with his moronic positions.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
OK, so Donald Trump is back again, playing the racist birther and affirmative action cards. Is he stupid or delusional?
quote:Oh my God. How embarrassment.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Apparently no one at the Romney campaign knows how to spell "America" or knows how to use spell check.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Is he stupid or delusional? Romney's cat's-paw or just a loud-mouthed asshole? Petty revenge for the WH correspodents' dinner jokes?
quote:No, I'll vote for Obama. I don't think that Obama is a better POTUS than Romney would be, but I am seriously concerned about the excesses of the rest of the Republican party. I just don't want to see the "my way or the highway" crowd get any more influence than they have already. If I think too much about Obama's record of killing Americans on foreign soil with no due process or his sorry response to the Wall Street crisis, I'm hard-pressed to justify giving him a vote. But I probably will anyway.
Originally posted by 205:
At this point in the thread I find myself thinking most about Tom Clune's take on Romney:
are you going to vote for him or Obama?
Why?
(I predict Tom will go Romney but unfortunately have no affiliation with either.)
quote:And you think those would have been handled better under a Republican?
Originally posted by tclune:
...If I think too much about Obama's record of killing Americans on foreign soil with no due process or his sorry response to the Wall Street crisis, I'm hard-pressed to justify giving him a vote.
quote:Yes. Both of these were handled uniquely badly by Obama. George HW Bush had a similar banking scandal on his watch, and he imprisoned over a thousand officers of the S&Ls. Nobody has denied due process to Americans by assassinating them from drone strikes or any comparable method AFAIK. This was an even more shocking usurpation of the rule of law than GW Bush's illegal wiretapping of everybody under the sun -- a practice that Obama has apparently continued.
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:And you think those would have been handled better under a Republican?
Originally posted by tclune:
...If I think too much about Obama's record of killing Americans on foreign soil with no due process or his sorry response to the Wall Street crisis, I'm hard-pressed to justify giving him a vote.
quote:Heh. I was attending a crazy-liberal arts college during the 2000 election, and I remember a lot of Nader supporters on campus saying that functionally there was no difference between Republicans and Democrats (Bush and Gore, specifically) and we should all vote Green to send a message to the establishment.
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:And you think those would have been handled better under a Republican?
Originally posted by tclune:
...If I think too much about Obama's record of killing Americans on foreign soil with no due process or his sorry response to the Wall Street crisis, I'm hard-pressed to justify giving him a vote.
quote:If it looks like there's any possibility of Oregon going red (very unlikely), I'll vote for Obama. If not, I'll vote Green (changed my party registration last week).
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:No, I'll vote for Obama. I don't think that Obama is a better POTUS than Romney would be, but I am seriously concerned about the excesses of the rest of the Republican party. I just don't want to see the "my way or the highway" crowd get any more influence than they have already. If I think too much about Obama's record of killing Americans on foreign soil with no due process or his sorry response to the Wall Street crisis, I'm hard-pressed to justify giving him a vote. But I probably will anyway.
Originally posted by 205:
At this point in the thread I find myself thinking most about Tom Clune's take on Romney:
are you going to vote for him or Obama?
Why?
(I predict Tom will go Romney but unfortunately have no affiliation with either.)
--Tom Clune
quote:But Newt Gingrich said Romney will win at least forty percent of the Latino vote. Saying otherwise would imply that Mr. Gingrich is just a fatuous gasbag pulling spin out of his ass!
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Heard this mentioned on NPR this evening. Did you know that Obama is polling about even with Romney in Utah? That is because of the Hispanic population. Likewise there are other states with strong Hispanic populations that were formerly considered strong Republican that just might go Democratic because of the Latino vote.
quote:Obama didn't close Gitmo because Congress (including most Democrats) overrode him by denying the funds to close the camp and relocate the prisoners to domestic prisons.
I am willing to cut Obama some slack in not closing Guantanimo like he promised because it was politically difficult.
quote:And, as is his wont, he just folded in the presence of opposing views. He did the same thing with the single-payer option on healthcare. The good Presidents in our history make their case when faced with opposition. The great Presidents make their case and steamroll te opposition. Obama seems reluctant to use the bully pulpit at all. To my mind, that makes him a weak President.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:Obama didn't close Gitmo because Congress (including most Democrats) overrode him by denying the funds to close the camp and relocate the prisoners to domestic prisons.
I am willing to cut Obama some slack in not closing Guantanimo like he promised because it was politically difficult.
quote:Damn! It must be the Spirit of Pentecost. You and I agree on something!
Originally posted by tclune:
About the only thing positive one may be able to say about his Presidency is that Jimmmy Carter may finally make it out of the cellar as the worst living POTUS.
quote:The idea that Presidential rhetoric can move a significant number of Congressional votes seems as common as it is misguided. As a former Senator, I give Obama at least the credit to know that making a strongly worded speech isn't going to get James Inhofe to change his vote. Heck, that wouldn't even get Olympia Snow to change her vote.
Originally posted by tclune:
And, as is his wont, he just folded in the presence of opposing views. He did the same thing with the single-payer option on healthcare. The good Presidents in our history make their case when faced with opposition. The great Presidents make their case and steamroll te opposition. Obama seems reluctant to use the bully pulpit at all. To my mind, that makes him a weak President.
quote:The bully pulpit isn't intended to change the minds of Senators. It is intended to change the views of the electorate. That either changes the mind of the Senator or changes the Senator. Senators themselves are moved by force or pork. LBJ was a master of that use of the Presidency.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The idea that Presidential rhetoric can move a significant number of Congressional votes seems as common as it is misguided. As a former Senator, I give Obama at least the credit to know that making a strongly worded speech isn't going to get James Inhofe to change his vote. Heck, that wouldn't even get Olympia Snow to change her vote.
Originally posted by tclune:
And, as is his wont, he just folded in the presence of opposing views. He did the same thing with the single-payer option on healthcare. The good Presidents in our history make their case when faced with opposition. The great Presidents make their case and steamroll te opposition. Obama seems reluctant to use the bully pulpit at all. To my mind, that makes him a weak President.
quote:Again, popular opinion is contrary to actual events.
Originally posted by tclune:
The bully pulpit isn't intended to change the minds of Seantors. It is intended to change the views of the electorate.
It's not clear it can even do that.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tclune:
That either changes the mind of the Senator or changes the Senator. Senators themselves are moved by force or pork. LBJ was a master of that use of the Presidency.
quote:You're confusing a President with a dictator.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:And, as is his wont, he just folded in the presence of opposing views. He did the same thing with the single-payer option on healthcare. The good Presidents in our history make their case when faced with opposition. The great Presidents make their case and steamroll te opposition. Obama seems reluctant to use the bully pulpit at all. To my mind, that makes him a weak President.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
quote:Obama didn't close Gitmo because Congress (including most Democrats) overrode him by denying the funds to close the camp and relocate the prisoners to domestic prisons.
I am willing to cut Obama some slack in not closing Guantanimo like he promised because it was politically difficult.
Given the excesses of the Republican thugs in the House, it is stunningly counter-productive to have such a weak President right at the time that we have such unruly contrarians willing to bring our government to a stand-still in the middle of a national economic crisis. About the only thing positive one may be able to say about his Presidency is that Jimmmy Carter may finally make it out of the cellar as the worst living POTUS.
--Tom Clune
quote:The guy is IMNSHO very difficult to understand but my take is he just hasn't had enough 'managerial life experience' yet.
Originally posted by tclune:
But, when I voted for him the first time, I actually thought that he would do the hard things that were right. He seems to do the hard things that are anti-democratic, and that's a huge problem.
)quote:Only if they win. Lots of women have been candidates for vice-president. OliviaG
Originally posted by 205:
... Also, some pundits have suggested Obama may be desperate enough to dump Biden and have Hillary as Veep: I think that would garner him some (perhaps enough) votes as it would again become an 'historic' election.
quote:Gosh - not sure what you're getting at there.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
PS And there's really only two kinds of people: those who are binary, and those who are not.
quote:If Romney raises so much as a finger against obamacare, the Democrats will be all over him in a heartbeat with very decent, very factual, very true quotes from Romney explaining and justifying Romneycare in Massachusetts. Romney was (rightly) proud of his achievement there when he signed the law, he said that a free ride for the uninsured who showed up at emergency rooms was irresponsible and unAmerican. He also said since no care is inhumane, a personal health manadate was the best solution.
I also think Obama's efforts to demonize Romney will backfire as no matter what is said it's apparent he's at least a decent guy. Even Bill Clinton said as much.
quote:I way I first saw this joke (and you have to read it, not hear it) is: "There are 10 kinds of people in this world -- those who understand binary and those who don't."
Originally posted by 205:
quote:Gosh - not sure what you're getting at there.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
PS And there's really only two kinds of people: those who are binary, and those who are not.
quote:That's rich since our nominee is Mitt Romney.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
They will reject the extreme right the GOP has put itself on.
quote:Aye: presumably the way they rejected Scott Walker.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:That's rich since our nominee is Mitt Romney.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
They will reject the extreme right the GOP has put itself on.
quote:Heck, this Limey lefty can see that Romney isn't right-wing. Certainly not by GOP (Republican) standards.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:That's rich since our nominee is Mitt Romney.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
They will reject the extreme right the GOP has put itself on.
quote:I'm not sure where this "Romney is really a moderate" idea comes from. Given his current positions, he's significantly more socially conservative than Reagan or either of the Presidents Bush, and his economic policies are pretty much in line with those of the most recent Bush.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Heck, this Limey lefty can see that Romney isn't right-wing. Certainly not by GOP (Republican) standards.
quote:Of course, amusingly to those of us in the UK, Obama is really rather right-wing when comparing his policies to some policies of our 'right-wing' Conservative party, which makes even a moderate Republican seem really rather hard-core...
Heck, this Limey lefty can see that Romney isn't right-wing. Certainly not by GOP (Republican) standards. [/QB]
quote:Ah, yes. "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
Originally posted by Gramps49:
We Americans love a divided government, The best way to do that is elect a Democratic congress and president
quote:Last week I heard a talk radio personality refer to a certain subset of Libertarians as 'Branch Paulinians'.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Democrats
quote:Political junkies hope every four years that there is going to be a floor fight, but every four years, the convention turns into a four-night long advertisement for the candidate. If this campaign remains as close as it has been through convention time (and I see no reason why it won't- despite several news-grabbing announcements by the Obama administration, his numbers remain pretty steady), the GOP will find a way to appease Paul supporters on the platform, and prevent a scene at the convention. The strategy is clear- any time Romney spends not talking about the deficit or the fact that unemployment is still over 8 percent is time wasted.
Originally posted by Janine:
Hee. Cute.
I figure this Huff article explains one aspect of why we've been so interested & motivated to keep scrambling for delegates.
quote:This is absolutely right. Health care reform polls pretty close to 50-50 at this point, with a slight edge disapproving. The ruling may give health care approval a slight bump, but unless Obama can convince the country that it does good things, we are right back at the election turning on the October jobs report.
Originally posted by RuthW:
I would bet the rent that right now the Obama strategists are trying to figure out how they market this win to swing voters in swing states. The difficulty here is that they don't have a simple slogan - they've got to explain how a rather complicated law is going to make people's lives better.
quote:I suspect that the big win for Obama in this is that he looks competent for a change. He's been looking pretty feckless for a while, and actually managing to accomplish something that he set as a very high priority will probably play pretty well with folks who may or may not care either way about health care. In truth, the plan itself is so mediocre that it probably plays better with folks who don't care about health care...
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:This is absolutely right. Health care reform polls pretty close to 50-50 at this point, with a slight edge disapproving. The ruling may give health care approval a slight bump, but unless Obama can convince the country that it does good things, we are right back at the election turning on the October jobs report.
Originally posted by RuthW:
I would bet the rent that right now the Obama strategists are trying to figure out how they market this win to swing voters in swing states. The difficulty here is that they don't have a simple slogan - they've got to explain how a rather complicated law is going to make people's lives better.
quote:Who knows? The Romney campaign can now run ads saying that the Supreme Court has declared Obama has lied to the American people. Will it really matter to us?
How do you see this affecting the November election?
quote:The problem being that the real positive impact, the real game-changers, of Affordable Health Care don't kick in until '14. That was necessary to get it passed-- the GOP is, sadly, no one's fool when it comes to political strategy. But it means that most Americans aren't feeling any benefit and some are even feeling some pain (our patriotic private insurers have boosted rates in advance of the '14 roll-outs-- making hay while they still can). So it comes down to having to say "trust me"-- which doesn't play well with American voters these days.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:This is absolutely right. Health care reform polls pretty close to 50-50 at this point, with a slight edge disapproving. The ruling may give health care approval a slight bump, but unless Obama can convince the country that it does good things, we are right back at the election turning on the October jobs report.
Originally posted by RuthW:
I would bet the rent that right now the Obama strategists are trying to figure out how they market this win to swing voters in swing states. The difficulty here is that they don't have a simple slogan - they've got to explain how a rather complicated law is going to make people's lives better.
quote:I might be missing what you are saying here- why was the 2014 delay necessary to get it passed?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That was necessary to get it passed-- the GOP is, sadly, no one's fool when it comes to political strategy.
quote:One of many compromises Obama made to get it passed ( too many compromises IMHO). It was appealing to the GOP because the benefits of Obama's legislation wouldn't be felt until after the election (not that they ended up voting for it... again, brilliant, if evil, strategists)
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:I might be missing what you are saying here- why was the 2014 delay necessary to get it passed?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That was necessary to get it passed-- the GOP is, sadly, no one's fool when it comes to political strategy.
quote:So even though he didn't need a single Republican vote to pass the thing, he decided to offer these concessions to the GOP. They didn't accept the offer. But the Democratic Congress passed the bill with the concessions in anyway, out of the goodness of their hearts? Either I am still missing something, or this Obama fellow isn't the savvy politician people have told me he is.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:One of many compromises Obama made to get it passed ( too many compromises IMHO). It was appealing to the GOP because the benefits of Obama's legislation wouldn't be felt until after the election (not that they ended up voting for it... again, brilliant, if evil, strategists)
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:I might be missing what you are saying here- why was the 2014 delay necessary to get it passed?
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That was necessary to get it passed-- the GOP is, sadly, no one's fool when it comes to political strategy.
quote:Negotiation is his strong suit-- and all of us tend to lean on our strong suits. After the disaster of Bush's alpha male administration, the idea of true unifier who could bring bipartisan action was appealing to voters.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
So even though he didn't need a single Republican vote to pass the thing, he decided to offer these concessions to the GOP. They didn't accept the offer. But the Democratic Congress passed the bill with the concessions in anyway, out of the goodness of their hearts? Either I am still missing something, or this Obama fellow isn't the savvy politician people have told me he is.
quote:Given that Ben Nelson joined the filibuster of the watered down bill, I don't know that it would have played out this way.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[QUOTE]]Most of us liberals are disappointed that Obama stayed as long at the table as he did, and gave away too much in the process. Indeed, if he'd seen the Norquist/Rove handwriting on the wall sooner and simply gone with a strong Democratic bill, he could have passed it while Sen. Kennedy was still living (when Dems had a "super majority"), which would have resulted in better legislation.
quote:Well, there you go then. So perhaps pretty savvy after all, even if somewhat disappointing.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Given that Ben Nelson joined the filibuster of the watered down bill, I don't know that it would have played out this way.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[QUOTE]]Most of us liberals are disappointed that Obama stayed as long at the table as he did, and gave away too much in the process. Indeed, if he'd seen the Norquist/Rove handwriting on the wall sooner and simply gone with a strong Democratic bill, he could have passed it while Sen. Kennedy was still living (when Dems had a "super majority"), which would have resulted in better legislation.
quote:No word on polling results for Bill Pullman vs. Jack Nicholson.
With Obama facing re-election in November, 65 percent said Obama would be more adept than Romney to respond to an alien invasion, with women and younger Americans more likely than men and over-65s to agree with that prospect.
quote:Even Romney's IRA is rather more interesting than it should be.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Romney didn't know that the price of the Presidency is five years' worth of clean, boring tax returns with nothing more complicated than an IRA?
quote:They may reflect on another genius-cum-crook POTUS from c 40 years ago.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Since Romney is running, at least in part, on his record as a businessman, it seems like that record should be up for inspection and discussion. Given that, this seems important.
But I wonder if it really is. Do people really want to know whether Romney is a genius or a crook? Do they care?
quote:You mean when it comes to investigating Obama it was done four years ago, and the best mud people have found to throw was the birth certificate?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
There they go again.
The media begins what will no doubt be its very intrusive and extensive investigation of the Republican candidate but when it comes to investigating Obama the crickets are chirping.
quote:Are you interested in knowing what they find about the Republican candidate? Is there anything they could find out that would interest you, or that would cause you reconsider whether you want to vote for him?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
The media begins what will no doubt be its very intrusive and extensive investigation of the Republican candidate ...
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Josephine:
Serious question? Serious answer: yes and no.
Here's what I mean by that. If the media are just going to rehash dirt about what a cruel business man he was, I could care less. If they were to find some horrible crime in his past - a murder or two - then of course I'd care.
quote:Of course they should. And they have. So far, "His pastor said some impolitic things" and "He's not really an American" seem to be all they could come up with. And the latter isn't even true.
What about you? Don't you think the media should vet Obama?
quote:My question was, do you think his financial ethics matter?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Was what he did illegal? If so, he can cite the Rangel precedent and just say "sorry." Or the Geithner precedent and not even apologize.
quote:What was in Obama's autobiography that is a lie?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Now it's finally coming out that at least some of what he wrote in his autobiography was a lie and they continue to ignore it.
quote:Please name the specific charges against Obama, aside from the birth certificate conspiracy theories, which aren't any more true than Bush and Cheney plotting the 9/11 attacks.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I think we should hold public servants to the highest ethical standard. I also think that may be unrealistic.
I have no indication that Romney has ever been anything except ethical in all his actions.
Obama, not ethical at all.
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I think we should hold public servants to the highest ethical standard. I also think that may be unrealistic.
quote:
I have no indication that Romney has ever been anything except ethical in all his actions.
quote:Specifics, please. He's made some decisions that I don't like, but I can't, at the moment, think of any actions that I would consider unethical. If you know of some, please let me know. Links to verifiable sources would be nice.
Obama, not ethical at all.
quote:You reminded me of the Mondale/Reagan debate.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
There they go again.
quote:Not sure why people let Reagan get away with that as it's usually what someone comes up with when they don't have a valid argument. Sad to say, I voted for Reagan twice. He was a good actor.
Originally posted by 205:
quote:You reminded me of the Mondale/Reagan debate.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
There they go again.
Or, how to win even when you kind of botch the line.
And God bless Walter - what a trooper.
quote:A top drawer actor as a politician, but a mediocre actor as an actor.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
quote:Not sure why people let Reagan get away with that as it's usually what someone comes up with when they don't have a valid argument. Sad to say, I voted for Reagan twice. He was a good actor.
Originally posted by 205:
quote:You reminded me of the Mondale/Reagan debate.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
There they go again.
Or, how to win even when you kind of botch the line.
And God bless Walter - what a trooper.
quote:Brief is the word. SO vague in detail that I'm actually finding it difficult to precisely identify what it's saying.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Here's a brief summary of Obama's lies in his autobiography.
They make World News Daily look fair and impartial.quote:It seems to be based on this list by Andrew Kaczynski.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Brief is the word. SO vague in detail that I'm actually finding it difficult to precisely identify what it's saying.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Here's a brief summary of Obama's lies in his autobiography.
quote:I was a lifelong Republican when I voted for Reagan and it wasn't until into his second term when I realized what a mistake I'd made. Reagan was a good enough of an actor that he got a lot of credit for things he didn't do and managed to dodge blame for stuff he did. Cheney tried to give Reagan credit for one of those things when he said "Reagan proved deficits don't matter". Both Reagan/Bush Sr. and W. proved they did. He dodged Iran Contra and introduced the lie "I don't remember" as acceptable testimony - for anything bad.
Originally posted by CorgiGreta:
quote:A top drawer actor as a politician, but a mediocre actor as an actor.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Not sure why people let Reagan get away with that as it's usually what someone comes up with when they don't have a valid argument. Sad to say, I voted for Reagan twice. He was a good actor.
quote:My mother was a life-long Republican, but she did admit that they hadn't run a Presidential candidate she could vote for in good conscience since Ike.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Just wish the presidential races drew out the brightest and best. Hasn't been that way for many decades. rather well - and after Carter anyone would look good at first.
quote:I've been voting for third party candidates or doing my own write ins as a protest vote, but I'm so worried about some of the GOP agenda this time around I may vote for Obama. I'd have preferred different candidates all the way around this time.
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:My mother was a life-long Republican, but she did admit that they hadn't run a Presidential candidate she could vote for in good conscience since Ike.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Just wish the presidential races drew out the brightest and best. Hasn't been that way for many decades. rather well - and after Carter anyone would look good at first.
quote:For Republicans of the old school, I can certainly understand her viewpoint. It's possible, though, that she was being a bit hard on Gerald Ford.
Originally posted by Carex:
My mother was a life-long Republican, but she did admit that they hadn't run a Presidential candidate she could vote for in good conscience since Ike.
) and a bunch of gasbags who've managed to put us $16,000,000,000,000 in the hole. If I had that level of debt compared to my income, I'd be panic-stricken.quote:I do! Well, I don't hate him, but I dislike everything he does and everything he stands for. That goes for both of my Senators as well. (Don't get me started on the gov!)
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
But, as others here have pointed out, everybody hates Congress, nobody hates their Congressman.
quote:Ditto for me except I'm a moderate in a Democratic state!
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:I do! Well, I don't hate him, but I dislike everything he does and everything he stands for. That goes for both of my Senators as well. (Don't get me started on the gov!)
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
But, as others here have pointed out, everybody hates Congress, nobody hates their Congressman.
I'm a liberal Democrat in a bright red state.
quote:You know you're a moderate when you get criticized for being a flaming liberal and a fascist jackbooted conservative all in one day. It's been about a year since that happened to me so perhaps I'd better take a look at myself.
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Maybe everyone's a moderate in their own eyes but a detached observer will have their own bias.
quote:This is a bit confusing to those of us in the Rest of the World. When I teach my high school students the concept of the political spectrum I do it with coloured markers and point out that the colour red has traditionally been associated with the left-leaning side of the spectrum -- and then have to add "everywhere except in the US, where 'red state' means exactly the opposite of what you'd think it means."
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
That's because at some point (in the late '80s, I think), the networks started marking their election night maps by coloring states they called for the Republican in red, and those called for the Democrat in blue.
[ETA: NYer, whatever you are, you're not a moderate.]
quote:As I understand it....
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
That's because at some point (in the late '80s, I think), the networks started marking their election night maps by coloring states they called for the Republican in red, and those called for the Democrat in blue.
[ETA: NYer, whatever you are, you're not a moderate.]
quote:Isn't this how Republicans usually pick their presidential nominees?
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
Cynically, I still think senior Republicans helped picked Romney as he's got friends with big pockets to finance his campaign (and plenty big enough of his own) so RNC money can go to potential Congresspeople and Senators, since senior Republicans aren't exactly so enamoured of him that he ran home with the nomination with ease.
quote:I'm not a moderate in anyone's eyes.
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Maybe everyone's a moderate in their own eyes but a detached observer will have their own bias.
quote:In Canada the Liberal Party's colour is red and blue is for the (Progressive) Conservatives. It goes back to the French roots of both parties, the Rouges and the Bleus. When the federal Tories put themselves back together in 2004 they ditched the word "Progressive" but kept the colour.
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
quote:This is a bit confusing to those of us in the Rest of the World. When I teach my high school students the concept of the political spectrum I do it with coloured markers and point out that the colour red has traditionally been associated with the left-leaning side of the spectrum -- and then have to add "everywhere except in the US, where 'red state' means exactly the opposite of what you'd think it means."
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
That's because at some point (in the late '80s, I think), the networks started marking their election night maps by coloring states they called for the Republican in red, and those called for the Democrat in blue.
[ETA: NYer, whatever you are, you're not a moderate.]
quote:Around here anyway, most of the yard signs (and they are legion) are for local offices, especially now for the primary elections. So if two or more candidates are running for the nomination, they have to find something other than just red or blue signs to differentiate themselves from their opponent. That often means photographs or stupid slogans. In the mostly-Mormon city to the east of here, a picture of the candidate's large, smiling family is common.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I don't understand how Americans can have decent lawn signs for elections without single, bold colours for each party. Up here you have a big red sign, a big blue sign or if you're a Dipper (NDP) like me, a big orange sign.
quote:The problem in the US is that all signs and posters must be red, white, and blue, or else you are simply advertising that your candidate is some kind of foreign radical type. Increasingly, they don't even put party names on the signs, perhaps on the theory that party affiliation alienates people, but simple name recognition makes people feel comfortable.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I don't understand how Americans can have decent lawn signs for elections without single, bold colours for each party. Up here you have a big red sign, a big blue sign or if you're a Dipper (NDP) like me, a big orange sign.
quote:I like them, although I think to many eyes they would seem quite amateur compared to the Obama team's slick branding.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
A pictorial study of the Canadian election sign in its natural habitat.
Note the diverse subspecies indicated by their varying plumage colours, strong party affiliation and lack of slogans.
quote:He must solicit the funds only from American citizens abroad or people with green cards that allow them to live and work in the US, if memory serves. This is hardly the most scandalous thing in campaign finance, I might add.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Is it acceptable for a Presidential candidate to campaign for funds in another country? I thought that was highly questionable in American politics, if not actually illegal.
quote:And there are a lot of residents in Israel with dual U.S./Israeli citizenship or who retain sole U.S. citizenship. Not to mention the large contingency of U.S. citizens who made the trip with Romney.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:He must solicit the funds only from American citizens abroad or people with green cards that allow them to live and work in the US, if memory serves. This is hardly the most scandalous thing in campaign finance, I might add.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Is it acceptable for a Presidential candidate to campaign for funds in another country? I thought that was highly questionable in American politics, if not actually illegal.
--Tom Clune
quote:I made a minor adjustment to your statement and certainly can't speak for New Yorker but do find it interesting that during a recent visit to some backwater island Mitt was subjected to 'news' about what a staffer allegedly said about anglo-saxons or some such.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
But it is obvious that the GOP has to play by very different rules.
quote:I seem to recall news in the past few weeks that the Obama campaign was fundraising in Europe and doing better there than here. Not sure where I saw it.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
But it is obvious that the GOP gets to play by very different rules. Come on, New Yorker, explain all this to a mere observer.
quote:Sounds like Faux News. He may well have fund-raised abroad, but it seems highly unlikely that he did better overseas, even though he was born in Kenya.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:I seem to recall news in the past few weeks that the Obama campaign was fundraising in Europe and doing better there than here. Not sure where I saw it.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
But it is obvious that the GOP gets to play by very different rules. Come on, New Yorker, explain all this to a mere observer.
quote:Other than a few extreme right-wing blogs (you know, the sort that are still carping on about him being a foreign muslim communist tyrant) I can't find much reference to it.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I seem to recall news in the past few weeks that the Obama campaign was fundraising in Europe and doing better there than here. Not sure where I saw it.
quote:Are you trying to start a pond war?
Originally posted by 205:
...a recent visit to some backwater island...
quote:Of course, Romney is doing what just about every candidate who is not currently POTUS has done -- go abroad to be seen on the world stage so voters can think of him as world-leader material (and we all know what material that is...) His Olympics comments blew up on him (and the comments seemed pretty bland to me), but other than that he seems to be doing a pretty standard thing AFAICS. I really don't understand why folks need to hyperventilate about every boring thing that a candidate does. To my mind, there's enough real worries to focus on.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's perfectly possible that American ex-pats are holding fundraisers in the countries where they now live, of course, but that's not quite on a par with the candidate himself actually jetting out to campaign is it?
quote:If the Palestinians had power, their GDP would be a bit higher, don't you think?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
He spoke truth to Palestinian power.
quote:What are the specifics of his plan for putting Americans back to work?
I want Americans working again. That's why I'm voting for Romney.
quote:There's also the Logan act which is being ignored.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Bumping this up a few weeks:
I see that Mitt Romney has declared Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel , while also blaming the Palestinians for not having a productive economy. Guess which side he is on.
Is it acceptable for a Presidential candidate to campaign for funds in another country? I thought that was highly questionable in American politics, if not actually illegal.
And where are the howls of outrage about a foreign Prime Minister actively supporting one candidate against the other. It used to be that a mere comment by a British or Canadian Prime Minister brought on major kerfuffle about "interfering in our true democratic process"
But it is obvious that the GOP gets to play by very different rules. Come on, New Yorker, explain all this to a mere observer.
quote:Maybe he could bring back the jobs he sent to China?
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:If the Palestinians had power, their GDP would be a bit higher, don't you think?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
He spoke truth to Palestinian power.
quote:What are the specifics of his plan for putting Americans back to work?
I want Americans working again. That's why I'm voting for Romney.
quote:So, which groups would The Mitt like to oppress and dominate? Do you feel his backers would like the opportunity to oppress and dominate any specific group, or do they just want all the peasants to submit to divinely-ordered oppression (as defined by those backers)?
He invoked the two pillars of modern racial superiority movements: presumed nurture or cultural superiority; or nature — in this case, divine natural superiority, the “hand of providence,” or God.
Such language is not only dangerous to the Palestinians and the others he disparaged. This language has also been a fundamental weapon against all oppressed peoples, including Jews. A worldview based on ethnic or racial superiority is always and everywhere dangerous, even if momentarily flattering to a particular audience.
quote:Well, I wish I could disagree with you forcefully. Still, at this point, almost anyone would do a better job than Obama. Please reconsider your vote.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
[I won't be voting for Romney. He's an extreme flip flopper who'll say anything to anyone to get what he wants.
quote:Yes, I was always a bit uncomfortable about the "somebody said..." aspect of that story. Particularly since it didn't really add up with what Romney clearly said in his book.
Originally posted by 205:
... do find it interesting that during a recent visit to some backwater island Mitt was subjected to 'news' about what a staffer allegedly said about anglo-saxons or some such.
Near as I could tell there was no evidence the 'quote' was documentable and yet it was played up, big time.
If Romney had a backbone he'd call BS... but alas I believe he's too decent of a guy.
quote:Well, yes, it would. Do you really think a candidate doing that would do anything other than sink like a granite slab?
Originally posted by tclune:
Wouldn't it be wonderful if either candidate were more concerned about building a concensus for governing than they are about political gamesmanship?
--Tom Clune
quote:If you look at Romney's actual actions while governor of Massachusetts he was probably about as conservative as possible while still being electable in a statewide Massachusetts election. While "conservative for Massachusetts" may count as "radically liberal" by today's Republican standards, it shouldn't be confused with being an actual liberal.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
[Romney] portrayed himself as a liberal to win the Governorship of Massachusetts and passed Romneycare to prove himself, yet he's now telling the GOP he'll repeal Obama's version which is THE EXACT SAME THING.
quote:Interestingly, Romney went on Fox News to claim that he "did not speak about the Palestinian culture or the decisions made in their economy" in his controversial comments. Then he submitted an article to the National Review's blog that essentially says 'actually I did so talk about Palestinian culture and their economy'. (That's a paraphrase, not an actual Mittquote.) Why isn't the fact that the presumptive Republican presidential candidate apparently can't make up his mind on an important foreign policy issue considered to be newsworthy?
Originally posted by tclune:
Ruth Marcus has a column in today's Washington Post that pretty much captures my unhappiness with the "all gaffs all th time" stupidity that passes for campaigning and news coverage thereof.
quote:Somewhat, I suppose, but not much.
Originally posted by RuthW:
If the Palestinians had power, their GDP would be a bit higher, don't you think?
quote:Because he's not Obama!
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
So: we have a man who both did and did not run a company that specialised in shipping US jobs out of the country; who cannot remeber what he said yesterday; who believes in hotting up the Cold War; who blames the oppressed for their oppression, while bleating about freedom; who understands NASCAR because he knows some owners; who supported health care for most before he didn't support health care for most, while attacking another man for supporting the same form of health care that he did; ...well, the list goes on.
Oh, and has no discernable policy... on just about anything.
Please enlighten me about what makes him fit to be the President, beyond great teeth.
quote:Well, Greece is in a mess because it's been spending far more than it earns for years and, because of being in the Euro, can't devalue its currency to bring in more foreign investment.
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
My own problem is watching the economic meltdown(s) in Europe, I still don't understand why we're still talking about austerity here.
Why would it work here, when it's obviously NOT working there??
quote:If by "word is out" you mean that Harry Reid casually tossed out this accusation while acknowledging that he doesn't know if it is true or not, you are totally accurate.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Now the word is out that the real reason why Romney will not release his taxes for the past ten years is because they would show he did not pay any taxes for those years!
Mitt, there is one way to put this rumor to rest. Release the tax forms!
quote:Is this an attempt to get back at the birthers?
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Now the word is out that the real reason why Romney will not release his taxes for the past ten years is because they would show he did not pay any taxes for those years!
Mitt, there is one way to put this rumor to rest. Release the tax forms!
quote:Health care is the solid reason I won't. Well, if Romney actually had a solid proposal to get health coverage for those currently without, i.e. those who don't have coverage from an employer (many don't provide insurance these days for various reasons), those who can't obtain it due to insurance denial due for a pre-existing condition or those who can't afford premiums for the family or even themselves, well I might change my mind. And tax credits won't cut it.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Well, I wish I could disagree with you forcefully. Still, at this point, almost anyone would do a better job than Obama. Please reconsider your vote.
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
[I won't be voting for Romney. He's an extreme flip flopper who'll say anything to anyone to get what he wants.
quote:There's been speculation along those lines, though most tax experts say it's unlikely Romney paid zero taxes in any recent year. A number close to, but not actually, zero would be just as damaging. Some further speculation is that this is the reason the McCain campaign (which saw twenty-three years of Romney tax returns) passed on Romney as a VP pick; they saw something in the returns that made Sarah Palin seem like the better electoral choice.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Now the word is out that the real reason why Romney will not release his taxes for the past ten years is because they would show he did not pay any taxes for those years!
Mitt, there is one way to put this rumor to rest. Release the tax forms!
quote:I can't help thinking that anything that makes Palin seem like a better choice is well into "live boy or dead girl" territory.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:There's been speculation along those lines, though most tax experts say it's unlikely Romney paid zero taxes in any recent year. A number close to, but not actually, zero would be just as damaging. Some further speculation is that this is the reason the McCain campaign (which saw twenty-three years of Romney tax returns) passed on Romney as a VP pick; they saw something in the returns that made Sarah Palin seem like the better electoral choice.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Now the word is out that the real reason why Romney will not release his taxes for the past ten years is because they would show he did not pay any taxes for those years!
Mitt, there is one way to put this rumor to rest. Release the tax forms!
Think about that for a minute!
quote:The problem is that a vote for one of those candidates makes it more likely that the winner will be the candidate least likely to take notice of them and amend their positions because of them.
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
There is, in all 50 states, a libertarian candidate, Gov. Gary Johnson. And the Green party has a place in many states a candidate, Ralph Nader.
If you believe that a showing of support for either of these alternatives would cause the winning party to amend their positions maybe such a vote wouldn't be wasted.
quote:Yes, but third-party voting takes a longer view than that. The hope is that the issues championed by the third party will be adopted by the major party that lost the last election because of the support siphoned off by these issues. The major party then backs those issues in the future, and they become the law of the land. At least, that has been the trajectory of third party support historically in this country. I don't know how such things translate to parliamentary systems that embrace more than two parties.
Originally posted by ken:
The problem is that a vote for one of those candidates makes it more likely that the winner will be the candidate least likely to take notice of them and amend their positions because of them.
quote:The Green Party candidate this year is Jill Stein (Nader hasn't run on the Green ticket since 2000).
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
There is, in all 50 states, a libertarian candidate, Gov. Gary Johnson. And the Green party has a place in many states a candidate, Ralph Nader.
quote:We don't vote in general elections to send coded messages to political parties, we vote to elect representatives to the legislature and to choose governments - in practice often to choose the least crappy government out of the crappy ones on offer. The only morally valid excuse not to vote, or to waste a vote on a certain loser, is if you really think that all the candidates on offer are equally bad, or if the positions to which they are to be elected are entirely powerless so it doesn't mater who gets in, or if one candidate is so certain to get in that you don't believe your vote will make any difference . And I suspect those things aren't quite true yet in most of the United States.
Originally posted by tclune:
Yes, but third-party voting takes a longer view than that. The hope is that the issues championed by the third party will be adopted by the major party that lost the last election because of the support siphoned off by these issues.
quote:Sweet... I have a morally valid excuse!
Originally posted by ken:
The only morally valid excuse not to vote, or to waste a vote on a certain loser, is if you really think that all the candidates on offer are equally bad...
quote:Speak for yourself.
Originally posted by ken:
We don't vote in general elections to send coded messages to political parties ...
quote:Fivethirtyeight says Obama has a 99.6% chance of taking California's 55 electoral college votes. My vote in the presidential election will in fact make no difference at all, so yes, this is exactly the time to send a message to the Democratic party in California that despite the fact that the Republicans are dying on the vine here, Democrats do not have a license to do whatever the hell stupid thing they want to do.
The only morally valid excuse not to vote, or to waste a vote on a certain loser, is if you really think that all the candidates on offer are equally bad, or if the positions to which they are to be elected are entirely powerless so it doesn't mater who gets in, or if one candidate is so certain to get in that you don't believe your vote will make any difference . And I suspect those things aren't quite true yet in most of the United States.
quote:They did manage to agree to fund the government through next March. Small potatoes, but at least the Tea Party caucus has learned that threatening shutdown is a losing strategy.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
So, what does congress do when it needs to pass a farm relief bill, come up with a way to avert a financial cliff, and pass a jobs bill? Take a five week vacation! And we wonder why things are not happening!! Hey, congress, get back to work. Do what you have been elected to do!!!
quote:In all honesty, I don't expect these clowns to do as good a job as will happen if nothing is done -- sequestration and letting all the Bush tax cuts expire is probably a better deal than we'll get if our legislators come up with an alternative. With any luck, the military won't have enough money left to bomb unknown people in neutral countries -- in the name of fighting terrorism, no less! What a world...
Originally posted by Gramps49:
So, what does congress do when it needs to pass a farm relief bill, come up with a way to avert a financial cliff, and pass a jobs bill? Take a five week vacation! And we wonder why things are not happening!! Hey, congress, get back to work. Do what you have been elected to do!!!
quote:I'm thinking of starting a vote for a cat or dog for our members of state legislature and members of federal congress ala Comet's town's mayoral fix. I think
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:In all honesty, I don't expect these clowns to do as good a job as will happen if nothing is done -- sequestration and letting all the Bush tax cuts expire is probably a better deal than we'll get if our legislators come up with an alternative. With any luck, the military won't have enough money left to bomb unknown people in neutral countries -- in the name of fighting terrorism, no less! What a world...
Originally posted by Gramps49:
So, what does congress do when it needs to pass a farm relief bill, come up with a way to avert a financial cliff, and pass a jobs bill? Take a five week vacation! And we wonder why things are not happening!! Hey, congress, get back to work. Do what you have been elected to do!!!
--Tom Clune
quote:I hate to tell you this, but the bad guys are already in and they're Democrats and Republicans. The "don't waste your vote it's immoral" is the supreme copout and will let the system continue as it has for the past several decades: downhill. I'll vote 3rd party if I can and more and more people are starting to vote 3rd party as more and more people get disgusted with the GOP and Democrats. Sorry if that messes with your nice orderly viewpoint - but it ain't immoral by any stretch of the imagination.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:We don't vote in general elections to send coded messages to political parties, we vote to elect representatives to the legislature and to choose governments - in practice often to choose the least crappy government out of the crappy ones on offer. The only morally valid excuse not to vote, or to waste a vote on a certain loser, is if you really think that all the candidates on offer are equally bad, or if the positions to which they are to be elected are entirely powerless so it doesn't mater who gets in, or if one candidate is so certain to get in that you don't believe your vote will make any difference . And I suspect those things aren't quite true yet in most of the United States.
Originally posted by tclune:
Yes, but third-party voting takes a longer view than that. The hope is that the issues championed by the third party will be adopted by the major party that lost the last election because of the support siphoned off by these issues.
If you want to send a message to political parties, do it by sending them a message. Or by getting involved in the party itself between elections, if you can hold your nose long enough. Or by promoting your own candidates. But don't waste your vote by throwing it away on a guaranteed loser at election time. Its a vote, not a means of self-expression.
And of course do all you can to campaign for a change in the voting system to some kind of preferential ballot which will allow us to vote for who we really want without the risk of letting in the bad guys.
quote:I think SPK was responding to the post above him, not making an accusation.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
How do you know he did not report all worldwide income?
quote:I've little knowledge how the American tax system works, but this article suggests otherwise.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I thought the US levied income tax on a person's worldwide income?
quote:The article refers to corporate taxes, a much more complicated world. A US citizen is taxable on their worldwide income, although tax treaties with many countries prevents double taxation. Nevertheless, they must file, even if they are permanently resident elsewhere. Temporary residents of the US (including those hundreds of thousands of Canadians who winter there) must also file, and form 8840 is well-known. A Vancouver friend's partner is but one of a firm of twenty accountants and tax lawyers in that city handling the US taxes of local residents. He tells me that there are likely 60-80 fulltime financial professionals in Vancouver dealing with US taxes. I do know that the IRS section at the US Embassy in Ottawa employs 160 staff.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:I've little knowledge how the American tax system works, but this article suggests otherwise.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I thought the US levied income tax on a person's worldwide income?
quote:Because one is Jack Ryan (the sex scandal Illinois Republican) and the other is Paul Ryan (so far squeaky-clean Wisconsin Republican Congressman)
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Yeah, word on NBC is that Paul Ryan will be Romney's running mate.
I don't know what Romney's handlers were thinking, though: Ryan's already had a sex scandal. His ex, Jeri Ryan (who played 7 of 9 on "Star Trek: Voyager" alleged that he dragged her into sex clubs, and tried to get her to participate.
Here's info from The Smoking Gun.
I remembered that. Why didn't the Republicans???
quote:Actually, Jeri Ryan mas married to Congressman Jack Ryan, not Paul Ryan. Which your link above confirms. Paul Ryan hasn't had a sex scandal and he's the darling of the ultra conservatives and Tea Party, whose support Romney needs, especially after his stumbles this summer.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Yeah, word on NBC is that Paul Ryan will be Romney's running mate.
I don't know what Romney's handlers were thinking, though: Ryan's already had a sex scandal. His ex, Jeri Ryan (who played 7 of 9 on "Star Trek: Voyager" alleged that he dragged her into sex clubs, and tried to get her to participate.
Here's info from The Smoking Gun.
I remembered that. Why didn't the Republicans???
quote:I think that's what sealed the deal for Ryan. The conservatives were once again questioning why they should vote for Romney.
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
The gaffes keep getting better and better.
Jon Steward did a funny bit on it here. Starts around 1:30.
quote:Romney is the Joe Biden of the GOP. He's been doing that all summer...
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Next "President" of the United States? A slip of the tongue from Romney?
quote:He of course meant the next next President as Ryan will be elected in 2020 after two stunningly successful terms as VP.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Next "President" of the United States? A slip of the tongue from Romney?
)
quote:I'll agree he's the devil, but in fact, he's not a knuckle dragger. He's too smart for that and the fact he has managed to get his budget and Medicare plans are taken seriously by the GOP shows how smart he is. It also shows the extremists have taken over the party. Ryan used to be an Ayn Rand advocate, but has now renounced her - which scores him points with the religious right. Romney has more or less surrendered the Presidency and the fact is, it's Ryan who will be the focus of the GOP campaign and for all intents and purposes Romney will be the VP. I wonder if he knows it and that is why the slip of the tongue.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Does it spoil the civil discourse of this thread if I say that I think Paul Ryan might be the devil? The guy's a knuckle-dragger.
quote:Oh, I'm sure someone will come along and say much worse by the end. It's only August. Hay, you could have rushed out and accused him of being a pervert.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Does it spoil the civil discourse of this thread if I say that I think Paul Ryan might be the devil? The guy's a knuckle-dragger.
quote:I never said I thought he was a diabolical genius. I, personally, think he's fanatical far beyond any rationality. He's as much as admitted that his goal is to wreck the federal government in order to save us all from the evils of government.
Although I do always get confused when people tell you that someone is a diabolical evil genius with secret plans and then in the same breath tell you the guy is also stupid. If you are going to take broad swipes at people, at least make them consistent.
quote:Actually, it was me who called him smart, not a genius. I think his intentions are evil in that as Zach82 stated, he more or less wants to destroy the Federal government and I've said he wants to destroy Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps and any other social program leaving the elderly, disabled and poor to fend for themselves. He also would cut the agencies that ensure food safety and environmental protections that have made a huge difference from the 60's where smog was so thick you could cut it with a knife and waterways were toxic. Have some agencies gone overboard? Yup, Is there wasteful spending? Yup - but the answer isn't to eliminate everything. But make no mistake, Ryan is smart in that he's gotten the GOP to go for his budget and Social Security/Medicare "solutions" and has the support of the religious right after renouncing Ayn Rand. The Democrats would be making a huge mistake to think Ryan's VP pick will automatically give Obama a win.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Although I do always get confused when people tell you that someone is a diabolical evil genius with secret plans and then in the same breath tell you the guy is also stupid. If you are going to take broad swipes at people, at least make them consistent.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Does it spoil the civil discourse of this thread if I say that I think Paul Ryan might be the devil? The guy's a knuckle-dragger.
quote:I disagreed with Zach82 on the knuckle dragger comment and stated Ryan was too smart for that.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I usually assume that for someone to qualify as a candidate for the devil incarnate, it requires some sort of unusual aptitude for evil that would not be consistent with a knuckle dragger. But then I don't suggest that people are the devil very often, so maybe I don't understand the finer points of that particular variety of name calling.
It should prove entertaining to see what folks are saying Paul Ryan has "as much as admitted" to by the end of the weekend...
quote:What is interesting about Ryan is that his own Catholic church opposes his budget plans because of the severe cuts to social programs.
Originally posted by Josephine:
How strange is it that the ticket that is intended to appeal to evangelical Christians is composed of a Mormon and a Roman Catholic? What does that say about evangelicals in this country?
quote:What is strange about groups that share opinions on various dead horse topics coming together? I don't know why people keep acting surprised when social conservatives support other social conservatives. The fact that Evangelical Republican Presidents have been putting Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court since the 80s should have made this old news.
Originally posted by Josephine:
How strange is it that the ticket that is intended to appeal to evangelical Christians is composed of a Mormon and a Roman Catholic? What does that say about evangelicals in this country?
quote:True. What's really strange is why evangelical Republicans keep voting for apostles of Ayn Rand.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:What is strange about groups that share opinions on various dead horse topics coming together? I don't know why people keep acting surprised when social conservatives support other social conservatives. The fact that Evangelical Republican Presidents have been putting Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court since the 80s should have made this old news.
Originally posted by Josephine:
How strange is it that the ticket that is intended to appeal to evangelical Christians is composed of a Mormon and a Roman Catholic? What does that say about evangelicals in this country?
quote:That ANY weird partnership is better than another four years of Barackolypse?
Originally posted by Josephine:
How strange is it that the ticket that is intended to appeal to evangelical Christians is composed of a Mormon and a Roman Catholic? What does that say about evangelicals in this country?
quote:Er...After what happened with the NYC mosque, you can say that?? How many Republicans stood up and said that they should be allowed to worship as they please?
Originally posted by 205:
That for all the demonization of evangelicals they are in fact quite liberal in their views concerning religious diversity?
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
quote:Actually the percentage of Americans uninsured is 17.7%
People who are uninsured (like say 8% of the population)
quote:Any 4 years of Ryan leadership would be devastating. And the GOP is getting more right wing extremist by the minute. There is a concerted drive this election to drive out any moderates in the GOP. If there is one thing this country DOESN"T need it's extremists on either side of the aisle.
Originally posted by 205:
quote:That ANY weird partnership is better than another four years of Barackolypse?
Originally posted by Josephine:
How strange is it that the ticket that is intended to appeal to evangelical Christians is composed of a Mormon and a Roman Catholic? What does that say about evangelicals in this country?
That for all the demonization of evangelicals they are in fact quite liberal in their views concerning religious diversity?
quote:That that they've been taken for a ride. They'd be just as well served, and not be lied to, if they said that morality is fine to preach from the pulpit, but that society in general won't always agree with them and that it's better to win one person at a time than try to win by legislation.
Originally posted by Josephine:
How strange is it that the ticket that is intended to appeal to evangelical Christians is composed of a Mormon and a Roman Catholic? What does that say about evangelicals in this country?
quote:If it had been Jack Ryan, the Republicans would have lost the trekkie vote to a man-- Seven of Nine has an iconic quality for many in the US.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Profuse apologies for the confusion of Jack and Paul Ryan. I honestly didn't see it.
quote:Government benefits for other people are a bad thing. Government benefits for yourself, and government contracts for companies of which you own a slice, are very good things indeed.
Originally posted by RuthW:
According to NPR yesterday (and I double-checked on Wikipedia), after his father died when Paul Ryan was 16, he received Social Security benefits until his 18th birthday, money he used to pay for college. So I'm a little puzzled as to how he can think government benefits are a bad thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:If it had been Jack Ryan, the Republicans would have lost the trekkie vote to a man-- Seven of Nine has an iconic quality for many in the US.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Profuse apologies for the confusion of Jack and Paul Ryan. I honestly didn't see it.
I like 7 of 9 very much. (She's a recovering cyborg, for those who don't know.) I'm not sure there are many (admitted) Trekkies in the Republicans' target audience. Might be wrong about that.
quote:I'd love to be at a debate or press conference, and ask these bozos if they are willing, in front of God and everybody, to give up all claim for their future Medicare and Social Security benefits. And remind them that their decision would affect their families.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
And Ayn Rand used Medicare. Facts are stubborn things, like the actual reality of not having enough money to pay for your own medical care.
quote:I too would love for you to do that.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I'd love to be at a debate or press conference, and ask these bozos if they are willing, in front of God and everybody, to give up all claim for their future Medicare and Social Security benefits.
)
quote:Is it possible that there might be some room between the position that government spending should be curbed and the position that all government benefits are bad, per se? I know it isn't nearly as fun as throwing out caricatures of positions, but consider that possibility for a moment.
Originally posted by RuthW:
According to NPR yesterday (and I double-checked on Wikipedia), after his father died when Paul Ryan was 16, he received Social Security benefits until his 18th birthday, money he used to pay for college. So I'm a little puzzled as to how he can think government benefits are a bad thing.
quote:The thing is, it's easy for Romney and the 1% to give up Medicare or Social Security. They will never amount to more than a fraction of their retirement income. The amount of taxes they pays on their investments is the real issue. So it's quite easy for them to act like they're being the smart, prudent stewards of the common good when they talk about cutting "entitlements".
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:I'd love to be at a debate or press conference, and ask these bozos if they are willing, in front of God and everybody, to give up all claim for their future Medicare and Social Security benefits. And remind them that their decision would affect their families.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
And Ayn Rand used Medicare. Facts are stubborn things, like the actual reality of not having enough money to pay for your own medical care.
quote:Are they really asking anyone else to do this? I suspect their answer would not be really different from Obama's answer if you asked him to promise to give 80% of all future income to the government and live in a collective.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:I'd love to be at a debate or press conference, and ask these bozos if they are willing, in front of God and everybody, to give up all claim for their future Medicare and Social Security benefits. And remind them that their decision would affect their families.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
And Ayn Rand used Medicare. Facts are stubborn things, like the actual reality of not having enough money to pay for your own medical care.
quote:Ryan's tax plan does call for replacing medicare with vouchers--essentially gutting it. Obama is currently paying the top tax rate, so one can reasonably conclude that he expects any tax increases on the top bracket to effect his bottom line accordingly.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Are they really asking anyone else to do this? I suspect their answer would not be really different from Obama's answer if you asked him to promise to give 80% of all future income to the government and live in a collective.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:I'd love to be at a debate or press conference, and ask these bozos if they are willing, in front of God and everybody, to give up all claim for their future Medicare and Social Security benefits. And remind them that their decision would affect their families.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
And Ayn Rand used Medicare. Facts are stubborn things, like the actual reality of not having enough money to pay for your own medical care.
quote:While MediCare (and ObamaCare in general) is a very important benefit for the country as a whole, SS is not the benefit it once was. It would be in the self-interest of the majority of the country to take the money they and their employers are paying into SS and put it in what amounts to a 401(k) now. Of course, that would leave the most at-risk to fend for themselves. But that is exactly the ethos that the right-wingers are trying to get the majority of the country to embrace.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The thing is, it's easy for Romney and the 1% to give up Medicare or Social Security. They will never amount to more than a fraction of their retirement income. The amount of taxes they pays on their investments is the real issue. So it's quite easy for them to act like they're being the smart, prudent stewards of the common good when they talk about cutting "entitlements".
For the average senior citizen, of course, social security and even more so medicare are (perhaps literally) the only thing standing between them and living in a cardboard box.
quote:Here i go again violating my own promise to myself to distance myself from Purgatory conversations for the sake of my heart rate, but you've just about nailed the situation Tom and it is so sad.
Originally posted by tclune:
The hard reality is that conservatives have actually done a terrific job of turning the country into a soulless every-man-for-himself non-society.
quote:I don't know where this country, or the world, is headed, but just about all i can do is pray. There are so many hurting people.
Originally posted by tclune:
They have sown the wind and shall reap the whirlwind when our country collapses out of complete self-absorption.
quote:Changing the way people get benefits and reducing benefits =/= "gutting" or "giving up all claims for future Medicare and Social Security." You may remember Politifact calling that the "Lie of the Year" last December. Argue against the plan, don't conflate it into something it isn't.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Ryan's tax plan does call for replacing medicare with vouchers--essentially gutting it. Obama is currently paying the top tax rate, so one can reasonably conclude that he expects any tax increases on the top bracket to effect his bottom line accordingly.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Are they really asking anyone else to do this? I suspect their answer would not be really different from Obama's answer if you asked him to promise to give 80% of all future income to the government and live in a collective.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:I'd love to be at a debate or press conference, and ask these bozos if they are willing, in front of God and everybody, to give up all claim for their future Medicare and Social Security benefits. And remind them that their decision would affect their families.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
And Ayn Rand used Medicare. Facts are stubborn things, like the actual reality of not having enough money to pay for your own medical care.
quote:A voucher program may not entirely gut Medicare, but it will certainly add thousands of dollars per year that seniors will end up spending out of pocket - if they have it. The voucher system does nothing to reign in health care costs, rather it reigns in taxpayer costs by shifting it to the individual. If you don't have the money to pay for it - and I don't - you're out of luck. Ryan's plan is not a solution. In reality it is one step along the way of the radical right wing's desire to gut Medicare.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
hmm. Just read the poltifact article-- seems you're correct re: politifact's ruling. I disagree with their call-- I think Biden accurately described what the Ryan plan does (transitions to a voucher program over a 10 yr period) and the result ("gutting"). But I've happily used politifact as support when they take my side, so I guess I gotta take my lumps when they don't.
quote:That's the way I read it. Obamacare is imperfect-- it's not the single-payer system I'd prefer, nor does it fully sever health insurance from employment (which I think is a huge part of our unemployment issue). But it does, at least, have some measures that will actually bring costs down, rather than simply lowering the government's costs. And it does make health care more accessible.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
quote:A voucher program may not entirely gut Medicare, but it will certainly add thousands of dollars per year that seniors will end up spending out of pocket - if they have it. The voucher system does nothing to reign in health care costs, rather it reigns in taxpayer costs by shifting it to the individual. If you don't have the money to pay for it - and I don't - you're out of luck. Ryan's plan is not a solution. In reality it is one step along the way of the radical right wing's desire to gut Medicare.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
hmm. Just read the poltifact article-- seems you're correct re: politifact's ruling. I disagree with their call-- I think Biden accurately described what the Ryan plan does (transitions to a voucher program over a 10 yr period) and the result ("gutting"). But I've happily used politifact as support when they take my side, so I guess I gotta take my lumps when they don't.
quote:You're right that the GOP is dead wrong in labeling Obamacare as socialist as it keeps our private system intact while providing measures to cut costs and provide coverage to those that are presently unable to obtain it. Yes, it's flawed but it can be fixed. Which is what I'd prefer by far. I haven't seen anything yet put forth by the GOP that would accomplish the things that Obamacare actually does. What I've seen thus far does nothing to reign in health care costs and will probably end up cutting more people off from coverage. I've been waiting for someone, anyone from the GOP to do that. I respect Obama for one thing - he actually went past words and did something, flawed though it may be, that actually expands coverage while cutting costs.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:That's the way I read it. Obamacare is imperfect-- it's not the single-payer system I'd prefer, nor does it fully sever health insurance from employment (which I think is a huge part of our unemployment issue). But it does, at least, have some measures that will actually bring costs down, rather than simply lowering the government's costs. And it does make health care more accessible.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
quote:A voucher program may not entirely gut Medicare, but it will certainly add thousands of dollars per year that seniors will end up spending out of pocket - if they have it. The voucher system does nothing to reign in health care costs, rather it reigns in taxpayer costs by shifting it to the individual. If you don't have the money to pay for it - and I don't - you're out of luck. Ryan's plan is not a solution. In reality it is one step along the way of the radical right wing's desire to gut Medicare.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
hmm. Just read the poltifact article-- seems you're correct re: politifact's ruling. I disagree with their call-- I think Biden accurately described what the Ryan plan does (transitions to a voucher program over a 10 yr period) and the result ("gutting"). But I've happily used politifact as support when they take my side, so I guess I gotta take my lumps when they don't.
quote:Of course there is room between the two positions, but Ryan isn't occupying it. He's an Ayn Rand fan, for crying out loud.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Is it possible that there might be some room between the position that government spending should be curbed and the position that all government benefits are bad, per se? I know it isn't nearly as fun as throwing out caricatures of positions, but consider that possibility for a moment.
Originally posted by RuthW:
According to NPR yesterday (and I double-checked on Wikipedia), after his father died when Paul Ryan was 16, he received Social Security benefits until his 18th birthday, money he used to pay for college. So I'm a little puzzled as to how he can think government benefits are a bad thing.
quote:Formerly OliviaG, still adjusting
Romney-Ryan 2012
People dying in the streets 2013!
quote:I'll pray with you. I don't know how much longer things can go on as they are, but it won't be pretty when it all collapses.
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:Here i go again violating my own promise to myself to distance myself from Purgatory conversations for the sake of my heart rate, but you've just about nailed the situation Tom and it is so sad.
Originally posted by tclune:
The hard reality is that conservatives have actually done a terrific job of turning the country into a soulless every-man-for-himself non-society.
quote:I don't know where this country, or the world, is headed, but just about all i can do is pray. There are so many hurting people.
Originally posted by tclune:
They have sown the wind and shall reap the whirlwind when our country collapses out of complete self-absorption.
quote:Politifact's verdict should have been the Lie of the Year. It was a transparent effort to be "evenhanded"--since the last three lies of the year were Republican lies, they were afraid they'd be accused of being partisan (there was voting, and the one they picked was nowhere near the top). But the truth is that these days, Republicans lie more egregiously than Democrats.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Changing the way people get benefits and reducing benefits =/= "gutting" or "giving up all claims for future Medicare and Social Security." You may remember Politifact calling that the "Lie of the Year" last December. Argue against the plan, don't conflate it into something it isn't.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Ryan's tax plan does call for replacing medicare with vouchers--essentially gutting it. Obama is currently paying the top tax rate, so one can reasonably conclude that he expects any tax increases on the top bracket to effect his bottom line accordingly.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Are they really asking anyone else to do this? I suspect their answer would not be really different from Obama's answer if you asked him to promise to give 80% of all future income to the government and live in a collective.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:I'd love to be at a debate or press conference, and ask these bozos if they are willing, in front of God and everybody, to give up all claim for their future Medicare and Social Security benefits. And remind them that their decision would affect their families.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
And Ayn Rand used Medicare. Facts are stubborn things, like the actual reality of not having enough money to pay for your own medical care.
quote:That wouldn't be hard. The Congressional retirement benefits and the Congressional medical care is excellent.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I'd love to be at a debate or press conference, and ask these bozos if they are willing, in front of God and everybody, to give up all claim for their future Medicare and Social Security benefits. And remind them that their decision would affect their families.
quote:Except that FEHB is indexed to keep up with increasing premium costs--Ryan's plan isn't.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Ryan's plan, given it's best spin, is modelled on the Federal Employee Health Benefits program, which is the framework for US government employee benefits.
quote:Since it's taxpayer funded I'd be asking them to give up those two. Not to mention they are going to legislate pay cuts and elimination of perks for other Federal employees, I want to be sure they are willing to do their part. I'll believe it when I see it if they say they will.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:That wouldn't be hard. The Congressional retirement benefits and the Congressional medical care is excellent.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I'd love to be at a debate or press conference, and ask these bozos if they are willing, in front of God and everybody, to give up all claim for their future Medicare and Social Security benefits. And remind them that their decision would affect their families.
quote:I remember Paul Krugman throwing the same temper tantrum when the article broke last December. Arguing that there might have been "bigger lies" out there does nothing to refute Politifact's original finding.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Politifact's verdict should have been the Lie of the Year. It was a transparent effort to be "evenhanded"--since the last three lies of the year were Republican lies, they were afraid they'd be accused of being partisan (there was voting, and the one they picked was nowhere near the top). But the truth is that these days, Republicans lie more egregiously than Democrats.
quote:You obviously didn't bother to read the link about revised plan I linked to above. (This becomes really apparent in your response to SPK.) Under that plan, rather than fixing payment increases to inflation, they would base the amount paid to seniors on the market price for insurance comparable to medicare.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Ryan's plan essentially abolishes Medicare, then replaces it with a completely different program that he wants to call "Medicare." The two have nothing in common except the name. It's as if I took your BMW and then gave you a Honda Civic with a BMW nameplate stuck on it. It's the same car right? It says "BMW" right there on the fender...
And yes, the proposed program would be a disaster--it would be a nice gift to people who can already afford insurance--they'd get a voucher giving them a nice little discount. For those on the edge, it would be useless--if not at first, then very soon. It would do nothing to slow the growth of medical costs, it would only shift them onto those who can least afford them.
quote:I doubt it. Except for the occasional pimply nerd who becomes an MIT freshman, nobody in the US has read Rand anyway. You might as well accuse someone of being a Herman Melville fan.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think the Ayn Rand dimension will run and run.
quote:That sounds a lot like blowing smoke, given that there's no "market price" for someone over sixty-five with a pre-existing condition. How would such a "market price" be determined, when the market doesn't offer such a product?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
You obviously didn't bother to read the link about revised plan I linked to above. (This becomes really apparent in your response to SPK.) Under that plan, rather than fixing payment increases to inflation, they would base the amount paid to seniors on the market price for insurance comparable to medicare.
quote:
Third, Wyden-Ryan provides strong consumer protections for Medicare beneficiaries. A new Medicare Exchange would oversee the competition between private plans and traditional Medicare for seniors’ business. Plans that engage in cherry-picking healthy seniors or deceptive marketing campaigns would be booted out of the exchange, while those that enroll a disproportionate share of high-risk seniors would get extra support.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73590_Page2.html#ixzz23XSIrEdF
quote:The big problem with this theory is the fact that market competition doesn't seem to be able to control health care costs.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Since you couldn't find the link either, I will post the quote that explains that.
quote:
Third, Wyden-Ryan provides strong consumer protections for Medicare beneficiaries. A new Medicare Exchange would oversee the competition between private plans and traditional Medicare for seniors’ business. Plans that engage in cherry-picking healthy seniors or deceptive marketing campaigns would be booted out of the exchange, while those that enroll a disproportionate share of high-risk seniors would get extra support.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73590_Page2.html#ixzz23XSIrEdF
quote:Again, is there any reason to think Paul Ryan, who wants to reduce (non-military) federal spending to levels not seen since the Coolidge administration, is sincerely proposing a strong and effective new federal bureaucracy to monitor and enforce health care exchanges? That strains credulity.
The Medicare program includes Medicare Advantage -- a menu of competitive managed-care options meant to provide better service at a lower cost. That, too, has been a failure.
In order to keep the private options in Medicare, Congress has had to continuously raise their payment rates above those of the traditional Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) program. In June 2007, the Congressional Budget Office wrote (pdf), [B]“Medicare’s payments for beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans are higher, on average, than what the program would spend if those beneficiaries were in the FFS sector—so shifts in enrollment out of the FFS program and into private plans increase net Medicare spending.”[/QB]
quote:True. Part of the challenge for the DNC will be educating the public-- especially the evangelicals who support these buffoons-- exactly what Rand espoused.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:I doubt it. Except for the occasional pimply nerd who becomes an MIT freshman, nobody in the US has read Rand anyway. You might as well accuse someone of being a Herman Melville fan.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think the Ayn Rand dimension will run and run.
--Tom Clune
quote:What also strains credulity is the idea that, knowing that costs for the current system are going to keep expanding, we are going to be able to pay for the current system without broad tax increases that will have to reach beyond the upper class tax increases that Obama is now promising.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Again, is there any reason to think Paul Ryan, who wants to reduce (non-military) federal spending to levels not seen since the Coolidge administration, is sincerely proposing a strong and effective new federal bureaucracy to monitor and enforce health care exchanges? That strains credulity.
quote:Because with the problems this country faces, what people really want to hear right now is a long, drawn-out explanation of the ideas of some deceased author.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Part of the challenge for the DNC will be educating the public-- especially the evangelicals who support these buffoons-- exactly what Rand espoused.
quote:First, the Politifact fuss (about which Krugman, Ezra Klein, and others were right and Politifact just plain wrong) had to do with the original Ryan plan, not Wyden-Ryan. And it is Ryan I that has been passed by the House--for all practical as well as political purposes it is Ryan's current position. Wyden-Ryan is not relevant to the current debate.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Since you couldn't find the link either, I will post the quote that explains that.
quote:
Third, Wyden-Ryan provides strong consumer protections for Medicare beneficiaries. A new Medicare Exchange would oversee the competition between private plans and traditional Medicare for seniors’ business. Plans that engage in cherry-picking healthy seniors or deceptive marketing campaigns would be booted out of the exchange, while those that enroll a disproportionate share of high-risk seniors would get extra support.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73590_Page2.html#ixzz23XSIrEdF
quote:Which begs the question of why preserving "the current system" of for-profit health insurance is an at-all-costs priority for the apparent Republican VP nominee?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:What also strains credulity is the idea that, knowing that costs for the current system are going to keep expanding, we are going to be able to pay for the current system without broad tax increases that will have to reach beyond the upper class tax increases that Obama is now promising.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Again, is there any reason to think Paul Ryan, who wants to reduce (non-military) federal spending to levels not seen since the Coolidge administration, is sincerely proposing a strong and effective new federal bureaucracy to monitor and enforce health care exchanges? That strains credulity.
quote:It is interesting that Christianity Today, who's audience is certainly not defined by arcane literary interests and would certainly skew toward conservative politics, has considered Rand of sufficient interest to run not one but at least three recent articles detailing the incompatibility of Rand's philosophy with evangelical Christianity.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Because with the problems this country faces, what people really want to hear right now is a long, drawn-out explanation of the ideas of some deceased author.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Part of the challenge for the DNC will be educating the public-- especially the evangelicals who support these buffoons-- exactly what Rand espoused.
I think Obama is smart enough to know that trying to educate the public about Ayn Rand would be a waste of time and money, when he can just attack the Ryan budget.
quote:So even though Ryan put Wyden-Ryan in the 2013 budget that he proposed (which was the latest budget passed by the house), it isn't relevant to the current debate, and Ryan I is, for all practical purposes, his current position? That seems a stretch...
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
And it is Ryan I that has been passed by the House--for all practical as well as political purposes it is Ryan's current position. Wyden-Ryan is not relevant to the current debate.
[/URL]
quote:This seems to be factually challenged. AFAIK, no legislation of any sort has been passed -- or even formulated as anything other than an idea -- to implement Wyden-Ryan Medicare reform by the House. Am I mistaken? (Certainly possible.)
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
So even though Ryan put Wyden-Ryan in the 2013 budget that he proposed (which was the latest budget passed by the house), it isn't relevant to the current debate, and Ryan I is, for all practical purposes, his current position? That seems a stretch...
quote:I doubt that Obama or Biden will spend any time talking about Ayn Rand, but Democratic-leaning media are just the place for such a debate. Editorial articles, magazine profiles, etc....
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:I doubt it. Except for the occasional pimply nerd who becomes an MIT freshman, nobody in the US has read Rand anyway. You might as well accuse someone of being a Herman Melville fan.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think the Ayn Rand dimension will run and run.
--Tom Clune
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It is interesting that Christianity Today, who's audience is certainly not defined by arcane literary interests and would certainly skew toward conservative politics, has considered Rand of sufficient interest to run not one but at least three recent articles detailing the incompatibility of Rand's philosophy with evangelical Christianity.
Christianity Today is a liberal magazine written for liberals.quote:The question isn't whether Ryan I is the only plan, the question is why Ryan thought it was a good idea in the first place?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
This link from ABC News further illustrates the problem with arguing that Ryan I is the one and only relevant Ryan plan.
quote:
Mitt Romney Would Pay 0.82 Percent in Taxes Under Paul Ryan's Plan
Under Paul Ryan's plan, Mitt Romney wouldn't pay any taxes for the next ten years -- or any of the years after that. Now, do I know that that's true. Yes, I'm certain.
Well, maybe not quite nothing. In 2010 -- the only year we have seen a full return from him -- Romney would have paid an effective tax rate of around 0.82 percent under the Ryan plan, rather than the 13.9 percent he actually did. How would someone with more than $21 million in taxable income pay so little? Well, the vast majority of Romney's income came from capital gains, interest, and dividends. And Ryan wants to eliminate all taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends.
quote:Why have discussions about the policy on the table when the policy that is no longer on the table makes it easier to make your opponent look bad? Sounds like the real pragmatic problem solving that voters are looking for.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The question isn't whether Ryan I is the only plan, the question is why Ryan thought it was a good idea in the first place?
quote:But see this article by the same author, who has to admit that the tax proposals he based those numbers on are no longer in the Ryan budget.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
On a related topic, this may explain Mitt's enthusiasm for Ryan:
quote:
Mitt Romney Would Pay 0.82 Percent in Taxes Under Paul Ryan's Plan
Under Paul Ryan's plan, Mitt Romney wouldn't pay any taxes for the next ten years -- or any of the years after that. Now, do I know that that's true. Yes, I'm certain.
Well, maybe not quite nothing. In 2010 -- the only year we have seen a full return from him -- Romney would have paid an effective tax rate of around 0.82 percent under the Ryan plan, rather than the 13.9 percent he actually did. How would someone with more than $21 million in taxable income pay so little? Well, the vast majority of Romney's income came from capital gains, interest, and dividends. And Ryan wants to eliminate all taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends.
quote:Just an observation that all versions of what has been dubbed "the Ryan Plan" share the following characteristics:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Why have discussions about the policy on the table when the policy that is no longer on the table makes it easier to make your opponent look bad? Sounds like the real pragmatic problem solving that voters are looking for.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The question isn't whether Ryan I is the only plan, the question is why Ryan thought it was a good idea in the first place?
quote:Republican hostility to Medicare isn't a "new idea", nor is their insistence, contrary to all experience, that market forces will fix the health care market.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
If it works, let's see if anyone is stupid enough to propose a new idea ever again.
quote:Funny, I always thought that debating the specific proposals was what serious budget making was all about.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Getting bogged down in which particular programs will be eliminated in order to cut Mitt Romney's taxes is missing the forest for the trees.
quote:seriously, you have got to get out more. Sojourners is a liberal magazine written for liberals.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It is interesting that Christianity Today, who's audience is certainly not defined by arcane literary interests and would certainly skew toward conservative politics, has considered Rand of sufficient interest to run not one but at least three recent articles detailing the incompatibility of Rand's philosophy with evangelical Christianity.
quote:As opposed to just enacting the policies Rand espoused, the result being even more class warfare than what we're experiencing now, in which the poor will be significantly outgunned.
Originally posted by saysay: [QUOTE}
You can go ahead and attempt to "educate" the public about what Rand espoused, but it will likely make the resulting political battles even more vicious and ugly.
quote:Hm, let me try again. The people you are trying to persuade to vote your way think of Christianity Today as being a liberal magazine, while they think of Soujourners as being loopy liberal and barely even Christian. If you are using what is written in Christianity Today as some kind of gauge of conservative thinking, you are going to measure it wrong.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:seriously, you have got to get out more. Sojourners is a liberal magazine written for liberals.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It is interesting that Christianity Today, who's audience is certainly not defined by arcane literary interests and would certainly skew toward conservative politics, has considered Rand of sufficient interest to run not one but at least three recent articles detailing the incompatibility of Rand's philosophy with evangelical Christianity.
quote:And yet if the middle class in this country does not stop its war on and attempt to eradicate working class culture, that is what is likely to happen.
Originally posted by saysay:quote:As opposed to just enacting the policies Rand espoused, the result being even more class warfare than what we're experiencing now, in which the poor will be significantly outgunned.
You can go ahead and attempt to "educate" the public about what Rand espoused, but it will likely make the resulting political battles even more vicious and ugly.
quote:The people I know who talk about class warfare talk about it in terms of the rich versus the rest of us. Could you say more about what you mean by the middle class' war on working-class culture?
Originally posted by saysay:
And yet if the middle class in this country does not stop its war on and attempt to eradicate working class culture, that is what is likely to happen.
quote:Let me try again: I think (based on 50 years immersion in evangelical American culture) you are very much mistaken.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:Hm, let me try again. The people you are trying to persuade to vote your way think of Christianity Today as being a liberal magazine, while they think of Soujourners as being loopy liberal and barely even Christian. If you are using what is written in Christianity Today as some kind of gauge of conservative thinking, you are going to measure it wrong.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:seriously, you have got to get out more. Sojourners is a liberal magazine written for liberals.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It is interesting that Christianity Today, who's audience is certainly not defined by arcane literary interests and would certainly skew toward conservative politics, has considered Rand of sufficient interest to run not one but at least three recent articles detailing the incompatibility of Rand's philosophy with evangelical Christianity.
quote:As opposed to just enacting the policies Rand espoused, the result being even more class warfare than what we're experiencing now, in which the poor will be significantly outgunned. [/QUOTE]And yet if the middle class in this country does not stop its war on and attempt to eradicate working class culture, that is what is likely to happen. [/qb][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by saysay: [/qb]
quote:A lot of it has to do with our kids and the way we raise them. In many cases the federal or state government has set educational policies, including zero tolerance policies and curriculum guides that are hurting our kids. They have eliminated a lot of classes that used to exist (and we all had to take), like reading, shop, home economics, health; they eliminated field days and all sorts of other things. Personally I can't figure out what the schools are teaching at all since most of the young people I know don't seem to know much of anything (I used to tell students they had to write things in complete sentences until I realized that they don't even know what a complete sentence is; no one teaches it anymore).
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:The people I know who talk about class warfare talk about it in terms of the rich versus the rest of us. Could you say more about what you mean by the middle class' war on working-class culture?
Originally posted by saysay:
And yet if the middle class in this country does not stop its war on and attempt to eradicate working class culture, that is what is likely to happen.
quote:My mistake--I was under the impression that they passed the same thing both times. However, Wyden has denied that what they passed in March is his plan (again, he said what he and Ryan came up with didn't have enough details to be considered a plan), and he voted against it in the Senate. Frankly, I think he got played--Ryan just wanted to be able to claim some veneer of bipartisanship for his plan (and Ryan-Wyden is really not significantly better than Ryan I in the long run).
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
It was in the 2013 House budget, which passed the House in March.
This link from ABC News further illustrates the problem with arguing that Ryan I is the one and only relevant Ryan plan.
quote:You can debate detailed proposals once you've agreed about the general goals. Since Ryan's general goals include the thoroughly reprehensible ones Croesos listed, all us progressives are going to oppose any specific proposals to implement them.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Funny, I always thought that debating the specific proposals was what serious budget making was all about.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Getting bogged down in which particular programs will be eliminated in order to cut Mitt Romney's taxes is missing the forest for the trees.
quote:And you call us the party of no.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:You can debate detailed proposals once you've agreed about the general goals. Since Ryan's general goals include the thoroughly reprehensible ones Croesos listed, all us progressives are going to oppose any specific proposals to implement them.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Funny, I always thought that debating the specific proposals was what serious budget making was all about.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Getting bogged down in which particular programs will be eliminated in order to cut Mitt Romney's taxes is missing the forest for the trees.
quote:I will see you David Stockman and raise you Democrat Erskine Bowles:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
But it's not just liberals. David Stockman, whose credentials as a conservative and as somebody with federal budget expertise are beyond question, says Ryan's budget is a fantasy.
quote:Even Obama called the Ryan 2011 budget a "serious proposal" before inviting him to the speech at George Washington U., which was advertised as Obama's plan for entitlement reform, but was nothing more than an attack on the budget.
Have any of you all met Paul Ryan? We should get him to come to the university. I’m telling you, this guy is amazing. I always thought I was okay with arithmetic, this guy can run circles around me. He is honest, he is straightforward, he is sincere. And the budget he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, honest, serious budget
quote:Funny that but I'm reading Moby Dick right now on my phone. His description of Nantucket just about fits what the rest of the world thinks will be left of the US if they don't get their act together - barely able to grow anything of its own anymore and dependent upon sending people around the world to fetch stuff back.
Originally posted by tclune:
....You might as well accuse someone of being a Herman Melville fan.
--Tom Clune
quote:Moby-Dick was my project last summer. I forgot how funny Melville is until I found myself laughed out loud throughout what I had always imagined to be a rather boring book. Keep pressing, it is worth it.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:Funny that but I'm reading Moby Dick right now on my phone. His description of Nantucket just about fits what the rest of the world thinks will be left of the US if they don't get their act together - barely able to grow anything of its own anymore and dependent upon sending people around the world to fetch stuff back.
Originally posted by tclune:
....You might as well accuse someone of being a Herman Melville fan.
--Tom Clune
quote:So someone best known for advocating deep cuts to social programs had nice things to say about Paul Ryan's economic agenda. And this shows what, exactly?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:I will see you David Stockman and raise you Democrat Erskine Bowles:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
But it's not just liberals. David Stockman, whose credentials as a conservative and as somebody with federal budget expertise are beyond question, says Ryan's budget is a fantasy.
quote:
Have any of you all met Paul Ryan? We should get him to come to the university. I’m telling you, this guy is amazing. I always thought I was okay with arithmetic, this guy can run circles around me. He is honest, he is straightforward, he is sincere. And the budget he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, honest, serious budget
quote:I'm glad you said some things about this, saysay. I'm with you and not with you on this one. To be honest, the "war" you're talking about is nothing like the war on the working and rural poor (if you want to phrase it that way) that existed back at the turn of the last century. Young girls who became pregnant out of wedlock might be institutionalized as "feeble-minded" or forcibly sterilized in those days. If you've never seen anything on Henry H. Goddard's 1812 book on the family he called the "Kallikaks," , take a look. The complete original book is also on line.
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:A lot of it has to do with our kids and the way we raise them. In many cases the federal or state government has set educational policies, including zero tolerance policies and curriculum guides that are hurting our kids. They have eliminated a lot of classes that used to exist (and we all had to take), like reading, shop, home economics, health; they eliminated field days and all sorts of other things.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:The people I know who talk about class warfare talk about it in terms of the rich versus the rest of us. Could you say more about what you mean by the middle class' war on working-class culture?
Originally posted by saysay:
And yet if the middle class in this country does not stop its war on and attempt to eradicate working class culture, that is what is likely to happen.
....
A lot of working class people also feel like middle class people really, really hate them and they have no idea why or what could cause people to hate people they've never met and who have never done anything to hurt them so much, or why these people who walk around preaching about cultural diversity and tolerance and whatever else seem to be trying to eradicate our culture, especially since most of us find middle class culture so completely toxic and think it's really really bad for a whole lot of people.
I can say more, but that's the basics.
quote:Oh, I know its nothing new; I just keep hearing people say things like 'what's the matter with Kansas' and whatever else as if they don't understand why people would vote against policies that are so obviously in their economic interests. And I keep trying to convince people to vote for certain policies and whatnot, and this is why a lot of people are telling me that they won't vote those ways.
Originally posted by Grammatica:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by saysay:
[qb] To be honest, the "war" you're talking about is nothing like the war on the working and rural poor (if you want to phrase it that way) that existed back at the turn of the last century.
quote:Oh, I know it's not necessarily new; but it just seems to me that people's level of anger is increasing...
In fact, I am privately convinced that one of the reasons it's become harder to get working-class people to vote Democratic is that, since the big-city political machines collapsed, the progressive reformers have come to the fore in the party. The kind of "reform" you experience as "class warfare," saysay, is nothing new among progressive reformers, though we (and I have to include myself here among them) tend to deny these aspects of our own history. ("Yes, Margaret Sanger flirted with the eugenics movement, but that was a fluke.")
quote:I also think the schools problems are the result of the "No Child Left Behind" law, which is problematic in all kinds of ways. I argued for it at the time because I thought it might help but I think it's made things a lot worse and I want it repealed and I want more local control.
Most of the problems you point to in your schools result from the unintended consequences of the "No Child Left Behind" movement, which led to an explosion of standardized tests, leaving little room for much of anything else. But the picture's not all bleak.
quote:That's the thing that bothers me - we do continue to have shop in a lot of our high schools but a)it's kind-of arbitrary as to whether or not people are going to wind up at a high school that teaches shop and b) we took it out of elementary and middle schools so people aren't introduced to it to see whether or not they like it and/or have some kind of aptitude for it before they have to decide whether or not they're going to take it and actually pursue that field. Plus - and maybe I'm just imaging this - but it seems like people have less appreciation for people who do actually pursue a particular field and the talent and skill they have.
I don't know where you are (West Virginia?) but in Florida, we not only continue to have shop in our high schools, we have Career Academies at our community/state colleges that allow dual-enrolled HS students to get a HS diploma and a community college technical certificate at the same time. It's a really good deal for the kids, not least because the equipment is up to date. I understand Career Academies are available nationwide. I'd push for them if you don't have them locally.
quote:It shows that I can cherry pick comments by people from the left who say nice things about Ryan just as well as T the O can cherry pick comments by people from the right who say not nice things about Ryan.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So someone best known for advocating deep cuts to social programs had nice things to say about Paul Ryan's economic agenda. And this shows what, exactly?
quote:I didn't know that before now.
Ayn (pronounced like swine, as she used to say)
quote:Oh, I know the Republicans have been as good at imposing this kind of stuff as the Democrats. But the Republicans are still saying that that they favor a small government even when their actions indicate otherwise, but people are still buying it.
Originally posted by Grammatica:
But the fact is that the Republicans have been as good at imposing this kind of stuff on the working class as the Democrats. Jeb Bush in Florida pushed for the FCAT testing regimen, over the objections of plenty of local school boards. So there's one flaw in your analysis.
quote:Oh, I know that. I just think it would help if there were fewer people in the world talking to and about the working class as if they were simply really really stupid and that's why they do the things they do. What with all the other changes in American culture, I know any number of middle class people in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and DC who don't actually know any working class people (my pet theory is that part of that is because they don't meet them in church because they're no longer going there because it's not something you have to do because everyone else is doing it and you'll look bad if you don't go). And, again, I think it might help if more working class people had some sense that the middle class is willing to compromise on certain issues, but I could be wrong about that.
Let's face it: some of the culture you want to celebrate is dysfunctional; some of it holds back kids who might otherwise be able to make a success out of their lives.
So, what do you and I do about that? As resentful as people might be, sometimes it's necessary to take a good hard look at the culture and say: things just have to change. What we have here isn't working.
quote:Raises hand. He married a girl from Madill, Oklahoma. And that is prime noodlin territory.
Originally posted by moron:
And Ryan noodles catfish - who knew?
quote:It beats mudbogging.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I live in a rural area. Fishing for catfish is fun. Guns are for hunting. Noodling catfish is stupid.
quote:Safer than hunting with Dick Cheney.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
From what I understand, noodling can be dangerous. Would they let a veep continue to do it??
quote:I'm not offended as a Republican, I'm offended as a fisherman. Before you make any more jokes, you might want to remind yourself that the guy who greets you at the pearly gates was a fisherman.
Originally posted by rugasaw:
I now have two pieces of circumstantial evidence that Ryan is a habitual liar.
1. Ryan is a politician
2. Ryan is a fisherman
Given this evidence I tell you there is no way that Ryan is an honest man.
quote:Has it come out against the Ryan plan? I just googled "Christianity Today Paul Ryan" and found an article in which the budget and morality was discussed in relation to the Ryan budget, but in no way did that or any other article I found "come out against" the plan. I'd certainly be interested in seeing the article where it did formally come out against the Ryan plan.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Christianity Today bills itself as an independent evanglical magazine. It actually was founded as a counterbalance to Christian Century. The fact that Christianity Today has also come out against the Ryan plan shows that even evangelicals have problems with the Ryan plan.
quote:I couldn't find anything either, but I do think some of the articles on Ayn Rand's influence on the GOP may have touched on it.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Has it come out against the Ryan plan? I just googled "Christianity Today Paul Ryan" and found an article in which the budget and morality was discussed in relation to the Ryan budget, but in no way did that or any other article I found "come out against" the plan. I'd certainly be interested in seeing the article where it did formally come out against the Ryan plan.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Christianity Today bills itself as an independent evanglical magazine. It actually was founded as a counterbalance to Christian Century. The fact that Christianity Today has also come out against the Ryan plan shows that even evangelicals have problems with the Ryan plan.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Where are the Republicans getting candidates like this?
And when did it become acceptable for Republicans to say things like this in public?
Honestly, isn't there such a thing as party discipline any more?
What do you mean? Neither man criticized a fellow Republican, suggested raising taxes, or endorsed equal rights for gays. That's staying on message as far as the Republican party is concerned. The only groups likely to be offended are women and blacks, and the Republican party wrote off those votes years ago.
quote:This is just conservatives coming out of the closet because they think it's safe to say what they always thought.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Where are the Republicans getting candidates like this?
And when did it become acceptable for Republicans to say things like this in public?
Honestly, isn't there such a thing as party discipline any more?
quote:I'll give you a hint, there are only two articles on Rand in the online archives of "Christianity Today," so it wouldn't take you too long to confirm your thoughts, and (spoiler alert) neither touched specifically on the Ryan budget. So that sounds like a no, "Christianity Today" has not "come out against" the Ryan budget. Which was my only quibble. I am not shocked that the Catholic bishop who heads up Catholics for Obama finds something objectionable in the Ryan budget.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I couldn't find anything either, but I do think some of the articles on Ayn Rand's influence on the GOP may have touched on it.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Has it come out against the Ryan plan? I just googled "Christianity Today Paul Ryan" and found an article in which the budget and morality was discussed in relation to the Ryan budget, but in no way did that or any other article I found "come out against" the plan. I'd certainly be interested in seeing the article where it did formally come out against the Ryan plan.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Christianity Today bills itself as an independent evanglical magazine. It actually was founded as a counterbalance to Christian Century. The fact that Christianity Today has also come out against the Ryan plan shows that even evangelicals have problems with the Ryan plan.
quote:It's more like conservatives forgetting themselves and saying to mixed audiences and the media what they used to only say in closed meetings of the party faithful.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:This is just conservatives coming out of the closet because they think it's safe to say what they always thought.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Where are the Republicans getting candidates like this?
And when did it become acceptable for Republicans to say things like this in public?
Honestly, isn't there such a thing as party discipline any more?
quote:There have actually been 3 CT articles in the last year on Rand. But I wasn't the one who made the original statement so I won't take the time to hunt it down. You'll note that the statement re: the Ryan budget came from a conference of American bishops, not a single bishop. fwiw.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:I'll give you a hint, there are only two articles on Rand in the online archives of "Christianity Today," so it wouldn't take you too long to confirm your thoughts, and (spoiler alert) neither touched specifically on the Ryan budget. So that sounds like a no, "Christianity Today" has not "come out against" the Ryan budget. Which was my only quibble. I am not shocked that the Catholic bishop who heads up Catholics for Obama finds something objectionable in the Ryan budget.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I couldn't find anything either, but I do think some of the articles on Ayn Rand's influence on the GOP may have touched on it.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Has it come out against the Ryan plan? I just googled "Christianity Today Paul Ryan" and found an article in which the budget and morality was discussed in relation to the Ryan budget, but in no way did that or any other article I found "come out against" the plan. I'd certainly be interested in seeing the article where it did formally come out against the Ryan plan.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Christianity Today bills itself as an independent evanglical magazine. It actually was founded as a counterbalance to Christian Century. The fact that Christianity Today has also come out against the Ryan plan shows that even evangelicals have problems with the Ryan plan.
quote:From the vague description it sounds like a case of "postdiction" rather than prediction. This is a new model, so contrary to the claim that it has "correctly predicted every presidential election since 1980", the model was simply tweeked until it gave the right answers.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Any comments on this study, showing that, based on multiple economic factors measured on a state by state basis, Mitt Romney looks to be the likely winner of the election.
quote:That is obviously what they did, which is why I didn't chose to play up the part about the model supposedly predicting past elections- that is just the story the media is running with. They took past observable results and attempted to use those results to predict a future result. Which is generally what scientists attempt to do, right?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:From the vague description it sounds like a case of "postdiction" rather than prediction. This is a new model, so contrary to the claim that it has "correctly predicted every presidential election since 1980", the model was simply tweeked until it gave the right answers.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Any comments on this study, showing that, based on multiple economic factors measured on a state by state basis, Mitt Romney looks to be the likely winner of the election.
quote:Perhaps a more apposite analogy would be to those gamblers who use past results to predict the next outcome of the roulette wheel.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
They took past observable results and attempted to use those results to predict a future result. Which is generally what scientists attempt to do, right?
quote:The interesting question to me is what level Obama will stoop to as the election approaches and it becomes obvious to everyone (including the poor currently deluded deniers
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Any comments on this study
) that he's going to lose decisively?
quote:I am sure the members of the various social science departments at your local university would be delighted to hear that this is what you think of their life's work.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Perhaps a more apposite analogy would be to those gamblers who use past results to predict the next outcome of the roulette wheel.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
They took past observable results and attempted to use those results to predict a future result. Which is generally what scientists attempt to do, right?
--Tom Clune
quote:I have certainly never made any secret of my disdain of the social sciences, and these kinds of models would be excellent examples of why I find them devoid of science and only marginally socialized.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:I am sure the members of the various social science departments at your local university would be delighted to hear that this is what you think of their life's work.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Perhaps a more apposite analogy would be to those gamblers who use past results to predict the next outcome of the roulette wheel.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
They took past observable results and attempted to use those results to predict a future result. Which is generally what scientists attempt to do, right?
--Tom Clune
quote:Most likely the former rather than the latter. A quick Google search indicates that the main news sources reporting this story are either reliably conservative (Fox, Washington Times, etc.) or based in Colorado (for local interest).
Originally posted by Carex:
The real question, then, is what makes this new model newsworthy, since there are many others already out there. Is it because it is the only one that forecasts Romney to win? Or is there really something new and different about the methodology that is worth exploring? I don't know, and reading the article didn't provide much of a clue.
quote:I love it when you post this nonsense with your new name.
Originally posted by moron:
quote:The interesting question to me is what level Obama will stoop to as the election approaches and it becomes obvious to everyone (including the poor currently deluded deniers
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Any comments on this study
War with Iran, anyone?
quote:"The LORD blew, and they were scattered."
Originally posted by Golden Key:
It will be interesting to see what Pat Robertson list as the cause, if it does hit.
Personally, I think that, if it does hit, the locals should blame the Republicans!
quote:You're welcome - as always, I live to serve.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I love it when you post this nonsense with your new name.
quote:The oft-quoted remark by Mark Twain ,"There are lies, damn lies and statistics" should be enlarged to include polls.
quote:Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
They took past observable results and attempted to use those results to predict a future result. Which is generally what scientists attempt to do, right?
Perhaps a more apposite analogy would be to those gamblers who use past results to predict the next outcome of the roulette wheel.
--Tom Clune
quote:1. Do you not know how many Republicans are unhappy with the sharp tack to the right their party has taken? Or how many older voters are anxious over the Medicare proposals? Or how many parents of college-age kids are unwilling to have their kids' new coverage done away with? Or how many women are wondering when they'll find themselves not only barefoot and pregnant, but veiled?
Originally posted by moron:
Do you not know how unhappy many of those (generally speaking: independents) who actually bought into 'hope and change' are?
And about the study: I heard one of the authors on a rabid right wing radio show yesterday and he made it sound like their methodology was not completely worthy of mockery... I guess time will tell.
quote:Funny you should mention that. Here is an article reporting that Romney has indicated that, if elected, he is willing to go to war with BOTH Iran and Syria. So if President Obama is willing to stoop, Romney is willing to be even more stoopid.
Originally posted by moron:
quote:The interesting question to me is what level Obama will stoop to as the election approaches and it becomes obvious to everyone (including the poor currently deluded deniers
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Any comments on this study
War with Iran, anyone?
quote:Isn't that the cornerstone of his campaign?
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Here is an article reporting that Romney has indicated that, if elected, he is willing to go to war with BOTH Iran and Syria. So if President Obama is willing to stoop, Romney is willing to be even more stoopid.
quote:I think he has a good chance of winning, short of some cataclysmic event.
Originally posted by moron:
But seriously does anyone here really believe Obama will win, short of some cataclysmic event between now and the election?
quote:True, many of them are unhappy. Of the ones I know, they are more unhappy with the Republicans for doing everything in their power to suppress "hope and change", economic recovery, and anything that might make Obama look good for re-election. Holding the well-being of the country hostage for political gain is not exactly a good way to encourage Independents to vote for a Republican, regardless of how unhappy they are with the results that the incumbent has achieved.
Do you not know how unhappy many of those (generally speaking: independents) who actually bought into 'hope and change' are?
quote:You need to get out more.
Originally posted by Carex:
The same is probably true of the other side, but I haven't happened to wander into one of their dens yet.
quote:Ditto.
While I'm sure that there are members of the reality-challenged community at both extremes, my experience in the day-to-day world away from political commentary convinces me that the Republican side has put much more effort into perfecting this as an art form.
quote:But if it works... you see the brilliance of choosing Ryan who has apparently energized the abysmally ignorant drooling knuckle dragging racist Bible thumping Palinite types.
If he wins, great, but when he fails it gives the Far Right Wing candidates who participated only enough to test the waters a chance to say, "See, we tried a moderate and it didn't work, so what we really need is someone more conservative."
quote:Thanks, Josephine. Very eye opening. I've always said we should have the best politicians money can can buy. Sadly, with all the money we have the worst politicians on both sides of the aisle.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Have you seen opensecrets.org? .
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Christianity Today is a liberal magazine written for liberals.
quote:Then they get more vicious and ugly. It ought to raise eyebrows that Ayn Rand was, among other things, a militant atheist.
You can go ahead and attempt to "educate" the public about what Rand espoused, but it will likely make the resulting political battles even more vicious and ugly.
quote:From Five Thirty Eight yesterday:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Pretty much what I said in my first post.
The Republicans do seem to have made some headway in Mr. Ryan’s native state of Wisconsin, however. And their last few polls in Florida have been been reasonably strong, defying the conventional wisdom that suggested Mr. Ryan’s views on entitlement programs could be damaging among the senior population in that state.
quote:That would leave a lot of empty seats in the auditorium.
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
No need for Christian Charity. If they kick all the gays out before the storm hits then they'll be fine.
quote:this.
Originally posted by tclune:
As I get older, I guess I get more jaded. I used to imagine that elections were about we the people hashing out our vision of who we are as a people and what we value. The longer I live, the more they seem to be about manipulating the electorate with faux outrage and scare stories based in nothing but focus-group effectiveness.
We have reached a place as a country where we really do need to hammer out a view of what we believe we owe each other as fellow countrymen. If elections aren't going to provide the vehicle for that, where can it be accomplished?
--Tom Clune
quote:The indirect, bank-shot, more likely analysis: Crist believes the Romney-Ryan ticket is electorally doomed and is positioning himself to be either the token "reasonable Republican" in Obama's second term cabinet or for his own presidential run in 2016 on an "if you'd only listened to me . . . " platform.
As Republicans gather in Tampa to nominate Mitt Romney, Americans can expect to hear tales of how President Obama has failed to work with their party or turn the economy around.
But an element of their party has pitched so far to the extreme right on issues important to women, immigrants, seniors and students that they've proven incapable of governing for the people. Look no further than the inclusion of the Akin amendment in the Republican Party platform, which bans abortion, even for rape victims.
The truth is that the party has failed to demonstrate the kind of leadership or seriousness voters deserve.
quote:It's called "the Leiberman strategy."
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Because everyone knows that the best way to set yourself up to run for a party's nomination is to run against its senate nominee in 2010 and then after you lose by 20 % of the vote, endorse the other party's guy in 2012.
quote:Won't that rather deprive him of the all-important "bounce"?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So the Romney campaign is, for the moment, limiting the candidate to interviews only with local press, and then only if they'll agree not to ask him about Todd Akin or abortion. While I can appreciate the desire to control the message, not wanting to state an opinion on an important and controversial issue smacks of political cowardice.
Of course avoiding the national media is not a workable strategy in the long run, but the Romney campaign has probably calculated that by the time the Republican Convention is over the media's gnat-like attention span will have moved on to something else.
quote:Or perhaps governor again. He's rumored to be interested. Rick Scott continues to be very unpopular.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Interestingly the Republican former governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, has chosen the Sunday before the Republican National Convention convenes in his state to endorse Barack Obama's presidential run.
The short, direct analysis: Crist believes Obama will be a better leader and that his endorsement will help Obama win. Corollary: Crist believes the national Republican ticket is dangerously extreme. An excerpt from his statement:
quote:The indirect, bank-shot, more likely analysis: Crist believes the Romney-Ryan ticket is electorally doomed and is positioning himself to be either the token "reasonable Republican" in Obama's second term cabinet or for his own presidential run in 2016 on an "if you'd only listened to me . . . " platform.
As Republicans gather in Tampa to nominate Mitt Romney, Americans can expect to hear tales of how President Obama has failed to work with their party or turn the economy around.
But an element of their party has pitched so far to the extreme right on issues important to women, immigrants, seniors and students that they've proven incapable of governing for the people. Look no further than the inclusion of the Akin amendment in the Republican Party platform, which bans abortion, even for rape victims.
The truth is that the party has failed to demonstrate the kind of leadership or seriousness voters deserve.
quote:Not at all. The campaign knows the media will cover the convention regardless of whether they're given the chance to interview the candidate or not.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Won't that rather deprive him of the all-important "bounce"?
quote:You repeat yourself, sir.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
While I can appreciate the desire to control the message, not wanting to state an opinion on an important and controversial issue smacks of political cowardice.
-- draw you off into tangent.quote:Obama went two months this summer without talking to the White House press corps, while making time for a hard-hitting interview with Entertainment Tonight. Seems like the go-to strategy for anyone running for office. Not that we have to like it.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So the Romney campaign is, for the moment, limiting the candidate to interviews only with local press, and then only if they'll agree not to ask him about Todd Akin or abortion. While I can appreciate the desire to control the message, not wanting to state an opinion on an important and controversial issue smacks of political cowardice.
Of course avoiding the national media is not a workable strategy in the long run, but the Romney campaign has probably calculated that by the time the Republican Convention is over the media's gnat-like attention span will have moved on to something else.
quote:So given Romney's shifting positions, the Republicans have built their house on sand? Didn't Jesus say something about that?
Originally posted by moron:
PBS just said the Republican convention theme is 'We Built It'.
And Chris Christie is the keynote speaker tonight so it can only get better. <rubs hands gleefully>
quote:If I express my full views on this particular subject, it will have to be in Hell. And I don't care WHICH political party is doing it.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Well, this is interesting, if not surprising.
Romney campaign doesn't care if their ads are true.
quote:Meaningful debate debate died a long ago in politics. Even the illusion of politeness died when the parties tossed in giving each party a complete week of advertising, er, I mean convention publicity free of appearances or interference of any kind by the opposing party. They're both booked for appearances in the cities conventions are being held in as well as talk show appearances during these weeks. I doubt truth in advertising ever existed in politics. Anyone who bases their vote on TV adds is an imbecile - and based on how well attack ads work, I'm guessing we have an electorate made up of way too many imbeciles.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:If I express my full views on this particular subject, it will have to be in Hell. And I don't care WHICH political party is doing it.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Well, this is interesting, if not surprising.
Romney campaign doesn't care if their ads are true.
How on earth can you have a meaningful debate about policies if you're not interested in accurately portraying the difference between policies?
But of course, campaigns aren't about actually debating choices and presenting voters with alternatives, they're simply about winning.
quote:Love it.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
NPR political journalist Andrea Seabrook has quit NPR altogether, because she could no longer stand politicians lying to her daily. (Transcript there.)
quote:Please pardon the tangent but I've been meaning to compliment you on using the word 'breeders' in Hell some time back.
Originally posted by orfeo:
How on earth can you have a meaningful debate about policies if you're not interested in accurately portraying the difference between policies?
quote:What does "politically correct" mean here?
Originally posted by Janine:
If the GOP Powers That Be were sidelining us and squelching us and rolling over us wholesale, for a less politically correct reason, it would really blow up and something might change. But, it's OK to dismiss conservative Libertarian-leaning people who are perceived as mostly "non-ethnic".
quote:I've got a question for the folks here who usually support the Republicans.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
It's not that complicated--both sides will try to spin things, but these days Republicans lie much more often and blatantly than Democrats. And they feel entitled to.
quote:I hadn't observed a chance prior to that post to admire the chutzpah.
Originally posted by RuthW:
ETA: moron, I'm not sure why you'd congratulate someone in Purgatory for a derogatory term they used in Hell.
quote:No, it's not OK. Any campaign which lies ought to be held to account.
It's not just spin, it's blatant falsehood. The campaign knows it. And they admit it.
Is that okay with you? Why or why not?
quote:The fact that both sides engage in bad behavior does not necessarily mean they are both equally culpable. That seems to be what passes for "fair and open minded" these days-- to match one grievance, no matter how heinous, with one on the other side, no matter how slight, and suggest that makes them "equal" and therefore a pox on both houses. Which only leads to cynicism and apathy.
Originally posted by moron:
[QUOTE]No, it's not OK. Any campaign which lies ought to be held to account.
And I'm sorry that I come across skeptically but, for instance, you have repeatedly maligned Republican types here apparently oblivious* that your party is IMNSHO equally culpable of lying.
So is it OK when your side does it?
quote:FWIW, I have the sense that the Dems have decided to embrace the dark side of the force this year. They seemed to try fighting against the swift-boaters and the birthers in previous campaigns with little reward for taking the high road. So, this time, they seem to have decided to fight fire with fire. I think it's a terrible choice, but it sure seems that the Dems have abandoned priciple for expediency.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It may be that the DNC is guilty of lying on an equal level as the GOP, but if so, I have yet to see it. It certainly cannot be claimed as a proven assumption, as you seem to be suggesting.
quote:Examples? Bearing in mind that a negative ad is not the same as one containing deliberate falsehoods.
Originally posted by tclune:
FWIW, I have the sense that the Dems have decided to embrace the dark side of the force this year. They seemed to try fighting against the swift-boaters and the birthers in previous campaigns with little reward for taking the high road. So, this time, they seem to have decided to fight fire with fire. I think it's a terrible choice, but it sure seems that the Dems have abandoned priciple for expediency.
--Tom Clune
quote:Dishonesty in the service of racism and racist stereotypes also has a long history in American politics. Some people consider that a breaking point, or at least a very unsettling preview of governing style. Others apparently can dismiss it with a shrug.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
If we had a grand tradition of always telling the truth in elections and someone came out of one year and broke those rules, things might be different. But given that we are in a system where false statements are (unfortunately) the norm, and given that the decisions that the President makes are hugely important, at what point would a false statement rise to a level high enough so that it would be reasonable to allow reason two to trump reason one?
quote:
Originally posted by moron:
quote:No, it's not OK. Any campaign which lies ought to be held to account.
It's not just spin, it's blatant falsehood. The campaign knows it. And they admit it.
Is that okay with you? Why or why not?
quote:
And I'm sorry that I come across skeptically but, for instance, you have repeatedly maligned Republican types here apparently oblivious* that your party is IMNSHO equally culpable of lying.
quote:And right now, the side "who's misleading us more" is the Republican side.
Recognizing that there are no angels in competitive politics, recognizing also that our choices are typically binary, journalists can point out to voters (or at least the portion of voters who are users of political journalism) which candidate is stretching the truth more often or more strenuously. If it’s fair game (Blake’s term) to assess which candidate is connecting more effectively with voters or following a shrewder strategy, then it is equally fair to judge who’s being more deceptive.... Again: There are no angels in politics. We know that. Both sides mislead. But we still need to know who’s misleading us more because our choices are binary.
quote:I agree with this, but the Dems are going after any dirty laundry the candidates have and they're stooping using every little tiny slip of the tongue (why? there's been plenty of major verbal screwups this year) and exaggerating minor incidents. It makes them look desperate.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:FWIW, I have the sense that the Dems have decided to embrace the dark side of the force this year. They seemed to try fighting against the swift-boaters and the birthers in previous campaigns with little reward for taking the high road. So, this time, they seem to have decided to fight fire with fire. I think it's a terrible choice, but it sure seems that the Dems have abandoned priciple for expediency.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It may be that the DNC is guilty of lying on an equal level as the GOP, but if so, I have yet to see it. It certainly cannot be claimed as a proven assumption, as you seem to be suggesting.
--Tom Clune
quote:My sense is that Dem junk ideology is more along the lines of vegan tree-hugging crystal-worshipping animals-are-people,-too soppiness. There is also a lot of it-fits-my-ideology-so-it-must-be-true soft sciences, whether it is flaccid "studies" of the genetic determinism of gender or sexual leanings, the efficacy of single or gay parenting or stability of gay/interracial/interspecies marriages, etc.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Are there Democrats out there who have the same whacked out "scientific" ideas that some Republicans have?
quote:To put this question into the context of the conversation at hand, could your candidate cross the final line solely because of a dishonest statement? Let's say that you have examined the policies of the two candidates, you have seen stark contrasts between the two candidates, and you have determined that one definitely matches your views better than the other. Is there any lie that your candidate could tell without shifting a position that would cause you to vote against that candidate? Would it ever be reasonable, in your view, to vote for a candidate whose views on major policy issues you disagree strongly with, because the guy you agree with seemed, in your view, to lie more?
Originally posted by Josephine:
What could your candidate say or do that would cross a final line and cause you to either vote for the other guy, or a third-party candidate, or to withhold your vote entirely?
quote:The fact that a guy who used to teach Constitutional law apparently doesn't give a shit about the Constitution anymore. He refuses to prosecute CIA officials for torture, allowing the "just following orders" defense of the indefensible. He thinks it's okay for him to decide to kill American citizens suspected of being terrorists without any due process of law. His expansion of the power of the executive branch well beyond anything allowed in the Constitution, circumventing the checks and balances that are supposed to protect us from such things, is truly terrifying.
Originally posted by Josephine:
What about your candidate makes you most uncomfortable?
quote:Hard to say, though I wonder if the Solyndra failure is an isolated thing or the tip of an iceberg of systemic problems.
Where is it that you may be failing to notice things that should really concern you?
quote:I think the civil liberties issues may push me into voting Green this time. If I lived in a swing state I'd probably still vote for Obama, but he's got California locked up.
What could your candidate say or do that would cross a final line and cause you to either vote for the other guy, or a third-party candidate, or to withhold your vote entirely?
quote:Part of the problem is that serial dishonesty can be an impediment to "examin[ing] the policies of the two candidates". To bring this example back to the specifics of the 2012 presidential contest, Mitt Romney is now plugging the success of Romneycare in Massachusetts while simultaneously promising to work for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which is just Romneycare writ large. Given the welter of contradictory statements issued by the Romney campaign, how does one go about examining his policies?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:To put this question into the context of the conversation at hand, could your candidate cross the final line solely because of a dishonest statement? Let's say that you have examined the policies of the two candidates, you have seen stark contrasts between the two candidates, and you have determined that one definitely matches your views better than the other.
Originally posted by Josephine:
What could your candidate say or do that would cross a final line and cause you to either vote for the other guy, or a third-party candidate, or to withhold your vote entirely?
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
To put this question into the context of the conversation at hand, could your candidate cross the final line solely because of a dishonest statement?
quote:Here's a story about a former premier of BC. When running for election, he said he wouldn't sell BC Rail or interfere with collective bargaining. Immediately upon election, he leased the railroad for 999 years in a corrupt bidding process and broke numerous labout contracts; in his second term, he used back-to-work legislation and outlawed strikes or protests. Of course, the only people who opposed this were all those horrible, awful, greedy, selfish unionized nurses, teachers, firefighters, etc. (And the United Nations. And the Supreme Court.) In his most recent campaign for re-election, he promised he would not introduce a Harmonised Sales Tax. After re-election to a third term, he introduced a Harmonised Sales Tax. At that point, his supporters - who didn't give a rat's ass about the first two terms' lies - all of a sudden revolted and succesfully campaigned to roll back the tax (with great expense and difficulty). He and his cronies are now all deserting a sinking ship with their golden parachutes before the next election.
Originally posted by Josephine:
... A pattern of lies, though, could cross the line for me, if it made me believe that I could not trust that his stated positions on the issues I cared most about were not really the positions he would take if he were elected.
quote:There is a difference between serial dishonesty and making contradictory statements. Either one can make it harder to judge a candidate, but a reasonably intelligent person can dig through the statements and find differences upon which to base decisions. Have Romeny's inconsistent statements left you with a lot of doubt about the difference between what a Romney presidency and an Obama presidency might look like?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Part of the problem is that serial dishonesty can be an impediment to "examin[ing] the policies of the two candidates". To bring this example back to the specifics of the 2012 presidential contest, Mitt Romney is now plugging the success of Romneycare in Massachusetts while simultaneously promising to work for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which is just Romneycare writ large. Given the welter of contradictory statements issued by the Romney campaign, how does one go about examining his policies?
quote:Were those already your preferred candidates before you found out about the lies? Or were you still in the process of deciding when you found out about the lies?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
There was a candidate this year that I did not vote for in a primary specifically because he stated that he had a particular degree, when he in fact did not have the degree. That seemed so blatant that he lost any trust I might have had in him. There was also a recent candidate for governor who I did not vote for because he was shown to have accepted payment for a research paper that was later proven to be plagiarized.
quote:Ruth, I think he refused to prosecute the CIA agents of torture, because he knew if he did that he would have to go up the ladder to get those who gave the orders, which would ultimately have included the previous president. To have prosecuted the previous president of war crimes would have torn the country apart, even more so than it is now.
The fact that a guy who used to teach Constitutional law apparently doesn't give a shit about the Constitution anymore. He refuses to prosecute CIA officials for torture, allowing the "just following orders" defense of the indefensible. He thinks it's okay for him to decide to kill American citizens suspected of being terrorists without any due process of law. His expansion of the power of the executive branch well beyond anything allowed in the Constitution, circumventing the checks and balances that are supposed to protect us from such things, is truly terrifying.
quote:Actually, the President has launched an investigation of Wall Street Practices. He ordered the investigation in January 2012. But it is my bet it will take years to untangle who was responsible for the collapse.
I would heartily endorse all of Ruth's concerns, and add my fury that he didn't find anything to prosecute with the Wall Street thieves. It almost defies imagining that anyone could fail to find prosecution-worthy targets in the banking industry, the credit rating agencies, or the federal regulators. Absolutely everyone else who has looked at any of these has found a wealth of prima facia wrong-doing, but not our POTUS.
quote:Yes, they have. I don't doubt that there would be several significant differences, but Romney's vagueness and self-contradictions make it hard for me to say exactly what they would be. For instance, Romney insists that he'd work to repeal "Obamacare", but also claims he'd maintain a lot of its provisions (e.g. coverage for pre-existing conditions). Should I believe Romney when he says he'd allow abortion in cases of rape, or when he says that he supports a Constitutional amendment that would forbid it without exception?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Have Romeny's inconsistent statements left you with a lot of doubt about the difference between what a Romney presidency and an Obama presidency might look like?
quote:Yes, but everybody who isn't trying to cover their own asses has had no problem finding lots of criminal acts. This investigation of Lehman Brothers is one of the most objectively well-documented. FWIW
Originally posted by Gramps49:
quote:Actually, the President has launched an investigation of Wall Street Practices. He ordered the investigation in January 2012. But it is my bet it will take years to untangle who was responsible for the collapse.
I would heartily endorse all of Ruth's concerns, and add my fury that he didn't find anything to prosecute with the Wall Street thieves. It almost defies imagining that anyone could fail to find prosecution-worthy targets in the banking industry, the credit rating agencies, or the federal regulators. Absolutely everyone else who has looked at any of these has found a wealth of prima facia wrong-doing, but not our POTUS.
I also recall a congressional investigation that said no single person or group of person is responsible for the collapse. Rather, it was a systematic failure.
quote:I can't think of a better endorsement.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Obama got a lot of Wall St money in 2008, but they've turned on him since then.
quote:Nope, you've seen a few presidencies and prime ministerships, not in our countries alone. Patriotism may be the last refuge of the scoundrel, but it seems the first port of call for an incumbent politician. Maybe a single term limit is necessary?
Originally posted by Alogon:
.. But the handwriting on the wall is that if he is elected, midway through the term he will be tempted to face the fact that he can't fulfill his promises by starting another war, during which of course all other bets are off.
Am I just paranoid?
quote:This.
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I'm wondering if whatever popularity bump Romney may have gotten from undecideds for his speech survived the positively embarrassing, and insulting, Clint Eastwood performance last night.
quote:It's interesting how Republicans go all Keynesian when you're talking about the defense budget.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Whatever is cut in the federal budget, it won't be defense. It provides too many jobs!
quote:Maybe Eastwood is just getting senile. One would normally expect better. Or maybe they wanted to be sure that any speaker coming after him would look good by contrast, especially a speaker known to come across a little on the serious side.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Considering the months of planning that normally go into events of this magnitude, WHAT WERE THESE REPUBLICANS THINKING?
quote:Or perhaps they wanted to add an air of suspense to the proceedings. After the Eastwood performance, I was wondering if Romney might decline the nomination after all. "After long thought, I've decided that I don't want to be associated with you loonies..."
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:Maybe Eastwood is just getting senile. One would normally expect better. Or maybe they wanted to be sure that any speaker coming after him would look good by contrast, especially a speaker known to come across a little on the serious side.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Considering the months of planning that normally go into events of this magnitude, WHAT WERE THESE REPUBLICANS THINKING?
quote:My father heard the speech over here in Australia, and was singularly unimpressed by this aspect. His take on it was that after all the criticism of Obama for overpromising and underdelivering, Romney proceeded to promise ridiculous amounts with no indication of how it would actually happen in practice.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Like most politicians, he has in effect promised to walk on water and pull billions of dollars out of a hat. Nothing new there.
quote:By tradition liars resort to even bigger lies! Throw them big fish; they are superficially impressive, even if they stink.
Originally posted by Alogon:
It will be interesting to observe how such mendacious tactics can be countered when liars are confident that no one pays enough attention to the fact checkers to present a serious threat.
quote:This. And the Dems need to get cracking on it. I figure we've got the rest of this news cycle to gloat about the Eastwood debacle, but then we've got to move on (and we can leave behind the whole dog-on-the-roof business too). There's plenty out there in the media (even at Fox News) about the lies being promulgated at the RNC Convention. But between their out-and-out mendacity and their pitch-perfect competence at soundbites and slogans, and given the complexity of the issues, it will be a real challenge for the Dems to get the truth out in a direct, succinct, and convincing fashion.
Originally posted by Alogon:
It will be interesting to observe how such mendacious tactics can be countered when liars are confident that no one pays enough attention to the fact checkers to present a serious threat.
quote:Actually, I suspect that the same idjits who can't tell rape from premarital sex were thinking of the NRA and mixed Clint up with Charlton Heston.
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Putting Eastwood on was a nod to the Tea Party because Clint is remembered for his role in Grand Torino as a "take no prisoners" old white man going up against a bunch of neighborhood hoodlums (black).
quote:Maybe, but for whom?
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Putting him on before Romney at the height of viewership was a disastrous error.
quote:From 1912 to 1972, it seems, not much:
The Republican party platform of 1912 did not contain a single reference to God.
The word faith appeared once, in the phrase “faith in government.” A century later, the 2012 Republican platform contains 10 references to God and 19 to faith — in phrases like “faith-based organizations,” and “faith communities.” What changed?
quote:It's an interesting overview of some of the changes.
1972 The Republican party platform does not contain a single reference to God or religious issues.
quote:I got a kick out of this.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:By tradition liars resort to even bigger lies! Throw them big fish; they are superficially impressive, even if they stink.
Originally posted by Alogon:
It will be interesting to observe how such mendacious tactics can be countered when liars are confident that no one pays enough attention to the fact checkers to present a serious threat.
quote:Not only did he get his time wrong -- something that's hard to imagine anyone doing, especially if they've only ever run one marathon -- but saying "I don't run marathons any more" implies, strongly, that he used to run marathons. It's not something you'd say if you've only ever run one marathon.
"I had a two hour and fifty-something" marathon, Ryan said last week an interview. "I hurt a disc in my back, so I don’t run marathons anymore."
But the Ryan campaign confirmed to Runner's World that he has only run one marathon, the 1990 Grandma’s Marathon in Duluth, Minnesota, which he finished in just over 4 hours.
quote:While the gang he fights is Hmong(and he had a brief scene near the beginning confronting some black hoodlums), the overall gist of the movie is pro-immigration, as it implies that the hardworking, family-oriented Hmongs and other recent arrivals are the true inheritors of the American Dream, in contrast to the lazy "white trash" native-born Americans represented by Wally's children and grandchildren. That's why it's the reformed delinquent Hmong boy who inherits the Gran Torino(symbolizing the industriousness of old America), not Wally's spoiled-brat granddaugher.
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Putting Eastwood on was a nod to the Tea Party because Clint is remembered for his role in Grand Torino as a "take no prisoners" old white man going up against a bunch of neighborhood hoodlums (black).
quote:Civil Rights, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Southern Strategy.
Originally posted by Josephine:
There have been times lately -- many of them, in fact -- when I've wondered generally whether what's considered conservative in this country has changed, and specifically whether the Republican party has changed from what I remember when I was younger, or whether I've changed, so that I'm just seeing things from a different point of view.
I found this discussion of Republican party platforms since 1972 helpful.
quote:From 1912 to 1972, it seems, not much:
The Republican party platform of 1912 did not contain a single reference to God.
The word faith appeared once, in the phrase “faith in government.” A century later, the 2012 Republican platform contains 10 references to God and 19 to faith — in phrases like “faith-based organizations,” and “faith communities.” What changed?
quote:It's an interesting overview of some of the changes.
1972 The Republican party platform does not contain a single reference to God or religious issues.
quote:I've done one half marathon once. I couldn't tell you my time to save my soul. All I know is that I got my overweight, flat-footed self across that finish line. And that I was in a lot of pain afterwards. When asked, I would say "I don't run marathons anymore". Impercise? Yes. Untruthful? Only if you hold to some standard that all language you use has to be 100% percise. I'm not saying the man isn't a liar but I think the case you are citing here is a stretch and looks like overzealous fault-finding.
Originally posted by Josephine:
One begins to wonder if Paul Ryan is simply a habitual liar, when he lies casually, and easily, when there is no need to lie, and no benefit in telling the lie, and the subject of the lie is something as simple to verify as his time in the only marathon he's ever run.
quote:Not only did he get his time wrong -- something that's hard to imagine anyone doing, especially if they've only ever run one marathon -- but saying "I don't run marathons any more" implies, strongly, that he used to run marathons. It's not something you'd say if you've only ever run one marathon.
"I had a two hour and fifty-something" marathon, Ryan said last week an interview. "I hurt a disc in my back, so I don’t run marathons anymore."
But the Ryan campaign confirmed to Runner's World that he has only run one marathon, the 1990 Grandma’s Marathon in Duluth, Minnesota, which he finished in just over 4 hours.
quote:Ryan is clearly bullshitting here. Volunteering "I don't run marathons any more" and responding yes to "But you did run marathons at some point?" is a fair distance from "I ran a marathon once." He had plenty of opportunity to walk that back, but doubled down by citing an impressively fast time when asked for his personal best.
HH: That’s okay. Hey, in high school, what did you do in high school? Were you a speech and debate guy? Were you a bandie? What were you?
PR: No, I was student government and athletics, honor society, you know, that kind of thing. I was kind of a combination. I was class president my junior year, I was the school board rep my senior year. I lettered in varsity, you know, my first year in high school, mostly soccer and track. I was a distance runner and a soccer player. So kind of well-rounded. I can’t, I can play a cowbell. That’s about it for instruments.
HH: Are you still running?
PR: Yeah, I hurt a disc in my back, so I don’t run marathons anymore. I just run ten miles or yes.
HH: But you did run marathons at some point?
PR: Yeah, but I can’t do it anymore, because my back is just not that great.
HH: I’ve just gotta ask, what’s your personal best?
PR: Under three, high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something.
HH: Holy smokes.
quote:You would say that? Perhaps you might consider these impossibly high standards - but if someone told me "I don't run marathons anymore" and I found out later that they had never run more than one half marathon, my general estimate of that person's integrity would be revised in a distinctly negative direction.
I've done one half marathon once. I couldn't tell you my time to save my soul. [...] When asked, I would say "I don't run marathons anymore". Impercise? Yes. Untruthful? Only if you hold to some standard that all language you use has to be 100% percise.
quote:Don't be absurd - no one suggested this particular lie is a reason not to vote for him. It was simply mentioned as possibly shedding light on just what kind of liar he is. There are several different possible reasons for the other lies he tells - this one might help provide a differential diagnosis, as it were.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Really?
You're not going to consider voting for the guy because he said "I don't run marathons anymore" instead of "Well, I did one and not anymore." ?
quote:Didn't sound like that. Sounded more like.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Don't be absurd - no one suggested this particular lie is a reason not to vote for him. It was simply mentioned as possibly shedding light on just what kind of liar he is. ...
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Really?
You're not going to consider voting for the guy because he said "I don't run marathons anymore" instead of "Well, I did one and not anymore." ?
quote:Well, it would be nice if the press corps would notice things like "Hey, Paul Ryan's budget numbers don't add up! This is just another deficit increasing plan to cut rich people's taxes and slash spending on the poor." But for the most part the U.S. doesn't have a press corps that notices things like that. Or it's considered "bias" to point out when a politician is lying about substantive policy issues. So what we get is this obsession over trivia, but if that's what it takes for the media to finally notice that Paul Ryan isn't some Brave and Honest Truth-Teller, but just the latest in a long line of Republican willing to say anything to re-enact the policies of the Gilded Age, I'll accept that.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Didn't sound like that. Sounded more like.
"See...don't trust him...he uses poorly chosen phrases to discuss unimportant things from 20 years ago."
quote:First and foremost, it has to be remembered that this ham-handed attempt to paint Mitt Romney as having endured hardship comes not from the Romney campaign (who might be aware of how bad this would play) but from the supposedly neutral CNN. But seriously, didn't anyone making this supposed documentary stop to think "Hey, the Vietnam War. That must have sucked pretty bad."
Perhaps to avoid charges of bias, the documentary steers clear of these contradictions, but then takes the whitewashing to blindingly absurd levels by introducing the next segment with the aforementioned most ridiculous statement I’ve ever seen on television. “In 1968, France was a dangerous place to be for a 21-year-old American,” Borger says, “but Mitt Romney was right in the middle of it.”
That’s right, in 1968, the year in which the highest number of American deaths in Vietnam were reported (16,592), France was a dangerous place to be for a 21-year-old American who was avoiding service in Vietnam. Aside from the constant danger of having one’s eye put out by an errant baguette, what hardships did Mitt Romney face while he was “in country?”
<snip>
“There were no letters from home,” [fellow Mormon missionary Mike] Bush continues. “The money at the time came via check. That was our lifeline was getting letters from home.”
So, CNN’s story is that Mitt Romney had it tough during Vietnam because the protests in France made it hard for his dad to send him money. That’ll give anyone the thousand-yard stare.
quote:An ex-girlfriend of mine is a runner. If she'd ever run a marathon below 3h, she'd never forget about it in her whole life.
Crœsos: Now as far as the specifics go, anyone who know runners knows that they're neurotic about their times. This is particularly true of anyone able to run a sub-three-hour marathon.
quote:My husband is a runner. If he ever ran a sub-3 marathon, *I* would never be able to forget about it... cuz that's all I'd ever hear about!
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:An ex-girlfriend of mine is a runner. If she'd ever run a marathon below 3h, she'd never forget about it in her whole life.
Crœsos: Now as far as the specifics go, anyone who know runners knows that they're neurotic about their times. This is particularly true of anyone able to run a sub-three-hour marathon.
quote:My personal theory is that he pulled a time out of thin air that sounded reasonable to him because he's not really a distance runner, isn't aware of what a reasonable time would be for him, but does hear on sports news reports what marathon winners run these days -- men win with times a few minutes over two hours, women win with times of two hours and twenty-something minutes, so he figured a little under three hours would make him sound good but not great.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Now as far as the specifics go, anyone who know runners knows that they're neurotic about their times. This is particularly true of anyone able to run a sub-three-hour marathon. (Remember that the gold medal time for the first Olympic marathon in 1896 was 2:58:50 and that the race was two miles shorter than a modern marathon.) So Paul Ryan chose to make up a stunningly good athletic accomplishment for himself, one which would invite incredulity and which could be checked relatively easily. Of course, why wouldn't he? If his years in Washington taught him anything, it was that no one would ever be willing to call him out on his bullshit.
Wasn't she wonderful?
quote:Julian Castro impressed the hell out of me. As for the First Lady, yes, she was passionate in her praise for her husband, but what got me was the ways she made connections between their story and that of many of us right now. (I really could relate when she was talking about student loans:"We were so in love and so in debt...)
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Kelly--
I presume you mean Michelle O.? Yes, she was awesome. I'd vote for her right now, if she were running for something. She did a great job of explaining the nice, regular guy side of Barack.
The other speeches were great, too. Don't remember if it was Julian Castro or Rahm Emanuel who said the Democratic party "needs to grow a spine", but that was a great moment.
Felt like someone was finally saying the things that need to be said. (And the Republicans probably felt the same about their convention.)
quote:So I guess they couldn't sell off their inherited stocks to make ends meet...
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
As for the First Lady, yes, she was passionate in her praise for her husband, but what got me was the ways she made connections between their story and that of many of us right now. (I really could relate when she was talking about student loans:"We were so in love and so in debt...)
quote:So is the government us or the other? It sounded like you were going for "us" in your first paragraph, but then in your second paragraph you ended up going back and deciding that it was "the other."
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And it exposes another key GOP myth-- one that dates back at least to Reagan's "starve the beast" rhetoric. The GOP speaks about government as if it were some entity outside of us-- some malevolent "other" bent on consuming our hopes & dreams. The DNC stresses that the government is us, it is community, it is people joining together for common cause.
The irony, of course, is that in a very real way "the government is us" rhetoric is more true of the GOP-- made up of wealthy billionaires who are able to buy and sell congressional rep-- than it is of the DNC.
quote:Someone should have told the Republican presidents. Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II all increased federal spending.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
That's the problem and the divide: we conservatives say that the government has grown so out of control that it no longer is us.
quote:yes, exactly.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:So is the government us or the other? It sounded like you were going for "us" in your first paragraph, but then in your second paragraph you ended up going back and deciding that it was "the other."
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And it exposes another key GOP myth-- one that dates back at least to Reagan's "starve the beast" rhetoric. The GOP speaks about government as if it were some entity outside of us-- some malevolent "other" bent on consuming our hopes & dreams. The DNC stresses that the government is us, it is community, it is people joining together for common cause.
The irony, of course, is that in a very real way "the government is us" rhetoric is more true of the GOP-- made up of wealthy billionaires who are able to buy and sell congressional rep-- than it is of the DNC.
quote:A significant counterexample, of course, would be to compare the percentage of children attending government schools in the good old 1950s with the percentage today. I don't find this development particularly regrettable, but must admit that (1) the government dominated children's education in those days and (2) it seemed to be working. I came out of the system well enough. You can well observe, of course, that in those days the common schools were more a local-government responsibility in the U.S. than they are now, but it was government.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
That's the problem and the divide: we conservatives say that the government has grown so out of control that it no longer is us. The left applauds that government growth and wants more.
quote:.. and then you wouldn't have a retirement account.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I could drain my retirement account right now and pay off a huge chunk of my student loan debt (it's not like it's making any money in this market), but the tax penalty would be higher than the interest that I pay on the loans. So "poor" may have been a stretch, but I won't begrudge them for that choice.
quote:To the extent that the government is "no longer us" it's because it's very close to becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of the corporate establishment, as a result of the right-wing economic policies of the past 30 years. The left wants to take it back and bring the corporations to heel.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
That's the problem and the divide: we conservatives say that the government has grown so out of control that it no longer is us. The left applauds that government growth and wants more.
quote:This.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:To the extent that the government is "no longer us" it's because it's very close to becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of the corporate establishment, as a result of the right-wing economic policies of the past 30 years. The left wants to take it back and bring the corporations to heel.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
That's the problem and the divide: we conservatives say that the government has grown so out of control that it no longer is us. The left applauds that government growth and wants more.
quote:If you don't mind me asking, is that Stafford, PLUS, what?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I could drain my retirement account right now and pay off a huge chunk of my student loan debt (it's not like it's making any money in this market), but the tax penalty would be higher than the interest that I pay on the loans. So "poor" may have been a stretch, but I won't begrudge them for that choice.
quote:At 5-6%, some deductible, you're fine.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Mostly Staffords. My highest interest rate at this point is between 5 and 6%. For now, I get to deduct a portion of that interest from my taxes, which is helpful. I suppose that I could calculate the total interest I will pay over the next six years, less tax savings and returns on IRA investments, and see if that number is larger or smaller than the tax penalty for an early withdrawal, but given that Medicare and Social Security will not be what they used to be when I get to retirement age, it just makes sense to live frugally for another six years and leave my retirement savings in place.
quote:I don't either. If you are talking about Romney's 1040, I don't care what's on it. The issue isn't what Romney did with his money but what the federal government is doing with ours.
To bring it back to my original comment, I don't begrudge any politician for making intelligent personal financial decisions.
quote:Oh I wholeheartedly disagree. Look at the auto bailout. Saved the whole industry, and every nickle has been paid back ahead of time--from profits.
Democrats waste money on people and programs which fail to produce profits.
quote:Sure.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Oh I wholeheartedly disagree. Look at the auto bailout.
quote:Please use non editorials to provide evidence for your point. If the article is not an editorial please use articles that are not written with out right bias.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Sure.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Oh I wholeheartedly disagree. Look at the auto bailout.
and people generally are shrewd enough to know statist ineptitude has nothing to do with skin pigment.
quote:I appreciate your work, and the special perspective that gives you on this issue. But isn't the reason mom/dad are bringing Little Bob to the ER because they don't have insurance to pay for a "primary physician" (as if they had one) visit? Of course it's ludicrous to go to the ER when a physician's visit would do. That's why we need health care reform.
Originally posted by Janine:
What could be saved if fraud and misuse and abuse of the system could be clamped down upon? Just little things, like sending the bill to the parent instead of to Medicaid, when s/he carries Little Bob into ER three times a month for unimportant stuff, rather than going to the primary physician.
I see a lot more fiscal responsibility happening and likely to happen under GOP leadership than under the Dems, at my local/state level. What I see before my eyes daily informs my voting.
quote:Please clarify the meaning you attach to the words "we" and "our".
Originally posted by moron:
If you'll continue to humour me... will Obama's impending defeat negatively affect the perception of 'blacks' in the US?
Personally I think not as we clearly demonstrated our lack of racism in 2008
quote:Moreover, it doesn't say anything, one way or the other, about those that didn't vote, which is almost half the elctorate. My impression was that the Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton ticket mobilised young, black and women voters like never before. If Obama loses in November it will be because those who voted for the first time in 2008 will stay at home.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Obama's election shows that bias against blacks is sufficiently low among enough people to get a black man elected, but it doesn't say anything about the level of bias in those who didn't vote for him.
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
... the Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton ticket ...
quote:There. See how forgettable Joe Biden is?
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
... the Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton ticket ...
quote:That may be true at your local and state level, but not at the federal level. Both US and Canadian conservative governments (Republicans and Harper's CRAP) have been far more profligate than their opponents over the last 30 years.
Originally posted by Janine:
... I see a lot more fiscal responsibility happening and likely to happen under GOP leadership than under the Dems, at my local/state level. What I see before my eyes daily informs my voting. ...
quote:Here is Factcheck's take on the claim. Gramps suggested that "Every nickel has been paid back ahead of time." This is clearly false. Here is the Treasury Department's math from the end of July.
Originally posted by rugasaw:
quote:Please use non editorials to provide evidence for your point. If the article is not an editorial please use articles that are not written with out right bias.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Sure.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Oh I wholeheartedly disagree. Look at the auto bailout.
quote:I was right!
Originally posted by RuthW:
My personal theory is that he pulled a time out of thin air that sounded reasonable to him ...
quote:If only all my personal theories turned out like this!
"I hurt my back when I was in my mid-20s, so I had to stop running. And so obviously, my perception of races and times was off,” Ryan said. “I thought that was an ordinary time until my brother showed me a 3-hour marathon is, you know, very -- crazy fast. I ran a 4-hour marathon."
quote:Given that the comment was sarcastically intended, so do I.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
quote:Oh I wholeheartedly disagree.
Democrats waste money on people and programs which fail to produce profits.
quote:I guess he should have said look at the bank bail out (not including AIG). We have gotten over half of what was put into the auto industry back. Given the republican view that we were not ever going to get any money back from TARP I would think you would be overjoyed by the amount of repayment.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Here is Factcheck's take on the claim. Gramps suggested that "Every nickel has been paid back ahead of time." This is clearly false. Here is the Treasury Department's math from the end of July.
Originally posted by rugasaw:
quote:Please use non editorials to provide evidence for your point. If the article is not an editorial please use articles that are not written with out right bias.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Sure.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Oh I wholeheartedly disagree. Look at the auto bailout.
quote:It might be interesting to note that the most successful budget-runner in Canadian history was Tommy Douglas, the socialist premier of Saskatchewan, who managed to run 13 consecutive budget surpluses, while paving the highways and building rural hospitals and introducing the idea of single-payer helath care, all in a then-impoverished Prairie province.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:That may be true at your local and state level, but not at the federal level. Both US and Canadian conservative governments (Republicans and Harper's CRAP) have been far more profligate than their opponents over the last 30 years.
Originally posted by Janine:
... I see a lot more fiscal responsibility happening and likely to happen under GOP leadership than under the Dems, at my local/state level. What I see before my eyes daily informs my voting. ...
The reason Romney keeps comparing the current US situation to the sitch in 1980 is because that way, he can skip over the Reagan-Bush-Bush administrations that spent money and reduced revenues like drunken sailors. Our Liberal federal govenment was running SURPLUSES before Harper came into office. Bill Clinton did a better job with the federal budget than any of his contemporary Republican counterparts.
quote:Next time I'm looking for a loan, I'm looking for you. What's 37 billion dollars between friends, right? The point is, this line about getting every nickel back from profits is a lie.
Originally posted by rugasaw:
I guess he should have said look at the bank bail out (not including AIG). We have gotten over half of what was put into the auto industry back. Given the republican view that we were not ever going to get any money back from TARP I would think you would be overjoyed by the amount of repayment.
quote:Well that is your point. My point is away from the lie the facts are not that bad considering we avoided a depression. If you wish to continue to bang on about the lie go ahead with your bad self.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Next time I'm looking for a loan, I'm looking for you. What's 37 billion dollars between friends, right? The point is, this line about getting every nickel back from profits is a lie.
quote:I've watched the profit/loss on U.S. companies over the past couple of years and they have been making record profits, but are not hiring. That to me is a problem and it's not the President's fault. Let's also add a Congress that almost trashed our credit rating completely with the GOP willing to have the U.S. default on loans simply for a power play. The Dems did power trips during the last years of the Bush presidency, but never to the point the GOP has these past 4 years.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
We spent last weekend discussing the veracity of Paul Ryan's marathon career, so banging on over a lie that is actually fairly relevant to the election seems appropriate.
Unemployment still over 8% this month. 96K jobs added, but the percentage actually dropped .2%, thanks to 368K people giving up looking for work. Upon the news of the drop, the audience at MSNBC was heard chanting "4 more years." To be fair, they probably didn't know the circumstances that caused the drop, but I guess when you have been looking at 8%+ unemployment for almost four years, you are happy to see it go down regardless of the circumstances.
quote:And you are attributing this lie to whom, exactly? I don't believe Gramps49 is on the ticket - have either Obama or Biden claimed that all the auto bailout money has been repaid?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
We spent last weekend discussing the veracity of Paul Ryan's marathon career, so banging on over a lie that is actually fairly relevant to the election seems appropriate.
quote:Let me re-post that factcheck link I posted a few days back. They are responding to a specific claim made in an Obama campaign video.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:And you are attributing this lie to whom, exactly? I don't believe Gramps49 is on the ticket - have either Obama or Biden claimed that all the auto bailout money has been repaid?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
We spent last weekend discussing the veracity of Paul Ryan's marathon career, so banging on over a lie that is actually fairly relevant to the election seems appropriate.
quote:The problem is that generation is disappearing and unfortunately, many did not tell their children of how bad things really were and what it took to pull the country out of the depression. The generations since have been spoiled with easy credit and the belief that things will always be easy. No one in their right mind would think things would be prosperous after only 4 years. While the bailout of the banks sickened me, it was necessary to avoid a total implosion of the world banking system. The laws that were passed to reign in the abuses that caused the calamity were watered down and now the GOP wants to put things back to the way they were. I'm not willing to go back to the end of G.W. Bush's term and finish the downhill run, which is what restoring his policies will do. Bush enacted a round of tax cuts to try and stave off the recession and it did not work. It's time for a new strategy and the GOP doesn't have it. They also have no plan for health care reform if they repeal Obamacare. Vouchers and tax credits do nothing for the working poor. And frankly, Paul Ryan's budget is insanity.
Originally posted by Alogon:
How long did the Great Depression last? It defied the efforts of two Presidents for ten years to overcome it, although historians seem to agree that FDR's policies were more effective than Hoover's. World War II was what broke it.
I hope it won't come to that in this case, since if any tyrant as menacing as Hitler is threatening civilization now, there is little international agreement as to who he is. But anyone who expects things to be booming again after four years should have spent a little longer on Daddy's or Grandma's lap listening to what it took them to survive in the 30s.
quote:Oh really...
Originally posted by Niteowl:
No one in their right mind would think things would be prosperous after only 4 years.
quote:He started out by saying it was going to be a slow process. I think he knew, though, that the American people are an impatient lot who want everything NOW. I don't have time to sort through YouTube at the moment, but I listened to speeches by both McCain and Obama and neither one were promising instant miracles. Just as both Obama and Romney know the next 4 years probably won't change that much either, even though both are promising a lot. Obama has tempered his promises, Romney still has to learn. There are a lot of things out of the President's control: a contrary Congress, drought, war, company's sitting on profits and deliberately not hiring. Just for starters. I'd wager nobody wants to hear that though...
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Oh really...
Originally posted by Niteowl:
No one in their right mind would think things would be prosperous after only 4 years.
quote:Thanks, Og - that 6 month old video was indeed inaccurate on this point.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Let me re-post that factcheck link I posted a few days back. They are responding to a specific claim made in an Obama campaign video.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:And you are attributing this lie to whom, exactly? I don't believe Gramps49 is on the ticket - have either Obama or Biden claimed that all the auto bailout money has been repaid?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
We spent last weekend discussing the veracity of Paul Ryan's marathon career, so banging on over a lie that is actually fairly relevant to the election seems appropriate.
quote:I don't see why you think his statement was equivalent to promising miracles. He was saying that he recognized his re-election prospects would depend on his success in re-starting the economy (presumably to communicate that he was aware of the task's importance.) That rather obvious statement is far from saying something unbelievable like, say, "Under my budget plan, unemployment will fall to 2.8%!"
As for Obama not promising miracles, what about the interview with Matt Lauer when he said of the economy, "if I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition." I don't know what exactly that means, but it certainly sounds like he thought we were going to be doing better than 8% unemployment and 360k people in one month giving up on finding a job after almost four years. I would expect to see that sound-bite quite a bit over the next two months.
quote:Someone should tell Biden.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
The problem is that generation is disappearing and unfortunately, many did not tell their children of how bad things really were and what it took to pull the country out of the depression. The generations since have been spoiled with easy credit and the belief that things will always be easy.
quote:That is commonly what is known as a "pep talk". Not to mention you really don't think a politician of any stripe is going to call the American people spoiled or suggest that they are impatient and have unrealistic expectations when they are still hurting do you?
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Someone should tell Biden.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
[QUOTE]The problem is that generation is disappearing and unfortunately, many did not tell their children of how bad things really were and what it took to pull the country out of the depression. The generations since have been spoiled with easy credit and the belief that things will always be easy.
Thursday night he said, "We're as worthy as any generation that has gone before us. The same grit, the same determination, the same courage, that has always defined what it's meant to be an American..."
I was stunned, but only for a second.
quote:Did you mean to say either stripe?
Originally posted by Niteowl:
you really don't think a politician of any stripe is going to call the American people spoiled or suggest that they are impatient and have unrealistic expectations when they are still hurting do you?
quote:Close. Massive deficit spending to fund the war effort is what broke it. Keynsian economics ended the Great Depression.
Originally posted by Alogon:
How long did the Great Depression last? It defied the efforts of two Presidents for ten years to overcome it, although historians seem to agree that FDR's policies were more effective than Hoover's. World War II was what broke it.
quote:He also, foolishly as it turns out, thought that the Republicans also wanted to get the economy moving again and would cooperate with the Democrats in doing so. Their 3 years of dogged determination to keep the economy in chains aren't his fault. All that mattered, according to Mitch McConnell, was keeping Obama from a second term. They decided the way to do that was to hamstring the economy. They succeeded in hamstringing the economy. It remains to be seen if this treachery prevents Obama from getting a second term.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
quote:He started out by saying it was going to be a slow process.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Oh really...
Originally posted by Niteowl:
No one in their right mind would think things would be prosperous after only 4 years.
quote:Yes, I did mean of either stripe, though there is never enough attention given to 3rd party candidates to see the extent of their pandering/lies.
Originally posted by romanlion:
quote:Did you mean to say either stripe?
Originally posted by Niteowl:
you really don't think a politician of any stripe is going to call the American people spoiled or suggest that they are impatient and have unrealistic expectations when they are still hurting do you?
Because I was at an event for my candidate of choice Wednesday evening and frankly, yes he would.
As it relates to the current discussion of the lies these clowns all spew I think that statement by Biden deserves a mention. It was a doozy.
quote:FDR's peacetime efforts involved deficit-financed government hiring for public works projects. From a purely economic perspective the Second World War was just more of the same: deficit-financed (war bonds) government hiring (the draft) for public works projects (fighting in Europe and the Pacific). The militarized version worked better simply because it involved a lot more money.
Originally posted by Alogon:
How long did the Great Depression last? It defied the efforts of two Presidents for ten years to overcome it, although historians seem to agree that FDR's policies were more effective than Hoover's. World War II was what broke it.
quote:There was also near-universal political and public approval for it. Whether they liked it or not Wall Street and business went along with it too.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:FDR's peacetime efforts involved deficit-financed government hiring for public works projects. From a purely economic perspective the Second World War was just more of the same: deficit-financed (war bonds) government hiring (the draft) for public works projects (fighting in Europe and the Pacific). The militarized version worked better simply because it involved a lot more money.
Originally posted by Alogon:
How long did the Great Depression last? It defied the efforts of two Presidents for ten years to overcome it, although historians seem to agree that FDR's policies were more effective than Hoover's. World War II was what broke it.
quote:Business signed on the Keynesian Consensus when they say how much money they could make from it. For a while. For them it involved an unnatural benevolence in paying high wages, health insurance and DB pensions. But it produced stability, prosperity and growth for thirty years.
Originally posted by mousethief:
It hardly hurt Wall Street and business to have tons of money dumped into their coffers. The current hand-wringing about debts and deficits is part of a long-planned attempt to destroy the New Deal / Great Society protections for the 99%.
quote:Surely attempting to rig a presidential election is federal crime for which you would launch a criminal prosecution.
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm not quite sure what there is to investigate here -- the attempt to rig the election in favor of Republicans was all done out in the open, and the federal court stopped it.
quote:Good Lord! Could you imagine that happening in the United States? There would be no one left to run!
Originally posted by Doublethink:
the guy (a former labour minister) was banned from standing for re-election because his leaflets contained factually incorrect information about his opponent.
quote:Because voting is a right, not a privilege.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Why did one have to have a photo ID to get into the Democratic Convention or does one have to show a photo ID to visit the White house but requiring a photo ID to vote is rigging an election?
quote:My US friends have greater knowledge of this than I, but I gather that there is, strictly speaking, no presidential election as such. There are 50 state elections to choose members of the electoral college and therefore 50 sets of state laws to this effect. Rigging an election for presidential eelctors would be a state offence. I think that there is a procedure, used in 1876 I believe, for the US Congress to admit or not a slate of presidential electors.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:Surely attempting to rig a presidential election is federal crime for which you would launch a criminal prosecution.
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm not quite sure what there is to investigate here -- the attempt to rig the election in favor of Republicans was all done out in the open, and the federal court stopped it.
quote:And requiring a piece of ID that costs money to procure is a poll tax.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:Because voting is a right, not a privilege.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Why did one have to have a photo ID to get into the Democratic Convention or does one have to show a photo ID to visit the White house but requiring a photo ID to vote is rigging an election?
quote:The 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Where in the Constitution does it say that one has a right to vote?
quote:The voting process is, of course, already highly regulated. What can't be done is to regulate it in an inequitable or capricious manner. A lot of American states have a dubious history of passing laws that are facially neutral but discriminatory as applied. Given the incredible paucity of cases of in-person voter impersonation fraud, the more reasonable explanation for these laws is an attempt to put as many barriers as possible between certain people and the ballot box.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Assuming, however, that the courts say that there is a right to vote it can still be regulated. There is an explicit right to free speech, yet it is regulated. There is an expicit right to own guns, yet it is regulated. So, if there is a right to vote, why can it not be regulated? I think that ensuring the integrity of our election processs should be one of the highest priorities of the government.
quote:So your interpretation is, "There is no right to vote, but if there ever were to be such a right, these amendments say that it could not be withheld based on race, gender, etc." You certainly seem to be Supreme Court material to me!
Originally posted by New Yorker:
All those amendments say that the US and its states cannot deny the right to vote because of race, religion, sex, etc. None of those amendments say that there is a general right to vote.
quote:You can sit around and invent threats to the integrity of the election process, and then pass laws to protect us from the bogus threats. And you can use that scenario to prevent people from voting, if they are people who generally vote against your party. This whole "protecting the integrity" bullshit is just that -- bullshit.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I think that ensuring the integrity of our election processs should be one of the highest priorities of the government.
quote:Thank you, Tom. Talk about a cushy job; it'd be great.
Originally posted by tclune:
You certainly seem to be Supreme Court material to me!
quote:This. THIS.
Originally posted by mousethief:
... Any honest cost-to-benefit ratio would look at this and say the cost -- hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised voters -- grossly outweighs the miniscule benefit -- a laughably small number of cases caught. ...
quote:Which brings up a question that I've heard nobody ever ask in public: are political considerations behind the employment statistics?
Originally posted by mousethief:
He also, foolishly as it turns out, thought that the Republicans also wanted to get the economy moving again and would cooperate with the Democrats in doing so. Their 3 years of dogged determination to keep the economy in chains aren't his fault. All that mattered, according to Mitch McConnell, was keeping Obama from a second term. They decided the way to do that was to hamstring the economy. They succeeded in hamstringing the economy.
quote:A lot of U.S. corporations are big, but they're not that big. To have a gross effect on the overall state of U.S. employment would require collusion between lots of business entities, many of whom would be inclined to take advantage of their competitor's hiring freeze to expand their market share or snap up the best employees.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Which brings up a question that I've heard nobody ever ask in public: are political considerations behind the employment statistics?
The seasonally adjusted employment figure for August is lackluster and disappointing. (According to the newspaper, however, the raw figure is about 250,000 larger). Why should we assume at this point that decisions to hire are motivated solely by economics? I know that if I were a corporate executive who wished the incumbent administration ill, and I could possibly postpone hiring more employees a mere two or three more months so that the statistics would register after the election, I would wait.
quote:Where I vote, they already require ID to vote, namely my signature, which is compared with the one on file from voter registration. There is no evidence of widespread fraud due to forgery of signatures.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Why did one have to have a photo ID to get into the Democratic Convention or does one have to show a photo ID to visit the White house but requiring a photo ID to vote is rigging an election?
quote:This.
Originally posted by Alogon:
How much experience have you had with matching a face in front of you with a photograph about a square inch in area? I can speak from considerable experience on the job, and must say first-hand that the process is quite error-prone, especially if one is in a hurry. In practical terms, I fail to see how this measure will solve the problem, even if it were a real problem. Pennsylvania judges don't even care whether it is a real problem. The state was relieved of any responsibility for demonstrating significant fraud in its apologia for the ID law.
quote:Congratulations. And think of the ignominy if you had run unopposed and lost!
Originally posted by Porridge:
And I won my primary (not much of a victory, as I was running unopposed).
quote:Yeah, you could be like Clarence Thomas! All he has to do is robe up. He doesn't even have to think; he lets Scalia do all that for him!
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Thank you, Tom. Talk about a cushy job; it'd be great.
Originally posted by tclune:
You certainly seem to be Supreme Court material to me!
quote:Thanks. It was a close call. I'm only running in hope of preventing an even loopier, stupider candidate than me from joining the fourth-largest legislative body in the English-speaking world (and passing even more idiotic laws in my state).
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Congratulations. And think of the ignominy if you had run unopposed and lost!
Originally posted by Porridge:
And I won my primary (not much of a victory, as I was running unopposed).
--Tom Clune
quote:This article about "motivated reasoning" probably explains it as well as anything. The article (which is a bit old, but still very much worth reading) uses the Republican reversals on health care policy as a jumping-off point to talk about political beliefs.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Here's an interesting bit from the Republican War on Facts. According to a poll of Ohio voters [PDF] about one in six Ohio Republicans believe Mitt Romney was more responsible for the death of Osama bin-Laden than Barack Obama (see p. 15). Romney, of course, has been a private citizen since 2007.
So do they really believe this, or is it just that they don't want to credit Obama with anything? If the latter, why not simply answer "Not Sure" (which self-identified Republicans did a lot more on this question than self-identified Democrats)? Or is an affected stance of lunacy considered better than an affected stance of ignorance?
quote:Sorry, but wrong. I am an ardent Tea Pary Republican and neither I nor anyone other TPR that I know believe that Obama is a Muslim. We believe that he is an Obamist: i.e, he worships himself. And if anyone believes that Obama killed Bin Laden, then they really should seek treatment. As I understand it he was on a golf course when the Seal Team was entering the compound and killing Bin Laden.
Originally posted by Josephine:
So if you're an ardent Tea Party Republican, you have to believe that Obama is Muslim, and that he didn't really kill bin Laden, and so on and so forth.
quote:1. Over here in the UK, we get a lot of news from the US. Including about Tea Party rallies. Placards saying that Obama is a muslim are a common sight. Either your ardour isn't sufficient for you to attend rallies, or your eyesight is going.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Sorry, but wrong. I am an ardent Tea Pary Republican and neither I nor anyone other TPR that I know believe that Obama is a Muslim. We believe that he is an Obamist: i.e, he worships himself. And if anyone believes that Obama killed Bin Laden, then they really should seek treatment. As I understand it he was on a golf course when the Seal Team was entering the compound and killing Bin Laden.
quote:Having given this some thought all I can say is I don't have a clue. You'd have thought the two not insignificant real life setbacks I've experienced over the past few years would be at least a starting point... and that the imminent significant life change I'm very likely to experience in the near future MIGHT begin to have some effect on my barely mitigated arrogance but no clearly demonstrable progress so far.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
When you lose, what exactly is going to be your humble pie, moron?
quote:I have never seen such a sign at any rally I've been to. In the media when I have seen them at TP rallies it is always as the person holding the sign is being escorted away from the rally (expelled) by TP security folks.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Placards saying that Obama is a muslim are a common sight.
quote:I think this is an important point to remember -- most of us do not attend the rallies of groups that we disagree with. We decide what happened at the rallies based on such things as TV coverage, and that is a highly filtered perspective. Cameramen do not tend to film things that aren't going to help the show's ratings.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:I have never seen such a sign at any rally I've been to. In the media when I have seen them at TP rallies it is always as the person holding the sign is being escorted away from the rally (expelled) by TP security folks.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Placards saying that Obama is a muslim are a common sight.
quote:Most of us don't attend rallies of groups we agree with, either. Not for political groups, anyway.
Originally posted by tclune:
most of us do not attend the rallies of groups that we disagree with.
quote:It could very well be a plant, too. It wouldn't be too hard to find some guys on the street and pay them $50 to show up at an Obama rally with signs saying "Shariah Yes, Obama Yes, Liberty No", or "I Nail Michelle".
Originally posted by New Yorker:
In the media when I have seen them at TP rallies it is always as the person holding the sign is being escorted away from the rally (expelled) by TP security folks.
quote:It'll be a cold day in Hell when you have to pay an American to be stupid...
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It could very well be a plant, too. It wouldn't be too hard to find some guys on the street and pay them $50 to show up at an Obama rally with signs saying "Shariah Yes, Obama Yes, Liberty No", or "I Nail Michelle".
quote:You'd probably have to pay to get someone to go out of their way to do something stupid that is different from the stupid thing they had already planned.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:It'll be a cold day in Hell when you have to pay an American to be stupid...
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It could very well be a plant, too. It wouldn't be too hard to find some guys on the street and pay them $50 to show up at an Obama rally with signs saying "Shariah Yes, Obama Yes, Liberty No", or "I Nail Michelle".
--Tom Clune
quote:I thought this was interesting.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Most of us don't attend rallies of groups we agree with, either. Not for political groups, anyway.
Originally posted by tclune:
most of us do not attend the rallies of groups that we disagree with.
quote:You mean the way a journalist is able to use a public forum to whine that she can't get a public form to air her views? I found that hilarious. Was that the point?
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:I thought this was interesting.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Most of us don't attend rallies of groups we agree with, either. Not for political groups, anyway.
Originally posted by tclune:
most of us do not attend the rallies of groups that we disagree with.
quote:Odd. I thought his point was right there in the conclusion:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
You mean the way a journalist is able to use a public forum to whine that she can't get a public form to air her views? I found that hilarious. Was that the point?
quote:
It’s not just a journalistic challenge, either. It’s the challenge we all face as modern political animals, caught in the feedback loops and logic mazes that come of trying to know the truth, our own truth—the truth worth casting our one and only vote for—when we don’t even know where to look, or through whose eyes.
quote:We must have read different articles. The article that I read was focusing on the difference between the experience and the packaging of the experience. It seemed directly relevant to what I had posted, and I appreciated the link and enjoyed the article. FWIW
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:You mean the way a journalist is able to use a public forum to whine that she can't get a public forum to air her views? I found that hilarious. Was that the point?
Originally posted by saysay:
I thought this was interesting.
quote:Tom - that must mean you're middle class!
Originally posted by tclune:
I think this is an important point to remember -- most of us do not attend the rallies of groups that we disagree with. We decide what happened at the rallies based on such things as TV coverage, and that is a highly filtered perspective.
--Tom Clune
quote:And it woudl be an acto of charity too, because then they could go and get $500 by selling their story to a newspaper or to another party.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:It could very well be a plant, too. It wouldn't be too hard to find some guys on the street and pay them $50 to show up at an Obama rally with signs saying "Shariah Yes, Obama Yes, Liberty No", or "I Nail Michelle".
Originally posted by New Yorker:
In the media when I have seen them at TP rallies it is always as the person holding the sign is being escorted away from the rally (expelled) by TP security folks.
quote:Consider me unconvinced. link and link
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:I have never seen such a sign at any rally I've been to. In the media when I have seen them at TP rallies it is always as the person holding the sign is being escorted away from the rally (expelled) by TP security folks.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Placards saying that Obama is a muslim are a common sight.
quote:You were caught out repeating a blatant lie which has no basis in truth whatsoever. What's your response? Repeat it and hope no one spotted it. Well done.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
As for Obama, all I know is that Obama did not kill Bin Laden. He was in DC whether on the golf course, just off the golf course, or sitting in the situation room fuming that he was missing golf.
quote:Who claimed he did?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
As for Obama, all I know is that Obama did not kill Bin Laden.
quote:According to Wikipedia, Public Policy Polling has a history of asking unusual questions.
Originally posted by Porridge:
But I have to wonder: why did the pollsters pose this question? I really don't know why such a question would be included, except to prove that 37% of the potential voters polled have no clue what's going on.
quote:So if I'm following: Romney outsmarted the FDIC minions.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Rolling Stone article based on Freedom of Information Act disclosures that details how Mitt Romney put a squeeze on the FDIC and left that agency with a $10 million loss.
quote:But failed to prevent the information getting out. Sounds like Tricky Dickie.
Originally posted by moron:
quote:So if I'm following: Romney outsmarted the FDIC minions.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Rolling Stone article based on Freedom of Information Act disclosures that details how Mitt Romney put a squeeze on the FDIC and left that agency with a $10 million loss.
Sounds to me like the guy best equipped to run the government.
quote:All I can say is what I read in the paper here and an NBC news transcript here where Brian Williams said Obama was playing golf that day, although not necessarily 20 minutes before the raid. So golf was part of the picture so to speak.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:You were caught out repeating a blatant lie which has no basis in truth whatsoever. What's your response? Repeat it and hope no one spotted it. Well done.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
As for Obama, all I know is that Obama did not kill Bin Laden. He was in DC whether on the golf course, just off the golf course, or sitting in the situation room fuming that he was missing golf.
quote:Of course it was part of the picture. He was fulfilling a prior commitment in order to make it look like nothing else was happening that day, like, you know, killing Osama Bin Laden.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:All I can say is what I read in the paper here and an NBC news transcript here where Brian Williams said Obama was playing golf that day, although not necessarily 20 minutes before the raid. So golf was part of the picture so to speak.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:You were caught out repeating a blatant lie which has no basis in truth whatsoever. What's your response? Repeat it and hope no one spotted it. Well done.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
As for Obama, all I know is that Obama did not kill Bin Laden. He was in DC whether on the golf course, just off the golf course, or sitting in the situation room fuming that he was missing golf.
quote:It's also hard to see how piling on Sandra Fluke and enacting voter ID laws would help them get women's votes or minority votes. Duh.
Originally posted by ken:
... With friends like that the Republicans must be praying for more enemies.
quote:He did not think it right to be seen playing golf. While he's at the White House he can swim, play tennis and in the interim, he can use the putting green.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Well, if I recall correctly, Bush eventually gave up golf because of the war. He did not think it right to be playing golf while soldiers were dying.
quote:To the best of my knowledge Obama did not pass the auto bailout program or support Solyndra for personal gain.
Obama meeting the 3am phone call challenge? Huh? How do you reach that conclusion?
Finally, Romney costing the FDIC $10M is a far better deal than what Obama's cost us with the auto bailout and Solyndra.
quote:And I'm still wondering who on this thread claimed that Obama took out bin Laden, or where you could link to Obama claiming personal credit for having done this.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Well, if I recall correctly, Bush eventually gave up golf because of the war. He did not think it right to be playing golf while soldiers were dying.
Obama meeting the 3am phone call challenge? Huh? How do you reach that conclusion?
Finally, Romney costing the FDIC $10M is a far better deal than what Obama's cost us with the auto bailout and Solyndra.
quote:Because Obama and Biden keep harping on it. Because his speech announcing OBL's death was full of "I did the intelligence" "I made the decision stuff." It's kind of creepy to me actually.
Originally posted by Porridge:
[And I'm still wondering who on this thread claimed that Obama took out bin Laden, or where you could link to Obama claiming personal credit for having done this.
quote:So your argument here is that the Commander-in-chief of the US armed forces had the temerity to actually read the reports, listen to the briefings, and after consulting with his advisers, make the decision to kill Bin Laden.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Because Obama and Biden keep harping on it. Because his speech announcing OBL's death was full of "I did the intelligence" "I made the decision stuff." It's kind of creepy to me actually.
Originally posted by Porridge:
[And I'm still wondering who on this thread claimed that Obama took out bin Laden, or where you could link to Obama claiming personal credit for having done this.
quote:Here is a link, since you apparently can't be bothered to try proving your own case, to both a video and a transcript of the relevant speech.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Because Obama and Biden keep harping on it. Because his speech announcing OBL's death was full of "I did the intelligence" "I made the decision stuff." It's kind of creepy to me actually.
Originally posted by Porridge:
[And I'm still wondering who on this thread claimed that Obama took out bin Laden, or where you could link to Obama claiming personal credit for having done this.
quote:And this is creepy how?
Tonight, we give thanks to the countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who've worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome. The American people do not see their work, nor know their names. But tonight, they feel the satisfaction of their work and the result of their pursuit of justice.
We give thanks for the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country.
quote:Way to take credit for someone else's kill, eh?
A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.
quote:But it would sooooooo help the economy!
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:It'll be a cold day in Hell when you have to pay an American to be stupid...
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It could very well be a plant, too. It wouldn't be too hard to find some guys on the street and pay them $50 to show up at an Obama rally with signs saying "Shariah Yes, Obama Yes, Liberty No", or "I Nail Michelle".
--Tom Clune
quote:Wait a sec! All Obama did was sign the Affordable Care Act into law. It's not like he's personally disbursing (or not disbursing) funds or administering (or not administering) health care. Clearly, as a parallel to the bin-Laden killing, any Medicare cuts are the responsibility of state comptrollers and local doctors.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I am not on Twitter nor really understand it. But here are two reports of the same tweet by Obama. What does it prove? Who knows. If true, then Obama is claiming that he killed Bin Laden.
Report
Report
Meanwhile, seniors in eight states are facing the worst Medicare cuts due to Obamacare.
quote:These are, of course, the precise same cuts that figure prominently in the Ryan budget.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Meanwhile, seniors in eight states are facing the worst Medicare cuts due to Obamacare.
quote:New Yorker, you can't actually be this gullible, surely.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I am not on Twitter nor really understand it. But here are two reports of the same tweet by Obama. What does it prove? Who knows. If true, then Obama is claiming that he killed Bin Laden.
Report
Report
quote:Actually that's only one report - newsmilitary.com is an automated news aggregator, your second link is in fact a link to the first one, at beforeitsnews.com. But that page is itself is a link to patdollard.com - a rather weird site run by a right-wing film-maker who also has a "talk radio blog" called "The Jihadi Killer Hour".
Originally posted by New Yorker:
...t here are two reports of the same tweet by Obama. What does it prove? Who knows. If true, then Obama is claiming that he killed Bin Laden.
Report
Report
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Its just like the old days when the Internet was young!quote:
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect.
), but I have to say there's no way this side of hell I can vote for Romney.quote:The American electorate can forgive a lot, but they usually don't forgive candidates who show them open contempt. I was reminded of an anecdote involving Democratic presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson, who was told by a supporter "All thinking people are for you!" Stevenson's response, "That's not enough. I need a majority." did much to harm his ultimately unsuccessful candidacy.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Mother Jones has video of Romney speaking at a closed door event for donors. He has a rather low opinion of a large slice of the American populace:
quote:After seeing that I'd vote for a moldy ham & cheese sandwich before I voted for Mitt.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Mother Jones has video of Romney speaking at a closed door event for donors. He has a rather low opinion of a large slice of the American populace:
quote:
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect.
quote:Fortunately for him, a lot of whites in the South are trained to hear "black people" when a Republican starts harping on welfare recipients. They chatter about the no-good "welfare queens" on the other side of the tracks while standing in line for their disability checks and food credits.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Here's an article with a map showing the percentage of non-income-tax-paying households by state. The top ten states for non-income-tax-paying households is highlighted in red and seems to be the southernmost tier of American states. Mitt Romney wasn't counting on winning the Deep South, was he?
quote:True enough. If advocating a more regressive tax structure was going to hurt Republicans in the South, it would have done so way before now.
Originally posted by Mockingale:
quote:Fortunately for him, a lot of whites in the South are trained to hear "black people" when a Republican starts harping on welfare recipients. They chatter about the no-good "welfare queens" on the other side of the tracks while standing in line for their disability checks and food credits.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Here's an article with a map showing the percentage of non-income-tax-paying households by state. The top ten states for non-income-tax-paying households is highlighted in red and seems to be the southernmost tier of American states. Mitt Romney wasn't counting on winning the Deep South, was he?
The Fox News message machine will make sure that most of the dupes never figure out that Mittens is calling THEM lazy.
quote:Very interesting, Mousethief. Just browsing briefly there, it's amazing how little they seem to like the GOP in general, or Romney in particular. Is it possible that there is now a whole journal for people who have a definite conservative side, at least on certain issues; but who get that the more loudly an American trumpets ownership of the word nowadays, the less likely he or she is actually to deserve it?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Another perspective on how the rich feel themselves above the rabble. From the American Conservative no less. Long but rewards reading.
quote:I don't think a conservative Republican could have been elected in Massachusetts. At any rate, he got as far as he did largely because Martha Coakley was arrogant and felt herself too good to campaign.
Originally posted by Zach82:
On a more local note, Massachusetts Incumbent Senator Scott Brown (R) is falling behind Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren in polls. This is something of an interesting race because Scott Brown is one of the few moderate republicans left in congress.
quote:He's lied so many times before, about so many things. What's one more lie?
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
He is sticking to his line that half the country are servile, handout dependent wretches. It's an interesting strategy.
quote:It is, and he might just, really just, get away with it. Because it's been pointed out by various talking heads that many people who are in the 47% don't think Romney is talking about them, it's those other undeserving folk over there who are taking advantage of the rest of us. So they aren't offended at all. They think he's right.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
He is sticking to his line that half the country are servile, handout dependent wretches. It's an interesting strategy.
quote:It won't be the unwashed masses he rather disdainfully wrote off that does him in though. He (and the Republicans) have already lost the demographic battle with the growth of minorities in this country. Somehow, they'll have to re-invent themselves in the future.
The man is Doomed.
quote:Actually, a lot of them are paying a higher rate than he is, because they're paying payroll taxes at 15.3%, while he just pays the capital gains rate (which came out to 13.9% on the one tax return we've seen), and doesn't have the payroll tax since he doesn't get a salary.
Originally posted by hilaryg:
I was technically incoherent for a while at the sheer audacity of a rich man (who has paid a very low rate of tax, entirely legally) complaining about other (poorer) people paying less tax, entirely legally!
quote:Yep. Every couple of days (or more frequently) I see a headline along the lines of, "Is This Curtains for Mittens?" It grows old. No, it's not over until after the election.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
His "let them eat cake" moment is telling, but really what do you think that room full of people in Boca would say if they spoke their minds?
The shelf life of this whole thing will probably be 24-48 hours.
You can probably all guess I'm no military sentimentalist, but this insult makes me angry to the point of tears.
quote:Possibly about the time that John Prescott was doing a TV programme about that very subject. The last few seconds of this are - well, just class!
Originally posted by orfeo:
I seem to remember talking a couple of years ago (maybe on the Ship?) about some statistic that demonstrates a ridiculously large percentage of the population think of themselves as 'average' or 'middle class'.
quote:My tagline is getting old, but things keep happening to vindicate it.
Originally posted by moron:
Well as it now appears this election is all but over (sigh) some of us can look forward to 2016.
quote:I think the
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:It won't be the unwashed masses he rather disdainfully wrote off that does him in though. He (and the Republicans) have already lost the demographic battle with the growth of minorities in this country. Somehow, they'll have to re-invent themselves in the future.
The man is Doomed.
His "let them eat cake" moment is telling, but really what do you think that room full of people in Boca would say if they spoke their minds?
The shelf life of this whole thing will probably be 24-48 hours.
quote:Right. The Obama campaign has spent millions of dollars to create the image of Romney as a rich guy who only cares about rich guys. Now, Romney himself is caught expounding exactly that view. He's toast.
Originally posted by art dunce:
I think the
thing has legs.
quote:The problem with this analysis is that it assumes he actually won't win any of the votes of the 47%, when he most assuredly will.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Perhaps Romney's biggest error-- at least in cold political calculations-- is in misunderstanding the diversity of Americans who are well-off. In terms of amoral electoral math, he might be able to get by with pissing off/ dismissing 47% of the population if he is able to win the other 53%. But that assumes that the entirety of that 53% (those who pay some income taxes) share his Machiavellian "let-them-eat-cake" attitude. I think (hope) there are more than enough of us in that 53% who are appalled at his attitude to swing the vote away from Romney.
quote:agh. True.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The problem with this analysis is that it assumes he actually won't win any of the votes of the 47%, when he most assuredly will.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Perhaps Romney's biggest error-- at least in cold political calculations-- is in misunderstanding the diversity of Americans who are well-off. In terms of amoral electoral math, he might be able to get by with pissing off/ dismissing 47% of the population if he is able to win the other 53%. But that assumes that the entirety of that 53% (those who pay some income taxes) share his Machiavellian "let-them-eat-cake" attitude. I think (hope) there are more than enough of us in that 53% who are appalled at his attitude to swing the vote away from Romney.
quote:Actually, Romney has shown himself to be the infinite shape-shifter. We can't be sure that he believes what he's telling a small group of plutocrats whose asses he is kissing for contributions, any more than we can be sure of what he is telling us great unwashed. But the effect will be pretty much the same, and rightly.
Originally posted by tclune:
The Obama campaign has spent millions of dollars to create the image of Romney as a rich guy who only cares about rich guys. Now, Romney himself is caught expounding exactly that view. He's toast.
quote:[my bold]
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
... the notorious Boca Raton video...
quote:That's the assumption we usually make though, isn't it? That the things someone says in private with friends and like-minded individuals is usually closer to an accurate portrayal of one's views than the face presented to the general public.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Actually, Romney has shown himself to be the infinite shape-shifter. We can't be sure that he believes what he's telling a small group of plutocrats whose asses he is kissing for contributions, any more than we can be sure of what he is telling us great unwashed. But the effect will be pretty much the same, and rightly.
quote:To some degree. But in a more honest and healthy person, there is some correlation, some continuity between the different versions of yourself that you present in different settings with different audiences. That is probably less true of politicians than many other groups. But Romney seems to have taken it to a new level.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:That's the assumption we usually make though, isn't it? That the things someone says in private with friends and like-minded individuals is usually closer to an accurate portrayal of one's views than the face presented to the general public.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Actually, Romney has shown himself to be the infinite shape-shifter. We can't be sure that he believes what he's telling a small group of plutocrats whose asses he is kissing for contributions, any more than we can be sure of what he is telling us great unwashed. But the effect will be pretty much the same, and rightly.
quote:Would the assumption be right, though? I thought the usual explanation for this sort of thing is that we tailor our speech for the people we are interacting with. As perceived at least. If that's true, an equal case could be made for words addressed to the general public more truly representing the speaker's overall position. Though neither would be exclusively true I guess.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:That's the assumption we usually make though, isn't it? That the things someone says in private with friends and like-minded individuals is usually closer to an accurate portrayal of one's views than the face presented to the general public.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Actually, Romney has shown himself to be the infinite shape-shifter. We can't be sure that he believes what he's telling a small group of plutocrats whose asses he is kissing for contributions, any more than we can be sure of what he is telling us great unwashed. But the effect will be pretty much the same, and rightly.
quote:This image comes to mind.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The problem with this analysis is that it assumes he actually won't win any of the votes of the 47%, when he most assuredly will.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Perhaps Romney's biggest error-- at least in cold political calculations-- is in misunderstanding the diversity of Americans who are well-off. In terms of amoral electoral math, he might be able to get by with pissing off/ dismissing 47% of the population if he is able to win the other 53%. But that assumes that the entirety of that 53% (those who pay some income taxes) share his Machiavellian "let-them-eat-cake" attitude. I think (hope) there are more than enough of us in that 53% who are appalled at his attitude to swing the vote away from Romney.
quote:This would be convincing if he were just shooting the breeze. But he had an ulterior motive, didn't he? He was, ahem, dependent on handouts from them, and part of his argument was that the fate of the election rests on his campaign's persuading a rather small percentage of the electorate. (Not that I doubt it myself-- just a small point of order.)
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's the assumption we usually make though, isn't it? That the things someone says in private with friends and like-minded individuals is usually closer to an accurate portrayal of one's views than the face presented to the general public.
quote:Who knew that Romney was going to point a bazooka at his foot and pull the trigger, instead of just shooting his foot in the ordinary way?
Originally posted by moron:
Well as it now appears this election is all but over (sigh) some of us can look forward to 2016.
quote:I think This post by Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman will help you
Originally posted by Alogon:
This statistic becomes more and more nothing to write home about. It certainly doesn't call for a hue and cry about miscarriage of justice and filling in loopholes in the tax code so that little people start paying 'their fair share'.
quote:That makes no sense whatsoever to me.
His failure to mention the role of children in this figure is just another instance of the fact that libertarians ignore them because they mess up the ideology.
quote:Yes, and people fail to mention that President Obama also said that he needed to reach out to those people. The exact opposite of what Romney said.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
... People seem to forget that Obama before the last election told a room full of rich donors the bitter people in flyover country stick to their guns and religion. I'm sure playing to the worst fears of that crowd ...
quote:Actually I believe the statistic is that 46+% of American households pay no federal income tax (which would be an easier statistic to compile since federal income taxes are filed on a per household basis). As such, children are included in the household returns filed by their parents, usually as deductions.
Originally posted by Alogon:
I've spent a few minutes looking for clarification as to who is in the 46+% of American people who pay no federal income tax (as the fact-checking confirms).
<snip>
But what about children? I assume that they are people, often American people, and that the vast majority of them pay no federal income tax because their income not come up to the minimum. If those under twenty are being counted, then it is quite a natural and inevitable explanation for 27% of the total population, reducing the remainder to 20%.
quote:ETA: Table 1 is where you can find the 4,000 moochers with incomes > $1,000,000 who paid no federal income tax last year.
... These standard income tax provisions include personal exemptions for taxpayers and dependents and the standard deduction. These provisions are part of the basic progressive income tax structure that intend to exempt subsistence levels of income from tax and to adjust for differences in ability to pay based on family size. ...
... Virtually all nontaxable units in the lowest income group pay no tax because of the standard income tax provisions alone ...
... Of the 38 million tax units made nontaxable by the addition of tax expenditures, 44 percent are moved off the tax rolls by elderly tax benefits and another 30 percent by credits for children and the working poor ...
quote:Actually, the guns-and-religion comment has been mentioned in the current news cycle. On NPR, at least, they mentioned that O. went on to say that we still need to include those folks.
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
People seem to forget that Obama before the last election told a room full of rich donors the bitter people in flyover country stick to their guns and religion. I'm sure playing to the worst fears of that crowd, just as Mitt did in his own hamfisted way to the group in Florida. That's not an argument for or against either of them, since I wouldn't vote for either of them. They play the same game with the same tactics.
quote:Moreover, the 47% seem disproportionately to be Republicans, or at least to live in red states.
Originally posted by Alogon:
I've spent a few minutes looking for clarification as to who is in the 46+% of American people who pay no federal income tax (as the fact-checking confirms). We see that it includes unemployed, underemployed, college students, many heads of households, many retirees, and people working their fingers to the bone for a pittance-- including members of the armed forces!
quote:And this is how Republicans treat veterans of wars they started.
... four Republican senators—John Boozman of Arkansas, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Richard Burr of North Carolina, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania— all wrote parts of the bill, then voted against it. ...
quote:BTW I was writing a bit tongue in cheek... if Mittster does well during the debates (and it's darn near a given Ryan will prevail over Biden) this one isn't quite over.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:Who knew that Romney was going to point a bazooka at his foot and pull the trigger, instead of just shooting his foot in the ordinary way?
Originally posted by moron:
Well as it now appears this election is all but over (sigh) some of us can look forward to 2016.
, although I'm disappointed in you lot as I got the percentage wrong RE Reagan/Mondale and remained unchallenged: it was a mere 17% victory.
quote:[Tangent]This doesn't make sense to me. When my kids lived with us and had jobs, they filed their own returns -- as the law requires. Does this mean that "household" is some odd legal notion under the tax law, such that we had three households living in our single-family house?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Actually I believe the statistic is that 46+% of American households pay no federal income tax (which would be an easier statistic to compile since federal income taxes are filed on a per household basis). As such, children are included in the household returns filed by their parents, usually as deductions.
quote:Perhaps no one read the post.
Originally posted by moron:
...although I'm disappointed in you lot as I got the percentage wrong RE Reagan/Mondale and remained unchallenged: it was a mere 17% victory.
quote:Modern equivalent of burning a cross?
Originally posted by passer:
Let's enact a pseudo-lynching of the POTUS.
How bitter and twisted must one be internally that this provides some sort of relief?
quote:Isn't it usually understood that chairing a campaign is a commitment that extends through early November? So did Pawlenty figure his marketability in the right wing thinktank and lobbying world was at its peak and he needed to make his move now before the Romney thing turned seriously sour, or did he just get kicked in the (metaphorical) nuts by Romney one time too many? Everyone's got to have a breaking point.
Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty will take over one of K Street’s most prestigious jobs as CEO of the Financial Services Roundtable.
The group announced Thursday morning that the former GOP candidate for president would replace longtime CEO Steve Bartlett. Pawlenty has stepped down as co-chairman of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign to take the position.
quote:Yes, this raise my eyebrows a good bit! It's a bit late in the day to do this--at this point, I would expect any employer would be willing to wait until the election is over. This had to be Pawlenty's desire.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Interesting development...
quote:And what do officials in Harrisburg think about this? According to Ron Ruman, a spokesperson for the Dept. of State: "We believe it's legal, but we don't believe it's appropriate. To us, it's very clear that this was not in the legislative intent of the law."
will issue its own poll-ready photo IDs to registered voters through a county-run nursing home... The plan exploits a loophole in the law that allows colleges and government-managed care facilities to issue identification cards to anyone, not just those who work, attend classes, or reside there.... "Montgomery County will do everything it is legally permitted to do to ensure that as many voters as possible are equipped with acceptable ID so they can exercise their right to vote".
quote:I would really like to see the Republican thugs who put these neo-poll taxes in place tried for treason. As they rightly insist, the vote is sacrosanct. But then they go out of their way to disenfranchise thousands of people on the pretext of eliminating the "fraud" of 20 or 30 improperly-registered foreign nationals who, as far as anyone can tell, have never actually done the unlawful deed of voting.
Originally posted by Alogon:
The cat is out of the bag.
Headline in todays' Philadelphia Inquirer:"Montco finds a voter ID loophole". This county, just north of Philadelphia,quote:And what do officials in Harrisburg think about this? According to Ron Ruman, a spokesperson for the Dept. of State: "We believe it's legal, but we don't believe it's appropriate. To us, it's very clear that this was not in the legislative intent of the law."
will issue its own poll-ready photo IDs to registered voters through a county-run nursing home... The plan exploits a loophole in the law that allows colleges and government-managed care facilities to issue identification cards to anyone, not just those who work, attend classes, or reside there.... "Montgomery County will do everything it is legally permitted to do to ensure that as many voters as possible are equipped with acceptable ID so they can exercise their right to vote".
quote:Then there's this story, where we learn that Romney is indeed applying his business experience to his campaign:
“Ha, ha. We’re in the stretch, aren’t we?” Mr. Romney said before promptly changing the subject and pointing to the sky. “Look at those clouds. It’s beautiful. Look at those things.”
quote:And then there's this.
More than half of what Mr. Romney raised in August was money he could not spend until after his party convention at the end of the month. And he grew so short of available cash that his campaign borrowed $20 million and sharply curtailed advertising, even while doling out post-convention bonuses to a handful of senior staff members.
quote:You mean as opposed to zero? Why is it that Clinton is the only one in this campaign who has actually presented any substance? Unless something drastic has changed when I wasn't looking, he can't be re-elected.
Originally posted by Josephine:
I think our country benefits when we have two (or more) credible candidates making their case for their ideas and ideals.
quote:As an American I am more in a state of despair over my country. With Obama it is like drowning under 20 feet of water and Romney might make it only 15 feet. We are screwed, regardless.
Originally posted by Josephine:
[QB] You know, if I were a Republican, I would be in a state of despair over my presidential candidate right now.
quote:Part of the problem with this is that sometimes odd-shaped districts are odd-shaped for a reason. For example, maritime workers on the coast often have more common interests with other maritime workers a hundred miles up the coast than they do with farmers living ten miles inland. This interacts with your other standard of making districts "less homogeneous", which in practical terms tends towards a uniform heterogeneity (i.e. the same demographic distribution in all districts). This can be problematic in a winner-take-all electoral system as dispersed minority interests would receive no representation. To go back to my previous example, if a state had a 60/40 distribution of farmers vs. maritime workers in all districts and assuming all workers voted consistent with those interests, you'd expect zero representation for maritime workers.
Originally posted by Alogon:
I totally agree, Tom. I'd like to see the redistricting process taken entirely out of human hands. Computers can do that sort of thing rather easily nowadays. How about each State inviting proposals from open-source developers for a program to redraw its districts when necessary? The principal objective would be to minimize the circumference of district boundaries. Once the winning submission is made official, since it is open-source, anyone could run it at home and get the same results and also examine the code to be sure that no biases have been sneaked in. There would be various complaints about oxes being gored the first time it is used (e.g. certain districts becoming less homogeneous in their makeup) but I think that the gains would far outweigh the losses.
quote:That sounds mathematically elegant but completely ignores how humans organize their settlements. Which is usually along natural features of the terrain - rivers, mountains, deltas - and definitely not in circles.
Originally posted by Alogon:
,,, The principal objective would be to minimize the circumference of district boundaries. ...
quote:You mean, like the Republicans did in Texas to the whole state to maintain control of the legislature? It certainly isn't "traditionally Democratic" anymore.
Originally posted by tclune:
...FWIW, I would also like to see that foul (and traditionally Democratic) practice of gerrymandering outlawed...
quote:Good point. I've thought of that and should have mentioned it: dividing along major natural features such as mountains or large rivers should be considered as secondary objectives. Was trying to make things too simple for the sake of argument.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Originally posted by Alogon:
,,, The principal objective would be to minimize the circumference of district boundaries. ...
quote:Yep. About the only stronger signal is if the NRA boos them as well...
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
When a Republican gets booed by the AARP, they have lost the election.
quote:I, for one, am now intensely curious about who Romney would pick to head the FAA. Someone willing to cut through all the red tape and engineering cowardice and address this "real problem" by making sure that an airplane moving through the lower stratosphere at 500 mph can open its windows.
When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly, there’s no — and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem. So it’s very dangerous.
- Mitt Romney, suggesting a new aircraft safety measure
The cabin is pressurized. You can't breathe on your own at jet cruising altitudes.
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:I'm simply amazed at the level of intellectual incuriousity this exhibits. The man flies quite frequently by any standard. Is the question of why the airplane is a sealed environment not one that ever occurred to him?
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Until today, SPK, I thought everyone knew that.
quote:They won't let us 'mericans play that.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Time for the Platters, I think.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:I can just about imagine Romney smiling and drawing a chuckle as an aside - but it would be a little weird, inserted into a description of potential danger to his wife.
Romney’s wife, Ann, was in attendance [at the fundraiser], and the candidate spoke of the concern he had for her when her plane had to make an emergency landing Friday en route to Santa Monica because of an electrical malfunction.
“I appreciate the fact that she is on the ground, safe and sound. And I don’t think she knows just how worried some of us were,” Romney said. “When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly, there’s no — and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem. So it’s very dangerous. And she was choking and rubbing her eyes. Fortunately, there was enough oxygen for the pilot and copilot to make a safe landing in Denver. But she’s safe and sound.”
quote:from a Romney interview with the Washington Examiner, it might add to your concerns about his grasp of science and technology, but you might detect in the audio recording a sense that he was actually only joking about the cold fusion part. (Though if so, it sounds like he was still confusing the idea of cold fusion with phenomenon of superconductivity, so maybe you shouldn't be so reassured aftera ll.)
I believe in laboratories, looking at ways to conduct electricity with -- with cold fusion, if we can come up with it. It was the University of Utah that solved that. We somehow can’t figure out how to duplicate it.
quote:So the Republican presidential candidate is an ignorant rich guy who looks good in a suit? Didn't they do that one already?
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
He's clearly a man with very limited experience of life who hasn't given much thought to, well, anything. Thus, he gets in trouble when he doesn't have a script and has to think on his feet.
quote:Every 4 years since 1960.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:So the Republican presidential candidate is an ignorant rich guy who looks good in a suit? Didn't they do that one already?
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
He's clearly a man with very limited experience of life who hasn't given much thought to, well, anything. Thus, he gets in trouble when he doesn't have a script and has to think on his feet.
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
How bitter and twisted must one be internally that this provides some sort of relief?
quote:You can't say that about Nixon. He certainly wasn't born to riches, nor was he ignorant (especially in comparison with the others), and he didn't look good in a suit. Heck, he didn't look good in anything.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Every 4 years since 1960.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So the Republican presidential candidate is an ignorant rich guy who looks good in a suit? Didn't they do that one already?
quote:Spoilsport!
Originally posted by tclune:
Just to close the loop on this, Romney was joking about the plane windows. FWIW
--Tom Clune
quote:Apparently, that wasn't the case. Those who heard him tell it all laughed. The pool reporter who sent in the story thought that it was obvious from the context that it was a joke.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
I think the only solid conclusion here is that Romney isn't very good at jokes.
quote:"Let's bomb Russia!" was a joke too.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Apparently, that wasn't the case. Those who heard him tell it all laughed. The pool reporter who sent in the story thought that it was obvious from the context that it was a joke.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
I think the only solid conclusion here is that Romney isn't very good at jokes.
However, the extent to which people are willing to believe the worst about the other party's candidates is pretty high, as Barney acknowledged. To my mind, the real take-away is that all those horrible things the Sarah Palins of the world say about the lame-stream media come closer to the truth than we would like to admit.
--Tom Clune
quote:Was that a joke too?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Someone give Romney a slap please. Not to cause any pain or punish him, just to get the silly b****** to wake up and think before he speaks. The 47 (or was it 49) percent thing was another example.
quote:The sycophancy of pool reporters is as legendary as it is understandable. They're there at the candidate's suffrance.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Apparently, that wasn't the case. Those who heard him tell it all laughed. The pool reporter who sent in the story thought that it was obvious from the context that it was a joke.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
I think the only solid conclusion here is that Romney isn't very good at jokes.
quote:"I was just joking" is the commonplace excuse when a public figure gets called out for saying something embarassing. Very often the supposed "joke" doesn't work.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
The sad thing is, I knew someone would say it was a joke before someone said it was a joke. Even if it wasn't a joke, someone was going to make that claim.
quote:See, it's hilarious because his wife (and everyone else on the plane) was in a life-threatening situation!
I appreciate the fact that she [Ann Romney] is on the ground, safe and sound. And I don’t think she knows just how worried some of us were. When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly, there’s no — and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that.
quote:This reads like a joke told by sociopath.
It’s a real problem. So it’s very dangerous. And she was choking and rubbing her eyes. Fortunately, there was enough oxygen for the pilot and copilot to make a safe landing in Denver. But she’s safe and sound.
quote:Actually, my favorite part is the use of the word "but"--"Fortunately, the pilot made a safe landing, but my wife is safe too."
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:This reads like a joke told by sociopath.
It’s a real problem. So it’s very dangerous. And she was choking and rubbing her eyes. Fortunately, there was enough oxygen for the pilot and copilot to make a safe landing in Denver. But she’s safe and sound.
quote:Nor I. It was a poor outing for the President, though Romney at times sounded overeager and vacuous. Obama sounded disengaged, as though he was simply going through the motions.
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
So who do people think won the debate? Personally I don't think it was one of Obama's best.
quote:I agree. Obama was OK-- but we're used to him being stellar. In contrast, Romney did rather well, while we're used to him being awful. So I'd call it pretty much a draw on points, but because expectations were so much higher for Obama, it's probably a win for Romney.
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
So who do people think won the debate? Personally I don't think it was one of Obama's best.
quote:That sadly is true. I think part of what was throwing Obama is he prepped on what Romney had been saying only to have Romney vehemently denying that was the case and laying out the argument of something else entirely. Without video tape to prove Romney was lying it becomes a he said, he said. While I think Romney did a better job, I came away with even less respect for him not only because of this, but because while Obama was speaking Romney would stare at him with obvious contempt, where Obama would shake his head in disagreement when Romney was speaking, but didn't return that look of contempt. After the debate was over Romney ignored Obama until the President was almost to his podium before coming out to shake hands. Frankly, we have the worst of both parties this election - and at a time when we desperately need the best. I will, however, be voting for Obama as I think he is definitely the lesser of 2 evils. Romney is Bush redux and that is what got us into this mess in the first place and even though Obama's performance hasn't been stellar, we are improving, albeit it at a snail's pace. I also don't think we can afford Romney's plan to repeal everything Obama has done with no specific plans in place to replace it - except too "leave the good bits in place" while claiming them as his own.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I thought for poise and speaking style Romney kicked Obama's ass. Sadly everything he said either contradicted something he said last week, or was a bald-faced lie. But it's style that counts, right?
quote:I think it was difficult for Obama because he came prepared to debate the positions Romney had the day before the debate. He wasn't prepared for Romney to walk it all back. Romney picked a very clever and cruel time to shake the Etch-a-Sketch and become all progressive again.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Obama did better against Eastwood.
Time will tell how much last night really mattered.
quote:I was thinking that as I listened. I wondered if Obama was trying to decide whether to go for a kill, by calling Romney on his shifting position, whether he would make himself look aggressive and lose sympathy doing that, or whether to stick to his own message regardless... and maybe that produced hesitancy.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
I think part of what was throwing Obama is he prepped on what Romney had been saying only to have Romney vehemently denying that was the case and laying out the argument of something else entirely.
quote:If Obama's campaign advisers actually prepared him for the debate without considering the possibility that Romney might shift to the middle for the general election, he has a basic competence problem on his hands.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I think it was difficult for Obama because he came prepared to debate the positions Romney had the day before the debate. He wasn't prepared for Romney to walk it all back. Romney picked a very clever and cruel time to shake the Etch-a-Sketch and become all progressive again.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Obama did better against Eastwood.
Time will tell how much last night really mattered.
quote:Yes and no. Romney has had months to shift to the middle, and has doubled down on his hard-right positions every time he had the chance.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:If Obama's campaign advisers actually prepared him for the debate without considering the possibility that Romney might shift to the middle for the general election, he has a basic competence problem on his hands.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I think it was difficult for Obama because he came prepared to debate the positions Romney had the day before the debate. He wasn't prepared for Romney to walk it all back. Romney picked a very clever and cruel time to shake the Etch-a-Sketch and become all progressive again.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Obama did better against Eastwood.
Time will tell how much last night really mattered.
quote:I think "basic competency problem" is stating the case too strongly. As for fitness to be president, Obama is overwhelmingly more competent. Not being a part of either candidate's debate preparation staff, i can only speculate, but it was unfortunate for Obama that his staff were not better prepared for Romney's once-again sudden about-face. Also, I think Obama was too polite, but he would have been savaged if he'd been more aggressive.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:If Obama's campaign advisers actually prepared him for the debate without considering the possibility that Romney might shift to the middle for the general election, he has a basic competence problem on his hands.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I think it was difficult for Obama because he came prepared to debate the positions Romney had the day before the debate. He wasn't prepared for Romney to walk it all back. Romney picked a very clever and cruel time to shake the Etch-a-Sketch and become all progressive again.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Obama did better against Eastwood.
Time will tell how much last night really mattered.
quote:My expectation had been that Romney was toast when the 47% riff surfaced. But I'm no longer so sure.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Never mind all that, I just want someone to tell me that it's gonna be alright, and Mittens will not win.
Anybody? Please.
quote:There, there. It'll be alright. Mittens will not win.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Never mind all that, I just want someone to tell me that it's gonna be alright, and Mittens will not win.
Anybody? Please.
quote:And all manner of thing shall be well.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:There, there. It'll be alright. Mittens will not win.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Never mind all that, I just want someone to tell me that it's gonna be alright, and Mittens will not win.
Anybody? Please.
When you're feeling better, check out FiveThirtyEight. Nate Silver correctly predicted the outcome of the last presidential election, and he's currently giving Obama an 86.1% chance of winning. (But don't look today; his headline is "Polls Show a Strong Debate for Romney.")
quote:Relax. Obama is playing the long game. At least, that's what he did last time. <fingers crossed>
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Never mind all that, I just want someone to tell me that it's gonna be alright, and Mittens will not win.
Anybody? Please.
quote:Really? Canada had one in 1972, and the next one was, famously, in 1984, in which Brian Mulroney roasted John Turner alive over patronage in two minutes.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
We had televised debates of this nature in the UK for the first time in 2010. Just for the record the first of the three was a resounding win for Nick Clegg, leader of the party that is now very much the junior party in the coalition.
quote:You may well be right, which very much depresses me (please God, no
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:My expectation had been that Romney was toast when the 47% riff surfaced. But I'm no longer so sure.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Never mind all that, I just want someone to tell me that it's gonna be alright, and Mittens will not win.
Anybody? Please.
The reality is that this is a very bad economy and Obama didn't seem to pay much attention to the plight of the middle class until it was time to run for re-election. The really big things that he should have done -- throw the Wall Street thieves in jail, refuse to kill Americans with drones, keep ordinary Americans from losing their homes while Wall Street is propped up with trillions of taxpayer dollars -- he failed at miserably. The small things -- don't throw taxpayer money at companies run by your supporters and the like -- he failed at as one has come to expect.
Looked at objectively, it's awfully hard to see why Obama should get a second bite at the apple. The only thing he had going for him was that Romney was the worst candidate for POTUS since the last Massachusetts contender for the office. Now, Romney actually showed signs of life. That can't be good for Obama. If people feel they have a choice, he's the one who will be toast.
--Tom Clune
) -- but i remain mystified as to why this is so. Why would people so willingly go back to the policies that got us into this mess in the first place? Are people's memories really that short term? I ask that in all sincerity. Why? Why? Is there something I don't understand about the average US voter? (This could well be the case since I can always use more understanding, in so many areas.)
quote:I'd bet that a lot of average US voters don't know what policies got us into this mess.
Originally posted by malik3000:
Why would people so willingly go back to the policies that got us into this mess in the first place? Are people's memories really that short term? I ask that in all sincerity. Why? Why? Is there something I don't understand about the average US voter?
quote:No, if one actually listened rather than going on appearances it should be clear Romney was doing a complete 180 from what he's been saying he'd do on immigration, taxes and his opinion of the 47%. The only detail he gave on his legislative plans was actually trying to claim future credit for keeping the parts of Obama's legislation that he liked - all of this while keeping a straight face. For the rest, Romney wants to take us back to the same policies that caused the crash and Ryan wants to take things even further - they and the GOP want to dismantle any safety net programs. Obama's performance was sub par last night, but objectively he's still the lesser of two evils in this election. Housing is very slowly coming back even in California and there are jobs being created, even if not nearly enough. We were shedding jobs when Obama got the job. I don't want to reverse course back to where we came from. Not to mention Romney in statements outside of the debate seems ready to take us into another war, either in Iran or Syria. I normally vote 3rd party as I hate both the GOP and the Democratic party, but this is too important to risk a Romney presidency IMO.
Originally posted by tclune:
Looked at objectively, it's awfully hard to see why Obama should get a second bite at the apple. The only thing he had going for him was that Romney was the worst candidate for POTUS since the last Massachusetts contender for the office. Now, Romney actually showed signs of life. That can't be good for Obama. If people feel they have a choice, he's the one who will be toast.
--Tom Clune
quote:Generally quotation marks indicate that the person actually said the thing in quotes. Let me demonstrate how this works. I might write, today, in Iowa, Joe Biden said "You know the phrase they always use? 'Obama and Biden want to raise taxes by a trillion dollars.' Guess what? Yes, we do." And Joe Biden actually said that today, so there, the quotation marks are justified. You might want to check the actual Big Bird line out and modify accordingly. (Obviously Biden was talking about taxing the wealthy, but you can count on seeing that one taken out of context in adds in the future.) (And it still wasn't a great joke to make, but any time a Republican talks about defunding PBS, the democrats bring up Big Bird, so maybe he was just trying to beat them to the punch line.)
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Don't worry, Romney managed to shoot himself in the foot anyway, he said during the debate he'd cut federal funding to PBS, ending his line with "sorry, Big Bird".
quote:Og, let me introduce you to paraphrasing.
"I’m sorry, Jim," Romney told moderator Jim Lehrer, "I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I like PBS. I love Big Bird."
quote:Me too. I'm sorry, but I (and I loathe what I know of Romney) did not see all the negatives that are being listed. I saw someone sharp, energised engaging, able to rattle off truckloads of numbers (which may or may not have been facts - how can a poor punter tell?) confidently and with charm. I saw a ready laugh and a pleasant smile. He sounded trite only when he tried to wheel out the 'nasty communists are removing God from the constitution' line.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Never mind all that, I just want someone to tell me that it's gonna be alright, and Mittens will not win.
Anybody? Please.
quote:Incidentally, I must add that a major contrast between OZ/NZ and the USA is that removing God from the constitution, if he/she/it were there (and to be honest we know so little about our constitutions that I doubt if we know or care) would be an election winner, not a cause of horror. God is on the nose, down here.
Originally posted by Zappa:
'nasty communists are removing God from the constitution' line
quote:And..........that went nowhere.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Don't worry, Romney managed to shoot himself in the foot anyway, he said during the debate he'd cut federal funding to PBS, ending his line with "sorry, Big Bird".
The Internet exploded over that one.
quote:Or is that politics personified? Doesn't the average audience have a retention memory for policies lasting about 17 seconds?
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Has Mr Romney flip-flopped on the merits of flip-flopping itself? Will this apparent inconsistency hurt him?
quote:Who could blame him?
Originally posted by Porridge:
You could watch Romney rolling his eyes and shaking his head as Obama spoke.
quote:Anybody who believes in common courtesy. Which clearly leaves out Romney and certain people on this thread.
Originally posted by moron:
quote:Who could blame him?
Originally posted by Porridge:
You could watch Romney rolling his eyes and shaking his head as Obama spoke.
quote:Or perhaps there's more to his bump than how he looked in the debate. Like how Romney behaved.
Originally posted by aumbry:
I have no horse in this race but Obama looked like an automaton in that debate, his poll ratings do not deserve to go up and perhaps the poll doesn't reflect that debacle.
quote:I had the same observation re: Obama back in '08, but I think it's a mixed bag. Like all of us, each has their strengths and weaknesses. Coming off 8 years of W's cowboys swagger, Obama's diplomacy and civility was a breath of fresh air that clearly has done us good in the much-damaged area of int'l relations. Where it cost him has been in working with Congress, where he has all too often been willing to give away the store to appease Republicans who wouldn't be appeased if you managed to raise Reagan from the dead. That's the ying-and-yang of Obama's cooly measured civility.
Originally posted by Lawrence:
my concern for a long time with Obama has been that he has never been a good political street fighter and that deficiency was front and center in the debate. He allow Romney to drag him into an alley and beat the crap of him. If Romney pulled that on a Clinton, he would have been left in the alley in pieces. This was the very reason I was in favor of Hilary four years ago. I didn't think Obama was tough enough to deal with congressional republicans who, after his election, flat out announced that they were not going to deal with him in order to make him one term president. My view of the Clintons is summed up in a paraphrase of Sean Connery's speech to Kevin Costner in "The Untouchables":
They pull a knife on you, you pull a gun on them, they put one of yours in the hospital, you put two of theirs in the morgue, that's the Clintons way!
quote:Yes, in many ways he has been a very competent President, but his unwillingness/inability to engage in hard fighting puts his second term at risk.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I had the same observation re: Obama back in '08, but I think it's a mixed bag. Like all of us, each has their strengths and weaknesses. Coming off 8 years of W's cowboys swagger, Obama's diplomacy and civility was a breath of fresh air that clearly has done us good in the much-damaged area of int'l relations. Where it cost him has been in working with Congress, where he has all too often been willing to give away the store to appease Republicans who wouldn't be appeased if you managed to raise Reagan from the dead. That's the ying-and-yang of Obama's cooly measured civility. [/QB]
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
It's classic Obama to be Mr. Nice Guy first, if only to demonstrate clearly that with the kind of opponents he has, it doesn't work. He has two more debates in which to come out swinging.
quote:There are certain political limitations on the degree to which Obama can be rhetorically agressive due to that thing Americans never talk about. You know, the thing. Ta-Nehisi Coates explains:
Originally posted by Lawrence:
my concern for a long time with Obama has been that he has never been a good political street fighter and that deficiency was front and center in the debate. He allow Romney to drag him into an alley and beat the crap of him.
quote:Given the way a significant chunk of the American electorate already sees Obama, a close real-life analog of Cliff Huxtable, as the second coming of Malcolm X, a decision by him to "come out [rhetorically] swinging" against a lily-white opponent may be emotionally satisfying for his supporters but electorally counterproductive in the long run.
From the “inadequate black male” diatribe of the Hillary Clinton supporter Harriet Christian in 2008, to Rick Santelli’s 2009 rant on CNBC against subsidizing “losers’ mortgages,” to Representative Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” outburst during Obama’s September 2009 address to Congress, to John Boehner’s screaming “Hell no!” on the House floor about Obamacare in 2010, politicized rage has marked the opposition to Obama. But the rules of our racial politics require that Obama never respond in like fashion. So frightening is the prospect of black rage given voice and power that when Obama was a freshman senator, he was asked, on national television, to denounce the rage of Harry Belafonte. This fear continued with demands that he keep his distance from Louis Farrakhan and culminated with Reverend Wright and a presidency that must never betray any sign of rage toward its white opposition.
quote:Two other probable reasons for making a big deal out of less than $1 per year per capita. (1) People with access to, and experience with, culture are more difficult to lead around by the nose. (2) It bugs the hell out of advertisers (and those who commission advertising) that people have a refuge out of their reach.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Complaining about public broadcasting is another prerennial dog-whistle... The funding for the CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING (Mittens doesn't even know where the funding he wants to cut actually goes) is a) a pittance and b) supports lots of other media besides PBS and Sesame Street.
quote:His team went for the jugular on Bain Capital, not Obama himself(and it worked). A good political organization is essential and he has one. Obama is in many ways a very good politician, but Romney had his jugular exposed in the debate and Obama could not/would not go for it because he is not a street fighter. Lofty rhetoric is not going to cut it with a congress that is willing to engage in the most base tactics to achieve its objectives. Romney looked all the more "tougher" because Obama did not shove it back at him.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Oddly enough, Obama famously quoted that exact speech during the 2008 election.
I disagree with your assessment of Obama's skill as a political "street fighter." His team went for the jugular very early with attacks on Romney's business record. He has very slick fundraising skills, and his ground organization is very good. He even beat the Clintons by being better organized in caucus states. He may be good at appearing to be above the fray, but make no mistake, his is not a ham-fisted or passive operation.
quote:See my previous post on why Obama is forced to use surrogates for these kinds of attacks.
Originally posted by Lawrence:
quote:His team went for the jugular on Bain Capital, not Obama himself (and it worked).
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I disagree with your assessment of Obama's skill as a political "street fighter." His team went for the jugular very early with attacks on Romney's business record.
quote:In regards to point #2 the PBS stations in my area have had corporate sponsors and show thinly veiled commercials for quite some time now.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Two other probable reasons for making a big deal out of less than $1 per year per capita. (1) People with access to, and experience with, culture are more difficult to lead around by the nose. (2) It bugs the hell out of advertisers (and those who commission advertising) that people have a refuge out of their reach.
quote:I remember years ago the entire family cracking up spontaneously when the announcer-man voice said at the end of one episode of the show "Nature" --
Originally posted by Prester John:
In regards to point #2 the PBS stations in my area have had corporate sponsors and show thinly veiled commercials for quite some time now.
quote:Let's face it . . . they're not so thinly veiled. They're just plain out-and-out commercials, albeit fewer than on commercial channels. That's one reason I don't contribute to PBS.
Originally posted by Prester John:
the PBS stations in my area have had corporate sponsors and show thinly veiled commercials for quite some time now.
quote:That's kind of backwards, isn't it? They don't get enough non-corporate funding to allow them to eschew corporate funding, so I'm going to reduce the potential level of non-corporate funding they get.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:Let's face it . . . they're not so thinly veiled. They're just plain out-and-out commercials, albeit fewer than on commercial channels. That's one reason I don't contribute to PBS.
Originally posted by Prester John:
the PBS stations in my area have had corporate sponsors and show thinly veiled commercials for quite some time now.
quote:I would disagree that the oil industry is subsidized but assuming that it is at least it gets results. Obama subsidizes the green energy industry and it fails and the taxpayers lose.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Romney says he will cut public funding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, but he will continue the oil subsidy. What does that say about whose pocket he's in?
quote:You miss the point. The point is that they claim that their programming is commercial-free, and then they turn around and air commercials. If that's the way it's going to be, then they don't need my money. I can't compete with corporate wealth on my Social Security allowance and a modest annuity.
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's kind of backwards, isn't it?
quote:Yeah, remember when that Solyndra accident killed eleven people and dumped 210 million gallons of sun into the Gulf of Mexico?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:I would disagree that the oil industry is subsidized but assuming that it is at least it gets results. Obama subsidizes the green energy industry and it fails and the taxpayers lose.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Romney says he will cut public funding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, but he will continue the oil subsidy. What does that say about whose pocket he's in?
quote:Yeah, it sure does. Just look at their profit statements.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I would disagree that the oil industry is subsidized but assuming that it is at least it gets results.
quote:Gets results for whom? Oh, yes, the shareholders of the oil companies. So THAT's what the Republican party thinks we should do with our tax monies.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:I would disagree that the oil industry is subsidized but assuming that it is at least it gets results. Obama subsidizes the green energy industry and it fails and the taxpayers lose.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Romney says he will cut public funding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, but he will continue the oil subsidy. What does that say about whose pocket he's in?
quote:Actually Romney left the door open during the debate for ending "the oil subsidy."
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Romney says he will cut public funding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, but he will continue the oil subsidy. What does that say about whose pocket he's in?
quote:Excellent points -- but for some reason, even though these factors may not constrain Obama from the objective observer's point of view, they still seem to constrain him from his own subjective point of view.
Originally posted by Lawrence:
The racial (and gender) constraint comments are well made. Perhaps they do not have the same power today for Obama in that:
1) He has been the President of the United States for close to four years and is no longer an unknown black man
2) Those who might still fear the Malcom X factor are already not going to vote for him again under any circumstances.
quote:You misunderestimate the constraints he's forced to work under.
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Whatever it is, it's a consistent pattern. When someone bullies or openly and brazenly lies to Obama in an assertive way, to his face, he doesn't seem to be able to deal with it. He caves in and goes all distant and tentative instead of taking charge and putting the liar or bully in his place.
quote:While I am not a black man and cannot speak from that perspective, my recent newsreading has been rife with incidents of racism. Am I seeking these out? Some, maybe; but I don't think all of them; they just appear in my newspaper and magazines and now & again on my homepage links. "Bleach" attacks on a college campus; filthy epithets painted on homes in my home town; the kinds of discrimination in services and retail establishments that preceded civil rights protests one of my parents engaged in; and I could go on.
Originally posted by mdijon:
In a different cultural setting it is my experience that people who have known me personally for years nevertheless have a stereotype in mind which they will immediately recall if I behave in a manner that seems to fit it.
Black men learn in a variety of settings that any sign of aggression earns them an instant label and seems to lead the room's thermostat to malfunction for everybody.
It is more likely to be familiarity with some aspects of deep south political history that leads to his behaviour than unfamiliarity.
Regarding the health-care reform, blaming Obama's lack of political fighting instinct seems to me wrong. Observing from the outside the incredible level of political hostility and the scenes of vitriolic protest, that seems really quite close to blaming the victim.
quote:Well, he's essentially been given the 'angry black man' title by the right-wing pundits no matter what he does. The talk-radio wackos have done everything they can to paint him as such since day one.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:You misunderestimate the constraints he's forced to work under.
Originally posted by Grammatica:
Whatever it is, it's a consistent pattern. When someone bullies or openly and brazenly lies to Obama in an assertive way, to his face, he doesn't seem to be able to deal with it. He caves in and goes all distant and tentative instead of taking charge and putting the liar or bully in his place.
quote:Thanks for the link! Great article. Hope the prez reads it.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
President Bartlett gives him excellent advice, in Maureen Dowd's column.
quote:Jon Stewart suggested it looked like a man having caffeine for the first time. "Wow! So that's this coffee thing everyone's been talking about!"
Originally posted by Golden Key:
[QUOTE]
Oh, and I wondered if Mitt was on No-Doz or something. He was going awfully fast!
quote:Odd I find myself in the position of thinking offering you advice is worthwhile but ISTM if you want to call Porridge out for its obvious falsehood you may as well go ahead.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Anybody who believes in common courtesy. Which clearly leaves out Romney and certain people on this thread.
Originally posted by moron:
quote:Who could blame him?
Originally posted by Porridge:
You could watch Romney rolling his eyes and shaking his head as Obama spoke.
quote:People are already starting to vote by mail -- I received my ballot a couple of days ago and will probably mail it in before the end of the month. Then again, those of us who are already firmly for one candidate are the ones who vote early. The undecided probably don't -- and they're the ones who might be swayed by the job numbers.
Originally posted by rugasaw:
How will the new job numbers effect things? Or do we need to wait until next month's numbers?
quote:You also can't debate someone who changes his position every day or two.
Originally posted by mousethief:
As Newt Gingrich said, concerning Mitt Romney, on January 28, 2012: "You cannot debate somebody who is dishonest. You just can't."
quote:I'm trying to remember if its against Ship policy in Purgatory to point out to somebody how badly they are doing at being a troll.
Originally posted by moron:
....
The reason Obama didn't stand up to Romney IS because he is, at the root, an honest man and it pains him deeply to find himself in the position of regularly promoting what he knows to be bullshit and just can't bring himself to do it face to face with Mittster.
Simples.
quote:No matter what your position, Mitt Romney agrees with you.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
You also can't debate someone who changes his position every day or two.
quote:
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
--Groucho Marx
quote:Of course you can - you hit him again and again with that very fact until he daren't say anything for fear of contradicting a previous statement.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:You also can't debate someone who changes his position every day or two.
Originally posted by mousethief:
As Newt Gingrich said, concerning Mitt Romney, on January 28, 2012: "You cannot debate somebody who is dishonest. You just can't."
quote:Romney has proven beyond the shadow of any doubt that he had no fear whatsoever of contradicting a previous statement.
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
quote:Of course you can - you hit him again and again with that very fact until he daren't say anything for fear of contradicting a previous statement.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:You also can't debate someone who changes his position every day or two.
Originally posted by mousethief:
As Newt Gingrich said, concerning Mitt Romney, on January 28, 2012: "You cannot debate somebody who is dishonest. You just can't."
quote:Hey, don't insult Groucho! Given a presidential choice between him and Mitt, I'd choose Groucho every time.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I've said it before and I'll say it again--Mitt Romney is a Marxist:
quote:
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
--Groucho Marx
quote:I think Obama himself is ambivalent about it. But I guess he will be more incisive in the future debates. Romney's bare faced "about-faces" probably came as a surprise.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
.. a part of me wonders if Obama no longer wants the job.
quote:Obama demolished McCain without coming over as angry. And, by now, he should have realised that the party that think they can say anything to drag him down will say anything to drag him down. The 'angry black man' label was inevitable.
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think debating with someone dishonest and stupid is easy. But debating with a polished and brazen liar is much more slippery. Especially if you are trying to balance your responses with certain dangers regarding public perception.
Journalists might be labelled rude if they challenge politicians, but black men get labelled angry.
quote:I don't remember the debates being a demolition. I thought McCain demolished himself by looking panicky over the economic crisis and by choosing Palin.
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
Obama demolished McCain without coming over as angry.
quote:I'm sure they will say that, but the traction that line gets can be either maximised or minimised by his demeanour.
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
And, by now, he should have realised that the party that think they can say anything to drag him down will say anything to drag him down. The 'angry black man' label was inevitable.
quote:NYT* columnist Paul Krugman reminds us that Obama had a similar performance in the 2008 debates.
Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
Obama demolished McCain without coming over as angry.
quote:In other words, this isn't some new reticence on Obama's part or an indication he doesn't really want the job (unless he didn't really want it in 2008 either). It's just par for the course.
People tend to forget how close the 2008 presidential race looked as late as August, and the immense frustration many Democrats felt with Barack Obama at the time. He seemed weirdly unwilling* to drive home his case against Bush/McCain economic policies; his instinct, as people said, was apparently to go for the capillaries.
quote:That's only an impression you'd get if you know anything about the past four centuries of American history.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Do I get the impression that an angry white American is acceptable, but an angry black American is not?
quote:Given a choice between Groucho and just about anybody on the modern political stage (U.S.), I'd take Groucho hands-down and running away. Or Dibert's garbage man. Criminee, if he were actually alive, I'd take Linus van Pelt ahead of the whole lot of them.
Hey, don't insult Groucho! Given a presidential choice between him and Mitt, I'd choose Groucho every time.
quote:Groucho's probable response to your draft: I wouldn't be the candidate of any party that would have me as their candidate.
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:Given a choice between Groucho and just about anybody on the modern political stage (U.S.), I'd take Groucho hands-down and running away. Or Dibert's garbage man. Criminee, if he were actually alive, I'd take Linus van Pelt ahead of the whole lot of them.
Hey, don't insult Groucho! Given a presidential choice between him and Mitt, I'd choose Groucho every time.
quote:Indeed. Or "Bitch".
Originally posted by mousethief:
And an angry woman is automatically labelled, "shrill."
quote:Since the subject is candidates for POTUS, this is widely recognized as false. When faced with a choice between an angry candidate and one who is upbeat, the candidate who exudes the positive outlook is almost always elected AIUI.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:That's only an impression you'd get if you know anything about the past four centuries of American history.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Do I get the impression that an angry white American is acceptable, but an angry black American is not?
quote:Yes, but until 2008 all the major-party nominees for president were white men. You can't exactly look to that specific part of American history for clues about how the electorate will view an angry black man running for president. You can, however, look at how our society in general views black men. I would bet the rent that if Romney and Obama displayed equal levels of anger, a fair number of Americans would perceive Obama as being more angry.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Since the subject is candidates for POTUS, this is widely recognized as false. When faced with a choice between an angry candidate and one who is upbeat, the candidate who exudes the positive outlook is almost always elected AIUI.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:That's only an impression you'd get if you know anything about the past four centuries of American history.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Do I get the impression that an angry white American is acceptable, but an angry black American is not?
--Tom Clune
quote:There are many ways one could describe Richard Milhous Nixon, but "upbeat" and "positive outlook" aren't the descriptions that immediately come to mind.
Originally posted by tclune:
Since the subject is candidates for POTUS, this is widely recognized as false. When faced with a choice between an angry candidate and one who is upbeat, the candidate who exudes the positive outlook is almost always elected AIUI.
quote:The question is whether for a particular voter, the more important defining characteristic is "candidate for POTUS" or "black". I'll bet there are many for whom the situation is balanced, and displays of anger can tip the balance.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Yes, but until 2008 all the major-party nominees for president were white men. You can't exactly look to that specific part of American history for clues about how the electorate will view an angry black man running for president. You can, however, look at how our society in general views black men. I would bet the rent that if Romney and Obama displayed equal levels of anger, a fair number of Americans would perceive Obama as being more angry.
quote:Perhaps we disagree on the meaning of "almost." I have no problem saying that forty-two out of forty-four is comfortably within the "almost" all bounds. Obviously, YMMV.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:There are many ways one could describe Richard Milhous Nixon, but "upbeat" and "positive outlook" aren't the descriptions that immediately come to mind.
Originally posted by tclune:
Since the subject is candidates for POTUS, this is widely recognized as false. When faced with a choice between an angry candidate and one who is upbeat, the candidate who exudes the positive outlook is almost always elected AIUI.
Going back even further, it was pointed out earlier in this election cycle that Andrew Jackson went through his presidency (and most of his life) in a state of rage.
quote:I'm not sure how you would get an objective measure of their "levels" of anger, so I have a hard time visualizing this as anything other than a Rorschach test.
Originally posted by RuthW:
I would bet the rent that if Romney and Obama displayed equal levels of anger, a fair number of Americans would perceive Obama as being more angry.
quote:I am not sure what weight to give race in this election. Certainly, Obama being black has smoked out the blatant racists in parts of the white population and the right wing of the Republican Party. It is embarrassing to be "fellow americans" with them. The question is how much of that white population and the right wing of the Republican Party are one and the same and how much of it is really likely to be swing votes that might have voted for a Democrat but for the factor of race. Very little I think. A tatic among many Republicans has been to simply treat the last 2 Democratic Presidents as somehow "not legitimately" President. With Clinton, it was first that he did not get 50% of the popular vote in his first term and then because of his legal problems (admittedly self-inflicted) stemming from the Lewisinky affair. With Obama, it has been a variety of things, including his right to be President based on his birth place. Among some, the race card has been an important factor in questioning his legitimacy. I do think it is simply wrong to think that all right wing Republicans are racists and I think that many Republicans are afraid of what the Tea Party and other right wing extemists are doing to their Party. Racism is blatant and ugly in this election but I don't think the normal swing vote and that racist core have much overlap.
Originally posted by Josephine:
In case you missed it: What race has to do with it.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I would bet the rent that if Romney and Obama displayed equal levels of anger, a fair number of Americans would perceive Obama as being more angry.
quote:Answered like a true politician. "You know the really important question is..."
Originally posted by tclune:
I'm not sure how you would get an objective measre of their "levels" of anger, so I have a hard time visualizing this as anything other than a Rorschach test.
quote:Ojective measures? When humanity develops these for individual and/or collective expressions of emotion, racism, perceptions of same, and the causes of radically-divided political perspectives, I'm guessing none of the above-named issues will be plaguing us any longer.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:I'm not sure how you would get an objective measre of their "levels" of anger, so I have a hard time visualizing this as anything other than a Rorschach test.
Originally posted by RuthW:
I would bet the rent that if Romney and Obama displayed equal levels of anger, a fair number of Americans would perceive Obama as being more angry.
--Tom Clune
quote:Those were only the two that immediately came to mind immediately. It wasn't intended as an exhaustive list. John Adams, Franklin Pierce, and Zachary Taylor weren't exactly "upbeat" either, though in the case of the first two it was more a case of being depressed than angry. Andrew Johnson would definitely make the list, although he was never elected president. One could posit George W. Bush as having anger issues as well, though that's still being worked out by historians.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Perhaps we disagree on the meaning of "almost." I have no problem saying that forty-two out of forty-four is comfortably within the "almost" all bounds. Obviously, YMMV.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:There are many ways one could describe Richard Milhous Nixon, but "upbeat" and "positive outlook" aren't the descriptions that immediately come to mind.
Originally posted by tclune:
Since the subject is candidates for POTUS, this is widely recognized as false. When faced with a choice between an angry candidate and one who is upbeat, the candidate who exudes the positive outlook is almost always elected AIUI.
Going back even further, it was pointed out earlier in this election cycle that Andrew Jackson went through his presidency (and most of his life) in a state of rage.
--Tom Clune
quote:Way to miss the point. What I was suggesting is that Ruth's view on people's response to Romney and Obama says more about Ruth's view than it does about the people she was attributing a view to.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Ojective measures? When humanity develops these for individual and/or collective expressions of emotion, racism, perceptions of same, and the causes of radically-divided political perspectives, I'm guessing none of the above-named issues will be plaguing us any longer.
quote:Plus Lincoln was clinically depressed. He called it "the hypo" I think.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There are many ways one could describe Richard Milhous Nixon, but "upbeat" and "positive outlook" aren't the descriptions that immediately come to mind...
...John Adams, Franklin Pierce, and Zachary Taylor weren't exactly "upbeat" either, though in the case of the first two it was more a case of being depressed than angry. Andrew Johnson would definitely make the list, although he was never elected president. One could posit George W. Bush as having anger issues as well, though that's still being worked out by historians.
quote:There's also the question of whether all presidential losers (to be consistent with your assertion of forty-four cases) were noticably angry. Walter Mondale, rage machine? The furious William Jennings Bryan? And what does it say about cases where the voters later reversed themselves? Did John Adams/Benjamin Harrison suddenly get that much angrier than Thomas Jefferson/Grover Cleveland at some point between 1796/1888 and 1800/1892?
Originally posted by tclune:
Perhaps we disagree on the meaning of "almost." I have no problem saying that forty-two out of forty-four is comfortably within the "almost" all bounds. Obviously, YMMV.
quote:Leaving aside the fact that the viewer/listener divide in the Kennedy-Nixon debates is likely a myth (though a popular one), the fact remains that Nixon was elected president. Twice! If the advent of mass communications is supposed to prevent the election of presidents with dark and vicious personalities, the two-time election of Tricky Dick has to be explained somehow.
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
This is an obvious point, but I notice that most of the angry or depressed Presidents people have named held office before the age of television and radio. I was taught in school that the Kennedy/Nixon debates of 1960 illustrated the TV effect clearly: that people who watched the debates on TV, who saw Kennedy looking fresh-faced and Nixon haggard and stubbly, thought Kennedy had won the debates; and people who listened on the radio and only heard the candidates speak thought Nixon had won.
quote:i) He was very, very clever
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If the advent of mass communications is supposed to prevent the election of presidents with dark and vicious personalities, the two-time election of Tricky Dick has to be explained somehow.
quote:(Darn, and I actually *trusted* that American history teacher- he was one of the smartest in my school. He certainly didn't tell us that anecdote because he supported Nixon; he still got choked up talking about the Kennedy assassination thirty years later.)
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Leaving aside the fact that the viewer/listener divide in the Kennedy-Nixon debates is likely a myth (though a popular one), the fact remains that Nixon was elected president. Twice! If the advent of mass communications is supposed to prevent the election of presidents with dark and vicious personalities, the two-time election of Tricky Dick has to be explained somehow.
quote:Once again, Nixon! If anyone illustrated that you didn't have to be a "pretty boy" to get elected president in the electronic age it was Nixon. I live with the certainty that no one ever called him "Pretty Boy Nixon".
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
The fact that we probably couldn't elect Cleveland or Lincoln today because they weren't pretty boys is, I think, a bad thing.
quote:I've been thinking about this... I'm sure you're right about late-night transport, but speaking as a (white) woman who does her best to avoid being stuck on a train late at night with a bunch of drunks I would find a scruffy-looking white man with a shaven head far scarier than a neatly dressed black man, which just goes to show that in the UK class is a factor as well as race. Though I'd be scared of anyone who looked like he was spoiling for a fight.
Angry black British men aren't acceptable. On late night transport it is perfectly obvious that many white (and some black) people give black men a wider berth than white men.
quote:This does not sound like irrational prejudice to me.
Originally posted by Jane R:
...who does her best to avoid being stuck on a train late at night with a bunch of drunks...
quote:Thank you... but on rereading my own post I see evidence of bias in favour of people who look as if they're middle class. Which is probably just as irrational as race-based prejudice.
This does not sound like irrational prejudice to me.
quote:That could only be, I suppose, if someone can finally come up with an adequate definition of troll.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I'm trying to remember if its against Ship policy in Purgatory to point out to somebody how badly they are doing at being a troll.
quote:Its a definition set by this website itself, with everybody having the option to choose to live with that definition or not. Which is why I asked the question. (Its obvious what I think by even asking the question)
Originally posted by moron:
quote:That could only be, I suppose, if someone can finally come up with an adequate definition of troll.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I'm trying to remember if its against Ship policy in Purgatory to point out to somebody how badly they are doing at being a troll.
Please feel free to have a go at it - TIA.
quote:My brother-in-law had the same reaction to Romney in the last debate. It appears that "the other guy's rude" is the way some folks acknowledge that their man got his butt handed to him. It strikes me as bit like saying, "The winning boxer was too violent."
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
My wife absolutely hates politics. Last night she tried to watch the debate but was very quickly and completely put off by Biden's giggling, interruptions and his excrement eating grins.
quote:It appears not in this case, though. It was a major distraction like Al Gore's sighing in one of his debates with Bush the Younger.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:My brother-in-law had the same reaction to Romney in the last debate. It appears that "the other guy's rude" is the way some folks acknowledge that their man got his butt handed to him. It strikes me as bit like saying, "The winning boxer was too violent."
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
My wife absolutely hates politics. Last night she tried to watch the debate but was very quickly and completely put off by Biden's giggling, interruptions and his excrement eating grins.
--Tom Clune
quote:Actually on the first debate it was Romney who was interrupting, sighing and flashing the excrement eating grin if you watched the split screen version. It appears it's a draw on this issue. I don't know if Obama can do those thing as it doesn't appear in his personality. He can get angry and that might appear in the next debate.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It appears not in this case, though. It was a major distraction like Al Gore's sighing in one of his debates with Bush the Younger.
Let's wait until the next debate. If Obama is giggling, interrupting and flashing an excrement eating grin then that will strongly suggest, if not indicate, that the Obama campaign believes such behavior actually helps their cause.
Who knows? Maybe by then the Obama campaign will have something believable to say about their handling of Benghazi.
quote:I saw the first debate and didn't notice Biden-like behavior from Romney. The behavior trait that stood out to me was Obama's inability to look Romney in the eye. Well, here in about 30-45 minutes I'm going to go do something that Obama and I agree on and Romney is just plain wrong about, and that's to have a pint or two of beer.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
Actually on the first debate it was Romney who was interrupting, sighing and flashing the excrement eating grin if you watched the split screen version. It appears it's a draw on this issue. I don't know if Obama can do those thing as it doesn't appear in his personality. He can get angry and that might appear in the next debate.
quote:I'll be happy if he just manages to be conscious this time.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Obama can't afford to get angry. There are too many almost-racists voting for him who would freak at the sight of an angry black man.
quote:Maybe she'll be voting from jail, which could put her in a swing state. I smell a right-wing conspiracy, and folks, I trust my instincts!
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
The endorsement everyone has been waiting for is in!
Mitt could probably have gone without this one. Still, every vote counts, even in blue states (I suspect Lilo is registered, if at all, in either California or her home state of New York.)
quote:About time! Where do I sign up?
Originally posted by tclune:
I smell a right-wing conspiracy, and folks, I trust my instincts!--Tom Clune
quote:It should be noted that the U.S. President is not directly elected by the voters either.
Originally posted by PaulBC:
The US election process makes me glad that our PM, I'm Canadian is not directly elected by the voter. And our elections can be nasty but the US is way beyond nasty .
quote:Since when are we innocent?
Originally posted by PaulBC:
The US election process makes me glad that our PM, I'm Canadian is not directly elected by the voter. And our elections can be nasty but the US is way beyond nasty .
And one wonder what would happen if a genuis , a Jefferson or Lincoln were to arise
could they get the support needed ? I wonder .
Last night's VP debate had a defender Mr, Biden and an attackker who screamed last spring at compromisers but the head of his ticket says that compromise may be needed.
Also I was shocked he took so long to answer
the abortion question. As an RC he has but 1 answer no abortion except to save the mothers life.
quote:Indeed, if the Republicans have their way, it won't involve any real voters at all -- only corporations (which are people, too, of course...)
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It should be noted that the U.S. President is not directly elected by the voters either.
quote:Another one from CBS showed similar results. I think that the VP's performance was aimed at walking the Andrew Sullivans of the world back off the ledge. I didn't have much success with my poll predictions last time, so I will not hazard a guess as to how last night's show will change the polls.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
As for anyone getting their butts kicked last night, it may have been the Oakland A's, much to my disappointment, but neither of the VP candidates:
CNN poll.
quote:The one I saw from CBS was of undecideds, and it tilted Biden 50, Ryan 31 (with 19 undecided). Hardly similar to a 44/48 split.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Another one from CBS showed similar results.
quote:Whoops.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The one I saw from CBS was of undecideds, and it tilted Biden 50, Ryan 31 (with 19 undecided). Hardly similar to a 44/48 split.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Another one from CBS showed similar results.
quote:Point taken: but the Democrats use natural people although they might be dead, illegal, have already voted multiple times, or all of the above.
Originally posted by tclune:
Indeed, if the Republicans have their way, it won't involve any real voters at all -- only corporations (which are people, too, of course...)
--Tom Clune
quote:10 cases in the last 10 years, nation wide. Hardly a standard tactic. And we don't even know that those 10 were skewed toward DNC-- recent efforts would suggest the culprit may lie in the other direction.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Point taken: but the Democrats use natural people although they might be dead, illegal, have already voted multiple times, or all of the above.
Originally posted by tclune:
Indeed, if the Republicans have their way, it won't involve any real voters at all -- only corporations (which are people, too, of course...)
--Tom Clune
quote:Or poor.
Point taken: but the Democrats use natural people although they might be dead, illegal, have already voted multiple times, or all of the above.
quote:Proof?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Point taken: but the Democrats use natural people although they might be dead, illegal, have already voted multiple times, or all of the above.
Originally posted by tclune:
Indeed, if the Republicans have their way, it won't involve any real voters at all -- only corporations (which are people, too, of course...)
--Tom Clune
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I know that name-calling and such is standard American politics. But we don't shoot at each other over politics. At least, we didn't used to.
quote:I'm really iffy about keeping the electoral college. Seems useless, at best.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It should be noted that the U.S. President is not directly elected by the voters either.
quote:Ah, yes. The same people who were practically orgasmic over the ACORN scandal are curiously silent about Strategic Allied Consulting and Nathan Sproul. And the RNC knew he was dirty when they hired him, which is why they asked him to change the name of his firm.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Point taken: but the Democrats use natural people although they might be dead, illegal, have already voted multiple times, or all of the above.
quote:Whatever faults it may have, the electoral college system has the advantage of making it far less contestable who has been legally and officially elected to the office of president. Things got rather dodgy when the Supreme Court got involved in how votes were [re]counted in Florida, but no one contested the legality of the official results of the electoral college. Without the electoral college, things could have stayed officially very messy and left it unclear who had been elected. (And I say this despite the fact that I was very much in favor of the other guy (the "ex-future-president" guy) winning over the guy who did eventually win.)
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:I'm really iffy about keeping the electoral college. Seems useless, at best.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It should be noted that the U.S. President is not directly elected by the voters either.
quote:The primary use of the electoral college has always been to weight the relative voices of the states. It is considerably less offensive than directly saying that an Alaskan's vote will count as three times that of a Californian's, for example.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I'm really iffy about keeping the electoral college. Seems useless, at best.
quote:Doing away with the electoral college would be a great way to further divide the country and might even cause armed rebellion under the theory of "bust a deal, face the wheel".
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:The primary use of the electoral college has always been to weight the relative voices of the states. It is considerably less offensive than directly saying that an Alaskan's vote will count as three times that of a Californian's, for example.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I'm really iffy about keeping the electoral college. Seems useless, at best.
--Tom Clune
quote:I agree. May He have mercy.
Originally posted by Josephine:
I know that name-calling and such is standard American politics. But we don't shoot at each other over politics. At least, we didn't used to.
May God have mercy on our country.
quote:I'd put $5 on it being done by an Obama supporter trying to drum up some sympathy for the cause.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Why would anyone think that this would help their cause?
quote:I beg to differ:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:I agree. May He have mercy.
Originally posted by Josephine:
I know that name-calling and such is standard American politics. But we don't shoot at each other over politics. At least, we didn't used to.
May God have mercy on our country.
Why would anyone think that this would help their cause?
quote:Given that Al Gore had about half a million more votes nationally than George W. Bush, the only thing that would have been unclear in 2000 without the electoral college was who won the majority of votes in the state of Florida, something that, at best, would have been of interest only to regional political historians.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Whatever faults it may have, the electoral college system has the advantage of making it far less contestable who has been legally and officially elected to the office of president. Things got rather dodgy when the Supreme Court got involved in how votes were [re]counted in Florida, but no one contested the legality of the official results of the electoral college. Without the electoral college, things could have stayed officially very messy and left it unclear who had been elected. (And I say this despite the fact that I was very much in favor of the other guy (the "ex-future-president" guy) winning over the guy who did eventually win.)
quote:Not true! The original purpose of the electoral college was to inflate the influence of the slaveholding states in the selection of the president. A president elected by popular vote would not count non-voting slaves. On the other hand weighting the states according to the size of their Congressional delegations counted each slave as three-fifths of a vote (though that vote was obviously cast by someone else).
Originally posted by tclune:
The primary use of the electoral college has always been to weight the relative voices of the states.
quote:Ah, but this time we'd know enough to let the rebels go...
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Doing away with the electoral college would be a great way to further divide the country and might even cause armed rebellion under the theory of "bust a deal, face the wheel".
quote:In this case it would be those advocating doing away with the electoral college that would be the rebels. But if Massachusetts wants out, I figure that's your business. Who am I to tell someone in your state what's best for them and vice versa?
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Ah, but this time we'd know enough to let the rebels go...
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Doing away with the electoral college would be a great way to further divide the country and might even cause armed rebellion under the theory of "bust a deal, face the wheel".
--Tom Clune
quote:No.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Is it reasonable for Congress to overrule the individual states in how they allocate electoral College votes?
quote:Becuase proposing a constitutional amendment is rebellion?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
In this case it would be those advocating doing away with the electoral college that would be the rebels.
quote:To the same extent assuming those that want to keep it are in rebellion, yes.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Becuase proposing a constitutional amendment is rebellion?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
In this case it would be those advocating doing away with the electoral college that would be the rebels.
quote:Without passing any personal judgement on the personal motivation for making the above comment, on its surface at least it comes across as a pathetically cynical statement.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:I'd put $5 on it being done by an Obama supporter trying to drum up some sympathy for the cause.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Why would anyone think that this would help their cause?
quote:Normally, in the realm of politics, one is either cynical or gullible, istm.
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:Without passing any personal judgement on the personal motivation for making the above comment, on its surface at least it comes across as a pathetically cynical statement.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:I'd put $5 on it being done by an Obama supporter trying to drum up some sympathy for the cause.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Why would anyone think that this would help their cause?
quote:Yes, I'm sure it is anti-Obama rage that is driving the high number of murders in Chicago.
(And, btw, while anything is theoretically possible, it is the Obama haters who are the ones so in love with guns.)
quote:Arguments along the lines of "my statement is just as true as this other ludicrous position" seem rather weak - particularly when nobody's taken that other position.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:To the same extent assuming those that want to keep it are in rebellion, yes.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Becuase proposing a constitutional amendment is rebellion?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
In this case it would be those advocating doing away with the electoral college that would be the rebels.
quote:There's a movement to make the electoral college reflect the national popular vote.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[Doing away with the electoral college would be a great way to further divide the country and might even cause armed rebellion under the theory of "bust a deal, face the wheel". [/QB]
quote:That's why I threw in the "to the same extent" part. I'm no more a rebel for wanting to keep part of the constitution than is someone suggesting an amendment.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Arguments along the lines of "my statement is just as true as this other ludicrous position" seem rather weak - particularly when nobody's taken that other position.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:To the same extent assuming those that want to keep it are in rebellion, yes.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Becuase proposing a constitutional amendment is rebellion?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
In this case it would be those advocating doing away with the electoral college that would be the rebels.
quote:It appears to be saying that if Candidate A gets a majority of the nation's vote then my state's electoral votes goes to Candidate A even if the majority of the people in my state voted for Candidate B. That would be a problem.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:There's a movement to make the electoral college reflect the national popular vote.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[Doing away with the electoral college would be a great way to further divide the country and might even cause armed rebellion under the theory of "bust a deal, face the wheel".
It's done with state legislation and is about halfway there. Hardly a revolution. [/QB]
quote:It's problematic from the standpoint of democracy, but then so is the electoral college itself. It's not problematic on Constitutional grounds. Remember that for the first couple presidential elections the presidential electors were chosen by the state legislatures, not by popular ballot.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:It appears to be saying that if Candidate A gets a majority of the nation's vote then my state's electoral votes goes to Candidate A even if the majority of the people in my state voted for Candidate B. That would be a problem.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
]There's a movement to make the electoral college reflect the national popular vote.
It's done with state legislation and is about halfway there. Hardly a revolution.
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Normally, in the realm of politics, one is either cynical or gullible, istm.
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:Without passing any personal judgement on the personal motivation for making the above comment, on its surface at least it comes across as a pathetically cynical statement.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:I'd put $5 on it being done by an Obama supporter trying to drum up some sympathy for the cause.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Why would anyone think that this would help their cause?
quote:I hope this isn't too subtle a concept, but gun violence of the type exhibited in Chicago is generally not politically motivated whereas politically-motivated gun violence is generally found on the extreme right, such as the militia and survivalist yahoos found prowling the wilds of Idaho, upper Michigan and the mountains of western North Carolina.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:[/QB]
Originally posted by malik3000:quote:Yes, I'm sure it is anti-Obama rage that is driving the high number of murders in Chicago. [/QB]
(And, btw, while anything is theoretically possible, it is the Obama haters who are the ones so in love with guns.)
quote:I think W Hyatt makes a good point about the electoral college system making voting results less contestable. I have been of the opinion, for quite a while, that rather than abolishing the electoral college, simply make it a requirement that the electoral college votes of all the states be apportioned by individual congressional district as is the case in Maine. It would still give a bit of an advantage to the smaller states but not nearly as much. (*And see note below) And it would end the unfortunate system where the election is an actual contest in just a few "swing states".
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
quote:Whatever faults it may have, the electoral college system has the advantage of making it far less contestable who has been legally and officially elected to the office of president. Things got rather dodgy when the Supreme Court got involved in how votes were [re]counted in Florida, but no one contested the legality of the official results of the electoral college. Without the electoral college, things could have stayed officially very messy and left it unclear who had been elected. (And I say this despite the fact that I was very much in favor of the other guy (the "ex-future-president" guy) winning over the guy who did eventually win.)
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:I'm really iffy about keeping the electoral college. Seems useless, at best.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It should be noted that the U.S. President is not directly elected by the voters either.
quote:You're gettting into constitutional ammendmendments that take away states rights by federal mandate. These are always controversial.
Originally posted by malik3000:
Whatever faults it may have, the I think W Hyatt makes a good point about the electoral college system making voting results less contestable. I have been of the opinion, for quite a while, that rather than abolishing the electoral college, simply make it a requirement that the electoral college votes of all the states be apportioned by individual congressional district as is the case in Maine. It would still give a bit of an advantage to the smaller states but not nearly as much. (*And see note below) And it would end the unfortunate system where the election is an actual contest in just a few "swing states".
*Since the number of electoral votes per state is determined by its number of the states members in the US House of Representatives plus its federal senators (always 2 of course), If one wanted to the give even more equity between less-populated states and more populated states, the number of electoral votes could be based solely on the number of the states members of the US House of Representatives [/QB]
) quote:This happens all the time. I've lived in very liberal congressional districts whose electoral vote vote can be swamped by the larger state vote totals.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[It appears to be saying that if Candidate A gets a majority of the nation's vote then my state's electoral votes goes to Candidate A even if the majority of the people in my state voted for Candidate B. That would be a problem. [/QB]
quote:There's always the theory that a small elite should pick the government rather than the majority that happen to live in the major population centers. However that's an anti-democratic view.
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
Living where I do, I have occasion to pay attention to Canadian electoral practices. One thing that is seen from my perspective is that, while choosing the member of Parliament from your riding is always important, even residents of cities like Winnepeg, Regina, Calgary, and Edmonton have little affect on who becomes prime minister. Basically, it is a portion of Ontario and Quebec that determines who the prime minister will be, because that is the largest concentration of population is in Canada.
Don't think for a minute that Obama or Romney would campaign much in Colorado, Iowa, or Wisconsin if it wasn't for the Electoral College. By skewing the power slightly to the states with smaller population, we elect a President of the United States.
Otherwise, we would like the President of New York-Boston-Philadelphia, Florida, Dallas-Houzton-Austin, greater Chicago, and Los Angeles-San Francisco. Everyone else would understand how it feels to live in Washington State, which is solidly Obama this time.
Making the candidates get outside the major population centers is a good thing, no matter the reason or reasons why we got the Electoral College.
quote:The decision is not limited to the battleground states in theory, but in practice it is because the state bucketing of electors makes any vote less than a majority worthless.
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
The decision is not limited to the battleground states. That is where your analogy fails.
Washington State voters still vote, and our electors still cast their ballot. Unlike Colorado, though, are results are pretty well accepted. If we were to become up for grabs, Obama would be here post haste.
You don't waste bait for fish you have in the boat.
). There have been some very successful province-only partied besides the PQ/BQ. This is good for provincial affairs, but not good for affecting a national policy, per se. (Tommy Douglas was good at translating a provincial issue into a national matter, but is not typical.)quote:A fellow radical from Oklahoma when I was living in Boston commented that even the most left Oklahoma politician was to the right of the most conservative Republican Massachusetts politician. In the past Democrat in Boston and Georgia did not mean the same thing. Republican in Rhode Island and Texas were completely different. The only thing stitching these coalitions together was the Congress "winner take all" two party system.
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
Remember that most states are not red or blue; they are purple.
Washington State is leaning Obama for president, but could tilt Republican for governor.
Wisconsin is leaning Obama, in spite of Scott Walker and Paul Ryan.
Massachusetts has Obama 30 points ahead, but Warren is having to fight for Kennedy's old Senate seat.
The current system, with its flaws, is a system with a structure that reaches from the county (or city) to the national level. The national parties are reminded regularly not to go too far afield, so not to make it impossible for Montana to have a Democrat as governor as well as Massachusetts.
Split the connection to the states and you will no longer have truly national parties. The parties that elect the president won't care about having a party that plays in the smaller states, as they don't have the major population centers.
You find this disconnect in Canada now. A provincial Liberal in Quebec is someone not in the NDP or PQ. A provincial Liberal in BC is not Green, Conservative, or NDP (or Social Credit
This connection we have in the US works both ways. There are certain civil rights issues that are pushed down to all the states because we have national parties. It may not happen fast enough for some, but at least it increases the dialog.
There is more at stake than how we elect a President here.
quote:And Scalia wrote, in Bush v. Gore that there is no individual right to vote for the president--state legislatures can come up with any system they like to decide how electoral votes will be cast.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:It's problematic from the standpoint of democracy, but then so is the electoral college itself. It's not problematic on Constitutional grounds. Remember that for the first couple presidential elections the presidential electors were chosen by the state legislatures, not by popular ballot.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:It appears to be saying that if Candidate A gets a majority of the nation's vote then my state's electoral votes goes to Candidate A even if the majority of the people in my state voted for Candidate B. That would be a problem.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
]There's a movement to make the electoral college reflect the national popular vote.
It's done with state legislation and is about halfway there. Hardly a revolution.
quote:You have a much smaller population and only 10 provinces with 3 territories. Your third largest city, Vancouver, has about the same number of people as live in Seattle.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Bede, my friend, welcome back, but please leave Canada out of this.
Federal/Provincial infighting is a highly developed art in Canada. For various reasons, it almost has to happen, given the way the Canadian Constitution works in practice.
quote:Evidently, ymv, but "corporate types" have to earn my business, can't put me in jail, can't send me or my children off to war, can't have me killed, can't exempt themselves from laws they burden me with, don't have to give their permission to be sued, etc. I find the gullible folks to be those who trust politicians more than corporate types.
Originally posted by malik3000:
Could anyone be more cynical than the corporate types for whom financial profit is the overiding consideration, regardless of the human cost, and could any be more gullible than the poor suckers who fail to see this?
quote:Please provide me a summary of politically motivated gun violence, including body count, that has occurred in WNC during the past, say, thirty years?
politically-motivated gun violence is generally found on the extreme right, such as the militia and survivalist yahoos found prowling the wilds of Idaho, upper Michigan and the mountains of western North Carolina.
quote:Some may have thought that about the Democrat party after the 1980 and 1984 elections, too. Parties change in order to get the 50.0001% they need in order to gain power to have their turn at proving to be a big disappointment.
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
The US can't afford a system that doesn't drive towards a nationwide focus. Our problems now are more based on the Republicans becoming a regional party.
quote:It is a legitimate concern for someone to have that their business may get hurt if Obama wins again. There may be companies out their that fear what would happen to them if Obama loses. But I don't see any of this as a problem but a symptom.
Originally posted by Josephine:
So another CEO says he's going to fire everyone if Obama wins. Is this legal?
quote:Sure, but is this any more or less legitimate than a priest or minister threatening eternal damnation to those who vote the wrong way?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:It is a legitimate concern for someone to have that their business may get hurt if Obama wins again. There may be companies out their that fear what would happen to them if Obama loses. But I don't see any of this as a problem but a symptom.
Originally posted by Josephine:
So another CEO says he's going to fire everyone if Obama wins. Is this legal?
quote:If expressing a legitimate concern is fear mongering, then, no, it doesn't bother me.
Originally posted by mousethief:
So fear-mongering doesn't bother you? Typical.
quote:It is more legitimate because the CEO would have more of a clue about his business than a priest or minister would have about politics.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Sure, but is this any more or less legitimate than a priest or minister threatening eternal damnation to those who vote the wrong way?
quote:Expressing a legitimate concern to your employees, when you have every expectation that it will upset them needlessly, and could be taken as a threat that they need to vote Republican? Come on.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:If expressing a legitimate concern is fear mongering, then, no, it doesn't bother me.
Originally posted by mousethief:
So fear-mongering doesn't bother you? Typical.
quote:I don't know the guy's business but it does appear to be a general concern of many and maybe most businesses that Obama being elected again would be bad for business. He's not going to know how his employees vote. But he's fear mongering? Take away fear mongering and what you have left is a bunch of politicians with nothing much to say.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Expressing a legitimate concern to your employees, when you have every expectation that it will upset them needlessly, and could be taken as a threat that they need to vote Republican? Come on.
quote:I can't believe that most business owners or managers are that stupid.I'm sure there are a few that are. But if you look at the numbers, Obama has been great for business! Corporate profits are way, way up. CEO pay is up. Businesses are doing fabulously well under Obama.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I don't know the guy's business but it does appear to be a general concern of many and maybe most businesses that Obama being elected again would be bad for business.
quote:I for one would like to see that idea teased out a bit more.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:I don't know the guy's business but it does appear to be a general concern of many and maybe most businesses that Obama being elected again would be bad for business....
Originally posted by mousethief:
Expressing a legitimate concern to your employees, when you have every expectation that it will upset them needlessly, and could be taken as a threat that they need to vote Republican? Come on.
quote:Wait, so he's not fear mongering because politicians fear-monger? WTF?
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:I don't know the guy's business but it does appear to be a general concern of many and maybe most businesses that Obama being elected again would be bad for business. He's not going to know how his employees vote. But he's fear mongering? Take away fear mongering and what you have left is a bunch of politicians with nothing much to say.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Expressing a legitimate concern to your employees, when you have every expectation that it will upset them needlessly, and could be taken as a threat that they need to vote Republican? Come on.
quote:If that had any glimmer of truth to it, I would be enthusiastic about voting for Obama. As it is, he's just a tad less foul than Romney.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Mere Nick may have a point. The upper class may have a legitimate fear of losing their illegitimate power.
quote:It's quite stupid of them to squeeze people so hard, really, as the economic situation that benefits them so much isn't sustainable, and if/when it all falls apart, they will suffer. Not enough, not as much as the poor souls who are already laboring in increasingly unfair circumstances, but still, they will suffer.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The upper class may have a legitimate fear of losing their illegitimate power.
quote:I suspect the CEO's concern has nothing whatsoever to do with staying in business-- as was noted above, corporate profits are way up, as is CEO compensation.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:I for one would like to see that idea teased out a bit more.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:I don't know the guy's business but it does appear to be a general concern of many and maybe most businesses that Obama being elected again would be bad for business....
Originally posted by mousethief:
Expressing a legitimate concern to your employees, when you have every expectation that it will upset them needlessly, and could be taken as a threat that they need to vote Republican? Come on.
Business as in Wall Street financial types?
Business as in large corporations with more then 1000 employees?
Small business?
Entrepreneurs?
To say "most" would seem a bit hyperbolic.
quote:Gaining political power is one way to gain courage. Another is losing everything, so that you have nothing left to lose-- and therefore nothing left to fear losing. The working class in the US is pretty much there already.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Bringing up a Canadian example, I can remember Jean Chretien describing how his father had been denied communion by the local priest for having been a Liberal Party organiser, at the time that the proto-Fascist Union Nationale was in power.
The event that broke the people of Quebec free from the RC church was the coming to power of the Liberals in the Quiet Revolution of 1960, so the Union Nationale and the church did have something to fear.
I see the strikes against WalMart as the beginning of the change of attitude in the US. Once the workers lose their fear, the dam breaks. Mere Nick may have a point. The upper class may have a legitimate fear of losing their illegitimate power.
quote:There's also what I consider to be the real reason the wealthy are so opposed to "Obamacare". Under current law there is no tax levied on capital gains to support Medicare. Starting in 2013 income derived from investments will be taxed to support Medicare, as is currently the case for income derived from wages. If there's anything the American upper class is morally certain of, it's that investment income should be tax free, hence their completely out of proportion rage at the idea of poor people receiving medical care.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I suspect the real fear that's keeping the guy up at night is the prospect of losing his always-supposed-to-be-temporary Bush tax cut. He'll have to pay somewhat more individual taxes if Obama is able to get Congress to allow that to lapse for the wealthy than he would under Romney. But that's a lot harder to threaten your employees with.
quote:The various news outlets would have us think so as surprising as that may be.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Is there anyone in the country who is still trying to decide who to support? Is there anyone whose mind could still be changed?
quote:Such a person has been found here in the Asheville area. A local charity has him in a booth and for a buck you can go in and take a look.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:The various news outlets would have us think so as surprising as that may be.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Is there anyone in the country who is still trying to decide who to support? Is there anyone whose mind could still be changed?
quote:That begs the question of the 'voting public'. While 90% of those voting will vote in every election and probably the same way (certainly in a two-horse race), the remaining ten percent actually determine the result and they are the fairly small proportion of those who don't show up for every election, but turn out this time round.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Such a person has been found here in the Asheville area. A local charity has him in a booth and for a buck you can go in and take a look.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:The various news outlets would have us think so as surprising as that may be.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Is there anyone in the country who is still trying to decide who to support? Is there anyone whose mind could still be changed?
Really, though, I suspect 90%+ of the voting public already have their minds made up for not just this election, but every election in the future.
quote:Please.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
How can Americans be uninterested in an election which is, in effect, a referendum on Social Security, universal access to health insurance, a progressive income tax system, AND abortion rights? ... Bumper sticker version: it's a choice between the 19th century and the 21st.
quote:I'm afraid that would include me. But I'll be there, hoping that somehow we can undo this mess. And, New Yorker, all those things SM mentioned bear directly on, and are touted as remedies or responses to economic and job-related issues.
Originally posted by tclune:
I suspect that most of the "undecided" voters are really "unenthusiastic" ones. I can readily imagine being unwilling to say that you're "for" either of these guys. The real question is whether they can muster enough civic responsibility to trudge to the poll and pull the lever for either one.
--Tom Clune
quote:Us 47-percenters don't give a hoot about jobs and the economy. I thought you knew that...
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I tend to think that the majority of Americans, while they may agree with your list of referenda issues, are much more concerned about the economy and jobs. Can't understand why you left those two out.
quote:No matter who is elected, the economy will still be bad. Even Romney has admitted he won't be able to fix the economy in 4 years and some of us doubt going back to the Bush era policies will bring anything back at all. With respect to the issues of Social Security, universal access to health care, progressive income tax, etc. who is elected will make a huge difference. It's why I won't be doing my 3rd party vote this year, there is too much to lose.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Please.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
How can Americans be uninterested in an election which is, in effect, a referendum on Social Security, universal access to health insurance, a progressive income tax system, AND abortion rights? ... Bumper sticker version: it's a choice between the 19th century and the 21st.
I tend to think that the majority of Americans, while they may agree with your list of referenda issues, are much more concerned about the economy and jobs. Can't understand why you left those two out.
quote:That describes me. For the first time ever I skipped voting in the primary and was intending to skip the general election as well. I feel both candidates are incompetent fools and the entire election process simply bread and circuses for the chattering class. Unfortunately my son has been asking questions about the election after seeing lawn signs as we walk to school. So I'll have to show him what a responsible citizen looks like though I probably will not cast a vote for president. I'll let him earn his cynicism the hard way.
Originally posted by tclune:
I suspect that most of the "undecided" voters are really "unenthusiastic" ones. I can readily imagine being unwilling to say that you're "for" either of these guys. The real question is whether they can muster enough civic responsibility to trudge to the poll and pull the lever for either one.
--Tom Clune
quote:He has said he will. But I suppose you're right; he's hardly trustworthy and keeps changing his mind and contradicting himself (and his handlers) on a daily basis.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
So you think Romeny will end Social Security,
quote:Who mentioned either of those possibilities? Non sequitur. Try to stick to what people are actually saying. Makes the convo go smoother; makes your posts more serious-takeable.
ban health care and eliminate the income tax?
quote:It's not a matter of thinking; it's a matter of listening. The stated Romney-Ryan positions are: ban abortion; privatize Social Security; repeal the Affordable Care Act; and lower taxes on high-income earners. These are not secrets or mysteries. How far a Romney-Ryan administration would be able to progress (or regress, depending on how you look at it) on these fronts is a matter of speculation, and partly depends on Congress and SCOTUS, but that doesn't change their stated goals.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
So you think Romeny will end Social Security, ban health care and eliminate the income tax?
quote:I don't think it's that they've lost momentum, but that Obama threw the momentum away. I think the debate highlighted a significant undertone that has largely gone unnoticed before that -- Romney is the quintessential over-achiever, and Obama is the ultimate slacker who has gifts and potential up the wazoo but steadfastly refuses to live up to them. When the going gets rough, Romney digs deeper: when the going gets easy, Obama goes home. That's a real problem for POTUS.
Originally posted by moron:
ISTM the fact they've lost momentum is coming home.
quote:Would that that were true!
ban abortion
quote:That is not Romney's position. See here.
privatize Social Security
quote:Damn right! See here.
repeal the Affordable Care Act
quote:Actually he wants to lower taxes for everyone. See here.
lower taxes on high-income earners
quote:Sorry for the double post, but I can't resist: Eastwood's empty chair was more accurate than many thought.
Originally posted by tclune:
Obama is the ultimate slacker who has gifts and potential up the wazoo but steadfastly refuses to live up to them. When the going gets rough, Romney digs deeper: when the going gets easy, Obama goes home. That's a real problem for POTUS.
quote:Well, it's not his position today. Four years ago he was gung ho for the idea. And someone should really take Paul Ryan aside and explain this to him.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:That is not Romney's position. See here.
privatize Social Security
quote:Because what could be more terrible or tyrannical than the kind of system Mitt Romney instituted in Massachusetts?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Damn right! See here.
repeal the Affordable Care Act
quote:Haven't we done this "cut everyone's taxes, increase spending (especially on the military), and the deficit will shrink" tango before? You'd think the fact that this never works would cause some people to feel shame when suggesting it, but I guess Romney has no capacity for that particular emotional state.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Actually he wants to lower taxes for everyone. See here.
lower taxes on high-income earners
quote:Somebody needs to create a Bullshit Bingo game for the debate.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Well, it has come to this.
They are pre-fact checking the debate tonight.
These guys are so boring and predictable that we can know what lies they will tell before they even step on stage.
quote:I agree. Hicup!
Originally posted by RuthW:
Sure, but don't make it a drinking game -- I can't afford to get that drunk on a Tuesday night.
quote:Consider it a synthesis of his Catholicism and his Randian Objectivism. His Catholic side urges him to be charitable, but the Randroid in him says that charity is morally evil. So he engages in "charity" that actually helps no one (except himself in photo ops). The perfect synthesis!
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
Now Ryan has been caught faking charity work. A good catholic boy should have known better.
quote:Nope, no racist sterotypes to see here. Move along.
Originally posted by tclune:
... Obama threw the momentum away. ... Obama is the ultimate slacker who has gifts and potential up the wazoo but steadfastly refuses to live up to them. ... when the going gets easy, Obama goes home. ...
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Nope, no racist sterotypes to see here. Move along.
quote:It's along the lines of someone from fairly humble beginnings, who has had to work hard at every stage (e.g. president of Harvard Law Review) being described a shiftless layabout squandering his potential, while a governor's son who was also born the heir to incredible wealth is described as an "over-achiever" who "digs deeper".
Originally posted by RuthW:
If there's a stereotype there -- and I'm kind of squinting to see it -- it's a generational one.
quote:Right. That's the only explanation. It couldn't possibly be noting that Obama just plain zoned out at the pivotal point in his campaign. It just has to be racism. Give me a break.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm sure the fact that these opposite-land portrayals just so happen to fit some very old and ugly stereotypes is purely coincidental.
quote:Are there any?
Originally posted by Porridge:
... yet I haven't seen any ads from the Obama side touting some of the actual accomplishments made possible by the stimulus...
quote:*SHAKES HEAD*
If you are not able to raise the baby, then give birth to it and put it up for adoption, don’t deny him or her her second amendment rights.
quote:A particularly unfelicitous phrase from Romney, given the question about the feminine wage gap . . .
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Binders of women . . .
quote:Yes, or at least probably. It would have worked better if it had been bigger.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Are there any?
Originally posted by Porridge:
... yet I haven't seen any ads from the Obama side touting some of the actual accomplishments made possible by the stimulus...
quote:If it seems that way to you, maybe that's because Romney has to fight for the time to get his points across! In all three debates Obama/Biden were given more time than Romney/Ryan.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
He has no respect for anyone. Incredibly rude to both the moderator and the President, interrupting both and trying to run roughshod over both.
quote:Same here. His condescending attitude to Candy Crowley added to the blatant tokenism of his "binders of women" story, made it clear to me that he still thinks women are less than men.
Romney made me genuinely fear a backwards march.
quote:Speaking of fact-checking: there were no such rules. What there was was a memorandum of understanding signed by the two campaigns -- but not by Crowley. Both campaigns worried that she would -- as she said she would -- do just this sort of thing, and both were afraid that it would hurt their attempts at distorting the facts.
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
And, not so by the way, Candy Crowley blatantly cheated and violated debate rules with her little (incorrect) fact check.
quote:Oh please, in the first debate Romney ran roughshod over Lehrer and he probably got more time than Obama in the first debate. Obama wasn't all there in that first debate and passively sat there while Romney ran with it and it was Romney, not Obama who was rude and Romney who did all the interrupting and Romney won the first debate. Frankly, I was glad to see Obama returning some of that tonight. Why is it the GOP always blames someone else when a debate doesn't go there way. The Democrats blamed their candidate for the loss of the first debate. GOP needs to suck it up, admit their candidate blew it and talk to their candidate like the Dems did.
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
quote:If it seems that way to you, maybe that's because Romney has to fight for the time to get his points across! In all three debates Obama/Biden were given more time than Romney/Ryan.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
He has no respect for anyone. Incredibly rude to both the moderator and the President, interrupting both and trying to run roughshod over both.
And Obama was more rude and interrupting.
And, not so by the way, Candy Crowley blatantly cheated and violated debate rules with her little (incorrect) fact check. There is absolutely no excuse for that. Candidates are to debate the facts, not the moderator.
quote:After a few days of blaming Jim Lehrer, the altitude, and Romney for doing what any basically competent campaign adviser knew he would do.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
The Democrats blamed their candidate for the loss of the first debate.
quote:I don't read blatantly Democrat websites, but what I saw in the press - multiple sources - was the Democrats blaming their candidate. And rightly so. In this debate Romney is the one to blame for the loss of the debate due to a number of errors, but I haven't seen the GOP acknowledge any. When I saw accusation of bias which didn't last was the Biden/Ryan debate. I didn't see that debate so can't comment on either sides viewpoint of that debate.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:After a few days of blaming Jim Lehrer, the altitude, and Romney for doing what any basically competent campaign adviser knew he would do.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
The Democrats blamed their candidate for the loss of the first debate.
quote:I don't think that anybody, left or right, expected Romney to so dramatically and instantaneously pivot toward the middle after having worked so long and hard to establish himself as a "severe" conservative. Certainly, it should have been easy to puncture. Obama simply refused to engage anything that was happening on-stage during the first debate. But Romney's strategy really was a surprise. Or so ISTM.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:After a few days of blaming Jim Lehrer, the altitude, and Romney for doing what any basically competent campaign adviser knew he would do.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
The Democrats blamed their candidate for the loss of the first debate.
quote:Did you not read what I said? I'm not sure how anybody who read what I said could possibly ask this question. I am assuming you're not being passive-aggressive, because it would be rude of me to assume that.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
So the Debate wasn't after the convention?
quote:That in itself doesn't really tell us anything, any more than the fact that a sports team drew more penalties than their opponents is proof of crooked officiating. A reasonable case could be made that Romney's terrier-like insistence at always getting the last word was at the root of the discrepancy.
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
And here's more: last night Candy Crowley interrupted Romney 28 times. How many times did she interrupted Obama? 9.
quote:Agreed
Originally posted by mousethief:
We were told Romney was going to etch-a-sketch after the convention.
quote:The minute the convention ended? No. Eventually, and after the convention? Yes. Semantics.
Originally posted by mousethief:
That didn't happen.
quote:A few hours of preparation for a move that most candidates take in the general election. That’s all it would have taken.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Romney and his advisers have lied so many times I don't think it's unreasonable for people to have thought that was just another lie, especially as the weeks progressed and it didn't come true. Anybody who takes anything Romney or his advisers say at face value is setting himself up to be played for a chump.
quote:Not semantics. Timing.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Agreed
Originally posted by mousethief:
We were told Romney was going to etch-a-sketch after the convention.
quote:The minute the convention ended? No. Eventually, and after the convention? Yes. Semantics.
Originally posted by mousethief:
That didn't happen.
quote:Ah, so you admit you're playing with words. I was expecting a serious conversation.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Agreed
Originally posted by mousethief:
We were told Romney was going to etch-a-sketch after the convention.
quote:The minute the convention ended? No. Eventually, and after the convention? Yes. Semantics.
Originally posted by mousethief:
That didn't happen.
quote:Must.Not.Bite.
Originally posted by tclune:
absolutely everyone was about to put a fork in Romney before the first debate.
quote:John Kerry lost the election because he was a "flip flopper" who was before something before he was against it. I've never seen a reversal of so many positions as Romney has done. Some candidates do a bit of a shift, but don't virtually deny just about every position they took in the primaries from immigration, to tax reform to abortion and birth control. I call that lying and I don't trust a politician who really does do a virtual "etch-a-sketch".
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
A few hours of preparation for a move that most candidates take in the general election. That’s all it would have taken.
“Look, Mr. President, in the past, campaigns have generally shifted to the middle for the general campaign. In fact, this campaign has directly told us that they will do this. They have not yet, and they might not. But there is a possibility that the ‘etch-a-sketch’ line wasn’t just a gift they gave our campaign, but their actual plan. So just in case he does what most candidates do and what his campaign said it would do, you might want to prepare these points contrasting his old position with his likely new position.”
That seems like a reasonably prudent step to take. Which is why I suspect that it happened. To not do that would qualify you as a chump. And Obama’s campaign isn’t made up of chumps.
quote:Romney has taken flip flopping to a whole new level and it not only has not hurt him, it has helped him big time in that his flop is to a middle of the road, reasonable guy. People were afraid of him because he seemed to be too much of a right-wing extremist based on his platform to gain the nomination. Of course he had trouble securing the nomination because the real right-wing extremists did not believe his flip to their positions. What it says about the American people is that we expect our politicians to lie to us and we try to discern what they are really about. The first debate suggested that yes, Romney is a lying politician, but, hey, "lying polician" is a redundant term and I am believing that he is actually a moderate, middle of the road kind of guy. He could not do that switch at the convention because, as previously suggested, there were too many right wing extremists in the hall and their expressions of displeasure would look bad on national television. But to get elected he has boldly flopped because he knows the right wing extremists will hold their nose and vote for him anyway because they don't want Obama elected and the american people are not ready to elect a right wing extremist to the presidency.
John Kerry lost the election because he was a "flip flopper" who was before something before he was against it. I've never seen a reversal of so many positions as Romney has done. Some candidates do a bit of a shift, but don't virtually deny just about every position they took in the primaries from immigration, to tax reform to abortion and birth control. I call that lying and I don't trust a politician who really does do a virtual "etch-a-sketch".
quote:Personally, I think Romney will want re-election so bad that he will play to the extremist right wingers that he needs to gain that. And that is what really scares me. In that event I can only hope the Dems grow a spine and block the extreme measures Paul Ryan put forth in his budget and hold the line on health care for all Americans and that they ensure Romney is a one term president in the event he goes back to the extreme right. Perhaps in 2016 we can get responsible Dems and GOP in Congress and the WH who actually care more about the country as a whole than their own extreme ideologies and power. Who am I kidding?
Originally posted by Lawrence:
So assumes Romney wins. What does he do? What is his mandate from the people? He is sparse on specifics, will have perhaps only control of one house of congress (full of his own right wing extremists who will want to hold his feet to the fire) a Senate perhaps controlled by the Democrats who will calling him a lying sack of crap everytime he embraces a non-middle of the road reasonable kind of guy policy, or perhaps a Republican Senate were the Democrats can block his moves beause the Repubs won't have the 60 votes for cloture, and the american people who will either say, see he really is a middle of the road reasonable kind of guy who can't get anything done with his right wing extemist party or wow, he really is a lying sack of crap.
And then the real question: Does Romney actually believe in anything other than the Mormon religion and his own desire to be president or is he some kind of weird chameleon who will be whatever to whoever is in his face at the time?
quote:You are right to be concerned about this, but wrong to limit the concern to Romney. Obama has also steadfastly refused to put forward a vision of what he wants to do and campaign on that. This election is even more disappointing than most, because the candidates have decided that ideas are problems to be avoided rather than the raison d'etre of their candidacies. It is all about them getting a job, not about the American people choosing the kind of country that they want to live in. Or so ISTM.
Originally posted by Lawrence:
So assumes Romney wins. What does he do? What is his mandate from the people?
quote:well, you are correct that gridlock will continue regardless of who is elected. I attended a Capitol Steps performance last Sunday evening and, after an hour and half of them making horrible fun of our politicians, one of them marched around the stage during their last number with a sign saying: "Don't blame us, you elected them". We are getting what we deserve.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:You are right to be concerned about this, but wrong to limit the concern to Romney. Obama has also steadfastly refused to put forward a vision of what he wants to do and campaign on that. This election is even more disappointing than most, because the candidates have decided that ideas are problems to be avoided rather than the raison d'etre of their candidacies. It is all about them getting a job, not about the American people choosing the kind of country that they want to live in. Or so ISTM.
Originally posted by Lawrence:
So assumes Romney wins. What does he do? What is his mandate from the people?
--Tom Clune
quote:Demand a recount with what's coming down the pike, and all.
Originally posted by Lawrence:
So assumes Romney wins. What does he do?
quote:[TANGENT] I love the Capitol Steps. I'll have to go looking again to see if they've updated their material online. They do hit the nail on the head on just about every issue. [/TANGENT]
Originally posted by Lawrence:
well, you are correct that gridlock will continue regardless of who is elected. I attended a Capitol Steps performance last Sunday evening and, after an hour and half of them making horrible fun of our politicians, one of them marched around the stage during their last number with a sign saying: "Don't blame us, you elected them". We are getting what we deserve.
quote:It is their 30th anniversary and their last number used Billy Joel's "We didn't start the fire" to go through 30 years of american politics. The whole show was so good and on point that I didn't know whether to laugh or cry so I decided to laugh so hard that I thought I might throw up.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
quote:[TANGENT] I love the Capitol Steps. I'll have to go looking again to see if they've updated their material online. They do hit the nail on the head on just about every issue. [/TANGENT]
Originally posted by Lawrence:
well, you are correct that gridlock will continue regardless of who is elected. I attended a Capitol Steps performance last Sunday evening and, after an hour and half of them making horrible fun of our politicians, one of them marched around the stage during their last number with a sign saying: "Don't blame us, you elected them". We are getting what we deserve.
quote:Actually someone pointed out recently that actual outright lying by politicians is somewhat of a rarity. Most of what we consider political dishonesty is a politician changing the subject or making ambiguously worded statements that seem to be definite but when actually parsed have multiple possible meanings (or no meaning at all). Actual dishonesty about factual matters is a political rarity usually attempted only because of desperation. And it rarely works out well. "Go ahead and follow me. You'll be bored."
Originally posted by Lawrence:
The first debate suggested that yes, Romney is a lying politician, but, hey, "lying polician" is a redundant term and I am believing that he is actually a moderate, middle of the road kind of guy.
quote:The one thing Romney has been absolutely consistent about (other than his belief that he should be president) is his desire to cut his own taxes (and the taxes of other incredibly wealthy Americans). That's his mandate.
Originally posted by Lawrence:
So assumes Romney wins. What does he do? What is his mandate from the people?
quote:The mega-corporations are dead set against universal health care and willing to let people die because in whatever occurs they want to make sure they can make a profit off it. I think it is utterly immoral and reprehensible that in a developed society people are allowed to be financially wiped out or to die simply because they had the bad luck to have a catastrophic illness. Damn right I am for universal health care for all, such as medicare for all. Just as I am in the case of police services and fire services. Canada is a civilized country, it is not some sort of North Korean prison camp. I don't think government should be all-powerful, but it has its place as does non-governmental activity. The exagerated anti-governmentalism so popular among large segments of the U.S. population is childish, i.e. babyish, i.e. infantile -- true American (i.e. U.S.) exceptionalism in action.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Evidently, ymv, but "corporate types" have to earn my business, can't put me in jail, can't send me or my children off to war, can't have me killed, can't exempt themselves from laws they burden me with, don't have to give their permission to be sued, etc. I find the gullible folks to be those who trust politicians more than corporate types.
Originally posted by malik3000:
Could anyone be more cynical than the corporate types for whom financial profit is the overiding consideration, regardless of the human cost, and could any be more gullible than the poor suckers who fail to see this?
quote:The comment about wilderness areas wasn't addressing a quantitative number. In the case of WNC I was thinking about about the terrorist Olympic bomber
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Please provide me a summary of politically motivated gun violence, including body count, that has occurred in WNC during the past, say, thirty years?
Originally posted by malik3000:
[QUOTE]politically-motivated gun violence is generally found on the extreme right, such as the militia and survivalist yahoos found prowling the wilds of Idaho, upper Michigan and the mountains of western North Carolina.
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... "corporate types" ... can't exempt themselves from laws ...
quote:It finally registered: we're talking about a truly humble guy who has largely managed to put ego behind.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In Romney's case, though, I don't think he's desperate, I just think he simply has no shame.
quote:Six things wrong with Mitt Romney's binders, and why they are important:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Binders of women is going to be the Big Bird of this debate....a meme that only goes so far. ...
quote:No shame = no morals in going after what he wants. If that's what floats your boat... But it definitely doesn't bode well for the country.
Originally posted by moron:
quote:It finally registered: we're talking about a truly humble guy who has largely managed to put ego behind.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In Romney's case, though, I don't think he's desperate, I just think he simply has no shame.
I might vote for him yet.
quote:It's worse than that. Every budget he has sent to Congress has been rejected almost unanimously (which, obviously, includes most of his own party). When he does put forward a vision NO ONE wants it!
Originally posted by tclune:
Obama has also steadfastly refused to put forward a vision of what he wants to do and campaign on that.
quote:Don't you get tired of people asking for proof?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
As far as women and binders: why are women paid less than men in Obama's White House? Why do they talk about it being a hostile work environment?
(Immigration dept.)) on them. But a lot of past politicians turned out to have undocumented household help.
quote:That would be interesting, but irrelevant. Obama was presenting himself as the champion of equal pay in the last debate. It's his payroll that should be interested.
Originally posted by Josephine:
I'd like to see the same analysis done for the Bush White House.
quote:I just want to point out what an idiotic notion this is. In my field, it is routine for the same person to be offered an equivalent job for half as much at one company as at another. Worse, the amount that you are offered at a given company is usually based on what you made at your last job, so it is quite possible for the same job to have a huge range of possible salaries without any reference to gender.
Originally posted by Josephine:
On the other hand, there's no indication that the pay differential is a result of women being paid less for the same job as men.
quote:I thought Romney got in a couple of good ones, but some other ones were edgy bordering on beyond-the-pale insulting. And his screamingly obvious pandering to the RCC concerning abortion and birth control were painful. Obama relied far too heavily on blowing-his-own-horn "jokes" that weren't all that funny.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
On another note: anyone see the two at the Al Smith dinner? Both Obama and Romney were pretty good.
quote:The first job offer I got when I left college was at an engineering company. They offered me $10,000. Given that the only writers I knew at the time were journalists, and given what journalists made, that wasn't awful. I took it.
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think the point is that in the same company men and women should not be receiving different salaries for doing the same work. As used to routinely be the case.
quote:Did you read my post? Two men are offered wildly different salaries for what amounts to the same job at companies where I work. The primary determinant of what you make is what you made at your last job.
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think the point is that in the same company men and women should not be receiving different salaries for doing the same work. As used to routinely be the case.
quote:It seems odd to me for your pay to be pegged to what your last job paid, although I recognize that it often happesn due to competition. The end result, though, is you end up disincentivizing company loyalty-- someone who has been with the company for many years will make less because they have no "old salary" to negotiate an increase, someone who hops from company to company is able to leverage higher & higher pay.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:I just want to point out what an idiotic notion this is. In my field, it is routine for the same person to be offered an equivalent job for half as much at one company as at another. Worse, the amount that you are offered at a given company is usually based on what you made at your last job, so it is quite possible for the same job to have a huge range of possible salaries without any reference to gender.
Originally posted by Josephine:
On the other hand, there's no indication that the pay differential is a result of women being paid less for the same job as men.
The problem I have with "equal pay for equal work" is that it makes no sense, gvien how people are actually paid. Should there be a national registry of salaries for work, so that this nonsensical notion can be put into law? It may sound good when pandering to "the women vote," but it just doesn't make any sense on examination. Or so ISTM.
--Tom Clune
quote:No, it is a meaningless concept. Jobs don't have an intrinsic value. Consider, for example, all those scummy CEOs who hire "executive pay consultants" to show that they are underpaid. This stuff is complete nonsense. They get paid whatever they can squeeze out of the board of directors. Meanwhile, the guy who sweeps the floor gets paid whatever the minimum wage is. It has to do with leverage, not merit.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Pay equity is, IMHO, an unquestionably good and worthy goal.
quote:Pardon my hubris, but sounds like you didn't read my post other than the one line you wanted to pounce on. Because what you have said here simply illustrates the same point I was making-- that your argument is not re: the worthiness of the goal but rather the difficulty of enforcement.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:No, it is a meaningless concept. Jobs don't have an intrinsic value. Consider, for example, all those scummy CEOs who hire "executive pay consultants" to show that they are underpaid. This stuff is complete nonsense. They get paid whatever they can squeeze out of the board of directors. Meanwhile, the guy who sweeps the floor gets paid whatever the minimum wage is. It has to do with leverage, not merit.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Pay equity is, IMHO, an unquestionably good and worthy goal.
Pay is not tied to anything at all beyond that AFAICS. Merit in the workplace is a chimera, pure and simple. If you think you can use the political system to squeeze more money for yourself out of the system, knock yourself out. But don't expect me to pretend that there is any merit in what you are doing. It is just another power play.
--Tom Clune
quote:No, I am not saying that it is difficult to measure. I am saying that it is a meaningless concept. "Green ideas" aren't difficult to measure -- they are nonsense.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Pardon my hubris, but sounds like you didn't read my post other than the one line you wanted to pounce on. Because what you have said here simply illustrates the same point I was making-- that your argument is not re: the worthiness of the goal but rather the difficulty of enforcement.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think the point is that in the same company men and women should not be receiving different salaries for doing the same work. As used to routinely be the case.
quote:I did read it. It was the use of the plural "companies" that wasn't clear. It made me think you were referring to jobs across different companies rather than within the same company.
Originally posted by tclune:
Did you read my post? Two men are offered wildly different salaries for what amounts to the same job at companies where I work.
quote:Anyhow now that I'm clear about what you're saying I must say that does surprise me. If there are differences in performance then it seems justifiable, and if there are increments related to time spent at the company that can be justified, but having workers following the same job description for different pay with no clear reason seems a recipe for ill feeling and poor morale to me.
Originally posted by tclune:
The primary determinant of what you make is what you made at your last job.... But a good friend of mine who was hired to do exactly the same job at the same company made literally half of what I was making.
quote:It's not a "meaningless concept". I think everyone here can understand what it means, what it would be. Every argument you have presented has been to the difficulty of measurement/ enforcement, not to concept itself. Again, it may be unworkable because of the vague, illusive and/or unreasonable factors that determine pay scale, but that again goes to the concept of feasibility, not desirability.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:No, I am not saying that it is difficult to measure. I am saying that it is a meaningless concept. "Green ideas" aren't difficult to measure -- they are nonsense.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Pardon my hubris, but sounds like you didn't read my post other than the one line you wanted to pounce on. Because what you have said here simply illustrates the same point I was making-- that your argument is not re: the worthiness of the goal but rather the difficulty of enforcement.
--Tom Clune
quote:Such is life on this side of the pond. Large employers and government jobs have "pay levels" that have tight ranges. But virtually all other employers pay what they have to to get the people they are looking for. Pay inequality is the norm, not the exception.
Originally posted by mdijon:
If there are differences in performance then it seems justifiable, and if there are increments related to time spent at the company that can be justified, but having workers following the same job description for different pay with no clear reason seems a recipe for ill feeling and poor morale to me.
quote:You really don't get it. There is nothing intrinsic to spending your day pumping out cess pools that makes the job "worth" less than managing an international company AFAICS. Unless you mean that "equal work" is the same number of hours taken from your life, the notion just doesn't make sense. It isn't a problem of "measurement" or "enforcement" to rank the relative "value" of being a janitor and being a fisherman: it is that the idea is absurd. I really do mean exactly what I say here. You are free to disagree, but I said what I intended to convey.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
]It's not a "meaningless concept". I think everyone here can understand what it means, what it would be. Every argument you have presented has been to the difficulty of measurement/ enforcement, not to concept itself. Again, it may be unworkable because of the vague, illusive and/or unreasonable factors that determine pay scale, but that again goes to the concept of feasibility, not desirability.
quote:Obviously we are going around in circles. But I think you are not reading/following me. I understand you are saying: that pay is often not based on merit or the value of the work, concepts that are central to pay equity. I agree.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:You really don't get it. There is nothing intrinsic to spending your day pumping out cess pools that makes the job "worth" less than managing an international company AFAICS. Unless you mean that "equal work" is the same number of hours taken from your life, the notion just doesn't make sense. It isn't a problem of "measurement" or "enforcement" to rank the relative "value" of being a janitor and being a fisherman: it is that the idea is absurd. I really do mean exactly what I say here. You are free to disagree, but I said what I intended to convey.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
]It's not a "meaningless concept". I think everyone here can understand what it means, what it would be. Every argument you have presented has been to the difficulty of measurement/ enforcement, not to concept itself. Again, it may be unworkable because of the vague, illusive and/or unreasonable factors that determine pay scale, but that again goes to the concept of feasibility, not desirability.
--Tom Clune
quote:My feelings precisely! One of us is
Originally posted by tclune:
I cannot say what I was saying any more plainly than I have. I surrender.
--Tom Clune
quote:But presumably a day pumping out cess pools is worth the same as a day pumping out cess pools. Law of identity and all that.
Originally posted by tclune:
You really don't get it. There is nothing intrinsic to spending your day pumping out cess pools that makes the job "worth" less than managing an international company AFAICS.
quote:Let me just say one last thing -- pehaps this will be clear enough that we can come to at least an understanding on this: The EEOC says of equal pay for equal work, "employers may not pay unequal wages to men and women who perform jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions within the same establishment."
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
(Although let me add that "pay equity" never has attempted to parse the differences you're talking about between different types of work-- cess pool pumper v. fisherman, etc. It has been about differences of pay within the same job title/position at the same company/corp. I think you know that.
quote:Sadly, yet more
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Let me just say one last thing -- pehaps this will be clear enough that we can come to at least an understanding on this: The EEOC says of equal pay for equal work, "employers may not pay unequal wages to men and women who perform jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions within the same establishment."
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
(Although let me add that "pay equity" never has attempted to parse the differences you're talking about between different types of work-- cess pool pumper v. fisherman, etc. It has been about differences of pay within the same job title/position at the same company/corp. I think you know that.
The point you raised above is just plain false. Equal pay for equal work was NEVER limited to "same pay for the same job."
--Tom Clune
because the above seems to be simply a more nuanced way of saying the same thing-- "substantially equal" rather than the unmodified "equal", "similar working conditions" rather than "same", "same establishment" = well, same establishment.
quote:I may well be out of date here, but I know for a fact that this did not used to be true. It was protected by labor laws as part of a worker's right to organize. Are you sure that an employer can legally fire a worker for discussing their wages with a co-worker? Do you know when this became legal?
Originally posted by Josephine:
You can get fired for discussing your wages with a co-worker.
quote:Do you live in the US?
Originally posted by Porridge:
It's an item in my (not-for-profit) employment contract, either just above or below (don't recall which, and can't be arsed to look) the item about safeguarding client info under "confidentiality."
quote:So is Obama unfit for re-election because he still doesn't know better than to piss Bill off?
Governor Romney's argument is 'we're not fixed, so fire him and put me in.' It is true, we're not fixed. When President Obama looked into the eyes of that man who said in the debate, 'I had so much hope four years ago and I don't now,' I thought he was going to cry because he knows that it's not fixed.
quote:I've never known that it was ever illegal. In most states, an employer doesn't have to have a reason to fire you, and can fire you for any reason at all, or no reason (with a handful of exceptions regarding race, gender, etc.).
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:I may well be out of date here, but I know for a fact that this did not used to be true. It was protected by labor laws as part of a worker's right to organize. Are you sure that an employer can legally fire a worker for discussing their wages with a co-worker? Do you know when this became legal?
Originally posted by Josephine:
You can get fired for discussing your wages with a co-worker.
quote:Not off the top of my head. I haven't paid attention to labor law for over three decades, but I am sure that it was illegal at that time. This seems like the kind of thing thaat Croesos might know off the top of his head. Croesos?
Originally posted by Josephine:
Can you provide a link that shows that talking about wages and benefits with co-workers is a protected activity? I'd love to see it, if it is.
quote:Always happy to provide some linkedy goodness. Didn't know off the top of my head, but my good friend Mr. Google was able to provide some insight:
Originally posted by tclune:
Not off the top of my head. I haven't paid attention to labor law for over three decades, but I am sure that it was illegal at that time. This seems like the kind of thing thaat Croesos might know off the top of his head. Croesos?
quote:So it seems to come down to:
Many businesses and corporations have gone so far as to establish rules forbidding employees from discussing their wages, on pain of disciplinary action.
It turns out that in most cases these regulations are actually against the law.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has ruled on many occasions that businesses and corporations cannot legally prevent employees from sharing their salaries or the salaries of their co-workers. In most cases, employers are not required to publicize the wages of their employees, but neither can they bar them from giving that information to each other or the media. When disgruntled employees bring these regulations to the attention of the NLRB, the employer is required to remove the language from their employee manuals. (This doesn’t apply to managers, supervisors and other employees not under the jurisdiction of the NLRB.)
Some states, such as Colorado and California, have gone a step further. They have passed laws singling out wage discussion as a “protected activity,” just like campaigning for politicians or caring for a sick relative. In these states, no employee (not even managers) can be fired for talking about their salaries.
quote:If it were the Koch brothers buying the machines, it would make me worried. But personally, I just can't muster the paranoia to worry about Romney this way. I think that the more likely vulnerability of voting machines is from hackers, which can cut just about any way you can imagine.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Are the Romneys buying voting machine companies? I haven't seen the story yet on a major site, but it has to be a concern for anyone who cares about fair elections.
quote:Depends on what you mean by "hackers". Historically the biggest security breaches in the American voting system has been in the form of crooked election officials.
Originally posted by tclune:
If it were the Koch brothers buying the machines, it would make me worried. But personally, I just can't muster the paranoia to worry about Romney this way. I think that the more likely vulnerability of voting machines is from hackers, which can cut just about any way you can imagine.
quote:Romney acting alone, maybe not (although who knows? the guy's not exactly transparent). But with Karl Rove heading up his largest super pac? Oh, yeah, Worry.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:If it were the Koch brothers buying the machines, it would make me worried. But personally, I just can't muster the paranoia to worry about Romney this way. I think that the more likely vulnerability of voting machines is from hackers, which can cut just about any way you can imagine.
Originally posted by Josephine:
Are the Romneys buying voting machine companies? I haven't seen the story yet on a major site, but it has to be a concern for anyone who cares about fair elections.
--Tom Clune
quote:And speaking of same, it's apparently via Twitter that The Donald plans to make a big announcement about Obama Wednesday.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Hmmm....twitter is about as civil as Gettysburg when it comes to this debate stuff.
quote:If this has anything to do with birtherism, then Trump had better produce absolutely irrefutable evidence that Obama was born outside the USA. Anything short of that is just gonna make the GOP look desperate and stupid(at least to anyone not already on the birther bandwagon, which is populated almost entirely by commited Republians anyway).
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:And speaking of same, it's apparently via Twitter that The Donald plans to make a big announcement about Obama Wednesday.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Hmmm....twitter is about as civil as Gettysburg when it comes to this debate stuff.
See here.
quote:Well, don't forget Mitt helped him do it. I just worry about the foriegn policy knowledge, not to mention map reading skills, of someone who would claim that Syria is Iran's "route to the sea" as Romney did.
Originally posted by mousethief:
The president handed Mitt's ass to him last night, gift-wrapped, with a beautiful bow and a nice card.
quote:I couldn't disagree more. Americans are also notoriously ignorant of their own geography.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, I know Americans are notoriously ignorant of any geography not their own ...
quote:Well, for one thing, when Amb. Stevens asked for more security, he sure as heck should have been given it. I think the only reason Romney didn't bring that up last night is he wanted to pick his battles and not be the contentious one.
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
Anyone care to tell me what Romney thinks Obama SHOULD have done in the Middle East? I'm curious as to what any world leader, including the Americans could have done to the chaos that is the Middle East and Obama apparently 'let reign'??
quote:More likely, Romney realized that everything he'd previously said on the subject was so far off base that he didn't want to embarrass himself any further.
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
quote:Well, for one thing, when Amb. Stevens asked for more security, he sure as heck should have been given it. I think the only reason Romney didn't bring that up last night is he wanted to pick his battles and not be the contentious one.
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
Anyone care to tell me what Romney thinks Obama SHOULD have done in the Middle East? I'm curious as to what any world leader, including the Americans could have done to the chaos that is the Middle East and Obama apparently 'let reign'??
quote:That would be a first...
Originally posted by Josephine:
More likely, Romney realized that everything he'd previously said on the subject was so far off base that he didn't want to embarrass himself any further.
quote:You may say he's a dreamer. But he's not the only one.
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Dream on, Mousethief.
quote:Cherry-picking the polls you like makes your predictions far from infallible. See what Nate Silver says about your two favorite polls:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Meanwhile, I've posted my semi-infallible election prediction for those who care.
In short, Romney wins; GOP barely takes the Senate.
quote:ThinkProgress isn't concerned. That doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't anything to be concerned about. But it probably means there are other election-related issues that should concern you more.
Originally posted by Alogon:
I don't want to read all the details on a full stomach, but Romney's son and one of Romney's cronies have bought considerable equity in a company that will tally votes in battleground states.
quote:And how does that compare with Silver's record of accuracy? Let's see:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Ruth, I used to respect Nate Silver, too. But he has become a Democrat hack.
I'll dog Silver on Election Day. You'll see.
And the reason I like Rasmussen so much is his record of accuracy. He just about nailed the 2008 result.
quote:If your criterion is "record of accuracy", I'm not seeing the reason to prefer Rasmussen.
Silver's final 2008 presidential election forecast accurately predicted the winner of 49 of the 50 states as well as the District of Columbia (missing only the prediction for Indiana). As his model predicted, the races in Missouri and North Carolina were particularly close. He also correctly predicted the winners of every U.S. Senate race.
quote:Evidence?
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Ruth, I used to respect Nate Silver, too. But he has become a Democrat hack.
quote:You really don't get truthiness, do you?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If your criterion is "record of accuracy", I'm not seeing the reason to prefer Rasmussen.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is "truthiness" somehow different from truthFULness?
quote:I like reading 538. My understanding is that he's a Democrat in his blog posts (he used to be much more so in 2008, before his blog was on for NYT), but he makes an effort to avoid a partisan lean in his predictions. In fact, he posted his methodology so that people can check it.
St. Punk the Pious: Ruth, I used to respect Nate Silver, too. But he has become a Democrat hack.
quote:I feel the same way.
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Ruth, I used to respect Nate Silver, too. But he has become a Democrat hack.
I'll dog Silver on Election Day. You'll see.
And the reason I like Rasmussen so much is his record of accuracy. He just about nailed the 2008 result.
quote:The only October surprise I want from Trump is a swan dive off Trump Tower. C'mon D, make the world a better place...
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Any speculation on The Donald's big "October surprise" announcement today?
quote:I'm shocked-- shocked, I tell you!-- to relay that the October surprise turns out to be yet another desperate grasping for some slim illusion of relevance in a world that ceased to find him entertaining long, long ago.
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Any speculation on The Donald's big "October surprise" announcement today? A rumor I heard said he has proof that the Obamas were ready to file for divorce at some time in the past.
quote:Everybody is waiting for the brand new "2016 U.S. Election Thread" which should be making its debut in, oh, about two weeks.
Originally posted by Porridge:
I find it fascinating that a thread which has burbled away for a year and a month and week has now, just 2 weeks before the election it claims to be about, fallen relatively quiet -- even recently sneaking off to page 2 of Purg.
quote:...or are they tear stains?
Originally posted by Carex:
Our ballots arrived in the mail yesterday, so at least that part will soon be over.
Oregon is 100% vote-by-mail (though one can still vote in person under certain circumstances.) There was a big stink initially about how this was a recipe for fraud, but so far the biggest problem appears to be coffee stains on the ballots.
quote:Why wait? Let's get a jump start now!
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Everybody is waiting for the brand new "2016 U.S. Election Thread" which should be making its debut in, oh, about two weeks.
quote:So, Hilary for America '16?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Why wait? Let's get a jump start now!
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Everybody is waiting for the brand new "2016 U.S. Election Thread" which should be making its debut in, oh, about two weeks.
quote:The barrage of negative ads by corporations masking anonymous donors is all too obviously a daily event, and Republicans are beginning to regret it, too. I just read it in today's paper during lunch, and a few minutes later heard the same on the radio. Pundits predict a blossoming of bipartisan co-operation among congress members who managed to get re-elected despite the filth, around efforts to control future damage from the Citizens United decision. (But this being the work of the Supreme Court rather than Congress, I'm curious as to what solution is in their power to devise.)
Originally posted by Porridge:
how likely is it that a supporter for either candidate is going to change his or her mind over daily events?
quote:Not me. First, I stop short of willing people I dislike to commit suicide. Second, if he dies a natural death, scientists can study his brain to try to help future nutters. If he pavement-dives, they'll have to pressure-wash his brains off the avenue.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:The only October surprise I want from Trump is a swan dive off Trump Tower. C'mon D, make the world a better place...
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Any speculation on The Donald's big "October surprise" announcement today?
--Tom Clune
quote:You mean Democrats like John McCain?
Originally posted by Alogon:
Democrats can take comfort in pointing out that they saw the mess coming first-- among politicians, that is.
quote:Thankfully we do not (yet) have overlapping presidential campaigns in this country.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Why wait? Let's get a jump start now!
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Everybody is waiting for the brand new "2016 U.S. Election Thread" which should be making its debut in, oh, about two weeks.
quote:It wouldn't be the first time he's been observed to be a maverick.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:You mean Democrats like John McCain?
Originally posted by Alogon:
Democrats can take comfort in pointing out that they saw the mess coming first-- among politicians, that is.
--Tom Clune
quote:I predict that it will be at least four years before we see that ever happen.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Thankfully we do not (yet) have overlapping presidential campaigns in this country.
quote:I do believe that the largest factor is the ability of consumers to become immune to advertisements. There's a lot of money being spent, but whether it will change anything remains to be seen.
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:The barrage of negative ads by corporations masking anonymous donors is all too obviously a daily event, and Republicans are beginning to regret it, too. I just read it in today's paper during lunch, and a few minutes later heard the same on the radio. Pundits predict a blossoming of bipartisan co-operation among congress members who managed to get re-elected despite the filth, around efforts to control future damage from the Citizens United decision. (But this being the work of the Supreme Court rather than Congress, I'm curious as to what solution is in their power to devise.)
Originally posted by Porridge:
how likely is it that a supporter for either candidate is going to change his or her mind over daily events?
quote:It is absolutely clear that it already has changed things -- every politician in Washington has been bought and paid for by every special interest in the country. Our laws are now routinely written by these special interests, and simply voted on by the politicians. It may be that no citizen's votes are changed by all that money, I don't know. But the nature of the people being elected has changed completely. Or so ISTM.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I do believe that the largest factor is the ability of consumers to become immune to advertisements. There's a lot of money being spent, but whether it will change anything remains to be seen.
quote:Whoa, Barney! Did you get a new dictionary? Great word!
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The psephologists are showing lots of popular vote variation.
quote:I'm a bit surprised there haven't been politicians already calling for a ban on remote controls.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I do believe that the largest factor is the ability of consumers to become immune to advertisements. There's a lot of money being spent, but whether it will change anything remains to be seen.
quote:Yes, thanks for that word of the week!
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Whoa, Barney! Did you get a new dictionary? Great word!
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The psephologists are showing lots of popular vote variation.
--Tom Clune
quote:Perhaps, but not for terribly long. Three of those states are in the east and have early poll closing times (Virginia at 7:00 pm EST, Ohio 7:30 pm EST, New Hampshire 8:00 pm EST). Colorado's polls close at 7:00 pm MST/9:00 pm EST, but if Romney hasn't carried both Ohio and Virginia by that point Colorado wouldn't be enough to put him over the top, according to the latest electoral vote map. That's making the assumption that Romney carries Florida, which looks likely but not certain at this point.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The psephologists are showing lots of popular vote variation. From a mind-boggling amount of info re the Electoral College predictions, it looks at present as though the whole thing might turn on what happens in four states (Colorado, New Hampshire, Ohio, Virginia).
Lots to play for in the last few days. Election night looks like a nailbiter.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The psephologists are showing lots of popular vote variation.
quote:All respect to Barnabas, but I thought "truthy" was word of the week for me.
Originally posted by tclune:
Whoa, Barney! Did you get a new dictionary? Great word!
quote:The percentages represent Silver's estimate of the chance of the state going for Romney. The number at the end represents the number of electoral votes controlled by that state.
CO --- 47.8% ---- 9
VA --- 47.1% --- 13
IA --- 33.5% ---- 6
NH --- 32.7% ---- 4
FL --- 67.6% --- 29
OH --- 26.6% --- 18
NV --- 24.1% ---- 6
WI --- 18.0% --- 10
NC --- 84.9% --- 15
quote:Yes! First of all, this money is spent primarily on television ads, and commercial television ratings have been on a downward trend for years. The present circus will depress them further, at least temporarily. This is one of the most hopeful developments on the horizon IMHO. Can't you imagine the frustration of someone in the 1%, or a political hireling thereof? Just about when the Supreme Court frees them up to shout at the public as long and loud as their resources enable them, the cussed critters stop listening.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I do believe that the largest factor is the ability of consumers to become immune to advertisements. There's a lot of money being spent, but whether it will change anything remains to be seen.
quote:We'll see who is bitching when the demographic shift turns Texas and Florida solidly blue. If Penn and NY stay blue that means the Dems have all five of the biggest electoral vote states.
Originally posted by moron:
Many of the people currently bitching about the electoral college will become strangely silent on the topic and Ryan will run against Hillary in 2016... after another four years of Barackolypse.
quote:Seems implausible given that Hillary Clinton (assuming that's the Hillary you mean) will be older than any other first-time president other than Reagan on Inauguration Day 2017. Her window of opportunity is closed.
Originally posted by moron:
. . . and Ryan will run against Hillary in 2016 . . .
quote:I was hoping that it would be a cathartic event- both sides get screwed once in 12 years, all is fair, and we move on. But I doubt American voters have the maturity to see it that way.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I wonder what will happen if Obama wins the electoral college and Romney wins the popular vote.
quote:Given that there was a half a million vote margin in the popular vote in 2000, a popular vote recount would have been unnecessary.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I attended a lecture by a law professor on the Electoral College last week. He made one point that I think gets overlooked in these debates. As bad and messy as the Florida recount was, can you imagine a nationwide recount? Election lawyers descending on every state capitol in the nation, and 50 different secretaries of state trying to set standards for how the recount would work in their state? That could turn into a serious mess.
quote:To what other U.S. election are you referring to? I think the whole country only votes on one office.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
My question is, if an electoral college system is so great and advantageous, why doesn't the U.S. use it for any other election besides the presidency? Why not elect governors or senators in that way? The fact that there's no agitation to expand the electoral college system into other elections is an implicit admission that it sucks.
quote:True enough, but there are two mitigating factors. First, although a recount might have been required in one case we've got three (1876, 1888, and 2000) where the electoral college reversed public sentiment. (I'll exclude 1824 since several states did not tabulate popular votes in that election.) A one-time bureaucratic inconvenience is small potatoes compared with a three-time thwarting of the will of the people.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
You don't even have to go completely hypothetical for a recount to be realistic. 1880 came down to 2000 popular votes. Recount city.
quote:Not really. I think the simpler answer is that the election of the president (and vice-president) is the only national election we have, so it's the only election where the college (arguably) "fits." And as it's the only national election, it's the only election that the framers of the constitution had to work out the mechanics of or balance competing interests for. Those competing interest would include balancing the "popular" vote (remembering what that meant in the early days of the Republic) with the rights of states. Are the voters electing the president or are the states? The college leans towards the states electing the president, though it allows for "weighted" voting based on population.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
My question is, if an electoral college system is so great and advantageous, why doesn't the U.S. use it for any other election besides the presidency? Why not elect governors or senators in that way? The fact that there's no agitation to expand the electoral college system into other elections is an implicit admission that it sucks.
quote:The U.S. holds elections for just about every office. Not nationally, but there's no reason you couldn't apply an electoral college system on a statewide election by giving each county a number of electors based mostly (but not entirely) on population. I would have thought that was perfectly clear since I cited gubenatorial and senatorial elections.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:To what other U.S. election are you referring to? I think the whole country only votes on one office.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
My question is, if an electoral college system is so great and advantageous, why doesn't the U.S. use it for any other election besides the presidency? Why not elect governors or senators in that way? The fact that there's no agitation to expand the electoral college system into other elections is an implicit admission that it sucks.
quote:No, that's why the U.S. Congress is structured the way it is. The electoral college was set up the way it is to inflate the power of slave states over the selection of the president. This is not a problem the U.S. is facing any more.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
As for the states not applying a similar system, the electoral college is a historical solution to a historical problem (how do you get big states and little states to ratify the constitution). The same problem doesn't apply to the individual states, so it wouldn't make sense to apply the same solution.
quote:The electoral college has a correlation in how the U.S. Senate operates. It has no correlation to how U.S. Senators are elected, which is more or less my point.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Actually, the electoral college does have a correlation in congress. Every state gets two senators, which means rural states are extremely over represented in the senate.
quote:I happen to see using the electoral college as a "fix" for the rise of racial terrorism in the American south during the late nineteenth century to be well short of what could be described as "work[ing] pretty well".
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
They say 1888 actually worked pretty well- the popular vote went to Cleveland because he got huge margins in the South. So the popular vote didn't reflect the will of the whole nation so much as the passion of the South regarding one regional issue.
quote:You're comparing apples to pineapples; Counties are not to states as states are to the United States. Counties (or townships, or parishes, or boroughs, or whatever else a state may use) are political subdivisions of the state. They have no existence apart from their creation by a state, and they have no powers except what powers the state gives them. A state created them, and state can abolish them, move their boundaries, or whatever. They exist for administrative purposes, not as sovereign entities. There is therefore no need to balance their interests in the makeup of the whole.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The U.S. holds elections for just about every office. Not nationally, but there's no reason you couldn't apply an electoral college system on a statewide election by giving each county a number of electors based mostly (but not entirely) on population. I would have thought that was perfectly clear since I cited gubenatorial and senatorial elections.
quote:I guess it doesn't seem as likely for Romney to win as I thought.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For those who are interested, here's what Nate Silver considers the nine most "up for grabs" states as of late in the day on October 24, 2012.
quote:The percentages represent Silver's estimate of the chance of the state going for Romney. The number at the end represents the number of electoral votes controlled by that state....
CO --- 47.8% ---- 9
VA --- 47.1% --- 13
IA --- 33.5% ---- 6
NH --- 32.7% ---- 4
FL --- 67.6% --- 29
OH --- 26.6% --- 18
NV --- 24.1% ---- 6
WI --- 18.0% --- 10
NC --- 84.9% --- 15
So while it's possible for Romney to eke out a win it's nowhere near as close as the Romney campaign would like everyone to believe.
quote:This is special pleading. One could just as easily say "Governors and U.S. Senators are the only statewide elections we have, therefore electing them directly would be wrong!" And yet no one ever advances this argument (except a few anti-Seventeenth Amendment partisans).
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Not really. I think the simpler answer is that the election of the president (and vice-president) is the only national election we have, so it's the only election where the college (arguably) "fits."
Originally posted by Crœsos:
My question is, if an electoral college system is so great and advantageous, why doesn't the U.S. use it for any other election besides the presidency? Why not elect governors or senators in that way? The fact that there's no agitation to expand the electoral college system into other elections is an implicit admission that it sucks.
quote:Not true! They also worked out the mechanics for the election of Congressmen ("chosen every second Year by the People of the several States", i.e. popular election) and Senators ("chosen by the Legislature thereof", i.e. appointed by state legislatures).
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
And as it's the only national election, it's the only election that the framers of the constitution had to work out the mechanics of or balance competing interests for.
quote:You're citing yourself to back up your own points now?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
No, that's why the U.S. Congress is structured the way it is. The electoral college was set up the way it is to inflate the power of slave states over the selection of the president. This is not a problem the U.S. is facing any more.
quote:Again, not true. The U.S. Constitution has a specific section (Art. IV, § 3) which explicitly details the process by which states may change their boundaries. [spoiler alert: they need approval from Congress]
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
States, on the other hand, are sovereign entities, except to the extent that they have ceded their sovereignty to the federal government. It is the states that create the United States and give powers to it, not the other way around. Congress has no power to abolish a state, change its boundaries or the like. That is why in Congress as well as in the electoral college, the interests of states themselves are balanced with the interests of the country as a whole.
quote:It's not special pleading at all. It's a recognition of the implications of having not just a republican form of government (which every state has), but a federal republican form of government, which only the US as a whole has, and for which the only national, elected officers are the president and vice-president.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:This is special pleading. One could just as easily say "Governors and U.S. Senators are the only statewide elections we have, therefore electing them directly would be wrong!" And yet no one ever advances this argument (except a few anti-Seventeenth Amendment partisans).
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:Not really. I think the simpler answer is that the election of the president (and vice-president) is the only national election we have, so it's the only election where the college (arguably) "fits."
Originally posted by Crœsos:
My question is, if an electoral college system is so great and advantageous, why doesn't the U.S. use it for any other election besides the presidency? Why not elect governors or senators in that way? The fact that there's no agitation to expand the electoral college system into other elections is an implicit admission that it sucks.
quote:Fair point. I was not as precise as I should have been. I should have said that the election of the president and vice-president were the only elections for the country as a whole that the framers had to work out the mechanics of and balance competing interests for. The election of these two national offices is simply a different animal from the election of those who will represent the states/the people of the states in Congress.
quote:Not true! They also worked out the mechanics for the election of Congressmen ("chosen every second Year by the People of the several States", i.e. popular election) and Senators ("chosen by the Legislature thereof", i.e. appointed by state legislatures).
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
And as it's the only national election, it's the only election that the framers of the constitution had to work out the mechanics of or balance competing interests for.
quote:Just pointing out that this has been discussed before. I've got longer posts on this same subject on other threads.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:You're citing yourself to back up your own points now?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
No, that's why the U.S. Congress is structured the way it is. The electoral college was set up the way it is to inflate the power of slave states over the selection of the president. This is not a problem the U.S. is facing any more.
quote:And again, my apologies for not being more precise, though you are reading more into that provision than is there. The provision you cite says that no new state can be erected within the jurisdiction, nor can states join together to form new states, without the consent of the legislatures concerned and Congress. Needing the consent of Congress is not the same thing as Congress having the power, on its own, to combine, divide, abolish or change the broundaries of a state. Congress does not have that power. State legislatures do have that power with regard to their counties or other political subdivisions.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Again, not true. The U.S. Constitution has a specific section (Art. IV, § 3) which explicitly details the process by which states may change their boundaries. [spoiler alert: they need approval from Congress]
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
States, on the other hand, are sovereign entities, except to the extent that they have ceded their sovereignty to the federal government. It is the states that create the United States and give powers to it, not the other way around. Congress has no power to abolish a state, change its boundaries or the like. That is why in Congress as well as in the electoral college, the interests of states themselves are balanced with the interests of the country as a whole.
quote:I'm not suggesting it would. I indicated above that I think the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could be a good way for getting even closer to what would effectively be a national popular vote.
Again, I'm not seeing how giving a state a say in electing the president in proportion with its congressional caucus is Right and Just whereas giving a state a say in electing the president in proportion with the number of votes cast by its electorate will Destroy the Union.
quote:That's where the recall question gets really interesting. Suppose that the compact is in place, and Romney wins the popular vote on the first count by a slim margin, so Obama's lawyers demand a recount. As we saw in Florida in 2000, the standard you use for your recount might swing the election one way or the other. So who is there to tell the various secretaries of state in each state which recount they have to chose? What is to prevent the much maligned Ohio Secretary of State (the same guy who wanted to limit early voting hours) from giving Ohio's electoral votes to Romney before a recount can be done, or based on what, in his individual judgment, he decides is the best recount number?
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I indicated above that I think the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could be a good way for getting even closer to what would effectively be a national popular vote.
quote:And as I've pointed out, one could make the same argument for state governors (particularly prior to the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment), that they're the only statewide, elected officers. If electing the leaders of the national executive on a popular vote basis is both wrong and inefficient (other have argued inefficiency, though I recognize you haven't) why doesn't the same apply to the state executive?
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:It's not special pleading at all. It's a recognition of the implications of having not just a republican form of government (which every state has), but a federal republican form of government, which only the US as a whole has, and for which the only national, elected officers are the president and vice-president.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This is special pleading. One could just as easily say "Governors and U.S. Senators are the only statewide elections we have, therefore electing them directly would be wrong!" And yet no one ever advances this argument (except a few anti-Seventeenth Amendment partisans).
quote:Simply asserting this doesn't make it so. Neither does repeating it. Explanation please, especially taking into account the manner in which many state constitutions are set up as mirror images of the federal constitution?
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The election of these two national offices is simply a different animal from the election of those who will represent the states/the people of the states in Congress.
quote:First off, the creation of West Virginia would seem to indicate that the U.S. Congress can at the very least do an effective end run around state legislatures on questions like this.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:And again, my apologies for not being more precise, though you are reading more into that provision than is there. The provision you cite says that no new state can be erected within the jurisdiction, nor can states join together to form new states, without the consent of the legislatures concerned and Congress. Needing the consent of Congress is not the same thing as Congress having the power, on its own, to combine, divide, abolish or change the broundaries of a state. Congress does not have that power. State legislatures do have that power with regard to their counties or other political subdivisions.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Again, not true. The U.S. Constitution has a specific section (Art. IV, § 3) which explicitly details the process by which states may change their boundaries. [spoiler alert: they need approval from Congress]
quote:Not really. It all flows from the notion that legitimate authority flows from the consent of the governed. I'm not convinced that the electoral college is a particularly effective way to determine the consent of the governed.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
All I'm responding to is your question that if it's so good a system for electing a president, why don't we do it in other elections. My answer is that, whether it's a good system or not, comparing it to other elections requires a comparison of apples and oranges.
quote:As I recall, the state senates of Wisconsin and many other States were originally elected on some such scheme, but a few decades ago a U.S. Supreme Court decision somehow pulled a one-man-one-vote mandate out of the Constitution without ruling the Constitution unconstitutional. That took some sleight of hand (not that I'm to sorry personally).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
My question is, if an electoral college system is so great and advantageous, why doesn't the U.S. use it for any other election besides the presidency? Why not elect governors or senators in that way? The fact that there's no agitation to expand the electoral college system into other elections is an implicit admission that it sucks.
quote:As to your first point, I have given my explanation: the difference between federal and non-federal. That introduces a material difference between the election of the president of a federal republic and the election of a governor of a state. Could a state choose to elect a governor by a system similar to the electoral college? I'm sure it could. But that's different from asking if it's good for one why isn't it good for the other?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Simply asserting this doesn't make it so. Neither does repeating it. Explanation please, especially taking into account the manner in which many state constitutions are set up as mirror images of the federal constitution?
quote:West Virginia is certainly something of a unique case, given Virginia's own secession (and repudiation of the federal Constitution) and the Civil War. But in any event, it was the citizens of West Virginia that seceded from Virginia. Congress did not "create" the state.
First off, the creation of West Virginia would seem to indicate that the U.S. Congress can at the very least do an effective end run around state legislatures on questions like this.
Second, I'm not sure you're right about state legislatures being able to alter their internal county divisions. The procedure for doing so in the state of Georgia (selected on the highly scientific basis of "it was at the top of the Google queue") indicates a procedure involving individual citizens, grand juries, boards of county commissioners, and the secretary of state, but no mention of the legislature.
quote:That's fine. Lots of people have good arguments whether the electoral college is a good system.
Not really. It all flows from the notion that legitimate authority flows from the consent of the governed. I'm not convinced that the electoral college is a particularly effective way to determine the consent of the governed.
quote:That was more akin to the US Senate, where each county (or in my state, two paired counties) elected an equal number of senators, regardless of population, just as each state elects two US senators regardless of population. It was not an electoral college-type system of electing those senators in any state so far as I know.
Originally posted by Alogon:
As I recall, the state senates of Wisconsin and many other States were originally elected on some such scheme, but a few decades ago a U.S. Supreme Court decision somehow pulled a one-man-one-vote mandate out of the Constitution without ruling the Constitution unconstitutional.
quote:I see what you're saying.
Originally posted by Alogon:
But the effect was largely the same: both plans give a rural voter more clout than a city dweller. That was deliberate, considering the relatively agrarian nature of the economy. The various ways in which the law and politics favored farmers was a recurring gripe of H.L. Mencken. It's a different world today (although I suspect that, if you scratch the surface, many of these old benefits are still in place and agribusiness loves them.)
quote:First off, this seems like needless hairsplitting. If the sovereignty of a state resides with its people and if the federal constitution derives its powers from the states, how is that different than being ultimately derived from the people?
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The state constitution is a limitation on the power of the government. The sovereignty of the state resides in its people, who exercise that authority through their elected representatives. Those elected representatives (the General Assembly) can do anything they think appropriate or worth doing, unless the constitution forbids them from doing it or the federal constitution forbids it. I would be surprised if a similar view is not found in most if not all other states.
The federal Constitution, on the other hand, is a grant of power to the federal government. The federal government only has the authority that the states, through their ratification of the Constitution or its amendments, have ceded to it and authorized it to exercise.
quote:Again, you're hairsplitting. Congress' assent was required for West Virginia (and every other state aside from the original thirteen) to enter the Union. The obvious case that comes to mind is Utah, which filed multiple unsuccessful petitions for statehood before being admitted in 1896. If the difference between Utah being a state and Utah being a territory is Congressional approval, in what sense does Congress not create states?
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:West Virginia is certainly something of a unique case, given Virginia's own secession (and repudiation of the federal Constitution) and the Civil War. But in any event, it was the citizens of West Virginia that seceded from Virginia. Congress did not "create" the state.
First off, the creation of West Virginia would seem to indicate that the U.S. Congress can at the very least do an effective end run around state legislatures on questions like this.
Second, I'm not sure you're right about state legislatures being able to alter their internal county divisions. The procedure for doing so in the state of Georgia (selected on the highly scientific basis of "it was at the top of the Google queue") indicates a procedure involving individual citizens, grand juries, boards of county commissioners, and the secretary of state, but no mention of the legislature.
quote:I believe the Supreme Court case which ruled such fixed-land representation schemes unconstitutional (can't be bothered to track down the actual citation now) reached its decision on the basis that legislatures are supposed to represent people, not land and trees. Probably derived from the Constitution's provision for republican government and the founder's well-known contempt for England's "rotten boroughs".
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:I see what you're saying.
Originally posted by Alogon:
But the effect was largely the same: both plans give a rural voter more clout than a city dweller. That was deliberate, considering the relatively agrarian nature of the economy. The various ways in which the law and politics favored farmers was a recurring gripe of H.L. Mencken. It's a different world today (although I suspect that, if you scratch the surface, many of these old benefits are still in place and agribusiness loves them.)
quote:Perhaps you've been tagged as "Politically Incorrigable" ;-)
Originally posted by mousethief:
Interestingly the only political ads I get on facebook are from "my side." Fat lotta good that's going to do the "other side."
quote:Crœsos, I'm sorry but I don't think splitting hairs at all to note the fundamental difference between a federal union of states with republican government and those states themselves. That is the point I have been trying to make, albeit not as clearly as I had hoped, I fear, and perhaps I have muddled the point by getting too much into generalizations that can vary from state to state.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Again, you're hairsplitting. Congress' assent was required for West Virginia (and every other state aside from the original thirteen) to enter the Union. The obvious case that comes to mind is Utah, which filed multiple unsuccessful petitions for statehood before being admitted in 1896. If the difference between Utah being a state and Utah being a territory is Congressional approval, in what sense does Congress not create states?
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:Perhaps you've been tagged as "Politically Incorrigable" ;-)
Originally posted by mousethief:
Interestingly the only political ads I get on facebook are from "my side." Fat lotta good that's going to do the "other side."
quote:Nothing happens. Obama is then the winner. Only the electoral votes count, not the popular vote. Many of the US presidents have been elected that way with less than 50% of the popular vote, but yet having more electoral votes. They are, with their minority popular vote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I wonder what will happen if Obama wins the electoral college and Romney wins the popular vote.
quote:It should be noted that most of the presidents on your list received a plurality of the popular vote, so there was no one with more votes than them. In some cases this was due to a third (or in Lincoln's case, fourth) party drawing a significant number of votes. I've left bold the only three on your case that actually came in second in the popular vote.
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
Only the electoral votes count, not the popular vote. Many of the US presidents have been elected that way with less than 50% of the popular vote, but yet having more electoral votes. They are, with their minority popular vote:
1. John Quincy Adams* 30.92%
2. James K. Polk 49.54%
3. Zachary Taylor 47.29%
4. James Buchanan 45.29%
5. Abraham Lincoln 39.65%
6. Rutherford B. Hayes 47.92%
7. James Garfield 48.31%
8. Grover Cleveland 48.85%
9. Benjamin Harrison 47.80%
10. Grover Cleveland 46.02%
11. Woodrow Wilson 41.84%
12. Woodrow Wilson 49.24%
13. Harry S. Truman 49.55%
14. John F. Kennedy 49.72%
15. Richard Nixon 43.42%
16. Bill Clinton 43.01%
17. Bill Clinton 49.23%
18. George W. Bush 47.87%
*
*
quote:Some have argued that if Clinton had received a majority of the popular vote rather than just a plurality the Republican Congress would have been more reluctant to conduct that circus they called an impeachment. I think that credits Congressional Republicans with too great a sense of shame.
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm starting to seriously reconsider voting for Obama instead of voting for the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein. Obama will take California's electoral votes in a walk, but the popular vote does matter in a way -- the president is in a stronger position if he can point to the electoral vote and say that more Americans want him to be president than anyone else.
quote:There's nothing (except the need to keep up the appearance of democracy) to stop them from doing it again. Scalia, in his opinion on Bush v. Gore noted that there is no constitutional right for US citizens to vote for president--state legislatures determine how electoral votes are allocated. Nowadays they do it by popular vote, but hey...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It should be noted that it was largely because of the election of 1824 that the idea of state legislatures choosing presidential electors was abandoned. By the election of 1828 only Delaware and South Carolina did so. By 1832 Delaware had also dumped the practice, leaving South Carolina the sole state not consulting directly with the voters on their presidential preferences, a practice they maintained until Reconstruction.
quote:Well, there are a couple dynamics at work here. By its very nature, a political campaign has to project optimism. There is such a thing as a bandwagon effect and if one isn't actually happening then it's the campaign's job to make it happen.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Mitt-mentum a myth?
This is a follow up to Croesos' posts re Electoral College predictions. A view from across the pond.
The Telegraph is a right wing UK newspaper; the columnist is a "new Labour Blairite".
Nate Silver, who Croesos linked a few posts ago, may well be in for a rocky ride - as the article predicts.
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Scalia, in his opinion on Bush v. Gore noted that there is no constitutional right for US citizens to vote for president--state legislatures determine how electoral votes are allocated. Nowadays they do it by popular vote, but hey...
quote:True but entirely irrelevant. The State of Florida had its own system for appointing electors that was based by the popular vote in the state, and THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS NO STANDING IN THE INTERNAL ELECTION AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Scalia, in his opinion on Bush v. Gore noted that there is no constitutional right for US citizens to vote for president--state legislatures determine how electoral votes are allocated. Nowadays they do it by popular vote, but hey...
quote:There's a lot of Kool-Aid out there. The Talk Radio pundits are already setting up the 'if our guy doesn't win, then the election was rigged' rhetoric.
Originally posted by Porridge:
General consensus on This Week with George Stephanopoulos: Mittmentum is real, and he may carry the day.
ANd here I've been drinking Nate Silver Kool-Aid.
quote:Although it's still democracy at one remove -- state legislators that did that would have to stand for reëlection.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Oh, of course. But I wasn't talking about the substance of Bush v. Gore, just about how easy it would be for a state legislature to strip away even the veneer of democracy in presidential elections.
quote:Except that the pro-Romney electorate would likely be happy that their delegation had voted for Romney no matter how unfair that might be.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Although it's still democracy at one remove -- state legislators that did that would have to stand for reëlection.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Oh, of course. But I wasn't talking about the substance of Bush v. Gore, just about how easy it would be for a state legislature to strip away even the veneer of democracy in presidential elections.
quote:Yeah, but the GOP has been so good at gerrymandering state legislative districts that they might be able to pull it off in some states. With the attitude among the Karl Rove types that it's rank insubordination for the proles to vote for Democrats, they might even get away with it.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Although it's still democracy at one remove -- state legislators that did that would have to stand for reëlection.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Oh, of course. But I wasn't talking about the substance of Bush v. Gore, just about how easy it would be for a state legislature to strip away even the veneer of democracy in presidential elections.
quote:I'd
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And now writer/director/producer Joss Whedon has (sort of) endorsed Romney.
if it weren't so close to truth that I feel more like .
quote:To be fair, Romney only claims that federal disaster relief is "immoral". His long-form answer seems to be in favor of turning over such efforts to the private sector.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Disaster relief is immoral? I can't respond to this anywhere but in Hell.
quote:Now that's vulture capitalism!
Ahoy there! Yes, you! The one trapped on the roof of what used to be her home. What's your current bid for a rescue? Remember, you're bidding against those folks in the McMansion down what used to be the road, so price your bid accordingly!
quote:For an extended riff on this theme, read "We're All In This Together," By A Republican Standing In Four Feet Of Floodwater. A sample:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm more likely to go with:
Hey! Mister! You stuck on the roof! We looked at your Facebook page, and you are all negative on government spending for disaster relief and rescue. "People should take proper precautions and not expect other people to bail them out," you said. We're going to respect your words and not force a rescue on you that goes against your deeply-held beliefs. You built that. Bye now!
quote:
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it all away - that's what Ronald Reagan said, and it's true. But having a government big enough to buy some rescue helicopters wouldn't be so bad, would it?
quote:In other words, turning it into primarily a money-making opportunity for his rich friends. Which is immoral.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:To be fair, Romney only claims that federal disaster relief is "immoral". His long-form answer seems to be in favor of turning over such efforts to the private sector.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Disaster relief is immoral? I can't respond to this anywhere but in Hell.
quote:My standard response to that is that if the private sector could do it at profit, they would already be doing it. And they do, in a limited fashion: insurance companies provide a form of "disaster relief" to their customers. But what happens when the damage is to joint or public properties, such as infrastructure, or when the damage is so widespread that there will be significant delays and risks until repairs can be made? Think about trying to get an insurance policy for e.g. the Golden Gate Bridge, and putting in a claim, and trying to get it rebuilt ...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
... His long-form answer seems to be in favor of turning over such efforts to the private sector. ...
quote:Not immoral to Mitt, that's the problem.
In other words, turning it into primarily a money-making opportunity for his rich friends. Which is immoral.
quote:This is definitely one for the quotes file, Great Sister!
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
As for the size of the USA government, the Republicans seem to want a government so small that the only place it will fit is between a woman's legs.
quote:
In sum, this data indicates this election remains very close on the surface, but the political environment and the composition of the likely electorate favor Governor Romney. These factors come into play with our “vote election model” – which takes into account variables like vote intensity, voters who say they are definite in their vote, and demographics like age and education. In that snapshot of today’s vote model, Mitt Romney leads Barack Obama by five-points – 52% to 47%. While that gap can certainly be closed by the ground game of the Democrats, reports from the field would indicate that not to be the case, and Mitt Romney may well be heading to a decisive victory.
quote:FiveThirtyEight, a political prediction blog by Nate Silver.
ken: Can someone enlighten non-Americans as to what a 538 magic bullshit spewing machine is?
quote:Nate Silver is an American statistician who made a name for himself as a baseball statistician. Prior to the 2008 election, he began to apply many of the principles he used in baseball statistics to the presidential and senate elections. These evebntually took the form of a blog, which he called 538 -- the number of electors in the electoral college. The upshot was that he correctly predicted the outcome of the presidential election in 49 of the 50 states (all but Indiana) and the District of Columbia, as well as the outcomes of all Senate races that year. In 2010, he correctly predicted the outcome of 34 of the 37 senate races.
Originally posted by ken:
Can someone enlighten non-Americans as to what a 538 magic bullshit spewing machine is?
quote:The New York Times' ridiculous paywall allows you to view ten articles per (calendar) month. Repeatedly viewing the same article (say, FiveThirtyEight's front page) only counts as one view, regardless of how often you go there or whether it's been updated since your last view. Clicking through to read any of the individual posts (like this one about swing state polling) counts as an additional "article" towards your ten monthly free views.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
(Perhaps I should have mentioned that this blog is posted on the site of the New York Times, and that you're required to pay after reading 10 posts or so. However, the predictions are freely visible.)
quote:Well, statistical bullshit at least. The post linked to by moron is a typical way such things are usually spun. First, take a single poll that seems at least a little favorable to your preferred outcome, then 'tweak' their assumptions about the likely electorate. This is sometimes legitimate, but oftentimes it's not. A favorite among Republican-leaning pundits this time around is assuming things like the turnout and composition of the electorate in the 2012 election is going to be closer to the 2010 mid-terms than the 2008 presidential election (i.e. fewer young voters, fewer black voters, etc.)
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Romney heading for a decisive victory? Somebody please tell me that this is Repugly bull-shit, please.
quote:Well, a more accurate way to put it might be "Romney has narrowed the gap between him and Obama, but appears to have stalled."
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This thread is hopeless; I'm not getting my daily, 'Don't worry, Obama has a slight but solid lead in the important states' fix.
Instead, I'm getting 'Romney has an increasing lead', which I suspect is Repugly propaguglyanda.
quote:Having ran out of every other argument, Romney's campaign is reduced to a content-free bandwagon message. "Things are trending toward us; come trend along."
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This thread is hopeless; I'm not getting my daily, 'Don't worry, Obama has a slight but solid lead in the important states' fix.
Instead, I'm getting 'Romney has an increasing lead', which I suspect is Repugly propaguglyanda.
quote:He also said that stopping the rise of the ocean was a ridiculous goal. Would he like to repeat that now? If not, perhaps a PAC somewhere will kindly do it for him.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For those Americans in the path of Hurricane Sandy, just remember that Mitt Romney believes federal disaster relief is "immoral".
quote:Oh I know that I've been reading it for a while - seems pretty bog-standard boring to me if a bit optimistic sometimes. Its the magic bullshit spewing machine I want to see! Where is that explained? Can we get blueprints? Or a working model? I want to see it in action! I want to spray my crops with it! And my enemies!
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:FiveThirtyEight, a political prediction blog by Nate Silver.
ken: Can someone enlighten non-Americans as to what a 538 magic bullshit spewing machine is?
quote:That might be because half of them have been underwater for the last 36 hours.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This thread is hopeless; I'm not getting my daily, 'Don't worry, Obama has a slight but solid lead in the important states' fix.
quote:We just asked the local dairy farmer, who stopped by and spewed a load all over our garden. I didn't see anything magical about it, however. Perhaps that's because he didn't have any bulls.
Originally posted by ken:
Its the magic bullshit spewing machine I want to see! Where is that explained? Can we get blueprints? Or a working model? I want to see it in action! I want to spray my crops with it! And my enemies!
quote:There's a certain mindset that's able to tell itself "what they're saying doesn't apply to me". See also: GOProud and Log Cabin Republicans.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Can anyone explain why such a large proportion of women feel the need to vote Republican?
quote:Why wouldn't they? I mean the GOP has views and policies on all sorts of issues. Most women that I know are fairly intelligent and make up their own minds on these issues. The smarter ones, naturally, opt to side with the GOP.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Can anyone explain why such a large proportion of women feel the need to vote Republican?
quote:Or would be, if that party weren't out to systematically walk back all their rights as women.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Why wouldn't they? I mean the GOP has views and policies on all sorts of issues. Most women that I know are fairly intelligent and make up their own minds on these issues. The smarter ones, naturally, opt to side with the GOP.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Can anyone explain why such a large proportion of women feel the need to vote Republican?
To say that women, just because they are women, should vote en blanc for one party is sexism at its worst.
quote:I don't think that 'I can't understand why a woman would vote for party X' means the same as 'Women shouldn't vote for party X'.
New Yorker: To say that women, just because they are women, should vote en blanc for one party is sexism at its worst.
quote:En blanc? Does this mean they are supposed to wear white gloves when they vote?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
To say that women, just because they are women, should vote en blanc for one party is sexism at its worst.
quote:No, it means that the GOP still isn't so sure the Nineteenth Amendment was such a good idea and encourages women to submit ladylike blank ballots rather than doing something unwomanly like expressing a political opinion.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:En blanc? Does this mean they are supposed to wear white gloves when they vote?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
To say that women, just because they are women, should vote en blanc for one party is sexism at its worst.
--Tom Clune
quote:Sounds like it to me.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I don't think that 'I can't understand why a woman would vote for party X' means the same as 'Women shouldn't vote for party X'.
New Yorker: To say that women, just because they are women, should vote en blanc for one party is sexism at its worst.
quote:If McAskill beats Akin in Missouri by a greater than expected majority that might be a clue as to how many otherwise Republican voters would change their vote to Democrat because of womens rights.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Or would be, if that party weren't out to systematically walk back all their rights as women.
quote:Akin was expected to win handily. McCaskill was not particularly popular, and after the primary, I think Akin led by 10+ points.
Originally posted by ken:
If McAskill beats Akin in Missouri by a greater than expected majority that might be a clue as to how many otherwise Republican voters would change their vote to Democrat because of womens rights.
quote:This seems the wrong perspective to take. Obama doesn't need to take additional states beyond the ones he carried in 2008. He simply has to preserve his lead in enough to carry the electoral college. To continue the metaphor, he doesn't have to "climb a hill", he just has to not slip very far off one. So Romney can flip Florida, North Carolina, and Indiana into the Republican column (as he's predicted to do) but that still leaves him short in the electoral vote count.
Originally posted by ken:
Obama has got a higher hill to climb to do better because he already occupies most of the valley. Florida is the only big prize on offer, and nearly everyone assuming he has lost North Carolina already. According to the polls Arizona is the next one in line and that doesn't exactly look likely! I doubt if many Democrats will be fantasising about Montana or Georgia either - with the possible exception of Missouri, after Florida Obama has nothing winnable he hasn't won before.
quote:Italics in the orginal. Bold text added by me.
Mr. Obama’s lead in the Electoral College is modest, but also quite consistent across the different methods. The states in which every site has Mr. Obama leading make up 271 electoral votes — one more than the president needs to clinch victory. The states in which everyone has Mr. Romney ahead represent 206 electoral votes. That leaves five states, and 61 electoral votes, unaccounted for — but Mr. Obama would not need them if he prevails in the states where he is leading in the polls.
quote:Everyone here is saying that Sandy is a big boost to Obama. No one is criticizing his handling of the storm, and we seem to have come through it pretty well (though we still don't have electricity and I am writing this by candlelight.)
Originally posted by ken:
What effect will the weather and floods have?
quote:No. Just a typo. The whole "Republicans want to take away women's rights" thing is so funny it had me thinking of Mel Blanc, the voice of Bugs Bunny who people must believe is real and not a cartoon if they think the GOP is after women's rights.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:En blanc? Does this mean they are supposed to wear white gloves when they vote?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
To say that women, just because they are women, should vote en blanc for one party is sexism at its worst.
--Tom Clune
quote:Given that if Romney loses the election next week Governor Christie is an often-suggested name as a Republican candidate in 2016, there is more than one possible way to interpret his reaction.
Originally posted by Alogon:
A reporter asked Gov. Christie of N.J. yesterday whether he would welcome a visit from Romney to tour stricken areas. He replied that he didn't give a damn whether Romney came or not. This was out of annoyance with the question. He went on to say that when millions of people in his state are distressed and without electricity, anyone who thinks that he has time for Presidential politics doesn't know him. He was probably frazzled and dog-tired in general and wouldn't normally sound so dismissive of a friend. But the word is out there: Romney has temporarily become irrelevant.
quote:I think it is safe to assume that he is genuinely focused on the vast destruction of the state that he is the top elected official of and that is the state he has spent his whole life in.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Given that if Romney loses the election next week Governor Christie is an often-suggested name as a Republican candidate in 2016, there is more than one possible way to interpret his reaction.
Originally posted by Alogon:
A reporter asked Gov. Christie of N.J. yesterday whether he would welcome a visit from Romney to tour stricken areas. He replied that he didn't give a damn whether Romney came or not. This was out of annoyance with the question. He went on to say that when millions of people in his state are distressed and without electricity, anyone who thinks that he has time for Presidential politics doesn't know him. He was probably frazzled and dog-tired in general and wouldn't normally sound so dismissive of a friend. But the word is out there: Romney has temporarily become irrelevant.
quote:But that doesn't mean he doesn't have time to throw Governor Romney a rhetorical anvil in the form of a one-liner when asked directly about him by a reporter. It's that ability to multi-task and attention to all the little details that make Christie look so presidential. It's just as quick and effective a way of brushing off the question as offering his state's well-known salute and puts the shiv between Romney's shoulders at the same time. What's not to like?
Originally posted by Lawrence:
quote:I think it is safe to assume that he is genuinely focused on the vast destruction of the state that he is the top elected official of and that is the state he has spent his whole life in.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given that if Romney loses the election next week Governor Christie is an often-suggested name as a Republican candidate in 2016, there is more than one possible way to interpret his reaction.
quote:So the comments of Mourdock, Akin and the other anti-women guys (not to mention Limbaugh vs. Fluke) have no relation to the Republican Party, evne if they are running under that banner? The contrived lies about Planned Parenthood and other resources for women don't count, because you have decided that these aren't lies?
The whole "Republicans want to take away women's rights" thing is so funny it had me thinking of Mel Blanc, the voice of Bugs Bunny who people must believe is real and not a cartoon if they think the GOP is after women's rights.
quote:At this dire point in American history: well stated.
Originally posted by Porridge:
No; he's decided that Republican women are far more focused on nest eggs than on fertilized ones.
quote:Yeah, I'm sure he'll be dusting off those binders on November 7.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
And what women's rights are Republicans after? We're still courting their votes, so it can't be that. Romney works to ensure that they hold key positions so it can't be that.
quote:I forgot. The Democratic Holy Grail.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The Republicans' proposal for a "personhood" amendment would restrict pregnant women's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
quote:I really don't know what you are saying. I suspect that you are concerned about ensuring the right to infanticide. But I am not sure.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
And, apparently, you brlirvr that women in the US are either not eligible to receive the benfit of the Declaration, or they are simply not people so it doesn't matter.
Do you actually have anything to say or are you just going to throw odd phrases around as if they mean something?
quote:Can you provide a cite for a women's rights organization in the US that supports infanticide?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:I really don't know what you are saying. I suspect that you are concerned about ensuring the right to infanticide. But I am not sure.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
And, apparently, you brlirvr that women in the US are either not eligible to receive the benfit of the Declaration, or they are simply not people so it doesn't matter.
Do you actually have anything to say or are you just going to throw odd phrases around as if they mean something?
quote:Er... you seem to be answering 'I do understand why at least some women would vote for the Republican Party', recognizing that this doesn't mean the same thing as 'Women shouldn't vote Republican'.
Freddy:quote:Sounds like it to me.
LeRoc: I don't think that 'I can't understand why a woman would vote for party X' means the same as 'Women shouldn't vote for party X'.
Most women I know see the Republican party platform as more favorable for women. Many women identify strongly with the "family values" aspect of what Republicans stand for.
quote:I'm sorry but if you're speaking to me all I can say is "huh?"
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
NY: I had thought that the Declaration of Independence applied to the citizens of what was to become the United States of America.
Your statements imply that neither women nor Democrats are actually citizens of the USA.
Sowho else gets left off the list before we are down to "just me and my friends/fellow party members and no-one else" are the true citizens.
At least we now know the basis for the birther movement. "He" can't be a true citizen because "I" have said so.
I don't see much liberty, liberty, equality or the right to pursue happiness in that concept.
quote:Betting the Senate, on the other hand, seems a much safer wager. Silver currently (12:59 am ET on November 1, 2012) puts the chances of the Democrats retaining their majority at 91.3%.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ quetzalcoatl
Silver has been exercised quite a bit re the difference between national polls and state-by-state polls. It looks like that might be evening out as well, but not in Romney's favour.
Still not betting the house ...
quote:Oh.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Er... you seem to be answering 'I do understand why at least some women would vote for the Republican Party', recognizing that this doesn't mean the same thing as 'Women shouldn't vote Republican'.
Freddy:quote:Sounds like it to me.
LeRoc: I don't think that 'I can't understand why a woman would vote for party X' means the same as 'Women shouldn't vote for party X'.
Most women I know see the Republican party platform as more favorable for women. Many women identify strongly with the "family values" aspect of what Republicans stand for.
quote:Sigh. A friend of mine likes ABBA. I don't understand why he likes ABBA. But that's not the same as saying: "You shouldn't like ABBA". He's entitled to like whatever he wants.
Freddy: Oh.
Thanks for clearing that up.
quote:Some time back, a friend of mine pointed out an essay that she had found helpful in deciding who to vote for. The author of the essay didn't like either Obama or Romney. So he thought through his top five issues, and graded the candidates on those issues, on a scale of 1 to 4.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
What really happened in Benghazi?
quote:I don't understand why anyone would think that's a sensible answer.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Saying "I don't understand why women vote for the GOP" isn't sexist. Saying "Women shouldn't vote for the GOP" is.
quote:I agree. Romney's attempt to score political points re: a national tragedy is near treasonous.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It's a big deal that backs were turned on those that got killed in Benghazi.
quote:I can well understand why you wouldn't.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:I don't understand why anyone would think that's a sensible answer.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Saying "I don't understand why women vote for the GOP" isn't sexist. Saying "Women shouldn't vote for the GOP" is.
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Obama is the president. Look it up.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I agree. Romney's attempt to score political points re: a national tragedy is near treasonous.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It's a big deal that backs were turned on those that got killed in Benghazi.
quote:Obama is the president. Look it up.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I agree. Romney's attempt to score political points re: a national tragedy is near treasonous.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It's a big deal that backs were turned on those that got killed in Benghazi.
quote:And he looked very presidential. Both in the wake of the tragedy, and when Romney attacked during the debates. Romney, otoh, looks precisely like what he is: a callous opportunist. You can get away with that perhaps when the stakes are small. But when it comes to the murder of an American ambassador, as you noted, it is indeed, a big deal. Precisely the sort of Big Deal that shows the essential character of each candidate.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Obama is the president. Look it up.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I agree. Romney's attempt to score political points re: a national tragedy is near treasonous.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It's a big deal that backs were turned on those that got killed in Benghazi.
quote:Or the lack thereof.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But when it comes to the murder of an American ambassador, as you noted, it is indeed, a big deal. Precisely the sort of Big Deal that shows the essential character of each candidate.
quote:I'm sure most American voters care about that just exactly as much as we care who they would rather see as Mayor of London.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
We folks in Europe are (mainly) rather anxious about a Romney presidency.
quote:Of which this is a nasty example. Talk about ad hominem
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Nate Silver, who Croesos linked a few posts ago, may well be in for a rocky ride
quote:
Nate Silver is a man of very small stature, a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice that sounds almost exactly like the “Mr. New Castrati” voice used by Rush Limbaugh on his program. In fact, Silver could easily be the poster child for the New Castrati in both image and sound. Nate Silver, like most liberal and leftist celebrities and favorites, might be of average intelligence but is surely not the genius he's made out to be. His political analyses are average at best and his projections, at least this year, are extremely biased in favor of the Democrats.
quote:It's a big deal that backs are turned on those that die for lack of health insurance. It's a big deal that backs are turned on those that get killed or die for lack of adequate housing. It's a big deal that backs are turned on the Marines at Camp Lejeune who were drinking toxic water for 30 years. It's a big deal that backs were turned on the 9/11 First Responders (until a comedian shamed the legislature into responding!) It's a big deal that backs are turned on the mentally ill. It's a big deal that backs are turned on women who lose their jobs because of pregnancy. It's a big deal that backs are turned on the people who are thrown into private for-profit prisons for long terms for trivial drug offenses. It's a big deal that backs are turned on veterans with PTSD and TBI.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It's a big deal that backs were turned on those that got killed in Benghazi.
quote:I'm fairly left-wing, and it would never occur to me to abstain. My reasoning is that at least with the closet-Republican Obama, I have some idea what I'm getting.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There were similar arguments about Blair, I think, but to actually abstain or I suppose vote Lib Dem would be a stretch for a lot of left-wing Labour voters. (No, correction to that, I think a lot probably did abstain in 01 and 05).
So what would the left-wing Dems do? Abstain?
They might feel a bit weird if Romney got in for 8 years, and proved to be right-wing, militaristic, or whatever, wouldn't they?
quote:A lot voted Green. That's why the Green vote did well in some areas of inner London in the 2000s but collapsed in 2010, when some of the left-wingers went back to voting Labour. (One of the reasons why there was a swing to Labour in London in 2010, against the trend in the most of the rest of the country)
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There were similar arguments about Blair, I think, but to actually abstain or I suppose vote Lib Dem would be a stretch for a lot of left-wing Labour voters. (No, correction to that, I think a lot probably did abstain in 01 and 05). ?
quote:It's far from certain they didn't - this race isn't over yet.
Originally posted by ken:
But back to America - why couldn't the Republicans - or even right-wing Democrats - come up with a normal candidate who doesn't scare half the electorate away? Someone socially liberal but fiscally conservative? Surely they woudl win?
quote:If you can come up with a proposal for universal taxpayer funded healthcare and tax cuts, I'd love to hear it.
Originally posted by ken:
If the Republicans came up with a candidate willing to go along with the majority of Americans on social welfare issues like that, and also cut taxes and get out of foreign wars, what could stop them winning by a landslide?
quote:Even the ones who win are weird. Of all the Tory leaders in my lifetime William Hague is the only one who looks even remotely like a real person. I mean, someone you could imagine meeting in a pub or in the street or in church or in a laundrette or on the bus, never mind being related to. All the others are just not normal. Heath was the nearest to it, but even he was pretty strange. Macmillan, Douglas-Home, Heath, Thatcher, Major, Hague, Duncan-Smith, Howard, Cameron - deeply abnormal the lot of them. They neither look nor talk like normal British people.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think political parties go into suicide mode for a period. After Blair won in 97, the Tories kept electing leaders who could not have won a bottle of beer in a brewery.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I can well understand why you wouldn't.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:I don't understand why anyone would think that's a sensible answer.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Saying "I don't understand why women vote for the GOP" isn't sexist. Saying "Women shouldn't vote for the GOP" is.
quote:It must be possible because everyone in the world who isn't American already does it.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
If you can come up with a proposal for universal taxpayer funded healthcare and tax cuts, I'd love to hear it.
quote:Reading that throw-away line implies that the Declaration of Independence was a Democrat plot to ... do something, I don't know what.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:I forgot. The Democratic Holy Grail.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The Republicans' proposal for a "personhood" amendment would restrict pregnant women's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
quote:Oh, but nothing demonstrates Obama's sociopathy like the mental picture of him watching the ongoing battle in the White House and ordering potential reinforcements to stand down, because he has no conscience. (Never mind the difficulty in specifying a motive, on the part of such a grimly calculating person, for such a self-destructive outcome).
Originally posted by Josephine:
Benghazi doesn't make my top 5. Or my top 10. Perhaps later, when the investigation is complete, I may join you in your outrage. But I doubt it. Because the outrage looks for all the world to me like a noxious weed that has sprouted in the compost pile and will die as soon as the compost is turned.
quote:I voted a couple of days ago and asked the guy who checked me in how the turnout had been and he said 'unprecedented' and then started to say something about how many people wanted to see things changed but he caught himself (I remained poker-faced so he wasn't sure if I was a member of his choir) before he went further.
Hancock told the crowd at a Milwaukee rally on Sunday that Obama could lose the Badger State's 10 electoral votes because Republicans were beating Democrats in getting out the early vote, which began on Oct. 22.
"We have not turned out the vote early," Hancock was quoted as saying in an article about the rally that appeared in the Washington Examiner. "The suburbs and rural parts of Wisconsin — the Republican base — are voting. President Obama's base has yet to go vote. We've got to get our people to go vote."
quote:"Not that far behind" sounds like a tax hike to me.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:It must be possible because everyone in the world who isn't American already does it.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
If you can come up with a proposal for universal taxpayer funded healthcare and tax cuts, I'd love to hear it.
You spend more money per head on healthcare than any other major industrialised county. Just spend it differently.
You already spend about the same amount of tax money per head on government provision of healthcare as Australia and New Zealand do, and not that far behind Canada or Japan or the UK. Its just you spend it all on half the population and the other half have to get private insurance. And both halves pay too much. You are being ripped off.
You need to cut costs by paying the going rate for medicines, and letting doctors and patients make healthcare decisions instead of lawyers and accountants. Just like everyone else does.
quote:For those interested in odds assigned to the U.S. presidential election by actual gamblers, check here. Barack Obama seems to be the current favorite among those with money on the line.
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Would those hoping for a Romney win put money on it?
At what odds?
What about Obama supporters - odds?
quote:For those of us with a slightly less checkered past, can you explain what 2/7 and 5/2 mean? How do you look at that and decide that Obama is favored?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For those interested in odds assigned to the U.S. presidential election by actual gamblers, check here. Barack Obama seems to be the current favorite among those with money on the line.
quote:Which Romney are they more enthused about?
Originally posted by moron:
the 2010 results may indicate which party is more enthused this time around...
quote:Those are odds ratios and represent the proportion of payout offered for a wager compared to the stakes required. For instance, if Obama is rated at 2/7, it means that every $7 you wagered on his winning would be matched by $2 from the bookmaker in the event that Obama wins. Likewise, 5/2 odds for Romney means that every $2 wagered on him would yield $5 from the bookmaker in the event of a Romney victory. Essentially any ratio lower than 1/1 means the bookmaker considers the event more likely than not, and any ratio higher than that means the bookmaker considers the event less likely to happen than winning a coin toss.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:For those of us with a slightly less checkered past, can you explain what 2/7 and 5/2 mean? How do you look at that and decide that Obama is favored?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For those interested in odds assigned to the U.S. presidential election by actual gamblers, check here. Barack Obama seems to be the current favorite among those with money on the line.
--Tom Clune
quote:And said that Romney has reversed so many of his positions, that it's hard to tell where he is now.
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
NY mayor Bloomberg endorses Obama, apparently.
quote:The one that isn't Obama.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Which Romney are they more enthused about?
quote:HB:I really am sorry, but I really don't understand your argument about the Declaration of Independence. I'm probably being thick headed. It wouldn't be the first time.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
quote:Reading that throw-away line implies that the Declaration of Independence was a Democrat plot to ... do something, I don't know what.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:I forgot. The Democratic Holy Grail.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The Republicans' proposal for a "personhood" amendment would restrict pregnant women's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Do you really believe the D of I is only significant to the Dems, and that the Good People of the GOP somehow don't want said declaration? That the Dof I is only suitable for subhuman people like women and those pansy Dems?
What in Hell do you mean, beyond trying to avoid answering a question?
If you actually read on this board, you must be competent to answer at least one question.
quote:Hell, yes. I could more easily chat with Romney in a pub (though I doubt he'd be there) or W at church or Ron over a fence than I can imagine chatting with or connecting with Obama in any way. Romney, W, and Ron all seem human. Obama is just arrogant. As for Sarah Palin - I would not cross the street to avoid her but rather simply say "hello" and "keep up the good work." If I had the courage I might ask for a photo with her.
Originally posted by ken:
Can you imagine talking to Romney in a pub, or sitting next to Bush 2nd at church, or having a chat with Ronald Reagan over a garden fence? It just doesn't compute. And as for Sarah Palin - if she lived in your town you'd probably walk past on the other side of the street when you saw her coming, Bad news.
quote:The parents of the slain don't appear to be satisfied with the explanations they are getting. That tells me enough about Obama's character, or lack of it, the butthole.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:And he looked very presidential. Both in the wake of the tragedy, and when Romney attacked during the debates. Romney, otoh, looks precisely like what he is: a callous opportunist. You can get away with that perhaps when the stakes are small. But when it comes to the murder of an American ambassador, as you noted, it is indeed, a big deal. Precisely the sort of Big Deal that shows the essential character of each candidate.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Obama is the president. Look it up.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:I agree. Romney's attempt to score political points re: a national tragedy is near treasonous.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It's a big deal that backs were turned on those that got killed in Benghazi.
quote:It seems to me that someone is going a bit too far when they start talking about folks being tossed by their loving heavenly father into the gaping maw of hell because of something like this. How did our brothers Paul and Peter vote when it was time to elect Caesar?
Originally posted by moron:
Paging Squirrel / Paging Squirrel:
Huckabee warns about fire
I'm surprised he did this... usually he doesn't take himself quite so seriously.
quote:Perhaps I was not paying sufficient attention to the details, but did the Romney proposals not suggest changes for those over 55? Which would suggest that this part of the third rail (to use your metaphor) is not at all electrified, and that the 55+ in this conversation are feeling fine about changes affecting others. My guess is that they're quite happy with borrowed money going toward themselves, and that others can take the consequences.
Originally posted by moron:
quote:The one that isn't Obama.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Which Romney are they more enthused about?
A guy on MSNBC made an interesting comment a few minutes ago: apparently seniors (age 55+) in Florida are strongly in favor of R/R which means it is possible to touch the third rail of entitlements and survive.
Which probably sums my up take as well as anything: there are lots of folks who just don't think spending inordinate amounts of borrowed money is a good idea and I'm guessing (no bets for me, TYVM) that will benefit Romney.
quote:Agree. Maybe we'll see a viable 3rd party in another few cycles.
Originally posted by art dunce:
Well since both parties think spending inordinate amounts of borrowed money is a good idea (they only differ on what to spend it on) it doesn't leave much of a choice for those who wish to see it end.
quote:Do you want that to the nearest week, or...?
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:Which Romney are they more enthused about?
Originally posted by moron:
the 2010 results may indicate which party is more enthused this time around...
quote:The white one.
Originally posted by moron:
quote:The one that isn't Obama.
Originally posted by Alogon:
Which Romney are they more enthused about?
quote:Perhaps he was short-selling Chrysler stock? I wouldn't put it past him to use his campaign pulpit to make some lucre on the side.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
If Mitt Romney is such a great business guy, why did he put out the misleading Jeep ad? ISTM that's the sort of thing that could affect a company's stock price as well as its reputation.
quote:It doesn't mean we have to privatize the programs or turn Medicare into a voucher program. Reagan raised the social security taxes deducted from paychecks when he was president to avoid a looming shortfall when he was in office. Another small tax increase plus raising the income ceiling for when those deductions stop are just one avenue to pursue. Also, people are living far longer than was anticipated when social security was instituted so it makes sense to raise the age when social security kicks in by a couple of years. These changes alone will stave off the gloom and doom that the right says will happen shortly and the left says will happen further off.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I am a younger person and I know full well that if we continue along without any changes, medicare and social security will not be much when I get to retirement age. I think most young people who are actually paying attention get this. So talking about how to reform entitlements to make them sustainable is fine with me.
Maybe someone will start treating us like adults one of these days. One can only hope.
quote:Any information on the ethnicity of those Florida seniors? Is it possible that race is trumping Social Security & Medicare?
Originally posted by moron:
... A guy on MSNBC made an interesting comment a few minutes ago: apparently seniors (age 55+) in Florida are strongly in favor of R/R which means it is possible to touch the third rail of entitlements and survive....
quote:OF COURSE: don't you even read Horseman Bree's posts? Sheesh.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Is it possible that race is trumping Social Security & Medicare?
quote:
"President Obama has said we should admire same-sex relationships. The Bible condemns them. President Obama is in favor of even allowing a child inadvertently born alive that was intended to be aborted to die anyway. That's a complete violation of the Word of God, which says, 'Choose life that you and your children may live' (Deuteronomy 30:19)," the bishop cites.
quote:You're not supposed to mention race or ethnicity. Now that European descended whites will soon to be in the minority in this country we are suddenly a 'colorblind' nation. Even mentioning race or ethnicity is 'racist'.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:Any information on the ethnicity of those Florida seniors? Is it possible that race is trumping Social Security & Medicare?
Originally posted by moron:
... A guy on MSNBC made an interesting comment a few minutes ago: apparently seniors (age 55+) in Florida are strongly in favor of R/R which means it is possible to touch the third rail of entitlements and survive....
ETA Also, R&R have been consistently explicit that anyone over 55 won't see any changes to their benefits.
quote:(yawn) Yes there are a miniscule number of Black extreme fundamentalists who will be against Obama due to the gay marriage issue. But it's miniscule. While quite a few U.S. Black voters are less than enthusiastic about gay marriage, they are not so blind as to allow that one issue to cause them to vote for such as Romney/Ryan. One can always find an exception to almost anything. Your example proves nothing, nada, zilch.
Originally posted by moron:
And here's another OBVIOUS RACIST who is against Obama:
quote:
"President Obama has said we should admire same-sex relationships. The Bible condemns them. President Obama is in favor of even allowing a child inadvertently born alive that was intended to be aborted to die anyway. That's a complete violation of the Word of God, which says, 'Choose life that you and your children may live' (Deuteronomy 30:19)," the bishop cites.
quote:President Obama, like every other President, placed his hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution, not the other way around.
Originally posted by moron:
quote:
"President Obama has said we should admire same-sex relationships. The Bible condemns them. President Obama is in favor of even allowing a child inadvertently born alive that was intended to be aborted to die anyway. That's a complete violation of the Word of God, which says, 'Choose life that you and your children may live' (Deuteronomy 30:19)," the bishop cites.
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
President Obama, like every other President, placed his hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution, not the other way around.
Quotes file.
quote:I am an older person over 55 and I know if the part of social security that will provide for people under 55 is eliminated, that the idea of continuing to provide it for over 55 retirees will not last long. Would you continue to support it? This is divide and conquer.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
If the older crowd understood that the Romney / Ryan proposal wasn't going to hurt them, it was despite the best efforts of the Democrats. Obama once very wisely said that it was time to stop talking in terms of who wanted to kill your grandma. I don't know that the more outspoken members of his party followed that suggestion.
I am a younger person and I know full well that if we continue along without any changes, medicare and social security will not be much when I get to retirement age. I think most young people who are actually paying attention get this. So talking about how to reform entitlements to make them sustainable is fine with me.
Maybe someone will start treating us like adults one of these days. One can only hope.
quote:Of course I recognize that as a significant part of the Declaration of Independence.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
So, NY, you don't recognise the statement "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as being a significant part of the Declaration of Independence ?
quote:I recognize no such thing.
Or you don't recognise that your comment about the "Democrat's Holy Grail" might be taken as indicating that you (or your chosen party) do not subscribe to the concepts described?
quote:I think no such thing.
Or that you appear to think that women and Democrats are to be denigrated for even mentioning such a strange doctrine as "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? This would indicate that either women are not fit people to worry about such minor things as the founding document of your nation, or that, because Democrats pay attention to the document, it isn't fit for a REAL PERSON (such as a GOPer) to worry about it.
quote:No. It's Obama and his fellow travelers who apparently hate this country. Viz., Wright, Jeremiah.
Boy, you've got a pretty poor view of these United States.
quote:Obama doesn't hate this country and in fact, loves it. Not sure about Wright, but having listened to the whole sermon and not the soundbite there are things that younger or even older white folk just don't understamd and probably never will. Even Wright and his follower love this country - they just get frustrated because of the stupid stuff we do that hurts people.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
No. It's Obama and his fellow travelers who apparently hate this country. Viz., Wright, Jeremiah.
quote:From earlier discussions on the Ship, I understand that there could be a pond difference here.
Barnabas62: 2/7 (or 7/2 on) means that for every $7 you bet, you win $2 if you get it right.
quote:
...Obama in his frenetic campaigning for a second term is promising to replicate his first term, although simply apologizing would be appropriate.
quote:
Obama’s oceanic self-esteem — no deficit there ...
quote:
Speaking of apologies, Syracuse University’s law school should issue one for having graduated Joe Biden.
quote:More petty and unpleasant. And at the risk of being accused of hypocrisy at this point, my non-US perspective is that the choice appears not to be between one right wing and one very right wing party, but one right wing party and a bunch of certifiable swivel-eyed loons, as has been ably demonstrated in various Hell threads.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Er... I'm not from the US, but are those supposed to be funny?
quote:Good quote, but not entirely accurate. John Quincy Adams actually used a law book rather than a Bible when he was inaugurated in 1825. He still swore to uphold the Constitution, though.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
President Obama, like every other President, placed his hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution, not the other way around.
quote:Not so much "ha ha" funny as spiteful and dog-whistle racist. For instance:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Er... I'm not from the US, but are those supposed to be funny?
quote:I restored the opening few words of Will's column NYer had omitted. For those unfamiliar with it, "strong in body but not in mind" is one of the most deep-rooted American stereotypes about African-Americans and was often used in the past to justify their second-class citizenship. Given what we know about Obama's intellectual capacity (President of Harvard Law Review, cum laude degree, etc.) we have to wonder what kind of achievement would be required to move Obama out of Will's "indolent in mind" category? That's the underlying message folks like NYer consider so witty and accurate.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I can't recall George Will being so accurate and so witty.
quote:
[Energetic in body but indolent in mind, Barack] Obama in his frenetic campaigning for a second term is promising to replicate his first term, although simply apologizing would be appropriate.
quote:Oh, please. I've never heard such a thing.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For those unfamiliar with it, "strong in body but not in mind" is one of the most deep-rooted American stereotypes about African-Americans and was often used in the past to justify their second-class citizenship.
quote:Then why won't he release his transcripts?
Given what we know about Obama's intellectual capacity (President of Harvard Law Review, cum laude degree, etc.) ...
quote:Indolent means lazy. Obama said he's lazy.
we have to wonder what kind of achievement would be required to move Obama out of Will's "indolent in mind" category? That's the underlying message folks like NYer consider so witty and accurate.
quote:OhferGodsake, NYer. What a cheap and off-the-mark shot. Here's what the President actually said (italics mine):
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Indolent means lazy. Obama said he's lazy.
quote:Now do you want to try equating "all the work I do" with "lazy?"
“It’s interesting. Deep down underneath all the work I do, I think there’s a laziness in me,” Obama said. “It’s probably from growing up in Hawaii, and it’s sunny outside. Sitting on the beach.”
quote:Oh, please. I've never heard such a pathetic example of plausible deniability.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Oh, please. I've never heard such a thing. ....
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For those unfamiliar with it, "strong in body but not in mind" is one of the most deep-rooted American stereotypes about African-Americans and was often used in the past to justify their second-class citizenship.
quote:It's been a common theme on the American right from the Cornerstone Speech to The Bell Curve. If you've never heard such a thing it's because you're willfully ignoring it.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Oh, please. I've never heard such a thing.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For those unfamiliar with it, "strong in body but not in mind" is one of the most deep-rooted American stereotypes about African-Americans and was often used in the past to justify their second-class citizenship.
quote:Why won't Romney? Is it simply because as the white son of wealth and privilege no one has ever questioned his intelligence?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Then why won't he release his transcripts?
Given what we know about Obama's intellectual capacity (President of Harvard Law Review, cum laude degree, etc.) ...
quote:If President Obama is lazy, then the rest of us must be pretty much comatose.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Indolent means lazy. Obama said he's lazy.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
we have to wonder what kind of achievement would be required to move Obama out of Will's "indolent in mind" category? That's the underlying message folks like NYer consider so witty and accurate.
quote:Now you have people demanding that candidates sign a "cat food" pledge, stating that, among other things, they pledge to not raise the social security eligibility age. So we have folks on one side who have pledged to never raise taxes, and folks on the other side who have pledged to never make changes to the benefits. Sounds like a recipe for pragmatic problem solving if I have ever heard one.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
Also, people are living far longer than was anticipated when social security was instituted so it makes sense to raise the age when social security kicks in by a couple of years. These changes alone will stave off the gloom and doom that the right says will happen shortly and the left says will happen further off.
quote:One starts to understand how you can post such rubbish.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Oh, please. I've never heard such a thing.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For those unfamiliar with it, "strong in body but not in mind" is one of the most deep-rooted American stereotypes about African-Americans and was often used in the past to justify their second-class citizenship.
quote:You invent a pledge that never existed, assert that "folks on one side" would automatically sign it, then cite it as a reason for gridlock. Precious.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:Now you have people demanding that candidates sign a "cat food" pledge, stating that, among other things, they pledge to not raise the social security eligibility age. So we have folks on one side who have pledged to never raise taxes, and folks on the other side who have pledged to never make changes to the benefits. Sounds like a recipe for pragmatic problem solving if I have ever heard one.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
Also, people are living far longer than was anticipated when social security was instituted so it makes sense to raise the age when social security kicks in by a couple of years. These changes alone will stave off the gloom and doom that the right says will happen shortly and the left says will happen further off.
quote:Republican posters seem to just throw Fox provided talking points into a random post generator and hit 'spew'.
No. It's Obama and his fellow travelers who apparently hate this country. Viz., Wright, Jeremiah.
quote:In the UK bookies odds have traditionally been a better predictor of election results than opinion polls. I do not know if that is the case in the USA. It might not be - betting is far more embedded in British establishment culture than in American so maybe the people who know what they are talking about are more likely to bet and so contribute to setting the odds.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Don't forget that the odds always favour the bookmakers. And they get adjusted according to betting patterns. Poor bookies are as rare as hen's teeth.
quote:I think you are wrong about the UK. If I put a tenner on a horse at 4 to 1 and it wins then the bookie gives me my stake back and forty pounds winnings, so I have fifty pounds to put in in my pocket. Or at least he did last time I bet on a horse (which was in June, I'm not really a gambling man but I bet when I go to the races, which I only manage to do about once a yeaar)
Originally posted by LeRoc:
In the UK, '4 to 1' means that for every £ you bet, you receive £4 if you get it right, and that's it.
In the US, '4/1' means that for every $ you bet, you receive $4 if you get it right plus your original dollar back (totalling $5)
But please correct me if I'm wrong.
quote:Right in your backyard brother.
Originally posted by mousethief:
You invent a pledge that never existed, assert that "folks on one side" would automatically sign it, then cite it as a reason for gridlock. Precious.
quote:Just for you: 7 Prognosticators with Good News for Nervous Obama Fans.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This thread is hopeless; I'm not getting my daily, 'Don't worry, Obama has a slight but solid lead in the important states' fix.
Instead, I'm getting 'Romney has an increasing lead', which I suspect is Repugly propaguglyanda.
Somebody, help.
Yes, thank you, thank you, thank you, shantih shantih shantih.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Just for you: 7 Prognosticators with Good News for Nervous Obama Fans.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This thread is hopeless; I'm not getting my daily, 'Don't worry, Obama has a slight but solid lead in the important states' fix.
Instead, I'm getting 'Romney has an increasing lead', which I suspect is Repugly propaguglyanda.
Somebody, help.
Yes, thank you, thank you, thank you, shantih shantih shantih.
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
quote:Cheers, larging it already.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Just for you: 7 Prognosticators with Good News for Nervous Obama Fans.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This thread is hopeless; I'm not getting my daily, 'Don't worry, Obama has a slight but solid lead in the important states' fix.
Instead, I'm getting 'Romney has an increasing lead', which I suspect is Repugly propaguglyanda.
Somebody, help.
Yes, thank you, thank you, thank you, shantih shantih shantih.
quote:Ike's need for rest was legendary. The hard work was done by his workaholic VP, with the Prez, keeping a hand on the tiller. Reagan spent vast stretches of his presidency well away from the White House and the time he spent there wasn't all on presidential duties by any means.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:If President Obama is lazy, then the rest of us must be pretty much comatose.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:Indolent means lazy. Obama said he's lazy.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
we have to wonder what kind of achievement would be required to move Obama out of Will's "indolent in mind" category? That's the underlying message folks like NYer consider so witty and accurate.
quote:
I don’t know whether Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan can fix things, but I do know that Barack Obama and Joe Biden won’t even try — and that therefore a vote for Obama is a vote for the certainty of national collapse.
quote:Obama has put considerable effort into fixing things and things have slowly improved. I don't agree with everything he's done and if this weren't such an important election I would have voted 3rd party. But I voted early and I voted for Obama because I'm afraid of what Romney/Ryan would do to this country. I also think that Obama care needs fixing, not repealing. The GOP has nothing to offer in the way of health care reform and that is a key issue.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
The key quote from Mark Steyn.
quote:
I don’t know whether Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan can fix things, but I do know that Barack Obama and Joe Biden won’t even try — and that therefore a vote for Obama is a vote for the certainty of national collapse.
quote:You mean to say you find that rhetorical diatribe convincing? Really?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
The key quote from Mark Steyn.
quote:
I don’t know whether Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan can fix things, but I do know that Barack Obama and Joe Biden won’t even try — and that therefore a vote for Obama is a vote for the certainty of national collapse.
quote:Assuming you're quoting this because you agree with it, would you mind describing what you think "national collapse" will be like? Will you be fleeing the socialist tyranny, or joining the rebel alliance? Are you taking any special measures to prepare, or is your survival bunker already fully stocked?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
The key quote from Mark Steyn.
quote:
I don’t know whether Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan can fix things, but I do know that Barack Obama and Joe Biden won’t even try — and that therefore a vote for Obama is a vote for the certainty of national collapse.
quote:Like most people who make their living by inflaming partisan divisions, Bill Maher is a jerk. So is Bill O'Reilly. So is ... well, there's no reason to start a list. There are too many of them. They occupy the entire political spectrum. I don't watch any of them. I don't usually read what they said, either.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Vote for Obama? The white man will get you! Oops! Not exactly what was said.
quote:So on the final Friday before an election in which his party's chosen candidate is a long shot (at best), Bush II is safely out of the country at a "no press allowed" event. This seems a marked contrast to the most recent Democratic ex-president. Is this a tacit admission that Republicans feel their best chance of victory is to avoid reminding people of what a Republican presidency is like?
'Blackout' imposed as George W. Bush speaks at Cayman Islands investment conference
By NBC News staff and wire reports
GEORGE TOWN, Cayman Islands -- Organizers of an investment conference in the Cayman Islands have been forbidden from disclosing any details about a speech by former President George W. Bush in the offshore financial haven, an event spokesman said Thursday.
The keynote speech by the former president was "totally closed to all journalists," and conference organizers were banned from discussing any aspect of it even in general terms, spokesman Dan Kneipp said.
"We've got a complete blackout on discussing the Bush details," Kneipp told The Associated Press.
quote:Steyn is a fool, a liar, and a bigot. If he says something is true, that's evidence it isn't.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
The key quote from Mark Steyn.
quote:NYer's Selective Attention at work once again.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Vote for Obama? The white man will get you! Oops! Not exactly what was said.
quote:That's it? That's what certain national collapse will be like? Bill Maher doing comedy on cable?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Vote for Obama? The white man will get you! Oops! Not exactly what was said.
quote:I remember someone making a similar comment about four years ago. That he'd always pictured civilization collapsing because of a giant asteroid or a plague or the zombie apocalypse or something kinda cool, and that if civilization collapsed because of something as lame as credit default swaps he was going to be really pissed off.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
That's it? That's what certain national collapse will be like? Bill Maher doing comedy on cable?
Somehow I had envisioned something a little more apocalyptic.
quote:Delete Steyn, Insert Obama. You have my feelings exactly. Except I'd add thief.
Originally posted by ken:
Steyn is a fool, a liar, and a bigot. If he says something is true, that's evidence it isn't.
quote:Back to the betting....
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So if you can get better than 4/1 on (or 1/4) from a bookie, and you rate the Silver forecasting approach, then a wager on Obama would be a good wager. The odds favour the wager. If the odds the bookie offers are worse than that, then they don't.
Me, I'm not betting. Betting may be a bit of fun, but basically I reckon it's a mug's game, even if you know what you're doing.
quote:For me it's not so much that the cause of the collapse is disappointing, but that the experience itself will apparently be so anticlimactically mild. Less a collapse into the spikes of doom, and more a collapse into the sofa of reasonable comfort, as it were.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I remember someone making a similar comment about four years ago. That he'd always pictured civilization collapsing because of a giant asteroid or a plague or the zombie apocalypse or something kinda cool, and that if civilization collapsed because of something as lame as credit default swaps he was going to be really pissed off.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
That's it? That's what certain national collapse will be like? Bill Maher doing comedy on cable?
Somehow I had envisioned something a little more apocalyptic.
quote:To say that Obama of all people "hates" this country is the height of fact-denying insanity.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
It's Obama and his fellow travelers who apparently hate this country. Viz., Wright, Jeremiah.
quote:At least New Yorker can't say it is just one of those Democrat things - but, then, I guess that Powell and Wilkerson are "only RINOs" so they don't count.
Former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson told Ed Schultz of MSNBC’s “The Ed Show” on Friday that the Republican Party is “full of racists,” and that the main reason most Republicans want President Barack Obama to lose the election to former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) in November is because of the president’s race.
It was during a discussion of former Gov. John Sununu (R-NH)’s remarks that Powell only endorsed the re-election of President Obama because of his race.
“Let me just be candid,” Wilkerson said. “My party full of racists. And the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White House has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as Commander in Chief and President, and everything to do with the color of his skin. And that’s despicable.”
Former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson told Ed Schultz of MSNBC’s “The Ed Show” on Friday that the Republican Party is “full of racists,” and that the main reason most Republicans want President Barack Obama to lose the election to former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) in November is because of the president’s race.
It was during a discussion of former Gov. John Sununu (R-NH)’s remarks that Powell only endorsed the re-election of President Obama because of his race.
“Let me just be candid,” Wilkerson said. “My party full of racists. And the real reason a considerable portion of my party wants President Obama out of the White House has nothing to do with the content of his character, nothing to do with his competence as Commander in Chief and President, and everything to do with the color of his skin. And that’s despicable.”
quote:The first Tuesday following the first Monday in November. America's election day is deliberately set up so that it doesn't fall on the first of the month. So the two dates will usually line up, except in years when November 1 is a Tuesday.
Originally posted by Tukai:
Back to the betting....
It is a ripe source of amusement for Australians that American elections are scheduled to take place on the first Tuesday of November.
quote:With a 1-in-18 chance of Romney taking the state, Wisconsin isn't really that "up for grabs" anymore, but I include it here because it was on my old list. List sorted in order of swinginess. And yes, "swinginess" is now a word.
FL --- 55.5% --- 29
CO --- 30.3% ---- 9
VA --- 27.4% --- 13
NC --- 77.2% --- 15
NH --- 19.8% ---- 4
IA --- 18.8% ---- 6
OH --- 13.2% --- 18
NV --- 10.0% ---- 6
WI* --- 5.5% --- 10
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Don't do anything silly now ...
quote:It means Romney's pretty desperate.
Originally posted by moron:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Don't do anything silly now ...
Wowser: Romney packs in more than 25,000 in Pennsylvania.
I wonder if that means anything.
quote:Non-desperate campaigns don't trap their supporters in freezing enclosures.
This is happening right now at Mitt Romney’s rally in Pennsylvania. Apparently it’s freezing, and Romney’s staff is refusing to let rally-goers leave. People are begging reporters for help.
quote:It means that if you are spending 500 million dollars on the third biggest media circus in the world after the Olympics and the World Cup, you can attract a crowd.
Originally posted by moron:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Don't do anything silly now ...
Wowser: Romney packs in more than 25,000 in Pennsylvania.
I wonder if that means anything.
quote:You're off by half. My understanding is that both campaigns are burning through a billion dollars apiece this campaign cycle. The notion that either of these guys would be free to dance to their own tune is the height of naivete.
Originally posted by ken:
]It means that if you are spending 500 million dollars on the third biggest media circus in the world after the Olympics and the World Cup, you can attract a crowd.
quote:So totally unsurprising. To someone like myself who spent a good part of his growing-up years in the segregationist 1960s in Alabama, the outrageous voter suppression efforts by Republicans is a blatantly obvious attempt to bring back Jim Crow.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
This just in: Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff says the republican Party is filled with racists
quote:Not when it comes to the presidential election.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The idea that electing officials by popular vote is alien or disagreeable to Americans is laughable on its face.
quote:Actually that's a very good point.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Who told you we were civilized?
quote:Really? People really prefer the electoral college to popular vote? Where are these people? I've never heard or read them.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Not when it comes to the presidential election.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The idea that electing officials by popular vote is alien or disagreeable to Americans is laughable on its face.
quote:Lay off! Jed may have been uneducated, but he had a much better understanding of human nature than your average fictional sit-com character of the time.
Originally posted by REALLYMAD:
...every Jed Clampett...
quote:Whoops! I did of course mean Steve Wilkos...
Originally posted by REALLYMAD:
quote:Actually that's a very good point.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Who told you we were civilized?
2 sides to this democracy coin.
Everybody has a right to vote.. yeehaw!
Sadly that means every member of the Klan, every Jed Clampett, every Kim Kardashian stalker, every WWE fan, every redneck who loves his pick up truck more than his wife, every member of the Steve Kilkos Show audience...
quote:While I think probably both conclusions are accurate, North Carolina isn't being completely ignored at this point. Bill Clinton spoke at a rally in Raleigh yesterday, and the First Lady will be at a rally in Charlotte today.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
An interesting absentee from both campaign's list of rallies: North Carolina. Both sides seem to have concluded that either the result there is a "done deal" or (in Obama's case) the effort required to change the likely result would be a mis-allocation of precious resources.
quote:Loved Beverly Hillbillies
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:Lay off! Jed may have been uneducated, but he had a much better understanding of human nature than your average fictional sit-com character of the time.
Originally posted by REALLYMAD:
...every Jed Clampett...
quote:One doesn't have to be very good at all to be better than what we have.
Originally posted by REALLYMAD:
A quarter of a billion people in a civilized democracy and HE is the best opposition they can come up with? Seriously?
quote:If that's so, what an insult to the GOP that they couldn't find one.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:One doesn't have to be very good at all to be better than what we have.
Originally posted by REALLYMAD:
A quarter of a billion people in a civilized democracy and HE is the best opposition they can come up with? Seriously?
quote:I've never seen anyone laughing at the electoral college system.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Really? People really prefer the electoral college to popular vote? Where are these people? I've never heard or read them.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Not when it comes to the presidential election.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The idea that electing officials by popular vote is alien or disagreeable to Americans is laughable on its face.
quote:From where I stand Obama hasn't been anywhere near the worst you've had. I was actually elated when he got into office 4 years ago.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:One doesn't have to be very good at all to be better than what we have.
Originally posted by REALLYMAD:
A quarter of a billion people in a civilized democracy and HE is the best opposition they can come up with? Seriously?
quote:It should be noted that according to the 2010 census there are only about 135 million Americans who are over the age of thirty-five and natural-born citizens, the Constitutional requirement to serve as president. And since this is the Republican party we're talking about, less than half of those are white and male.
Originally posted by REALLYMAD:
A quarter of a billion people in a civilized democracy and HE is the best opposition they can come up with? Seriously?
quote:And here I was thinking that both candidates are the best we've had in a long time.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:One doesn't have to be very good at all to be better than what we have.
Originally posted by REALLYMAD:
A quarter of a billion people in a civilized democracy and HE is the best opposition they can come up with? Seriously?
quote:If he had promised four years ago that our country would be just like it is today, I doubt he would have won.
Originally posted by REALLYMAD:
From where I stand Obama hasn't been anywhere near the worst you've had. I was actually elated when he got into office 4 years ago.
He inherited a disaster; the banks made it much worse after that. Too easy to point the finger and expect him to fix the entire country in 4 years. Hopefully he'll get more time to continue.
quote:Read for content. He didn't say the electoral college is laughable. He said the idea that electing officials by popular vote is alien or disagreeable is laughable. Maybe this will help.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:I've never seen anyone laughing at the electoral college system.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Really? People really prefer the electoral college to popular vote? Where are these people? I've never heard or read them.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:Not when it comes to the presidential election.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The idea that electing officials by popular vote is alien or disagreeable to Americans is laughable on its face.
quote:Romney says it will take 8 to 10.
Originally posted by REALLYMAD:
He inherited a disaster; the banks made it much worse after that. Too easy to point the finger and expect him to fix the entire country in 4 years. Hopefully he'll get more time to continue.
quote:I understand what he said and what I said is true.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Read for content. He didn't say the electoral college is laughable. He said the idea that electing officials by popular vote is alien or disagreeable is laughable. Maybe this will help.
quote:Obama knew he didn't have that long:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Romney says it will take 8 to 10.
Originally posted by REALLYMAD:
He inherited a disaster; the banks made it much worse after that. Too easy to point the finger and expect him to fix the entire country in 4 years. Hopefully he'll get more time to continue.
quote:Only slightly less controversial than when they were taking bets on an Obama assassination.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Bookmakers Paddy Power are apparently paying out already for an Obama win.
Make of that what you will.
quote:Only slightly less? They were really trying to make money off of a possible murder?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Only slightly less controversial than when they were taking bets on an Obama assassination.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Bookmakers Paddy Power are apparently paying out already for an Obama win.
Make of that what you will.
quote:It wasn't personal -- it was just business.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
They were really trying to make money off of a possible murder?
quote:Phew!!!
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:It wasn't personal -- it was just business.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
They were really trying to make money off of a possible murder?
--Tom Clune
quote:The Republican party has noticed that its success is inversely proportional to voter turnout. In other words, more people voting is bad for Repblican electoral prospects in most jurisdiction. So we end up with things like this:
Originally posted by malik3000:
That is why I am very nervous about this election despite the fact that it looks good for Obama. The people who kept Black folks from voting back then would do absolutely anything they could get away with to achieve their goals. I have absolutely no doubt that their heirs today will likewise try to do absolutely anything they can get away with to achieve their racist goals (and not just in the South). The despicable voter suppression going on in Florida, the shady voting machines in Ohio and elsewhere made by Tagg Romney's company, the shameful billboards attempting to intimidate Latino voters, all these and more are worrying indicators.
quote:Or this:
Thousands of absentee-ballot requests may have been erroneously rejected statewide because of voter-registration issues, voter advocates say.
Secretary of State Jon Husted has acknowledged that a data-sharing glitch between his office and the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles likely caused some absentee-ballot applications to be wrongfully rejected because county boards did not have up-to-date information on registrants’ addresses.
Meanwhile, a voter advocacy group said yesterday that it had found cases in which county boards rejected applications for absentee ballots of legitimately registered voters because elections officials erroneously determined them to be unregistered.
quote:Or this:
The investigation into the arrest of a man on charges of dumping voter registration forms last month in Harrisonburg, Va., has widened, with state officials probing whether a company tied to top Republican leaders had engaged in voter registration fraud in the key battleground state, according to two persons close to the case.
A former employee of Strategic Allied Consulting, a contractor for the Republican Party of Virginia, had been scheduled to appear last Tuesday before a grand jury after he was charged with tossing completed registration forms into a recycling bin. But state prosecutors canceled Colin Small’s grand jury testimony to gather more information, with their focus expanding to the firm that had employed Small, which is led by longtime GOP operative Nathan Sproul.
quote:There are other examples, but it a lot of it comes back to those in power not wanting the electoral process to play out and putting as many obstacles as they can in place to impede that from happening.
What began Sunday morning as an attempt by the Miami-Dade elections department to let more people early vote devolved into chaos and confusion only days before the nation decides its next president.
Call it the debacle in Doral.
Elections officials, overwhelmed with voters, locked the doors to their Doral headquarters and temporarily shut down the operation, angering nearly 200 voters standing in line outside — only to resume the proceedings an hour later.
On the surface, officials blamed technical equipment and a lack of staff for the shutdown. But behind the scenes, there was another issue: Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez.
The Republican had never signed off on the additional in-person absentee voting hours in the first place.
“That was counter to what I said on Friday, which was we were not going to change the game mid-stream,” he said. “I said, ‘No, there’s no way we did this.’”
But Gimenez, who is in a nonpartisan post, quickly realized it was better to let the voting go on, and the voting resumed.
quote:The way you write it it sounds like an official plan by the party, or even more than one member of the party, instead of the work of one person.
Originally posted by art dunce:
There are reports from Oregon that Republicans have engaged in election fraud by altering mail in ballots.
quote:If this happened in just one state, it would be one thing.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:The way you write it it sounds like an official plan by the party, or even more than one member of the party, instead of the work of one person.
Originally posted by art dunce:
There are reports from Oregon that Republicans have engaged in election fraud by altering mail in ballots.
quote:I'd say the four states with same-sex marriage referenda (three for, one against), but I don't want to get the thread DHed. I seem to recall Porridge is running for a seat in his/her state legislature.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
Any other results you are watching for tomorrow? Who here is actually running for office?
quote:Let's remember that Republicans didn't regard Operation Eagle Eye as a blot on William Rehnquist's record. It's what they liked about the twisted old bastard.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
There seems to be an air of mass hysteria creeping into all this discussion on here. I don't remember 4 years ago being so polarised on the thread for that election.
Voter suppression isn't new, nor is "they hate the country" rhetoric. But you'd think people on here would be a little bit more above all that.
quote:True -- once their devious plot was uncovered.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Although to its credit, the State seems to have bent over backwards to ensure that the Spanish community is aware of the error and what the correct date should be.
The Spanish press and TV/radio media have also made an extra effort to let the public know the correct date.
I saw an excellent political cartoon in a Spanish-language newspaper this past weekend. The caption translates as: "If you don't vote, you'll have to dance with the ugly girl." The cartoon depicts the "ugly girl" as a big fat elephant.
quote:Why not just SAY "la la la la la I can't hear you" explicitly? Why beat around the bush about it?
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
(Yes, I know, cue the prooftexts about why they are different)
quote:Be warned that if it's a close race, it may not be resolved tommorrow night. A number of the west coast states have mail in ballot options where it only has to be postmarked eleciton day.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Happy Election Day, US Shipmates. I'll be watching the results eagerly.
quote:Brazilians always find this funny. Brazil has about the same number of voters as the US, and the country poses much bigger logistical challenges. Yet, in Brazil they always have the results on the very same evening. Especially in 2000, this gave Brazilians reason to feel smugly superior
Palimpsest: So if it's really close, the vote can take several more days to tally.
quote:That should level up the dead folks voting in Chicago
Originally posted by art dunce:
There are reports from Oregon that Republicans have engaged in election fraud by altering mail in ballots.
quote:In 2000, Canada had a Federal election. The campaign lasted 37 days. The polls opened at 7 am ET in Newfoundland and closed at midnight in the West. The government was declared by 1 am.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Brazilians always find this funny. Brazil has about the same number of voters as the US, and the country poses much bigger logistical challenges. Yet, in Brazil they always have the results on the very same evening. Especially in 2000, this gave Brazilians reason to feel smugly superior
Palimpsest: So if it's really close, the vote can take several more days to tally.
quote:Carex already explained this, but let me give my shot.
Dark Knight: Here's what I don't get. I know Ohio is a swing state with a fair few electoral college votes (I don't really get the system, but bear with me). But so is Florida, significantly more electoral college votes than Ohio.
quote:That, and if he wins FL he'll probably have won OH too.
Clint Boggis: Thanks LeRoc, that's a bit clearer but does it come down to focussing on OH because if he wins there, he doesn't need FL which is harder to win anyway?
quote:Yes, those are nice. I understand that Nate Silver uses graphs like these. He performs 10,000 Monte Carlo trials using the given probability distributions for each state, to find out how much chance each candidate has of winning the election.
Clint Boggis: I've just found this collection of pretty graphics
quote:While that sounds properly rigorous, the real difference among pollsters is what they imagine the make-up of the voters to be. If they see, e.g., a larger participation of minorities, they get one result. If they see a larger participation of blue-collar whites, they get another. And there's really no good basis for assuming one distribution over another AFAICT. It will be nice when all this gamesmanship is academic. With any luck, that will be by tomorrow.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I understand that Nate Silver uses graphs like these. He performs 10,000 Monte Carlo trials using the given probability distributions for each state, to find out how much chance each candidate has of winning the election.
quote:You're right. What you could try to do, is look at earlier elections and see how many blue-collar whites etc. turned up, and include these data into the probability distributions. I guess that's what Mr. Silver is doing, but I'd have to check his FAQ to make sure.
tclune: While that sounds properly rigorous, the real difference among pollsters is what they imagine the make-up of the voters to be. If they see, e.g., a larger participation of minorities, they get one result. If they see a larger participation of blue-collar whites, they get another. And there's really no good basis for assuming one distribution over another AFAICT.
quote:Well, yeah. I can't imagine a worse line he could have gone with, frankly. I suppose something on adultery, perhaps. I love Bubba, but I'm wondering what he was thinking...
Originally posted by New Yorker:
This is rich.
quote:AMEN.
Originally posted by tclune:
It will be nice when all this gamesmanship is academic. With any luck, that will be by tomorrow.
quote:Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
Originally posted by jbohn:
quote:Well, yeah. I can't imagine a worse line he could have gone with, frankly. I suppose something on adultery, perhaps. I love Bubba, but I'm wondering what he was thinking...
Originally posted by New Yorker:
This is rich.
quote:AMEN.
Originally posted by tclune:
It will be nice when all this gamesmanship is academic. With any luck, that will be by tomorrow.
quote:
While he was leaving a Delaware polling booth, Biden was asked whether it was the last time he'd cast a ballot for himself.
"No, I don't think so," he replied, smiling.
quote:Biden's remark is not exactly clear. Remember, he's a Democrat -- he may have been saying that he was expecting to cast a few more ballots today...
Originally posted by moron:
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
quote:
While he was leaving a Delaware polling booth, Biden was asked whether it was the last time he'd cast a ballot for himself.
"No, I don't think so," he replied, smiling.
quote:I think it is like roads. The older parts of the U.S. have the worst roads. The more recently paved areas have it far better.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Brazilians always find this funny. Brazil has about the same number of voters as the US, and the country poses much bigger logistical challenges. Yet, in Brazil they always have the results on the very same evening. Especially in 2000, this gave Brazilians reason to feel smugly superior
Palimpsest: So if it's really close, the vote can take several more days to tally.
quote:Basically Mr. Silver bases his predictions on the current opinion polls, with corrections for the past accuracy of each poll, state history, correlations between different results, etc. From that he forecasts a likely vote percentage for each candidate in each state (and each race - he doesn't just focus on the Presidential results.) He often discusses his methodology, how to correct for various sources of inaccuracy, current and historic trends, and why he gives different weights to the many polls available.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
...What you could try to do, is look at earlier elections and see how many blue-collar whites etc. turned up, and include these data into the probability distributions. I guess that's what Mr. Silver is doing, but I'd have to check his FAQ to make sure.
quote:
Dear People Flipping Out,
I’ve mentioned this before, but about a decade ago I was in a sabermetric-oriented simulated baseball league with someone I’ll call “Sate Nilver.” I eventually quit that league because no one could defeat “Nilver,” because “Nilver” cared about nothing but being correct. His assiduous devotion to developing models that could defeat your models sapped all the fun out of simulating baseball games with a group of stats nerds. Now, sleep easy, because tomorrow he will “win” again.
quote:But, when you are tracking satellites, you know which ones actually exist. Try tracking the behavior of "potential" satellites, which more closely approximates the tracking of voters, or rather potential voters. It strikes me as rather like trying to herd Schrodinger's cats...
Originally posted by Carex:
I've used a similar approach professionally for tracking satellites in real-time, so it all makes sense to me.
quote:I'm confused. I would think fastidiousness would be an extremely desirable trait in a statistician.
...Now, sleep easy, because tomorrow he will “win” again.
quote:That's why I dread seeing these predictions that Obama has a 90% chance of winning. The number-crunching may be ever-so-solid, but what we don't know yet is how reporting them can affect behavior. The complacency induced in just a few can spoil the prediction.
Originally posted by Carex:
In both states, the details of the voter turnout will be critical. Expect some close races.
quote:You clearly took your time then.
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
Just got home after voting. No line when I arrived there, but about 10 people waiting when I left.
quote:This goes to the question of whether polling can tell us anything about the electorate. If not, then yeah, you might as well flip a coin or toss a dart or whatever. However, given that polling, especially state-level polling, seems to have a pretty good track record of correlating with the actual vote you'd have to do more than hand-wave to be convincing on your "polls are meaningless" assertion.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:But, when you are tracking satellites, you know which ones actually exist. Try tracking the behavior of "potential" satellites, which more closely approximates the tracking of voters, or rather potential voters. It strikes me as rather like trying to herd Schrodinger's cats...
Originally posted by Carex:
I've used a similar approach professionally for tracking satellites in real-time, so it all makes sense to me.
--Tom Clune
quote:Yes, it is ironic-- precisely because it is TRUE.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
This is rich.
quote:That site looks more than a little slanted, methinks. Any reports in more mainstream media sources? It's not quite WorldNetDaily-crazy, but I'm a bit suspect of any site whose stories seem to all come from one side of the political spectrum.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
There are already reports of thuggery and the like.
quote:Now, *that* we can agree on!
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
If only we could find a local pub having a Drinkin' with Lincoln special for election day. $5 to get in, penny a draft.
quote:Dude. Does that mean Obama might carry New York?
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Was I, humble New Yorker, a victim of voter fraud? I've voted in every single election since moving to NY but today my name had suddenly disappeared from the voter rolls. Was it becauase I was a registered Republican? Who knows.
quote:Oh. I can't find any other kind.
Originally posted by jbohn:
I'm a bit suspect of any site whose stories seem to all come from one side of the political spectrum.
quote:No! Its because you individually are being targetted by the great Left-wing Communist-Liberal Feminist-Green Conspiracy and we are out to get you! And we are everywhere! And we know where you live!
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Was I, humble New Yorker, a victim of voter fraud?
quote:Had I known, I would have sent you the extra ballot they sent me.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Was I, humble New Yorker, a victim of voter fraud? I've voted in every single election since moving to NY but today my name had suddenly disappeared from the voter rolls. Was it becauase I was a registered Republican? Who knows.
quote:Ae you a Democrat or Republican?
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
So if you drive to the post office to mail in your second ballot and accidentally run someone over with your car on your way home, are you liable for murder?
quote:I was required to sign an affidavit that I am who I am and completed a provisional ballot. However, there was a large trash can by the poll worker's table......
Originally posted by tclune:
Hi, New Yorker. Just curious -- what was the procedure that ensued? Were you given a provisional ballot? Refused a ballot at all? How did you handle the event? Inquiring minds want to know...
quote:Three words for you: Supreme. Court. Justices.
Og Thread Killer:
Or have stakes gotten so high in people's heads that people in the US can't see there is really not all that much different between the two?
quote:Because it is more important than the popular vote. The popular vote does not elect the president; the electoral college does. George W. Bush lost the popular vote, but he won the electoral college vote (sort of), and so he won the election and was president. The popular vote matters in a sense that the winner can claim more of a mandate if he wins by a good margin (hence my vote for Obama today instead of Green Party candidate Jill Stein), but it doesn't technically matter.
Dark Knight:
I still don't get the electoral college vote system, and why it seems to be more important than the popular vote.
quote:Brazil probably runs a federal election. And yes, I'm envious.
Le Roc:
Brazil has about the same number of voters as the US, and the country poses much bigger logistical challenges. Yet, in Brazil they always have the results on the very same evening. Especially in 2000, this gave Brazilians reason to feel smugly superior
quote:The State runs primary elections. If you have closed primary elections, the secretary of state has to know who to send ballots to.
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Can someone remind me why anyone's party affiliation is part of their public record? It seems pretty silly if it allows even the possibility that New Yorker's vote could be interfered with and goes against the idea of the secret ballot. Is there a good reason?
quote:There's all sorts of stuff that is part of the public record for reasons I would question. I don't know about other counties, but here in Buncombe I can go online and look up your voter registration, when you vote, where you vote, what car you drive, where you live, when you bought it, what you paid for it, who you bought it from, what the county says it is worth, a picture of it, if and when you paid your property tax, and, after you shuffle off this mortal coil, I can go down to the county court house and slowly thumb through your probate records to see a list of a bunch of other stuff you owned.
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Can someone remind me why anyone's party affiliation is part of their public record? It seems pretty silly if it allows even the possibility that New Yorker's vote could be interfered with and goes against the idea of the secret ballot. Is there a good reason?
quote:You fell for that one? They'll be forcibly treating you for a clearly documented psychiatric diagnosis any minute now.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
I was required to sign an affidavit that I am who I am...
quote:Ohio is important for several reasons. First, no Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio. Second, as a midwestern blue-collar state with lots of electoral votes, it is a key test of Romney's electability. No win in Ohio, no presidency for Romney.
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Thanks LeRoc, that's a bit clearer but does it come down to focussing on OH because if he wins there, he doesn't need FL which is harder to win anyway?
I've just found this collection of pretty graphics. I like the two-party vote intentions graphs which show nicely the probabilities of winning each state, drifting towards Romney further down.
quote:I think that the most hassle-free thing for nuanced thinkers like us is to register Libertarian (or with some other "third" party). That way 99% of the fund-raisers, pollsters, mass-mailers, robo-callers, conspirators etc. etc. will consider you either harmless or hopeless. Of course, the must intellectual and geeky Libertarians will want one to be a doctrinaire purist, which I decidedly am not. But hey, the other part of Libertarianism is a declaration that you will be as hard to herd as a cat.
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Was I, humble New Yorker, a victim of voter fraud? I've voted in every single election since moving to NY but today my name had suddenly disappeared from the voter rolls. Was it becauase I was a registered Republican? Who knows.
quote:But you know there is a election, and there will (eventually) be a result. You have conflicting data about the result, and the purpose is to try to combine all the data to get an estimate that is more accurate than any one piece of information about it.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:But, when you are tracking satellites, you know which ones actually exist. Try tracking the behavior of "potential" satellites, which more closely approximates the tracking of voters, or rather potential voters. It strikes me as rather like trying to herd Schrodinger's cats...
Originally posted by Carex:
I've used a similar approach professionally for tracking satellites in real-time, so it all makes sense to me.
--Tom Clune
quote:The national popular vote doesn't matter except symbolically mandate-wise. The popular vote in each state certainly does matter, because it determines who gets that state's electoral votes, whether by a winner-take-all method as in 48 of the states and DC, or by a congressional district method as in Maine and Nebraska.
Originally posted by RuthW:
The popular vote matters in a sense that the winner can claim more of a mandate if he wins by a good margin (hence my vote for Obama today instead of Green Party candidate Jill Stein), but it doesn't technically matter.
quote:I understand what you are saying. However, the nature of the disagreement on the poll data presents a problem for your naive shuffling of the polls -- the question is whether the assumptions of how populations will behave reflects a systematic bias -- "groupthink," if you will. If so, lumping the data does not provide noticeably better indication of the results than do each of the polls individually.
Originally posted by Carex:
So for the 12 latest National polls of the national popular vote, there were 8 favoring Obama, 2 showed the race tied, and 2 favored Romney. On average, Obama had a 1.6% lead (compared to 1.5% for the previous poll.) Now, any one poll might have a margin of error of +/- 3 points, so the popular vote could still go either way, but with so many polls being that far on one side of the distribution, the probability of Romney winning the popular vote are relative low. Non-zero, certainly, but low.
quote:Beware of setting too much store by electoral precedent.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
First, no Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio.
quote:Sure--but if you had 100,000,000 Schrodinger's cats, you could predict with a high degree of accuracy how many would be alive and how many dead when you opened all the boxes, just not exactly which would be which. That's what statistics is for.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:But, when you are tracking satellites, you know which ones actually exist. Try tracking the behavior of "potential" satellites, which more closely approximates the tracking of voters, or rather potential voters. It strikes me as rather like trying to herd Schrodinger's cats...
Originally posted by Carex:
I've used a similar approach professionally for tracking satellites in real-time, so it all makes sense to me.
--Tom Clune
quote:OK, thanks, that explains why it needs to be recorded but not why it's public.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:The State runs primary elections. If you have closed primary elections, the secretary of state has to know who to send ballots to.
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Can someone remind me why anyone's party affiliation is part of their public record? It seems pretty silly if it allows even the possibility that New Yorker's vote could be interfered with and goes against the idea of the secret ballot. Is there a good reason?
quote:Here in UK anyone can check my details (mostly name and address) on the Electoral Register but not my voting intentions as they're not recorded. No-one can look at my health records and my financial details are restricted too. We do have more CCTV cameras than most countries though.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
There's all sorts of stuff that is part of the public record for reasons I would question. I don't know about other counties, but here in Buncombe I can go online and look up your voter registration, when you vote, where you vote, what car you drive, where you live, when you bought it, what you paid for it, who you bought it from, what the county says it is worth, a picture of it, if and when you paid your property tax, and, after you shuffle off this mortal coil, I can go down to the county court house and slowly thumb through your probate records to see a list of a bunch of other stuff you owned.
quote:Same here. I can tell that you voted, not how.
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Here in UK anyone can check my details (mostly name and address) on the Electoral Register but not my voting intentions as they're not recorded. No-one can look at my health records and my financial details are restricted too.
quote:Except I'm not so sure we can take that as "given". Sure, it's a popular cliché among pundits with a vested interest in having something to bloviate about on election night, but is the electorate really subject to large "demographic flux[es]" and, if so, does that effect outcomes? For instance, I see no particular reason that California or Texas wouldn't be subject to the same demographic fluxiness as Iowa or New Hampshire. Heck, given the greater demographic diversity of California and Texas they should be in even greater "demographic flux" than almost anywhere else in the country. And yet for some reason we don't see the huge electoral shifts we'd expect if we accept your "given".
Originally posted by tclune:
Given the large demographic flux of the electorate . . .
quote:The US approach of effectively 50 separate elections looks slightly weird, until I remind myself that effectively we have 150 separate elections for Prime Minister.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:The national popular vote doesn't matter except symbolically mandate-wise. The popular vote in each state certainly does matter, because it determines who gets that state's electoral votes, whether by a winner-take-all method as in 48 of the states and DC, or by a congressional district method as in Maine and Nebraska.
Originally posted by RuthW:
The popular vote matters in a sense that the winner can claim more of a mandate if he wins by a good margin (hence my vote for Obama today instead of Green Party candidate Jill Stein), but it doesn't technically matter.
quote:There are a few reports of even longer waits. Nine hours was the longest I've heard. This is understandable when the apparatus of voting is controlled by partisan, elected officials and one of the parties has a vested interest in minimizing voter turnout.
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
We are hearing down here that people are queuing for four hours. How the fuck is that possible? How can voting be so poorly managed?
quote:Sounds like a system that is ripe for reform. Overripe, and stinking.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:There are a few reports of even longer waits. Nine hours was the longest I've heard. This is understandable when the apparatus of voting is controlled by partisan, elected officials and one of the parties has a vested interest in minimizing voter turnout.
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
We are hearing down here that people are queuing for four hours. How the fuck is that possible? How can voting be so poorly managed?
quote:But that's true everywhere they have elections. But in most places - including most of the USA - they don't have five hour waits.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This is understandable when the apparatus of voting is controlled by partisan, elected officials and one of the parties has a vested interest in minimizing voter turnout.
quote:It most certainly isn't true here. Firstly, we have an independent electroal commission. Secondly, turnout simply isn't an issue. We've had compulsory voting for a century.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:But that's true everywhere they have elections.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This is understandable when the apparatus of voting is controlled by partisan, elected officials and one of the parties has a vested interest in minimizing voter turnout.
quote:As was explained to me earlier by a colleague, the USA is a federation of 50 states who together make a country. It is not a country divided into 50 states. Therefore each state, and even each county, city and precinct, decide how they are going to run the election in their jurisdiction. Down to how votes are cast (electronic, machine, paper & pen etc), how many polling stations and their hours and so on. Apparently ruuning an election is expensive to do (according to him, I can't see how printing ballot papers is that expensive, anyway I digress).
Originally posted by ken:
But in most places - including most of the USA - they don't have five hour waits.
How long does it take to vote? A minute? Two? A five hour wait must be some hundreds if not thousands of voters. How many polling places even have those many voters on their lists?
quote:And of course Rosanne Barr has over 6517 votes.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Last figure that CNN has for Florida: approximately 75% counted and it's only a few thousand votes in it, out of 6.5 million. Goodness.
EDIT: And it just updated to a margin of only 1200 votes!
quote:Yes, but ken's point is that in countries where this is the case (not ours, thank Christ), they do not have such long waits.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:It most certainly isn't true here. Firstly, we have an independent electroal commission. Secondly, turnout simply isn't an issue. We've had compulsory voting for a century.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:But that's true everywhere they have elections.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This is understandable when the apparatus of voting is controlled by partisan, elected officials and one of the parties has a vested interest in minimizing voter turnout.
quote:The likelihood of legal challenges is a function of whether or not Florida has the deciding bundle of electoral votes. Missouri was undecided for quite some time in 2004, but no one cared because Barack Obama had enough electoral votes to win regardless of how Missouri cast its electoral votes.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And now... 307 votes!
I can see the legal challenges now...
quote:Yes, true.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The likelihood of legal challenges is a function of whether or not Florida has the deciding bundle of electoral votes. Missouri was undecided for quite some time in 2004, but no one cared because Barack Obama had enough electoral votes to win regardless of how Missouri cast its electoral votes.
Originally posted by orfeo:
And now... 307 votes!
I can see the legal challenges now...
quote:In most states, they're not just voting for a president.
Originally posted by ken:
How long does it take to vote? A minute? Two?
quote:With respect, that's moronic. It's no wonder it is taking so long to vote.
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:In most states, they're not just voting for a president.
Originally posted by ken:
How long does it take to vote? A minute? Two?
My ballot today included executive council races (3), state rep (1), state floterial rep (3), school board 2-year terms (1) school board 3-year terms (3), and 3 ballot initiative questions.
If you hadn't prepared before going to the polls, esp. on the 3 ballot initiatives, you'd have spent a fair chunk of time in the booth. I was prepared, and spent 15 minutes.
Also I voted for a governor and a U.S. senator.
quote:What about yourself? You're running for the New Hampshire House, AIUI.
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:In most states, they're not just voting for a president.
Originally posted by ken:
How long does it take to vote? A minute? Two?
My ballot today included executive council races (3), state rep (1), state floterial rep (3), school board 2-year terms (1) school board 3-year terms (3), and 3 ballot initiative questions.
If you hadn't prepared before going to the polls, esp. on the 3 ballot initiatives, you'd have spent a fair chunk of time in the booth. I was prepared, and spent 15 minutes.
Also I voted for a governor and a U.S. senator.
quote:Cause it saves money. And people can multi-task.
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:With respect, that's moronic. It's no wonder it is taking so long to vote.
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:In most states, they're not just voting for a president.
Originally posted by ken:
How long does it take to vote? A minute? Two?
My ballot today included executive council races (3), state rep (1), state floterial rep (3), school board 2-year terms (1) school board 3-year terms (3), and 3 ballot initiative questions.
If you hadn't prepared before going to the polls, esp. on the 3 ballot initiatives, you'd have spent a fair chunk of time in the booth. I was prepared, and spent 15 minutes.
Also I voted for a governor and a U.S. senator.
Why can't those other issues be decided at other times?
quote:Are you serious? It's hard enough to get half the electorate to the polls for ONE election day. Now you want us to turn 'em out for 3 or 4? Never happen. Besides, running elections costs mucho moolah.
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Why can't those other issues be decided at other times?
quote:I'm the 1 state rep on that ballot, and yes, I voted for myself. Nasty job, but somebody's got to do it.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
What about yourself? You're running for the New Hampshire House, AIUI.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:forgot -also two ballot initiatives: a bond for highway work and whether a constitutional convention should be called.
Originally posted by comet:
Hell, I had 800 million* judge reappointments on my ballot, which we see every two years. it's a bitch to research them all so I tend to only vote on the ones I know anything about. I also had two legislature reps, our half-a-congressman seat, and the prez. I think I was in there for 10 or so. we are lucky - small town, no lines.
*slight exaggeration. there were 26, I just googled.
and the vague feeling watching Dan Rather that he knew he was a walking drinking game.
quote:WOO-HOO! Great news!
Originally posted by Carex:
Akin loses the Senate race in Missouri.
quote:CNN hadn't called Wisconsin yet, but they've just done so.
Originally posted by Porridge:
AAAAaaand . . . Obama wins Ryan's home state of Wisconsin!
quote:Dead right I'm serious. The system you have described is utterly idiotic.
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:Are you serious? It's hard enough to get half the electorate to the polls for ONE election day. Now you want us to turn 'em out for 3 or 4? Never happen. Besides, running elections costs mucho moolah.
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
Why can't those other issues be decided at other times?
Where's moron? ]
quote:damn judges....
Originally posted by orfeo:
Alaskans! Don't forget all those other things you're supposed to be voting about, okay?
quote:Relief? Depression? Meh?
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
(big sigh)
quote:Me too! I mean, it's my allergies, yea, that's it.
Originally posted by jedijudy:
Tears of Joy!!!!!
quote:Yes, indeed. What a relief - and a good, solid majority as well. Much better than the forecast of just over the line.
Originally posted by jedijudy:
Tears of Joy!!!!!
quote:I hear even FOX has called Ohio for Obama.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The Romney campaign is now refusing to concede the loss of Ohio.
quote:The Fat Lady is well into her aria then....
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:I hear even FOX has called Ohio for Obama.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The Romney campaign is now refusing to concede the loss of Ohio.
quote:Good point. Do you think Rush Limaugh is likely to belt out a few bars?
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:The Fat Lady is well into her aria then....
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:I hear even FOX has called Ohio for Obama.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The Romney campaign is now refusing to concede the loss of Ohio.
quote:According to a report I just heard, the FOX network has called Ohio for Obama but the on-air talent is refusing to acknowledge this on air.
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:I hear even FOX has called Ohio for Obama.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The Romney campaign is now refusing to concede the loss of Ohio.
quote:Most of California hasn't been counted yet. Commentators are tipping once the largest State is thrown in, Obama will have won the popular vote as well.
Originally posted by PeteC:
If the Electoral College (whatever that is) were abolished and the popular vote were the only criterion, as has been posited, it would seem that Romney would have won. I find the figures confusing.
quote:Her aria is over, she's taken her bows, and exited the stage.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The Fat Lady is well into her aria then....
quote:Obama got Nevada??? Last I checked it was still red! Wow!
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The latest reports that I've seen show Obama currently has leads in Florida, Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada, so even if Romney manages to reverse Ohio he's still most likely lost the election.
quote:Which I think is fair enough. If you know which booths/districts the votes are coming from, you can see the trends in comparison to the last couple of elections. And demographics don't change that rapidly.
Originally posted by ken:
Actual declared votes in Ohio are slightly ahead for Romney. Calling it for Obama depends on predicting results of districts not yet reported.
quote:No one's been willing to call it yet, but the returns that have been reported so far show Obama by 54%-44% with 71% of the vote counted. So it's not decided, but it's leaning that way.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:Obama got Nevada??? Last I checked it was still red! Wow!
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The latest reports that I've seen show Obama currently has leads in Florida, Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada, so even if Romney manages to reverse Ohio he's still most likely lost the election.
quote:Well, they've only just started counting votes in California, so that's not terribly surprising.
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
ETA He's chasing Romney in the popular vote! Also Wow!
quote:it IS confusing. and bizarre. it's based on history, pre-mass communication, when a certain number of people (based on population) from each state would cast a vote as representative of those people.
Originally posted by PeteC:
If the Electoral College (whatever that is) were abolished and the popular vote were the only criterion, as has been posited, it would seem that Romney would have won. I find the figures confusing.
quote:And as I understand it, this is entirely up to each individual state, yes? Because a grand total of 2 of them don't make it into all-or-nothing contests.
Originally posted by comet:
what does my head in, though, is that each state gives ALL their electoral votes for a candidate. for instance, in AK and our sissy little 3 votes, ALL will go for one candidate (in this case, Romney, no doubt. because I live in redneck wonderland). but if we come out 51-49, shouldn't we cast two electoral votes for one and one vote for the other? no, of course not. it's stupid stupid stupid.
quote:yep. it's still stupid. in this day and age, there is no point to the electoral college.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:And as I understand it, this is entirely up to each individual state, yes? Because a grand total of 2 of them don't make it into all-or-nothing contests.
Originally posted by comet:
what does my head in, though, is that each state gives ALL their electoral votes for a candidate. for instance, in AK and our sissy little 3 votes, ALL will go for one candidate (in this case, Romney, no doubt. because I live in redneck wonderland). but if we come out 51-49, shouldn't we cast two electoral votes for one and one vote for the other? no, of course not. it's stupid stupid stupid.
quote:Well back in the old days in Boston, they had the results the night before ;-).
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Brazilians always find this funny. Brazil has about the same number of voters as the US, and the country poses much bigger logistical challenges. Yet, in Brazil they always have the results on the very same evening. Especially in 2000, this gave Brazilians reason to feel smugly superior
Palimpsest: So if it's really close, the vote can take several more days to tally.
quote:In Chicago they have spent the last two hours listening to some decent bands. In Boston they've been watching elderly neocons who used to be important ten years ago bite each others heads off on Fox. No wonder they are in different moods.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Live pictures from Chicago: big, happy multiracial crowd.
Live pictures from Boston: big, sad white crowd.
That's pretty much what I'm seeing on my TV screen, anyway.
quote:Yes, but it wouldn't be enough to make a difference
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Would he have a serious chance of disputing the (projected) results, e.g. in Ohio?
quote:That sounds likely too. Its hard enough losing an election to a town council. This must be a weird feeling.
Or is it simply that, after months being introduced as The Next President of the United States, it takes a while for anyone to be able to publicly announce that they're not?
quote:There's no formal significance, but it's a matter of etiquette.
Originally posted by Alwyn:
BBC are saying that Governor Romney hasn't conceded yet. Is there any significance in that?
quote:Months? Romney has done nothing except run for president for the past six years. Realizing that it's not going to happen is probably devastating.
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Would he have a serious chance of disputing the (projected) results, e.g. in Ohio? Or is it simply that, after months being introduced as The Next President of the United States, it takes a while for anyone to be able to publicly announce that they're not?
quote:yes. he's pouting.
Originally posted by Alwyn:
BBC are saying that Governor Romney hasn't conceded yet. Is there any significance in that?
quote:She's right. those nutjobs have hurt the Right terribly. I used to vote both sides of the ballot, but I don't anymore; I don't trust the influence of those reactionary freaks. any chance the repubs had with me are lost because of them.
Originally posted by orfeo:
We also had a (moderate) right-wing commentator here celebrating that Tea Party candidates had done so badly, because she hoped that would lead the Republicans to reinvent themselves in some other way rather than lurching in the Tea Party direction.
quote:Rommney had said earlier that he had only written a victory speech. Obama had written two speeches. So Mitt is probably busy scribbling out something.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Given the various calls for Obama of Virginia and Ohio, Romney not conceding makes him look petty.
He has no way to win.
quote:you realize that's maybe 300 people, right?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
8:00 pm AleutST
Polls are now closed in Alaska's Aleutian Island precincts, the last U.S. precincts still open in the 2012 election.
quote:Certainly is!
Originally posted by Ariston:
And, here in Maryland, not only did Obama win (big surprise there . . . unless you were paying attention), but we've legalized same-sex marriage, along with Washington and Maine. Never before has marriage equality won when put to a popular vote in the States, so this is big.
quote:All my friends are hysterically rejoicing! But then, I think most folk who wouldn't self-selected from my feed a long time ago...
Originally posted by Ariston:
And, here in Maryland, not only did Obama win (big surprise there . . . unless you were paying attention), but we've legalized same-sex marriage, along with Washington and Maine. Never before has marriage equality won when put to a popular vote in the States, so this is big.
Are there people on facebook right now threatening to move? Oh yeah. One's looking into seasteading. Most, however, are looking to move to Colorado . . .
quote:I blame it on reality.
Palimpsest: So when do we get an explanation of how the Rasmussen Poll and reality don't correspond?
You're welcome.
quote:Fools!
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re Romney's delay in conceding:
There's a rumor that his campaign was so sure he'd win that they didn't have anything prepared.
quote:Warren in '16!
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Thanks for posting the sample ballot, Golden Key. I think shipmates in other places, especially in other countries would find it interesting.
...and Yay! Obama won and we don't get this political crap drummed into our brains so intensely for another three years? two and a half years? two years? Whatever.
quote:Go to ElectoralVote.com. The Votemaster there will explain Rasmussen polls. ElectoralVote.com creates election maps that both include and exclude Rasmussen. Rasmussen has an affiliation with FOXNews, the notoriously ultra-conservative USA news network, if that tells you anything. Consequently, Rasmussen polling information is often seen as biased in that direction.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
So when do we get an explanation of how the Rasmussen Poll and reality don't correspond?
quote:Silver was forecasting 313 when last I looked (midway between 303 and 332 - i'ts going to be one or the other). Realclear politics and Politico were both forecasting 303. With Florida leaning towards Obama, Silver looks to be conservative if anything.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Okay, now when do all the idiot right-wing poll aggregators give their concession speeches to Nate Silver?
quote:Are you referring to Roseanne Barr?
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Dear America,
Congratulations on your successful election - and thankyou for not electing a total nutjob to one of the most powerful posts on the planet,
Yours sincerely,
The world.
quote:FWIW, I totally agree that Romney waiting to make sure the electoral vote was firmly against him was a good move. I would have been surprised if he didn't.
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
Given the way places were being declared so early, was he just waiting to be sure?
Quite a few places seemed to declare for Romney very early based on three precincts that went for Obama.
So I can't quite understand when you actually know a states real vote (as supposed to having a darned good guess).
And there are a fair rack of states are close enough*, that you'd look a bit silly if you went "well done, oh wait a minute, cancel that I've got Virginia".
Meanwhile congratulations of voting. I'm a bit disappointed with the result, but knew the centre and left didn't have a chance.
*actually I'm surprised how many are more mixed than 40-60.
quote:ELECTORAL VOTE PREDICTIONS
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Silver was forecasting 313 when last I looked (midway between 303 and 332 - i'ts going to be one or the other). Realclear politics and Politico were both forecasting 303. With Florida leaning towards Obama, Silver looks to be conservative if anything.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Okay, now when do all the idiot right-wing poll aggregators give their concession speeches to Nate Silver?
quote:Heh. As I posted on FB three hours ago, "I guess that permanent pout isn't an affectation."
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I think Donald Trump has finally passed the last frontier of sanity. His tweets on the subject of Obama's win are rather scarily hysterical. Did he scream about the injustice of the Electoral College when Bush won?
quote:Tea for celebration?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If it wasn't 8 o'clock in the morning, I might have had a finger of whisky to toast the incumbent.
Tea it is, then.
quote:Too right me ol' fruit. The correct response to misuse is not disuse but the right use. And that is a proper cup of tea. With a biscuit, cucumber sandwich or a slice of toast. Yum.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Tea for celebration?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If it wasn't 8 o'clock in the morning, I might have had a finger of whisky to toast the incumbent.
Tea it is, then.
...a TEA PARTY?! Is THAT what you're having?!!!
quote:Yes, but it's TAXED SOCIALIST tea, and what's more, I take it BLACK.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Tea for celebration?
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If it wasn't 8 o'clock in the morning, I might have had a finger of whisky to toast the incumbent.
Tea it is, then.
...a TEA PARTY?! Is THAT what you're having?!!!
quote:To me the biggest reason is the one that was observed during the Republican primaries: to win the ideological supporter base of the party then, you have to move out to the right. To win the general election, you have to move back towards the centre.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
So, bullet points please, Why did Romney lose?
P
quote:This is the thing that struck me, too.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:To me the biggest reason is the one that was observed during the Republican primaries: to win the ideological supporter base of the party then, you have to move out to the right. To win the general election, you have to move back towards the centre.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
So, bullet points please, Why did Romney lose?
P
You end up with a candidate that doesn't have a convincing position.
quote:By the look of his tweets mentioned upthread, Donald J. Trump is that man!
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Too many swing voters looked at Romney and thought, I'm just not convinced he's enough of a scary right wing nutjob. When the Republicans run a proper scary right wing nutjob then I'll vote for him. In the meantime, I'll vote for Obama again.
quote:Link to WSJ. - Warning: The article seems very heavily biased, which is probably to be expected.
The Wall Street Journal says in an editorial that the re-election of Obama is "best described as the voters doubling down on hope over experience", adding that the Obama campaign's effective get-out-the-vote strategy was "the definition of winning ugly".
quote:So, white voters are the only ones there are, according to the WSJ? And getting as many people as possible - and, oh look, black people, Hispanics and women as well! They all have the right to vote now, too, apparently!? - involved in basic, democratic political action is surely an excellent thing? What a pity you can't hang or shoot them all anymore?
This was all a caricature even by the standards of modern politics. But it worked with brutal efficiency—the definition of winning ugly. Mr. Obama was able to patch together just enough of these voting groups to prevail even as he lost independents and won only 40% of the overall white vote, according to the exit polls. His campaign's turnout machine was as effective as advertised in getting Democratic partisans to the polls.
quote:Yeah, that had me going "wow" as well. You'd think the author would reach the obvious conclusion that whites don't run the country any more. They are just one bloc among several, and you can now lose that bloc and still win the election.
Originally posted by Wesley J:
So, white voters are the only ones there are, according to the WSJ?
quote:He lost because he is white. I've kind of scrolled back through, and I don't see anyone even alluding to the reality of Obama's win. He won because he is black, and there were people who voted for him who have never voted before, except maybe in 2008. I personally witnessed a man being turned away after it was discovered he had been purged from the rolls due to inactivity. I just think there were a lot of uninformed voters who knew nothing of his positions on marriage or his foreign policy, etc. They voted for him for one reason.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
So, bullet points please, Why did Romney lose?
P
quote:There is a real need for a bonfire of the vanities, mousethief.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:ELECTORAL VOTE PREDICTIONS
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Silver was forecasting 313 when last I looked (midway between 303 and 332 - i'ts going to be one or the other). Realclear politics and Politico were both forecasting 303. With Florida leaning towards Obama, Silver looks to be conservative if anything.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Okay, now when do all the idiot right-wing poll aggregators give their concession speeches to Nate Silver?
Karl Rove: Romney, 285-253
Newt Gingrich: Romney, "over 300 electoral votes"
George Will: Romney, 321-217
Dick Morris: Romney, 325-213
Sean Hannity: Romney "by three points"
Charles Krauthammer: "Romney, very close."
Rush Limbaugh: "All of my thinking says Romney big. All of my feeling is where my concern is. But my thoughts, my intellectual analysis of this — factoring everything I see plus the polling data — it’s not even close. Three hundred-plus electoral votes for Romney."
Ari Fleischer: Romney 50.1 to 49.5%
Wouldn't mind seeing Josh Jordan eating a little crow also.
quote:Over here, part of the analysis is that there weren't enough angry white men to elect Romney. That's kind of different to voting for the other guy because he's black.
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:He lost because he is white. I've kind of scrolled back through, and I don't see anyone even alluding to the reality of Obama's win. He won because he is black, and there were people who voted for him who have never voted before, except maybe in 2008. I personally witnessed a man being turned away after it was discovered he had been purged from the rolls due to inactivity. I just think there were a lot of uninformed voters who knew nothing of his positions on marriage or his foreign policy, etc. They voted for him for one reason.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
So, bullet points please, Why did Romney lose?
P
I'm not saying that's why everyone voted for him. But it is most certainly why he was reelected. I'd think someone here of all places would have the balls to say it.
quote:I've read some Fox pundits openly saying they couldn't have been wrong, that there was fraud in this election. It's the only way Obama could have won.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So far as Fox and Fellow-Travellers are concerned, I wonder if the ownership is capable of a reality check? You would think they would want to avoid "Not fit for purpose"? If their purpose really is, at least in part, to inform, rather than to pander or manipulate.
quote:I alluded to the fact that the crowd in Boston was noticeably lacking in non-white faces.
Originally posted by Grits:
He lost because he is white. I've kind of scrolled back through, and I don't see anyone even alluding to the reality of Obama's win.
quote:I'm sure that's true of some people on both sides.
Originally posted by Grits:
I just think there were a lot of uninformed voters who knew nothing of his positions on marriage or his foreign policy, etc. They voted for him for one reason.
quote:I believe there is precedent for fraudulent elections. Maybe the folk at Fox can tell us more.
Originally posted by Niteowl:
quote:I've read some Fox pundits openly saying they couldn't have been wrong, that there was fraud in this election. It's the only way Obama could have won.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So far as Fox and Fellow-Travellers are concerned, I wonder if the ownership is capable of a reality check? You would think they would want to avoid "Not fit for purpose"? If their purpose really is, at least in part, to inform, rather than to pander or manipulate.
quote:Right. If Romney had won, he would have been our first white President.
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:He lost because he is white.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
So, bullet points please, Why did Romney lose?
P
quote:There may have been a minority who voted for Obama simply because he is white, just like there was a minority who voted for Romney simply because he is white. To say it was the major reason Obama was elected is absurd and rather insulting to those of us who voted for him. The people I personally know who voted for Obama, as well as many people I saw interviewed voted for him because they didn't like either the Tea Party extremist he became for the base coupled with placing the guy with the extreme budget who wanted to privatize Social Security and turn Medicare essentially into a voucher program. I voted for Obama even though I really wanted to vote for 1 of the 3rd party candidates because I didn't want to take the chance Romney/Ryan would be able to pull the Tea Party agenda off and because I'd rather see Obamacare fixed rather than repealed with health care reform then forgotten or done in such a way it still left tens of millions without access to health coverage. The vast majority did do their research. We just didn't come to the same conclusions the Romney supporters did - and I'll wager they did research as well.
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:He lost because he is white. I've kind of scrolled back through, and I don't see anyone even alluding to the reality of Obama's win. He won because he is black, and there were people who voted for him who have never voted before, except maybe in 2008. I personally witnessed a man being turned away after it was discovered he had been purged from the rolls due to inactivity. I just think there were a lot of uninformed voters who knew nothing of his positions on marriage or his foreign policy, etc. They voted for him for one reason.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
So, bullet points please, Why did Romney lose?
P
I'm not saying that's why everyone voted for him. But it is most certainly why he was reelected. I'd think someone here of all places would have the balls to say it.
quote:So tell me, then: Why is all that OK, and yet voting against it is repugnant, antiquated, ignorant, etc.? Liberals want acceptance and support for their views, but their view never seem to truly embrace liberality -- which is allowing others the dignity and right to opposing opinions.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Over here, part of the analysis is that there weren't enough angry white men to elect Romney. That's kind of different to voting for the other guy because he's black.
You may as well say that women preferentially voted for Obama because... well, it might have something to do with not wanting to own their uterus. Or because he doesn't have binders.
And actually, even if you're right, I think it's a good thing: a country that's only been integrated in living memory votes for the black man because he's a black man. That's positive. Laudable, even.
quote:Probably because it's horseshit.
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:He lost because he is white. I've kind of scrolled back through, and I don't see anyone even alluding to the reality of Obama's win. He won because he is black, and there were people who voted for him who have never voted before, except maybe in 2008. I personally witnessed a man being turned away after it was discovered he had been purged from the rolls due to inactivity. I just think there were a lot of uninformed voters who knew nothing of his positions on marriage or his foreign policy, etc. They voted for him for one reason.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
So, bullet points please, Why did Romney lose?
P
I'm not saying that's why everyone voted for him. But it is most certainly why he was reelected. I'd think someone here of all places would have the balls to say it.
quote:I'm sure others voted against him because of colour too, and others have been turned away from the polls for that reason.
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:He lost because he is white. I've kind of scrolled back through, and I don't see anyone even alluding to the reality of Obama's win. He won because he is black, and there were people who voted for him who have never voted before, except maybe in 2008. I personally witnessed a man being turned away after it was discovered he had been purged from the rolls due to inactivity. I just think there were a lot of uninformed voters who knew nothing of his positions on marriage or his foreign policy, etc. They voted for him for one reason.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
So, bullet points please, Why did Romney lose?
P
quote:I'd like to see some hard evidence, really I would. But to this Brit it looks like Romney lost because he was on the Republican ticket, and the 2012 Republicans scared enough of the 2008 Obama voters back to the polling booths despite their reservations over Obama.
I'm not saying that's why everyone voted for him. But it is most certainly why he was reelected. I'd think someone here of all places would have the balls to say it.
quote:I just now read
Originally posted by Wesley J:
quote:So, white voters are the only ones there are, according to the WSJ? And getting as many people as possible - and, oh look, black people, Hispanics and women as well! They all have the right to vote now, too, apparently!? - involved in basic, democratic political action is surely an excellent thing? What a pity you can't hang or shoot them all anymore? ...
[Obama] won only 40% of the overall white vote, according to the exit polls.
the denial by some that there are non-white human beings out there, Americans, some of whom women (!), and white women too (!), who have their own opinion and are not afraid to express it (!), and to attack those and the candidate they voted for, accusing them of dirty tricks - well, it does make me wonder if there won't be another Civil War of sorts soon.
quote:It's laudable because of history. Obviously (it is obvious, right?) Obama couldn't win just relying on the black vote, or the Hispanic vote, or the Korean vote. He needed white people to vote for him too. So it seems that enough white people have got over the whole slavery/segregation racist thing and it's now possible for the US to have a black president. Twice. So yes, props to white folk who voted for the black guy. Ditto those who voted in the gay senator.
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:So tell me, then: Why is all that OK, and yet voting against it is repugnant, antiquated, ignorant, etc.? Liberals want acceptance and support for their views, but their view never seem to truly embrace liberality -- which is allowing others the dignity and right to opposing opinions.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Over here, part of the analysis is that there weren't enough angry white men to elect Romney. That's kind of different to voting for the other guy because he's black.
You may as well say that women preferentially voted for Obama because... well, it might have something to do with not wanting to own their uterus. Or because he doesn't have binders.
And actually, even if you're right, I think it's a good thing: a country that's only been integrated in living memory votes for the black man because he's a black man. That's positive. Laudable, even.
You say voting for a black man because he's a black man is positive and laudable. Would you say that about voting for a woman? I seriously doubt you supported Sarah Palin -- just because she was a woman. See, that kind of thinking only works one way.
And you're right -- I don't think there were any "angry white men", which is as it should be. Elections shouldn't be based on anger. But they should be based on more than race or gender.
quote:If the Democratic president running for reelection had been white, there is no way on God's green earth he would have been reelected. Even some Democrats admit Obama has been ineffective at best, detrimental in many cases. His campaign has proven to be one big fat lie. If he was white, he would have been gone, gone, gone. The closeness of the vote proves that totally.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'd like to see some hard evidence, really I would. But to this Brit it looks like Romney lost because he was on the Republican ticket, and the 2012 Republicans scared enough of the 2008 Obama voters back to the polling booths despite their reservations over Obama.
quote:He won because he is black. Period? Your transformation is further proof that your party has lost its collective mind. Honestly.
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:If the Democratic president running for reelection had been white, there is no way on God's green earth he would have been reelected. Even some Democrats admit Obama has been ineffective at best, detrimental in many cases. His campaign has proven to be one big fat lie. If he was white, he would have been gone, gone, gone. The closeness of the vote proves that totally.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'd like to see some hard evidence, really I would. But to this Brit it looks like Romney lost because he was on the Republican ticket, and the 2012 Republicans scared enough of the 2008 Obama voters back to the polling booths despite their reservations over Obama.
That being said, anyone who knows me knows I am not upset or militant or even mildly disturbed, as I knew what the outcome will be. Things will continue on status quo, and we'll all be OK. I'm just saying, let's be real about what happened, OK? You can claim it was reasonable, intelligent, American folk wanting to protect their uteruses or whatever. Obama won because he is black. Period. I'm OK with him being black; I am just not as OK as that being his ticket to the White House. He needs to show us much, much more this time around, and I hope and pray that he will.
quote:Yes, they have traditionally supported the democrats since Roosevelt and since the dems were willing to sacrifice the Solid South in order to promote civil rights for blacks. Hispanics are now part of that coalition since the Republicans keep finding ways to alienate them, except of course for the Cubans.
Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
I admit to knowing little about US politics but haven't people from black communities always been more likely to vote Democrat even though the previous candidates weren't black?It would seem to me that these communities have other reasons to support the democrats.
quote:That is insulting to those of us who voted for Obama for sound reasons. I was naive prior to Obama being elected in thinking race had been overcome in this country. I saw the racists jokes circulated in GOP circles, heard some of the racist talk. I've heard Obama referred to as the "Affirmative Action President" as though he didn't get the presidency like every other candidate. Let me be clear: the charge that he got a 2nd term just because he is black is pure crap and you are one of the long term members I've always respected - even on issues where we disagree. But this? Nuh uh. Obama may have underperformed, but he has accomplished some of what he promised: health care reform, ended the war in Iraq, is ending the war in Afghanistan, he got bin Laden and his administration was prepared for and responded quickly to Sandy. People looked at the extreme right wing persona Romney displayed until the 1st debate, remembered the many gaffes he made up through the summer and decided to go with the devil they knew: Obama. For some reason the GOP just can't understand that a black man can be elected President for the same reason a white man can. For good and bad. The GOP is going to have to start relating well with minorities and toning down the extremist rhetoric if they want to be relevant in the coming years. I used to be Republican but not now. I'm not fond of the Dems either and usually vote 3rd party, but I had valid reasons to vote for Obama this time around.
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:If the Democratic president running for reelection had been white, there is no way on God's green earth he would have been reelected. Even some Democrats admit Obama has been ineffective at best, detrimental in many cases. His campaign has proven to be one big fat lie. If he was white, he would have been gone, gone, gone. The closeness of the vote proves that totally.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'd like to see some hard evidence, really I would. But to this Brit it looks like Romney lost because he was on the Republican ticket, and the 2012 Republicans scared enough of the 2008 Obama voters back to the polling booths despite their reservations over Obama.
That being said, anyone who knows me knows I am not upset or militant or even mildly disturbed, as I knew what the outcome will be. Things will continue on status quo, and we'll all be OK. I'm just saying, let's be real about what happened, OK? You can claim it was reasonable, intelligent, American folk wanting to protect their uteruses or whatever. Obama won because he is black. Period. I'm OK with him being black; I am just not as OK as that being his ticket to the White House. He needs to show us much, much more this time around, and I hope and pray that he will.
quote:You have a generous heart. My feeling is that Romney nearly won the Presidency because he said contradictory, stupid things both to his own supporters and to the country at large. But I confess that I like your version of reality better...
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Romney lost the election that was his to win. He lost because he said contradictory, stupid things both to his own supporters and to the country at large.
quote:Bullshit.
Originally posted by Grits:
If the Democratic president running for reelection had been white, there is no way on God's green earth he would have been reelected. Even some Democrats admit Obama has been ineffective at best, detrimental in many cases. His campaign has proven to be one big fat lie. If he was white, he would have been gone, gone, gone. The closeness of the vote proves that totally.
quote:Really??
Originally posted by Grits:
If the Democratic president running for reelection had been white, there is no way on God's green earth he would have been reelected.
quote:Yes, I agree that Republican denial will be their undoing for awhile. I disagre about third parties being the answer. the answer is to return to big tent coalitions that both parties once were.
Originally posted by art dunce:
Republican denial about the true reasons for their losses will ultimately be their undoing and will hasten their decline. It might be good for Democrats but ultimately not good for this country unless rational Republicans can create a viable third party along with right leaning Democrats and we have more parties and not fewer.
quote:The GOP seems unwilling to see the truth and loves to once again make the black man (and any other person of color) either undeserving of what they achieve or be the boogeyman in situations they don't like. It appears you have drunk the GOP brand kool-aid.
Originally posted by Grits:
That's yours to believe. It is not the reality of the situation, however. Not that it matters, but I'm just always amazed at how people are unwilling to be honest about things that are considered offensive or might make them seem close-minded or uncool. I guess it makes them feel better about it all, which is fine. But it still doesn't change the truth.
quote:I guess I assumed that the new third party would be the big tent and the Republicans would become the Dominionist party.
Originally posted by Lawrence:
quote:Yes, I agree that Republican denial will be their undoing for awhile. I disagre about third parties being the answer. the answer is to return to big tent coalitions that both parties once were.
Originally posted by art dunce:
Republican denial about the true reasons for their losses will ultimately be their undoing and will hasten their decline. It might be good for Democrats but ultimately not good for this country unless rational Republicans can create a viable third party along with right leaning Democrats and we have more parties and not fewer.
quote:This is, to put it bluntly, festering racist bollocks. If the only thing Obama were to have done was healthcare he'd still have been more effective at implementing change than any president since Nixon. If the only thing he'd done was to have Bin Laden killed and he'd been white he'd have been re-elected in a landslide. If the only thing he'd done had been to end the war in Iraq he'd have still produced more positive change than Bush. If the only thing he'd done would have been to repair FEMA for a compare and contrast between the effectiveness of Obama's handling of Hurricane Sandy and Bush's handling of Katrina he'd have made a huge positive change.
Originally posted by Grits:
If the Democratic president running for reelection had been white, there is no way on God's green earth he would have been reelected. Even some Democrats admit Obama has been ineffective at best, detrimental in many cases. His campaign has proven to be one big fat lie. If he was white, he would have been gone, gone, gone. The closeness of the vote proves that totally.
That being said, anyone who knows me knows I am not upset or militant or even mildly disturbed, as I knew what the outcome will be. Things will continue on status quo, and we'll all be OK. I'm just saying, let's be real about what happened, OK? You can claim it was reasonable, intelligent, American folk wanting to protect their uteruses or whatever. Obama won because he is black. Period. I'm OK with him being black; I am just not as OK as that being his ticket to the White House. He needs to show us much, much more this time around, and I hope and pray that he will.
quote:Yes, I agree. I don't like to see a situation where there is no strong opposition to the government. But that looks like the short to medium term future for the US. Longer, if the kind of denial Grits is displaying is characteristic of Republicans.
Originally posted by art dunce:
Republican denial about the true reasons for their losses will ultimately be their undoing and will hasten their decline. It might be good for Democrats but ultimately not good for this country unless rational Republicans can create a viable third party along with right leaning Democrats and we have more parties and not fewer.
quote:Smoking is SO 1960s.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
So, which Shipmate from WA or CO is going to smoke his/her first legal joint?
quote:Unless the GOP is willing to look at itself - especially the way the extreme right have hobbled it in the same way the far left crippled the Labour Party ( being ousted here), then they will always be out of power.
Originally posted by Grits:
That's yours to believe. It is not the reality of the situation, however. Not that it matters, but I'm just always amazed at how people are unwilling to be honest about things that are considered offensive or might make them seem close-minded or uncool. I guess it makes them feel better about it all, which is fine. But it still doesn't change the truth.
quote:What about recent polling showing that a white Democratic Party member, Hillary Clinton, would have beaten Governor Romney "by 51% to 45% among likely voters" (when President Obama was leading by 48% to 47%)? Doesn't that, at least, give us a reason to doubt your 'Obama won because he is black' explanation?
Originally posted by Grits:
If the Democratic president running for reelection had been white, there is no way on God's green earth he would have been reelected. [...] If he was white, he would have been gone, gone, gone. [...] Obama won because he is black. Period.
quote:It certainly does.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Hence to claim Obama won only because he's black is merely shooting from the hip, and looks like all too much racist bullfuckingshit.
quote:Over on TheAmericanConservative.com at least one venerable figure is looking on the bright side: with marriage in so much trouble these days, are gays who want to marry really threatening it? Did they ever do so? I predict that almost everyone will soon drop the issue except a few tortured closet cases.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Yay on the equal marriage results!
quote:Like Rick Perry! He' seen as "a man of the people", he's "camera friendly", and he's some third thing I can't remember right now.
Originally posted by balaam:
As Comet said upthread, Romney was seen as being rich and out of touch. Not only that, watching the campaigns, Obama was a more charismatic campaigner. I think what lost the Republicans the election was that they chose the wrong candidate. They need someone to be seen as more man of the people, and someone who is more camera freindly. A different candidate could have won it for the GOP.
quote:If Romney had so much as offered an alternative to the insidious encroachments on privacy and civil liberties that the Obama administration is quietly furthering (following in Bush's footsteps), I would have given him a closer look. But it's tweedledee and tweedledum in this area. No one, as far as I'm aware, even brought it up in all these months of campaigning. Americans are not only getting the government they deserve, they're getting the one they want. Makes me glad for every year on my bones. They'll be quite welcome to listen in to the choral evensongs I hope will waft over my ashes in mid-town Manhattan.
Originally posted by jbohn:
Romney... failed to convince me he had anything resembling a workable plan for the country. Simply chanting "cut taxes for 'job-creators'" (whoever those actually are) isn't a plan, sorry.
quote:Who, though? You remember the primary candidates as well as I do, I'm sure.
Originally posted by balaam:
A different candidate could have won it for the GOP.
quote:Good Morning Sir! I have your breakfast ready for you, Fried Crow, Humble Pie, Political Process Sausage (Democratic Majority flavour) with Florida Orange Juice (still counting, you know, but leading Obama). There is a selection of newspapers for you on the side table. New York Times then?
Originally posted by moron:
quote:Smoking is SO 1960s.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
So, which Shipmate from WA or CO is going to smoke his/her first legal joint?
quote:Interesting, and I probably agree. Do you think he could have secured the nomination, though? I mentioned above that I'm not certain the Republicans have a primary process that will allow an electable candidate to secure the nomination.
Originally posted by art dunce:
I think Huntsman would have given Republicans a better chance than Romney.
quote:The problem with Huntsman was that he had no natural constuency outside the pundit class. The Republican primary voters had no interest in him and there's no indication the general electorate would've liked him any better.
Originally posted by art dunce:
I think Huntsman would have given Republicans a better chance than Romney.
quote:If the Democratic president running for reelection had been white, there is no way on God's green earth he would have been reelected. Even some Democrats admit Obama has been ineffective at best, detrimental in many cases. His campaign has proven to be one big fat lie. If he was white, he would have been gone, gone, gone. The closeness of the vote proves that totally.
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:Todd Akin.
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
So, bullet points please, Why did Romney lose?
quote:Yep. Also almost any imaginable Democrat would have had almost all the black vote and the majority of the Hispanic vote (leaving aside some little local difficulties in the Florida Strait region) Democrats started winning over the northern urban black vote back in the days of the New Deal, got the rural Southern black voters over Civil Rights, and achieved an almost complete lock-in on African-American votes between LBJ and Clinton. A black candidate will certainly have got more African-Americans out to vote - but those that did vote will almost certainly have voted Democrat anyway. And if the Republicans object to that then they ought to start speaking to black and ethnic minority voters themselves. There are reasons they don't vote Republican, and not all the reasons are sentimental memories.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Grits is right that a lot of people voted for Obama because he's black. What she fails to take on board is that a lot of people voted against Obama because he's black.
quote:I'm sure they could. I'm also sure that person could never possibly win the nomination.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not convinced though that the Republicans are lost in the wilderness cos of the demographics. I think it would be possible to find someone young and charismatic, who supports a market economy, but who is not racist, doesn't attack Latinos and so on, and who can speak to women and blue-collar workers.
quote:I'm 100% certain he's planning for it. He left the 2012 race at a very politically astute time (before he lost in Pennsylvania). Whether the Republican party will want him in four years is another question. I would expect Ryan is eyeing a run already, as well.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Ladies and gentlemen, I present your 2016 Republican presidential nominee:
Rick Santorum!
quote:Yeah, the "rape babies are a gift from God" and "no abortion for 12 year old incest victims" candidates did great. I hope the Republicans pick one next time and they'll get even fewer women's votes.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:I'm 100% certain he's planning for it. He left the 2012 race at a very politically astute time (before he lost in Pennsylvania). Whether the Republican party will want him in four years is another question. I would expect Ryan is eyeing a run already, as well.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Ladies and gentlemen, I present your 2016 Republican presidential nominee:
Rick Santorum!
I think Palin realized 2012 wasn't going to work for her, and I think she'll be a has-been (perhaps a never-was) by 2016
quote:47% caused him to lose a couple of votes in my family.
Todd Akin.
Women scared of a Mormon choosing supreme court judges.
Twitter.
The Tea Party
quote:The list could be much, much, longer...
Originally posted by art dunce:
quote:47% caused him to lose a couple of votes in my family.
Todd Akin.
Women scared of a Mormon choosing supreme court judges.
Twitter.
The Tea Party
quote:James Wolcott has the definitive tweet on this subject:
Originally posted by art dunce:
Roger "some girls rape easy "Rivard defeated
Allen "let women die" West defeated
Linda "only emergency contraception for emergency rape" McMahon defeated
Rick "no exception for rape or incest" Berg defeated
Richard "rape pregnancies a gift from God" Mourdock defeated
Joe "abortion is never necessary to save life of mother" Walsh defeated
Scott "rape victims can be denied emergency contraception" Brown defeated
Republicans might need to rethink the rape plank in their platform.
quote:
Memo to Republicans: Try running fewer rape philosophers next time.
quote:Yeah, but then she would have won because she was a woman. There's no way in God's green earth she would have won if she were a man.
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:What about recent polling showing that a white Democratic Party member, Hillary Clinton, would have beaten Governor Romney "by 51% to 45% among likely voters" (when President Obama was leading by 48% to 47%)? Doesn't that, at least, give us a reason to doubt your 'Obama won because he is black' explanation?
Originally posted by Grits:
If the Democratic president running for reelection had been white, there is no way on God's green earth he would have been reelected. [...] If he was white, he would have been gone, gone, gone. [...] Obama won because he is black. Period.
quote:Republicans want to regulate the bedroom, and Democrats want to regulate the boardroom.
Originally posted by Alogon:
I get the impression that when Democrats talk about freedom, they mean freedom to marry someone of the same sex, to use contraceptives, and have an abortion. When Republicans talk about freedom, they mean freedom to make a million dollars, keep them all, and own lots of guns (including military-grade automatics).
quote:The latter surprises me, given the sentiment for nullification and even secession, e.g. the passage of State referendums to legalize marijuana and hope that the feds won't come in and play hardball with those who presume to sell or smoke it.
Originally posted by ken:
Meanwhile, in even breakinger news, Puerto Rico both elected a Republican governor yesterday, and voted in favour of seeking to join the United States.
quote:Surely she would have won because she was a white woman; no way could she have won if she was a black woman, or God forbid, a black man.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:Yeah, but then she would have won because she was a woman. There's no way in God's green earth she would have won if she were a man.
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:What about recent polling showing that a white Democratic Party member, Hillary Clinton, would have beaten Governor Romney "by 51% to 45% among likely voters" (when President Obama was leading by 48% to 47%)? Doesn't that, at least, give us a reason to doubt your 'Obama won because he is black' explanation?
Originally posted by Grits:
If the Democratic president running for reelection had been white, there is no way on God's green earth he would have been reelected. [...] If he was white, he would have been gone, gone, gone. [...] Obama won because he is black. Period.
quote:It's the news media who are doing this, not the elections officials. The elections officials keep right on counting till they're done. The media do the math, decide that the precincts that haven't reported yet have so many votes likely to go one way or another, and make a call.
Originally posted by Avila:
This notion of 'calling' a state - declaring a result before all votes counted, seems strange to me.
quote:They did vote for statehood in a two-part referendum, with 54% in favor of changing the island's status, and 61% in favor of a new status being statehood.
Originally posted by ken:
Meanwhile, in even breakinger news, Puerto Rico both elected a Republican governor yesterday, and voted in favour of seeking to join the United States.
quote:Sorry -- I've been out this morning and am just now returning.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Grits' assertion that there weren't any "angry white men" is laughable. Put the words "racist" and "Obama" into a Google images search and see for yourself. Also, check out the little protest that took place at Ole Miss last night, the protest the school chancellor has condemned: see the
Clarion-Ledger, the Jackson, Mississippi newspaper.
Her assertion that Obama was re-elected because he is black is likewise laughable. Sure, there were people who voted for him because he's black -- but not one of those people was ever going to vote for Romney.
Say all you want about "reality," Grits -- the facts just aren't on your side.
quote:You're honestly pulling the "I can say racist things cause I have a black friend" card? Heavens.
I'm sorry I won't be able to comment much more, not because I don't want to, but because I'm picking up a little friend from school this afternoon. We'll come home, goof around here for a bit, go to the Y for a family "Dance It Out" class, pick up something for dinner, then go on to church. And yes, wouldn't you know it -- she's black. This IS my reality. If you don't live in it, you don't know it.
quote:January 4, 2013. It's usually good form to let the new Congress get sworn in before starting discussions of who should replace them.
Originally posted by agrgurich:
When do we start the 2014 Election thread?
quote:I wonder how their Olympic two-man bobsled team feels about this move.
Originally posted by ken:
Meanwhile, in even breakinger news, Puerto Rico both elected a Republican governor yesterday, and voted in favour of seeking to join the United States.
quote:How do you know this? I can't even begin to imagine how one would guess at how many black voters would have voted for a white version of Obama. But you seem very sure of your estimate beyond anything rational.
Originally posted by Grits:
I'll say it again: If the Democratic candidate in office on Monday had been a white man, he would not have been reelected on Tuesday.... I agree that the ones who voted for him because he's black would not have voted for Romney; they would not have voted at all, which was the very beginning point of my comments.
quote:Honestly, this had never crossed my mind. Who exactly are these voters, do you think? As a group, I mean.
Originally posted by Grits:
Let's see... I think all I need to respond to is the "elected because he is black" thing. I'll say it again: If the Democratic candidate in office on Monday had been a white man, he would not have been reelected on Tuesday. How can I say that more clearly? I agree that the ones who voted for him because he's black would not have voted for Romney; they would not have voted at all, which was the very beginning point of my comments. Remove those votes from the count, and he would not have been reelected. That's all I'm saying, and I don't see how you can honestly not believe that, too, no matter how much it pains your liberal heart to admit it.
quote:Exactly. And there are going to be fewer and fewer of them as time goes by, which is why the Republican party will need to think of new things to say to the electorate.
As to the "angry white men" comment, I should have said there aren't enough of them around to make a difference, as obviously, there weren't.
quote:Some of your best friends are black! Who'd have guessed it?
I'm sorry I won't be able to comment much more, not because I don't want to, but because I'm picking up a little friend from school this afternoon. We'll come home, goof around here for a bit, go to the Y for a family "Dance It Out" class, pick up something for dinner, then go on to church. And yes, wouldn't you know it -- she's black. This IS my reality. If you don't live in it, you don't know it.
quote:Huh? As in, what the fuck? Wow. What you posted hadn't even crossed my mind. The accusation of dishonesty is pretty rich.
[b]Everyone was dancing around the race thing. Why? Embrace it. But at least be honest about it. [/QB]
quote:Don't you think that Condoleezza Rice would win? After all, she's black, so she'd waltz it.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I'm sure they could. I'm also sure that person could never possibly win the nomination.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not convinced though that the Republicans are lost in the wilderness cos of the demographics. I think it would be possible to find someone young and charismatic, who supports a market economy, but who is not racist, doesn't attack Latinos and so on, and who can speak to women and blue-collar workers.
quote:I would be very interested in seeing anything that might really indicate this could be so, since I don't really believe it otherwise. I have no doubt that there were a few first-time voters--to wit, four years worth of young people who were too young in 2008. Obama did really well with them, just as he did well with younger people in 2008.
Originally posted by Grits:
I agree that the ones who voted for him because he's black would not have voted for Romney; they would not have voted at all, which was the very beginning point of my comments.
quote:I'm glad you said that - at least it shows that you know how things should be.
Originally posted by Grits:
I realize that most, if not all, of the people on the Ship voted for Obama because they believe in him, his policies, his party, and that's all well and good, AND AS IT SHOULD BE.
quote:Yes, but, if somebody keeps asserting something, with no argument or evidence, surely the frequency of assertion, and its intensity, must carry some weight, don't you think?
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:How do you know this? I can't even begin to imagine how one would guess at how many black voters would have voted for a white version of Obama. But you seem very sure of your estimate beyond anything rational.
Originally posted by Grits:
I'll say it again: If the Democratic candidate in office on Monday had been a white man, he would not have been reelected on Tuesday.... I agree that the ones who voted for him because he's black would not have voted for Romney; they would not have voted at all, which was the very beginning point of my comments.
Having a black friend really has nothing to do with it. And I wonder how she'd feel if she knew she was your "I'm not a racist" card on an internet site.
quote:Is it helpful? No. But, see -- I rarely find comments here, especially about politics, helpful. So now that I'm posting something contrary to the status quo, is it somehow more reprehensible because it's not "helpful"?
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
I totally disagree with Grits' take on the election, but I read her point as being "If he was white [with Obama's record]...". That would mean polls about Hilary are irrelevant, because she would be running free of that record.
Basically, Grits' assertion is completely unprovable or disprovable. So I suppose the next question should be "Is it helpful?' Grits was much more active when I first joined the boards, and I like her a lot but I don't see how the answer to that question can be anything but "No".
quote:You have not provided a single shred of evidence to support your assertion, which makes it appear to arise from nothing more than you seeing what you want to see.
Originally posted by Grits:
It just amazes me that no one is willing to approach even the possibility of race being the determining factor. I guess you just see what you want to see.
quote:Your last sentence is apt. You were insisting as certain fact that race was the determining factor. I don't see how one can know for certain. Are you seeing what you want to see?
Originally posted by Grits:
It just amazes me that no one is willing to approach even the possibility of race being the determining factor. I guess you just see what you want to see.
quote:But exactly the same is true for women and yioung voters. And in total numbers - and its numbers that count, not percentages - they were more important to this narrow victory than the increased black turnout.
Originally posted by Grits:
I agree that the ones who voted for him because he's black would not have voted for Romney; they would not have voted at all, which was the very beginning point of my comments.
Remove those votes from the count, and he would not have been reelected.
quote:No-one is unwilling to think about it. But we are also able to do simple arithmetic. When you stop feeling so angry about the election and you do the sums you will see that race was just one of many factors and probably not the most important.
Originally posted by mdijon:
It just amazes me that no one is willing to approach even the possibility of race being the determining factor.
quote:Which is relevant how? Are you saying you wouldn't do any of those things with your "little friend" if she were white? I know, I know! That's a fairly offensive thing to suggest.
Originally posted by Grits:
I agree that the ones who voted for him because he's black would not have voted for Romney; they would not have voted at all, which was the very beginning point of my comments.
.
.
.
I'm sorry I won't be able to comment much more, not because I don't want to, but because I'm picking up a little friend from school this afternoon. We'll come home, goof around here for a bit, go to the Y for a family "Dance It Out" class, pick up something for dinner, then go on to church. And yes, wouldn't you know it -- she's black. This IS my reality. If you don't live in it, you don't know it.
quote:Probably Virginia (if he really won it - have they finished counting yet?) In the sense that the greater black turnout there than eight years ago might be larger than the majority.
Originally posted by art dunce:
Which states did he win because of voters who only voted for him because he was black and wouldn't have voted otherwise?
quote:Whoops, sorry. My bad.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But they defeated the Republican/New Progressive Party governor, Luis Fortuno (who campaigned for Romney in Florida). The newly elected governor, Alejandro Garcia Padilla, is with the Popular Democratic Party, which interestingly enough, wants PR to remain a semi-autonomous commonwealth.
quote:Unemployment, mortgage foreclosures...
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
To be dull and boring.....
He won because we always re-elect sitting presidents, unless a. Somehorrible gamechanging crisis has just occurred that the president seems to be failing at managing...
quote:Our polling organistations, political parties, and TV channels do exactly the same, based on exit polls and early results and magic swingometers.
Originally posted by Avila:
This notion of 'calling' a state - declaring a result before all votes counted, seems strange to me.
quote:Egregious misattribution. No mea culpa. Total denial in strongest possible terms. I am not amazed, I considered the possibility and and consider the term "determining factor" wanting.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:No-one is unwilling to think about it....
Originally posted by mdijon:
It just amazes me that no one is willing to approach even the possibility of race being the determining factor.
quote:Sorry that was a bad edit, I was intending to reply to Grits. Too many typos - time to go to the pub. Yes, that's improve my keyboard skills..
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:Egregious misattribution. No mea culpa. Total denial in strongest possible terms. I am not amazed, I considered the possibility and and consider the term "determining factor" wanting.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:No-one is unwilling to think about it....
Originally posted by mdijon:
It just amazes me that no one is willing to approach even the possibility of race being the determining factor.
quote:Of course no one is! This is the US. There is still racism here. That's why we still need affirmative action.
Originally posted by Grits:
[QUOTE] It just amazes me that no one is willing to approach even the possibility of race being the determining factor. I guess you just see what you want to see.
quote:Shorter version: "I failed to account for the things my job requires me to account for." Maybe it's in the longer interview that's not available, but I'd be more interested in why Rasmussen got those numbers wrong, rather than on which particular numbers he got wrong.
In general the projections were pretty good. The two differences I noted were share of white vote falling to 72 percent. That’s what the Obama campaign, to their credit, said all along. We showed it just over 73 percent. Also, youth turnout higher and senior turnout lower than expected. That’s a pretty big deal given the size of the generation gap. I think it showed clearly that the Obama team had a great game plan for identifying their vote and getting it to the polls.
quote:Or try the words "sociopath" and "Obama". I really can't understand where such a diagnosis comes from. Anyone as bright as Obama who, graduated from an Ivy league university, wants to make his living as an academic or a community organizer, and is a happily married father of two to boot, has very low ambitions for a sociopath. Or is sociopathy a disease that someone suddenly catches upon deciding to run for high office?
Originally posted by RuthW:
Put the words "racist" and "Obama" into a Google images search and see for yourself.
quote:"Justify his existence" indeed! If everyone else had messed it up equally, he wouldn't be in such a hard spot.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Scott Rasmussen tries to justify his existence...
quote:I think my confusion is that when it is an exit poll it is clear that it is a prediction, whereas last night (and I was tired so may not have been at my most astute) the BBC site seemed to be counted as EC votes in the bag then I heard on the radio that those states had only called, not finished the count.
Originally posted by ken:
[quote:Our polling organistations, political parties, and TV channels do exactly the same, based on exit polls and early results and magic swingometers.
Originally posted by Avila:
This notion of 'calling' a state - declaring a result before all votes counted, seems strange to me.
The swingometer never was a very good predictor of individual parliamentary elections in UK because local factors often trump national ones, but it was a surprisingly good predictor of the total number or parliamentary seats in the 60s and 70s. Started to go off the rails in the 80s & 90s, and is now weird. On the other hand it would have worked last night in the USA. ....
quote:There was a little bit of discussion about it on CNN last night -- mostly along the lines of "there are going to be a lot of Republicans asking 'what did we get for all that money?'"
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Where are the media when it comes to why the Superpac spending didn't get the results hoped for? Maybe my reading is limited but I haven't seen it mentioned. I have no doubt that if the election had gone to Romney the media would be all over the "buying the election".
quote:Your contention might be less amazing if you had more data points. After all, he's not the first African-American to run for President.
Originally posted by Grits:
... It just amazes me that no one is willing to approach even the possibility of race being the determining factor. I guess you just see what you want to see. ...
quote:Oh, you've been incredibly clear about what you said. You've been incredibly clear that you want to blaim Barak Obama's race for everything that's gone wrong.
Originally posted by Grits:
Sorry -- I've been out this morning and am just now returning.
Let's see... I think all I need to respond to is the "elected because he is black" thing. I'll say it again: If the Democratic candidate in office on Monday had been a white man, he would not have been reelected on Tuesday. How can I say that more clearly?
quote:In Gritsland, apparently there are no racists who either don't vote for someone overtly because they are black or who find an excuse not to vote for someone because they are black. Romney & Co. ran an almost overtly racist campaign following the model of the Southern Strategy. It's unlikely they'd have done it if there weren't votes to be had in running a racist campaign.
I agree that the ones who voted for him because he's black would not have voted for Romney; they would not have voted at all, which was the very beginning point of my comments. Remove those votes from the count, and he would not have been reelected. That's all I'm saying, and I don't see how you can honestly not believe that, too, no matter how much it pains your liberal heart to admit it.
quote:"Some of my best friends are black"? Seriously? Why don't you try saying "I'm not a racist, but..."?
And yes, wouldn't you know it -- she's black.
quote:I wouldn't hold your breath on that last bit. Paul Krugman over at the New York Times made an interesting observation* prior to the election about one of the most notorious big players in the SuperPAC game:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Where are the media when it comes to why the Superpac spending didn't get the results hoped for? Maybe my reading is limited but I haven't seen it mentioned. I have no doubt that if the election had gone to Romney the media would be all over the "buying the election".
Incidentally, I wonder if those superpacs would be open to using all their excess billions on more rewarding spending like education?
quote:In other words, a lot of SuperPACs may be the political equivalents of those charities that spend most of their donations on "overhead". This could partially explain Rove's FoxNews Freakout. A bunch of happy billionaires who just bought the Presidency are a lot less likely to start asking awkward questions about the books than a bunch of angry billionaires who feel like they've just been taken.
Remember how [Karl] Rove and others were supposed to raise vast sums from billionaires and corporations, then totally saturate the country with GOP messaging, drowning out Obama’s message? Well, they certainly raised a lot of money, and ran a lot of ads. But in terms of actual number of ads the battle has been, if anything, an Obama advantage. And while we don’t know what will happen on Tuesday, state-level polls suggest both that Obama is a strong favorite and, much more surprising, that Democrats are overwhelmingly favored to hold the Senate in a year when the number of seats at risk was supposed to spell doom.
Some of this reflects the simple fact that money can’t help all that much when you have a lousy message. But it also looks as if the money was surprisingly badly spent. What happened?
Well, what if we’ve been misunderstanding Rove? We’ve been seeing him as a man dedicated to helping angry right-wing billionaires take over America. But maybe he’s best thought of instead as an entrepreneur in the business of selling his services to angry right-wing billionaires, who believe that he can help them take over America. It’s not the same thing.
And while Rove the crusader is looking — provisionally, of course, until the votes are in — like a failure, Rove the businessman has just had an amazing, banner year.
quote:Am I the only one who noticed the irony of the Republicans throwing massive amounts of money into the election, and losing, versus the Democrats, using modern targeted marketing and communications, just like businesses and brands do, maximizing bang for their fewer bucks, and winning?
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Where are the media when it comes to why the Superpac spending didn't get the results hoped for? ...
quote:Jeeze louise.
We have never quite had the present perfect storm of nearly half not paying federal income taxes, nearly 50 million on food stamps, and almost half the population on some sort of federal largess — and a sophistic elite that promotes it and at the same time finds ways to be exempt from its social and cultural consequences. For an Obama, Biden, Kerry, Pelosi, or Feinstein, the psychological cost for living like 18th-century French royalty is the promotion of the welfare state for millions of others who for now will be kept far away, in places like Bakersfield or Mendota.
quote:They bought the right to call up the politicians they supported who were successful last night and tell them what to do.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
There was a little bit of discussion about it on CNN last night -- mostly along the lines of "there are going to be a lot of Republicans asking 'what did we get for all that money?'"
quote:After you got in long post about race in the election? Yeah, right.
Originally posted by comet:
drop it already, it's stupid and beneath all of us.
quote:Fine. I'm willing to give them a day or two of indulging a fit of pique. If they want to have a chance of governing again, though, they need to make some changes. They can't change the Democrats. They can change themselves.
Originally posted by Zach82:
In general, it's because Obama pandered to the worthless, grovelling masses with promises of undeserved social programs, promises which will give wealthy liberals power of the short term while wrecking Good Ol' America in the long term.
quote:Possibly, and I think Soror Magna might have another part of the answer a few posts up.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ Nick Tamen
A below-average understanding of the "market" in which they were seeking to achieve "product dominance"?
quote:Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Romney lost by the smallest of margins after all. The Republican base is losing ground only very slowly. I think the Republicans could yet eek out another white house term or two with its present coalition.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Fine. I'm willing to give them a day or two of indulging a fit of pique. If they want to have a chance of governing again, though, they need to make some changes. They can't change the Democrats. They can change themselves.
If they don't change, they'll probably end up like the Federalist Party. I'm not worried about a 1-party state, though--the Democrats could never hold themselves together without an opposition, so they would split into at least 2 parties.
quote:Revenge of the nerds. As a citizen, I can't take any pride in the fact that such a prosaic, coldly calculating, and manipulative approach is what does the job. But one must admit that with all that money sloshing around, the businesslike thing to do is to use it efficiently, especially if it comes from lots of little people and you don't have quite as much as your opponents. The impression has been that Romney is the sober numbers guy while Obama is mainly good for making stirring speeches. Reality, at least when their whole respective teams are taken into account, seems to be just the opposite.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Am I the only one who noticed the irony of the Republicans throwing massive amounts of money into the election, and losing, versus the Democrats, using modern targeted marketing and communications, just like businesses and brands do, maximizing bang for their fewer bucks, and winning?
quote:Not that you could have known from my previous post, but I wasn't thinking on a time frame of "in the next four years". Still, the Republican Party has reinvented itself several times in my lifetime (as have the Democrats) and to be honest I expect they will do it again. The mystique of Karl Rove isn't what it was yesterday morning, and I think even he realized this was the last time Republicans could count on white males to keep them in power.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Romney lost by the smallest of margins after all. The Republican base is losing ground only very slowly. I think the Republicans could yet eek out another white house term or two with its present coalition.
quote:One certainly can't ignore the question of how well the poll results reflect the actual likely outcomes. (I'm reading your response to say that is your concern rather than a distrust of the Central Limit Theorem.)
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:I understand what you are saying. However, the nature of the disagreement on the poll data presents a problem for your naive shuffling of the polls -- the question is whether the assumptions of how populations will behave reflects a systematic bias -- "groupthink," if you will. If so, lumping the data does not provide noticeably better indication of the results than do each of the polls individually.
Originally posted by Carex:
So for the 12 latest National polls of the national popular vote...
Given the large demographic flux of the electorate, ISTM that prudence would dictate assuming a larger than usual variance in our predictions. The discussion that I have seen of most of this data reflects a much too trusting attitude for such shakey data. The polls may end up being precisely on-target. I am not saying that they are necessarily wrong, even if Croesos would like to impute such a view to me. Rather, ISTM that such close margins in the context of major shifts in the make-up of the electorate create a recipe for black swans, if you will.
quote:Not at all. There have been many smaller margins. The 2000 presidential election comes to mind as an obvious example. The ultimate victor had a much narrower electoral count and actually lost the popular vote.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Romney lost by the smallest of margins after all.
quote:And the quality, or lack thereof, of the candidate on the other side has NOTHING to do with it?
Originally posted by Grits:
quote:If the Democratic president running for reelection had been white, there is no way on God's green earth he would have been reelected. Even some Democrats admit Obama has been ineffective at best, detrimental in many cases. His campaign has proven to be one big fat lie. If he was white, he would have been gone, gone, gone. The closeness of the vote proves that totally.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'd like to see some hard evidence, really I would. But to this Brit it looks like Romney lost because he was on the Republican ticket, and the 2012 Republicans scared enough of the 2008 Obama voters back to the polling booths despite their reservations over Obama.
quote:Let's see... I don't agree with your assertion. I'll say it again: if it's your opinion, I don't automatically have to agree with it. How can I say that more clearly?
Originally posted by Grits:
Let's see... I think all I need to respond to is the "elected because he is black" thing. I'll say it again: If the Democratic candidate in office on Monday had been a white man, he would not have been reelected on Tuesday. How can I say that more clearly?
quote:And again she left out any consideration - nay, MENTION - of the people who only voted AGAINST Obama because he's black.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Grits
I think the problem is that you are playing "what if" with just one factor. Romney would have been elected if women didn't have the vote, or if there was a minimum income qualification for voting, or the minimum voting age was 30 etc.
quote:It's ironic (or something--I'm an American) either way for the media to comment about it, since what the boatload of money bought was advertising in the ... wait for it ... media. Those Superpac dollars pay the wages of the pundits who decry them (which is at least brave if not foolhardy) or applaud them (which is self-serving).
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Where are the media when it comes to why the Superpac spending didn't get the results hoped for? Maybe my reading is limited but I haven't seen it mentioned. I have no doubt that if the election had gone to Romney the media would be all over the "buying the election".
quote:I've been meaning to take a look at which States are actually in play each election, partly because of something a commentator one of the American networks said yesterday.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Romney lost by the smallest of margins after all. The Republican base is losing ground only very slowly. I think the Republicans could yet eek out another white house term or two with its present coalition.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Fine. I'm willing to give them a day or two of indulging a fit of pique. If they want to have a chance of governing again, though, they need to make some changes. They can't change the Democrats. They can change themselves.
If they don't change, they'll probably end up like the Federalist Party. I'm not worried about a 1-party state, though--the Democrats could never hold themselves together without an opposition, so they would split into at least 2 parties.
quote:While we are at it, let's not forget the Republican Convention. Or the overtly racist nonsense one Republican candidate put out under his own name. And Grits' argument is that for the first time some people saw someone enough like them to vote for him?
Originally posted by mousethief:
In case you thought there weren't any people who voted against Obama because he was black....
quote:none of which include the idea that the GOP, particularly in the House, ran absolute blockage on anything that Obama did.
"He won because we always re-elect sitting presidents, unless a. Somehorrible gamechanging crisis has just occurred that the president seems to be failing at managing..."
"Unemployment, mortgage foreclosures..."
quote:Huh? I suspect you might be on your onesies on the Ship in even recalling I was running, but okay (remember how unimportant any 1 member is in the context of a House with 400 members): As already mentioned, I was unopposed. I'd have been elected even if I'd died last week.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Mr. Porridge, the whole Ship wants to know, were you elected, sir?
quote:Matthew Yglesias has an article in Slate today that addresses this very issue. His take:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
The BBC News this evening devoted a lot of space, quite rightly, to the results of the American election. What struck me most was an interview with a member of the Latino community, who ran a small shop. He said, "The Latino community has a lot in common with Republicans. We are pro family, pro tradition, pro religion. But we vote Democrat because the Republicans hate us and want to throw us out of the country." (Or words to that effect - I wasn't taking notes I'm afraid.)
If that chap is correct, it seems to me that the Republican party has an easy path to future victory - just start engaging with non-white Americans and the door to the White House is open to you. Is he right, and how likely is that Republicans can begin to engage?
quote:However, Republicans haven't just used racism to sell policies that primarily benefit the affluent to middle-class and working-class voters -- they've used the culture wars and appeals to rugged individualism. If Republicans can persuade non-white voters, who are primarily also non-rich, on the same grounds that they've persuaded non-rich white voters, they could improve their chances tremendously.
Pundits are quickly turning to immigration to explain the Republicans’ Latino problem and to offer a possible cure, but the reality is that the rot cuts much deeper. The GOP doesn’t have a problem with Latino voters per se. Rather, it has a problem with a broad spectrum of voters who simply don’t feel that it’s speaking to their economic concerns. The GOP has an economic agenda tilted strongly to the benefit of elites, and it has preserved support for that agenda—even though it disserves the majority of GOP voters—with implicit racial politics.
...
Polling suggests that the Latino problem for the GOP is deeper than immigration. John McCain got a scant 31 percent of the Latino vote despite a long record of pro-immigration policies. The best evidence available on Hispanic public opinion, a big election even poll from Latino Decisions and ImpreMedia, makes it clear that this is just a fairly liberal voting block. Just 12 percent of Latinos support a cuts-only approach to deficit reduction, and only 25 percent want to repeal Obamacare. Only 31 percent of Hispanics say they’d be more likely to vote for a Republican who supports the DREAM Act. This isn’t to say Latinos aren’t eager to see immigration reform, it’s just that the lion’s share have bigger reasons for rejecting the GOP.
quote:Yeah, he's correct. Latinos are a minority that Republicans, in theory, should be very enthusiastic about. Predominantly "pro-family", usually with a patriarchal view of family, religiously observant, willing to work hard and even defy "government bureaucrats in Washington" with their red tape and petty regulations to do so. Yet the horror at letting large numbers of non-whites into the Big Tent™ seems to be stronger than the ideological similarities.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
The BBC News this evening devoted a lot of space, quite rightly, to the results of the American election. What struck me most was an interview with a member of the Latino community, who ran a small shop. He said, "The Latino community has a lot in common with Republicans. We are pro family, pro tradition, pro religion. But we vote Democrat because the Republicans hate us and want to throw us out of the country." (Or words to that effect - I wasn't taking notes I'm afraid.)
quote:It's a good, though long, essay on a particularly good example of how the GOP works to become less diverse. Go read it if you got the time to spare.
In the 2000 election, approximately 70% of Muslims in America voted for Bush; among non-African-American Muslims, the ratio was over 80%.
Four years later, Bush’s share of the vote among Muslims was 4%.
What happened? Well, a lot.
quote:Latino/Hispanics are not all the same. The business owners and affluent Latinos often lean Republican, the doctors, teachers and professors lean Democrat, the Evangelicals are heavily Republican, the Catholics lean Democrat. Individuals who are newer to the country are more conservative those here longer are more moderate or liberal. People reject the Republicans because of their lack of interest in social justice, the overt racism, the unwillingness to address the plight of undocumented children, the hypocrisy of Republican owned businesses that demand immigrant labor and then treat that same labor as subhuman, Republican support for laws like in Arizona that treat citizens of Latino descent like criminals...the list goes on. It has brought very different communities together for the first time ever since whether you are Puerto Rican, Cuban or born in Colorado too many Republicans call you "a Mexican" and tell you to "go home". Hispanic/Latinos have been made scapegoats and Republicans can pander all they wish but few will be fooled.
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
The BBC News this evening devoted a lot of space, quite rightly, to the results of the American election. What struck me most was an interview with a member of the Latino community, who ran a small shop. He said, "The Latino community has a lot in common with Republicans. We are pro family, pro tradition, pro religion. But we vote Democrat because the Republicans hate us and want to throw us out of the country." (Or words to that effect - I wasn't taking notes I'm afraid.)
If that chap is correct, it seems to me that the Republican party has an easy path to future victory - just start engaging with non-white Americans and the door to the White House is open to you. Is he right, and how likely is that Republicans can begin to engage?
quote:It is very hard to prove it being a determining factor in the outcome.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:You have not provided a single shred of evidence to support your assertion, which makes it appear to arise from nothing more than you seeing what you want to see.
Originally posted by Grits:
It just amazes me that no one is willing to approach even the possibility of race being the determining factor. I guess you just see what you want to see.
quote:thank you for your service. hope it doesn't give you heartburn!
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:Huh? I suspect you might be on your onesies on the Ship in even recalling I was running, but okay (remember how unimportant any 1 member is in the context of a House with 400 members): As already mentioned, I was unopposed. I'd have been elected even if I'd died last week.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Mr. Porridge, the whole Ship wants to know, were you elected, sir?
What's much, much, better news, though, is that the 3-to-1 Republican majority in the House is now a small majority of Dems. The crazy Speaker of the last 2 years got re-elected, dammit, but has announced (like we care) that he intends to seek no leadership positions. Good move on his part; doubt he could win one.
We also managed to retire at least one of our House birthers and the crackpot who wanted to reference the Magna Carta in all new legislation.
We also have the first (I think -- can someone more knowledgeable speak authoritatively on this?) all-female congressional delegation in national history, plus a female guv.
New Hampshire is definitely blue.
quote:Voter Suppression - make it a pain and a laughingstock and also make people cynical. They will be less likely to vote.
Originally posted by Zach82:
So what, exactly, is the hold up with Florida?
quote:You know, it occurs to me: if being black is all it takes, why didn't Mr. 9-9-9 win his party's nomination?
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:While we are at it, let's not forget the Republican Convention. Or the overtly racist nonsense one Republican candidate put out under his own name. And Grits' argument is that for the first time some people saw someone enough like them to vote for him?
Originally posted by mousethief:
In case you thought there weren't any people who voted against Obama because he was black....
quote:Nobody has denied this. What Grits has claimed is that the ONLY reason Obama won was because he's black; if he had been white, he would have lost. See the difference?
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
But, realistically, if some white people voted based on race, some black people did too.
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
thank you for your service. hope it doesn't give you heartburn!
I've laid in a supply of Tums.
quote:Not to contradict your point, which is a good one, but to say something about its implications: If you'd gone back just one more election, California wouldn't have made your list -- California went for Bush Sr. in 1988, and before that was reliably Republican for decades. Once the Democrats started running moderates, the state went blue in presidential elections. (The stereotype of California being all crazy liberal is simply not true and never has been.) Since the country's demographics are starting to follow the pattern already set down by changes in California, if Republicans keep running jerks and the Democrats keep running moderates, the Democrats could take over the White House for quite some time.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Not only is the 'blue' list larger, but it has quite a few of the really big states - California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, as opposed to Texas being the only really big one on the 'red' list.
quote:Congratulations, Porridge! And having listened to "This American Life" this past weekend, with its story on the New Hampshire House, I'm glad to hear the update on the elections there.
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:Huh? I suspect you might be on your onesies on the Ship in even recalling I was running, but okay (remember how unimportant any 1 member is in the context of a House with 400 members): As already mentioned, I was unopposed. I'd have been elected even if I'd died last week.
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Mr. Porridge, the whole Ship wants to know, were you elected, sir?
What's much, much, better news, though, is that the 3-to-1 Republican majority in the House is now a small majority of Dems. The crazy Speaker of the last 2 years got re-elected, dammit, but has announced (like we care) that he intends to seek no leadership positions. Good move on his part; doubt he could win one.
We also managed to retire at least one of our House birthers and the crackpot who wanted to reference the Magna Carta in all new legislation.
We also have the first (I think -- can someone more knowledgeable speak authoritatively on this?) all-female congressional delegation in national history, plus a female guv.
New Hampshire is definitely blue.
quote:I wondered about this. Why such a solidly red state stuck between a very blue state on one side and a swing state on the other?
Originally posted by Zach82:
Indiana is another reliable republican state that is looking to drift left eventually. Maybe.
quote:I wondered about this. Why such a solidly red state stuck between a very blue state on one side and a swing state on the other?
Originally posted by Zach82:
Indiana is another reliable republican state that is looking to drift left eventually. Maybe.
quote:Yes, I realise that going back any further shows completely different patterns (not just California, but that is an excellent example).
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Not to contradict your point, which is a good one, but to say something about its implications: If you'd gone back just one more election, California wouldn't have made your list -- California went for Bush Sr. in 1988, and before that was reliably Republican for decades. Once the Democrats started running moderates, the state went blue in presidential elections. (The stereotype of California being all crazy liberal is simply not true and never has been.) Since the country's demographics are starting to follow the pattern already set down by changes in California, if Republicans keep running jerks and the Democrats keep running moderates, the Democrats could take over the White House for quite some time.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Not only is the 'blue' list larger, but it has quite a few of the really big states - California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, as opposed to Texas being the only really big one on the 'red' list.
quote:It's going to be difficult at this point to put together a Constitutional amendment to change it because too many people will be wanting to take the opportunity to make other changes. (For those watching from overseas, it requires approval of 34 states, and often takes years.)
Originally posted by comet regarding the Electoral College:
yep. it's still stupid. in this day and age, there is no point to the electoral college.
quote:Thirty-eight states. Amending the U.S. Constitution requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of the federal Congress followed by ratification by three-quarters of the states.
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:It's going to be difficult at this point to put together a Constitutional amendment to change it because too many people will be wanting to take the opportunity to make other changes. (For those watching from overseas, it requires approval of 34 states, and often takes years.)
Originally posted by comet regarding the Electoral College:
yep. it's still stupid. in this day and age, there is no point to the electoral college.
quote:David Brooks, in today's conversation with Gail Collins, quotes himself from an earlier column:
Originally posted by art dunce:
A crazy aunt just emailed me that a newly elected Democratic Congresswoman, Tulsi Gabbard is a Hindu and she is going to be sworn in on the Bhagavad Gita. Apparently, this is an indication of end times.
quote:He nailed it--"Leave It To Beaver" America is gone and it ain't coming back. And good riddance. If the Republican Party wants to survive, it has to come to terms with that. I'll be the first to say that a democracy needs at least two vital parties with serious ideas for dealing with real problems. Our current tragedy is that we have approximately .95 such parties, on a good day.
“I sometimes wonder if the Republican Party has become the receding roar of white America as it pines for a way of life that will never return.”
quote:You should have mentioned Tulsi is from Hawaii. She's clearly part of the conspiracy to conceal Obama's true birthplace, and is now being rewarded for her role.
Originally posted by art dunce:
A crazy aunt just emailed me that a newly elected Democratic Congresswoman, Tulsi Gabbard is a Hindu and she is going to be sworn in on the Bhagavad Gita. Apparently, this is an indication of end times.
quote:I noticed recently that some reviews of Tom Wolfe's new novel 'Back to Blood', described it as a last shriek by the dying breed of WASP, surrounded by non-WASPs. It's set in Miami, so I guess Wolfe can do his delirious thing about non-white America (haven't read it).
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:David Brooks, in today's conversation with Gail Collins, quotes himself from an earlier column:
Originally posted by art dunce:
A crazy aunt just emailed me that a newly elected Democratic Congresswoman, Tulsi Gabbard is a Hindu and she is going to be sworn in on the Bhagavad Gita. Apparently, this is an indication of end times.
quote:He nailed it--"Leave It To Beaver" America is gone and it ain't coming back. And good riddance. If the Republican Party wants to survive, it has to come to terms with that. I'll be the first to say that a democracy needs at least two vital parties with serious ideas for dealing with real problems. Our current tragedy is that we have approximately .95 such parties, on a good day.
“I sometimes wonder if the Republican Party has become the receding roar of white America as it pines for a way of life that will never return.”
quote:What's Indiana's excuse?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Rather gruesome maps of the civil war era and current political voting. Spot the difference?
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/63089_10151299959267177_1113898282_n.jpg
quote:Dang. That's really stark.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Here is another view of the exit poll results re demography.
quote:I guess it's on the cusp? Astonishing how few states have shifted.
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:What's Indiana's excuse?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Rather gruesome maps of the civil war era and current political voting. Spot the difference?
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/63089_10151299959267177_1113898282_n.jpg
quote:What strikes me most about those exit polls is that Romney won some large groups, but lost some of the small groups SO BADLY that it didn't even out.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Here is another view of the exit poll results re demography.
quote:Of course. But probably not enough to influence the result of the election in more than a few, if any, states.
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
But, realistically, if some white people voted based on race, some black people did too.
quote:And Iowa? Not a lot of car factories and coalmines there.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Illinois only goes blue for the sake of Chicago, and Ohio because of cities like Cleveland. Indianapolis is growing, but Indiana wasn't historically a population center. If you factor out Chicago, Indiana and Illinois are practically the same place in terms of values and political predilections.
quote:Yes, but that really is the same as they do here. If you watch BBC election coverage at a UK general election they will make tentative predictions about the final composition of Parliament from the first few results. They often make confident predictions about 3 or 4 am when there are still hundreds of seats left to announce - its just that rural sheep in Devon tend not to vote Labour. There have been election nights when Prime Minister has resigned on the basis of assumptions about undeclared constituencies.
Originally posted by Avila:
I think my confusion is that when it is an exit poll it is clear that it is a prediction, whereas last night (and I was tired so may not have been at my most astute) the BBC site seemed to be counted as EC votes in the bag then I heard on the radio that those states had only called, not finished the count.
quote:To the contrary: what's really astonishing is that almost all states have shifted. Those northern states in Green on your civil war map voted Lincoln, while the southern states in red on the map voted Democrat.
quetzalcoatl: I guess it's on the cusp? Astonishing how few states have shifted.
quote:Very true. And indeed, if you look at elections from the early part of the 20th century, it's still the case then that the South is the bastion of Democrat voting. The first time I can see a noticeable Republican bloc down there is 1964.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:To the contrary: what's really astonishing is that almost all states have shifted. Those northern states in Green on your civil war map voted Lincoln, while the southern states in red on the map voted Democrat.
quetzalcoatl: I guess it's on the cusp? Astonishing how few states have shifted.
quote:What struck me about the education graph was that it was essentially a toss-up except at the two extremes -- those who hadn't graduated from high school and thos who had post-graduate education both went overwhelmingly for Obama. Those groups seem like strange bedfellows...
Originally posted by orfeo:
I was also struck by the education graphs, which indicate that Romney won college graduates (a large bloc) but lost all the other categories, both above and below that.
quote:But isn't that because the parties have flipped? I thought the Democrats were traditionally the pro-segregationists, until they peeled off to the Republicans. Is that incorrect? Although I think Carter still won a lot of the Southern states.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:To the contrary: what's really astonishing is that almost all states have shifted. Those northern states in Green on your civil war map voted Lincoln, while the southern states in red on the map voted Democrat.
quetzalcoatl: I guess it's on the cusp? Astonishing how few states have shifted.
quote:Y'know, people from the coasts often go on about how rural Indiana is, but it's really more defined by small industrial towns. But these towns are pretty isolated, and are definitely not cosmopolitan places that foster progressive ideas.
And Iowa? Not a lot of car factories and coalmines there.
quote:Not that astonishing. What would've been more astonishing is if the status quo had been maintained after the Democrats embraced civil rights and the Republicans had completed the transformation from the Party of Lincoln to the Party of Strom Thurmond.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:To the contrary: what's really astonishing is that almost all states have shifted. Those northern states in Green on your civil war map voted Lincoln, while the southern states in red on the map voted Democrat.
quetzalcoatl: I guess it's on the cusp? Astonishing how few states have shifted.
quote:I know about this of course, but mostly from heaving read about it. This happened in the sixties, right? So there must be Shipmates from the US who were alive at the time. Maybe they could try to explain how this felt?
Crœsos: Not that astonishing. What would've been more astonishing is if the status quo had been maintained after the Democrats embraced civil rights and the Republicans had completed the transformation from the Party of Lincoln to the Party of Strom Thurmond.
quote:Better that than the Bible which pretty clearly tells you not to swear by anything on heaven or earth... I still don't know how people justify that one!
Originally posted by art dunce:
A crazy aunt just emailed me that a newly elected Democratic Congresswoman, Tulsi Gabbard is a Hindu and she is going to be sworn in on the Bhagavad Gita. Apparently, this is an indication of end times.
quote:I was in Indianapolis once. The city did not strike me as significantly different from other large, American cities in the north. On the road out to the airport, it was as if I had driven into Kentucky. The attitudes, the speech; everything was very different even though no physical separation existed between the city and the outlying communities.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:Y'know, people from the coasts often go on about how rural Indiana is, but it's really more defined by small industrial towns. But these towns are pretty isolated, and are definitely not cosmopolitan places that foster progressive ideas.
And Iowa? Not a lot of car factories and coalmines there.
quote:Those are very interesting observations.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:What struck me about the education graph was that it was essentially a toss-up except at the two extremes -- those who hadn't graduated from high school and thos who had post-graduate education both went overwhelmingly for Obama. Those groups seem like strange bedfellows...
Originally posted by orfeo:
I was also struck by the education graphs, which indicate that Romney won college graduates (a large bloc) but lost all the other categories, both above and below that.
quote:The shift can be fairly clearly illustrated by two Presidential election maps. First check out 1956. Now 1964. These two landslide elections, separated by only eight years, are almost exact mirror images of each other. So what happened between 1956 and 1964 to almost completely reverse the electoral map? Short answer: the Civil Rights Movement.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I know about this of course, but mostly from heaving read about it. This happened in the sixties, right? So there must be Shipmates from the US who were alive at the time. Maybe they could try to explain how this felt?
I mean, I can read about it, but I already feel dizzy thinking about it. I'm trying to imagine what would happen if in my native Holland right-wing VVD and left-wing PvdA would just switch ideological positions. I doubt that the electorate would simply say: "Alright, I'm going to vote PvdA then." Most probably, both parties would lose almost all of their votes.
quote:It took forty or fifty years. FDR positioned his administration as liberal, or even radical, on race back in the 1930s. Then, as Croesos just said northern Democrats became strong political supporters of civil rights in the 50s and 60s, which is when the flip happened - but it had been building for decades. And LBJ's presidency put the seal on it.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I mean, I can read about it, but I already feel dizzy thinking about it. I'm trying to imagine what would happen if in my native Holland right-wing VVD and left-wing PvdA would just switch ideological positions. I doubt that the electorate would simply say: "Alright, I'm going to vote PvdA then."
quote:No. That column shows her to be am ignorant bigoted hardline rightwing lying racist bitch. That's hardly news.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Anyone suspect that our very own home grown Mad Mel has finally jumped the shark?
quote:Don't know anything about Melanie Phillips, but one of the conservative criticisms of Obama is that he's not killing enough Arabs and Muslims. Sure, he's killing them in one-offs and handfull lots with drones, but winding down the Iraq War has really hampered the Muslim-killing.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:No. That column shows her to be am ignorant bigoted hardline rightwing lying racist bitch. That's hardly news.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Anyone suspect that our very own home grown Mad Mel has finally jumped the shark?
Ignorant, because her standard for judging foreign politicians is how many Arabs and Muslims they want to kill, and she hasn't realised that Obama has been killing lots. Which is why the only countries outside the USA where he is more unpopular than his republican rivals are Pakistan and some Arab countries.
quote:Something for supposedly professional columnists to consider when writing about America's first African-American president: is the use of metaphors like "darkness" or "black" to express your distaste for Obama absolutely necessary to making your case? And is that case important enough to make that you're comfortable having your writing cited with approval for your likely unintended meaning on websites like Stormfront?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's kind of Manichean, isn't it, with the forces of darkness lowering over the world, opposed only by a few brave souls like Mel, and I suppose, Donald Trump?
quote:If you analyze things closely enough, you can probably find similar APPARENT switches in other countries.
I mean, I can read about it, but I already feel dizzy thinking about it. I'm trying to imagine what would happen if in my native Holland right-wing VVD and left-wing PvdA would just switch ideological positions. I doubt that the electorate would simply say: "Alright, I'm going to vote PvdA then." Most probably, both parties would lose almost all of their votes
quote:I'm surprised she didn't actually manage to use the phrase "heart of darkness".
a sulky narcissist with an unbroken history of involvement in thuggish, corrupt, far-left, black power, Jew-bashing, west-hating politics.
quote:It's an 18th-century anomaly, left over because the Founding Fathers didn't trust the Mob to have the sense to elect the right person president. At one time, I believe the electors were chosen by the state legislators in some states. Regardless, the Founding Fathers expected the Electors would rarely be able to come to a decision, thereby allowing Congress to decide.
Originally posted by Enoch:
What is the electoral college for?
quote:It's an 18th-century anomaly, left over because the Founding Fathers didn't trust the Mob to have the sense to elect the right person president. At one time, I believe the electors were chosen by the state legislators in some states. Regardless, the Founding Fathers expected the Electors would rarely be able to come to a decision, thereby allowing Congress to decide.
Originally posted by Enoch:
What is the electoral college for?
quote:One explanation I've heard is that it was designed to prevent the president from claiming a direct mandate from the voters, which he could use to justify asserting dictatorial powers over the other branches of governmnet.
What is the electoral college for?
Or is it just there because it's there?
quote:Very short answer, and avoiding the question of whether it is still relevant.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Could somebody explain something for me? It may be already covered, but this thread has now reached 70 pages and I haven't been following it. I tried to find out about it four years ago, but didn't succeed. All political cultures have things that are mystifying to foreigners.
What is the electoral college for?
Or is it just there because it's there?
quote:This is the reason many give for abolishing the electoral college. Those who would maintain it counter that it recognizes the nature of the country as a federation of states by giving states a voice in the election of the president. James Madison in The Federalist Papers described our system as one that seeks to balance state-based and popular-based government. In Congress, this is accomplished through the House of Representatives, popularly elected from districts, and the Senate, where each state has two senators. Some would say the present system, where electors in each state are chosen by popular vote, seeks to strike the same balance.
I know it chooses the President, but why not just count up all the votes? That would give a more reliable result and prevent the situation where a person can become President with less votes than the loser.
quote:It does nothing at all except elect the president. Indeed, the Constitution doesn't even mention an Electoral College. It simply talks about electors. The "College" appellation is simply the common way of talking about it.
It doesn't, so far as I can see, carry on doing anything the rest of the time. Isn't it the two houses of the Congress that do that? So the President doesn't have to rely on the support of his electors to carry out his policies.
quote:In I think every state, each political party nominates the requisite number of people as electors. Most if not all states use what's called the "short ballot," which means that the name of the nominees for POTUS and VP are substituted for the names of their party's nominees for elector. So, for example, when one votes for Obama/Biden, one is technically/simultaneously voting for the nominees for elector of his state's Democratic Party.
Who belongs to it? Are they important people, or party nonentities, chosen because they can spare two or three days off work to fly to wherever it meets, vote for their two names and then fly home again?
Does it actually assemble, or can they send in their votes by post?
quote:Very short answer, and avoiding the question of whether it is still relevant.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Could somebody explain something for me? It may be already covered, but this thread has now reached 70 pages and I haven't been following it. I tried to find out about it four years ago, but didn't succeed. All political cultures have things that are mystifying to foreigners.
What is the electoral college for?
Or is it just there because it's there?
quote:This is the reason many give for abolishing the electoral college. Those who would maintain it counter that it recognizes the nature of the country as a federation of states by giving states a voice in the election of the president. James Madison in The Federalist Papers described our system as one that seeks to balance state-based and popular-based government. In Congress, this is accomplished through the House of Representatives, popularly elected from districts, and the Senate, where each state has two senators. Some would say the present system, where electors in each state are chosen by popular vote, seeks to strike the same balance.
I know it chooses the President, but why not just count up all the votes? That would give a more reliable result and prevent the situation where a person can become President with less votes than the loser.
quote:It does nothing at all except elect the president. Indeed, the Constitution doesn't even mention an Electoral College. It simply talks about electors. The "College" appellation is simply the common way of talking about it.
It doesn't, so far as I can see, carry on doing anything the rest of the time. Isn't it the two houses of the Congress that do that? So the President doesn't have to rely on the support of his electors to carry out his policies.
quote:In I think every state, each political party nominates the requisite number of people as electors. Most if not all states use what's called the "short ballot," which means that the name of the nominees for POTUS and VP are substituted for the names of their party's nominees for elector. So, for example, when one votes for Obama/Biden, one is technically/simultaneously voting for the nominees for elector of his state's Democratic Party.
Who belongs to it? Are they important people, or party nonentities, chosen because they can spare two or three days off work to fly to wherever it meets, vote for their two names and then fly home again?
Does it actually assemble, or can they send in their votes by post?
quote:Counter-counter-counter-factual!
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I had to laugh at her point that Obama was being persuaded not to kill Bin Laden, which, she says, is 'not substantiated but all too credible'.
That is priceless really. He did kill Bin Laden, but it's very credible that he might not have. Is there a name for this? Counter-factual lunacy, I suppose.
quote:The thing they have in common is that they are less likely to buy into the notion of the American Dream -- in different ways they have both learned that it's bullshit.
Originally posted by tclune:
What struck me about the education graph was that it was essentially a toss-up except at the two extremes -- those who hadn't graduated from high school and thos who had post-graduate education both went overwhelmingly for Obama. Those groups seem like strange bedfellows...
quote:Ms Phillips isn't that stupid. She meant it. Her political views overlap considerably with those of Stormfront. In everything apart from anti-semitism of course - and on that issue the neo-Nazis probably think she is a gift. They can point to her and ask their dupes if the Protocols of the Elders of Zion really seem any weirder.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Something for supposedly professional columnists to consider when writing about America's first African-American president: is the use of metaphors like "darkness" or "black" to express your distaste for Obama absolutely necessary to making your case? And is that case important enough to make that you're comfortable having your writing cited with approval for your likely unintended meaning on websites like Stormfront?
quote:In Britain the Tories were the pro-Europe party in the 50s and 60s, the parties were split on it in the 70s, and since the 80s Labour has been pro-Europe and the Conservatives anti-Europe.
Originally posted by Stetson:
If you analyze things closely enough, you can probably find similar APPARENT switches in other countries.
quote:I misspoke in my post -- the first group was those who had never attended high school. I wonder whether they are mostly immigrants, as it isn't easy to avoid HS in this country. If so, it may be a quite different dynamic than you are imagining. FWIW
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:The thing they have in common is that they are less likely to buy into the notion of the American Dream -- in different ways they have both learned that it's bullshit.
Originally posted by tclune:
What struck me about the education graph was that it was essentially a toss-up except at the two extremes -- those who hadn't graduated from high school and thos who had post-graduate education both went overwhelmingly for Obama. Those groups seem like strange bedfellows...
quote:A poll held THIS week returned Ms Feinstein to the Senate with two thirds of the popular vote
Originally posted by 205 [though when yoiu look at it it calls him "moron"]
A poll out this week showed Feinstein with the highest negatives in her nearly 20 years in the Senate.
quote:Yeah, the Canadian Liberals and Tories did a similar switch on free-trade in the latter part of the C20. Though after the FTA(precursor to NAFTA) was passed in 1984, the Liberals went back to being, at least de facto, pro-free trade. In their substantial time in governmnet, they never did anything to roll back the agreement.
Also a certain amount of switching on Free Trade - which has at times been the biggest issue in British politics. Tories were anti in the early 19th century, pro- in mid-century, anti again in late 19th and for most of the 20th century. Liberals were consistently pro Free Trade in 19th century, split on the issue around 1900, with the anti Free-Traders joining their Liberal Unionist co-conspirators in a big Tory tent, and the Liberal Free Trader rump running the country for a few years until everyone noticed they hardly existed any more, then vanishing in a puff of purple smoke. Labour replaced them, starting off as pro Free Trade, and drifting anti until from the 40s to the 70s it was almost entirely virulently protectionist. Liberals agreed to differ with eachother.
quote:No it is Republican attitudes towards Hispanic/Latinos, their support of people like Governor Brewer and her racial profiling of citizens. and the demonization of undocumented workers with no real work towards immigration reform that have pushed Hispanic/Latinos out of the Republican Party.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So in relation to 'he won because he's black', Kerry got 88% of the black vote, and Obama got 93%. How does that compute?
Whites voted slightly less for O than K, and Latinos quite a bit more for O.
So did O being black attract Latino votes, and hence won him the election?
Hmm, I would like to see a proper analysis of that one!
quote:Ditto. And on my end, it was showing as never having gone through the first time.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Not quite sure how that posted three times, but if a Host feels like cleaning it up, I'd be grateful. If not, I'm sure we'll be on the next page soon enough...
quote:It is a common fallacy for a group to celebrate its own uniqueness whilst looking at other groups and assume a commonality, hence a sympathy. Each group is doing the same thing.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
.
So did O being black attract Latino votes, and hence won him the election?
Hmm, I would like to see a proper analysis of that one!
quote:They have a mandatory recount at 0.5% difference and a very divided state.
Originally posted by Porridge:
What IS it with Florida? Why do they always seem to be last in line to get the vote count in?
It's not like they have the most voters.
quote:That is possibly slightly less nuts than the other one.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Here's my sample ballot -- we got this whole thing in the mail, and then at the ballot booth we saw just pages 8-13 (the actual ballot, numbered 1-6).
quote:Picket Fence Apocalypse
The president’s victory was a triumph of vision, not of demographics. He won because he articulated a set of values that define an America that the majority of us wish to live in: A nation that makes the investments we need to strengthen and grow the middle class. A nation with a fair tax system, and affordable and excellent education for all its citizens. A nation that believes that we’re most prosperous when we recognize that we are all in it together.
quote:
No, you cannot have your country back. America is moving forward....
On election night, Bill O’Reilly said :
It’s a changing country, the demographics are changing. It’s not a traditional America anymore, and there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama.
O’Reilly continued: “The white establishment is now the minority....”
You would think that the world came to an end Tuesday night. And depending on your worldview, it might have. If your idea of America’s power structure is rooted in a 1950s or even a 1920s sensibility, here’s an update: that America is no more.
Republicans are trying to hold back a storm surge of demographic change with a white picket fence. Good luck with that.
quote:In other words, voters are not sufficiently stupid to say "things are bad, and it's all one person's fault". They're assessing his performance in context.
[O]nly 4 in 10 voters believed another president would have been able to do more than Mr. Obama to get the economy moving in the past four years.
quote:
I'm sorry - I am a white, 50+, staunch Catholic, church and Bible study going, 30+ years married to my first and only husband, former full time mother to 3 children woman living on acreage: and I still am not sure just why I am supposed to be "afraid". Of what?! A delightful, loving family in the White House? A gracious, funny, warm and intelligent First Lady, with head turning style? Of a president whose integrity,intelligence and passion are genuine and inspiring? I sing Spanish hymns at Mass and feel just as uplifted as if they were in English. I love being around my young adult children and their friends - their energy and ingenuity give me joy and hope. I don't vote Republican (although on paper I suppose I could be their poster child) because I don't want to waste time being angry and afraid. If the new demographic is more colorful and diverse than before, great! I am happy to embrace it. I am confident that like other demographic changes before in our history, I will be welcomed and embraced back.
quote:Yes, some black voters would have stayed at home if President Obama was white. But it doesn't necessarily follow that the President would have lost the election.
Originally posted by Grits:
... If the Democratic candidate in office on Monday had been a white man, he would not have been reelected on Tuesday. How can I say that more clearly? I agree that the ones who voted for him because he's black would not have voted for Romney; they would not have voted at all, which was the very beginning point of my comments. Remove those votes from the count, and he would not have been reelected.
quote:Latinos, in fact new immigrants in general, are probably more likely to vote Republican, being largely in it for the American Dream of self-achievement, and coming to America because they are escaping repressive/corrupt governments. I'd imagine a new immigrant often just wants to be left alone by the government to work hard and make money, and are usually from quite conservative cultures. See the article Croesus linked to on page 69 for a muslim's perspective. It sounds like if only someone in the GOP could rugby tackle the more outspoken racists in the party to the floor and drag them back to the cellar then the democrats would start to seriously struggle to hold the immigrant minorities.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I see Texas voted 41% for Obama, so another few years, a million or so more Latinos, and Texas goes blue again! Watch out Mel!
quote:There's an interesting parallel in the UK where first-generation Asians might be conservative in philosophy, but vote Labour because it is perceived to be the party of ethnic minority rights.
Originally posted by Hawk:
Latinos, in fact new immigrants in general, are probably more likely to vote Republican, being largely in it for the American Dream of self-achievement, and coming to America because they are escaping repressive/corrupt governments.
quote:I once read an article by Mihir Bose, the BBC's sports editor, who said that many British Asians (including small business owners) also voted Labour because Clement Attlee granted India her independence. That rather surprised me.
Originally posted by mdijon:
There's an interesting parallel in the UK where first-generation Asians might be conservative in philosophy, but vote Labour because it is perceived to be the party of ethnic minority rights.
Socialism is not a natural fit for many middle-class Asians, but the Conservative party hasn't really shown them that it is "on their side".
quote:It's possibly due to increased exposure on the New York Times website since 2010. I followed him fanatically leading up to the 2008 election too -- and his accuracy in calling that one is no doubt what attracted the NYT.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
It's kind of funny: I've been reading Silver's blog late 2007, and now suddenly everyone talks about him.
quote:Where I live it's a hipster thing.
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
How proud you must feel. Being into things before they are famous is a thing white people like.
cred.quote:Since the Latino vote went something like 70-75% for Obama, I think your hypothesis needs some fine tuning. Or perhaps with the current choke hold on immigration, there are significantly more Latino voters who are not new immigrants than there are Latino voters who are new immigrants. Being able to register to vote is a bit of an additional screen there.
Originally posted by Hawk:
Latinos, in fact new immigrants in general, are probably more likely to vote Republican, being largely in it for the American Dream of self-achievement, and coming to America because they are escaping repressive/corrupt governments.
quote:In a lot of ways the Republicans have redefined themselves as the "angry asshole" party. People will sometimes vote for angry assholes if they think the angry assholes will direct their anger at (other) people who need to have their asses kicked. If it becomes obvious that the angry asshole will be fairly indiscriminate in his/her asskicking (because, you know, angry asshole) that usually kills off any interest voters might have.
Originally posted by art dunce:
Matt Taibbi on why Mitt lost:
Modern Republicans "have so much of their own collective identity wrapped up in the belief that they're surrounded by free-loading, job-averse parasites who not only want to smoke weed and have recreational abortions all day long, but want hardworking white Christians like them to pay the tab," Taibbi wrote. "Their whole belief system...is inherently insulting to everyone outside the tent – and you can't win votes when you're calling people lazy, stoned moochers."
quote:Hey, we do want to smoke weed!
Originally posted by art dunce:
Matt Taibbi on why Mitt lost:
Modern Republicans "have so much of their own collective identity wrapped up in the belief that they're surrounded by free-loading, job-averse parasites who not only want to smoke weed ...
quote:Barnyard breeding tells doesn't it?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So in this past election cycle the American public has seen Republican crowds cheering the idea of letting someone die if they don't have health insurance, booing a gay soldier, various Republican candidates dog-whistling as hard as possible, and a whole bunch of rape apologism. In other words, they cast way too wide a net in directing their angry assholishness. (Assholish anger?)
quote:Perhaps a tangent at this point, but, speaking as one who thinks that racism is very much alive and well, and who has lived in both North and South, racism is most definitely not limited to the South. In my personal experience, the most violently expressed anti-Black vitriol I ever heard with my own ears was in Port Jefferson Station NY (Suffolk County Long Island) and in my beloved borough of Brooklyn. The North has no grounds to feel smug on this issue.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Meanwhile, I can't help but notice that in at least one collection of projections, Mitt-the-white-guy seems to be collecting the South, while Barack-the-Kenyan seems to be carrying the North. Has nothing whatever to do with race, though.
Right?
quote:I'd always suspected that 'fiscally conservative' was just a euphemism for 'screwing over the little guy'.
BOSTON -- From the moment Mitt Romney stepped off stage Tuesday night, having just delivered a brief concession speech he wrote only that evening, the massive infrastructure surrounding his campaign quickly began to disassemble itself.
Aides taking cabs home late that night got rude awakenings when they found the credit cards linked to the campaign no longer worked.
"Fiscally conservative," sighed one aide the next day.
quote:I don't know whether I want to smoke weed-- maybe once in a great while on a weekend, but certainly not like when I was in my late 20s.
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
Hey, we do want to smoke weed!
quote:Nate Silver was certainly a well-known name (at least in circles I traveled in) back in 2008. I had the original FiveThirtyEight on my "daily sites" favorites.
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
How proud you must feel. Being into things before they are famous is a thing white people like.
quote:I was also quite impressed that Leroc's constant flouting of Nate Silver's opinons, or statistical observations, turned out to be almost exactly right.
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
quote:Nate Silver was certainly a well-known name (at least in circles I traveled in) back in 2008. I had the original FiveThirtyEight on my "daily sites" favorites.
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
How proud you must feel. Being into things before they are famous is a thing white people like.
But now it seems like he's famous-famous, not Internet-famous.
quote:Early exit polls released on Tuesday evening show that about half of voters still blame President George W. Bush more than President Barack Obama for the country’s economic problems and most cite the economy as their top issue in the election.
Originally posted by orfeo:
In other words, voters are not sufficiently stupid to say "things are bad, and it's all one person's fault".
quote:I love this. So true.
Originally posted by art dunce:
Matt Taibbi on why Mitt lost:
Modern Republicans "have so much of their own collective identity wrapped up in the belief that they're surrounded by free-loading, job-averse parasites who not only want to smoke weed and have recreational abortions all day long, but want hardworking white Christians like them to pay the tab," Taibbi wrote. "Their whole belief system...is inherently insulting to everyone outside the tent – and you can't win votes when you're calling people lazy, stoned moochers."
quote:Many a man would kill to have that much hair...
Originally posted by Freddy:
Of course there is an implied inverse statement as well, since the Democrats also came within a hair's breadth of losing.
quote:Yes, 2% as has been noted. I realize that in the rare air of presidential elections that is substantial. It's still not very large.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Many a man would kill to have that much hair...
Originally posted by Freddy:
Of course there is an implied inverse statement as well, since the Democrats also came within a hair's breadth of losing.
]quote:I'm not even going to check before I say that I'm sure they're supposed to count each and every ballot. They don't just report who won, they report the actual results -- how many votes there were for each candidate. Moreover, there were a lot of other things on the ballot, and all the results for those things also have to be tabulated.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
no reason not to call it unless they want to dot all the "i"s and cross all the "t"s i.e. complete the official process.
quote:So the way I read it is this. State officials call an election, not when the count is complete, but when they are sure that the remaining ballots to be counted won't make any difference i.e. the candidate is beyond reach. They'll keep on counting after the call to ensure that every vote is counted in the final tally.
The Florida Secretary of State's Office said that with almost 100 percent of the vote counted, Obama led Romney 50 percent to 49.1 percent, a difference of about 74,000 votes. That was over the half-percent margin where a computer recount would have been automatically ordered unless Romney had waived it.
There is a Nov. 16 deadline for overseas and military ballots, but under Florida law, recounts are based on Saturday's results. Only a handful of overseas and military ballots are believed to remain outstanding.
It's normal for election supervisors in Florida and other states to spend days after any election counting absentee, provisional, military and overseas ballots. Usually, though, the election has already been called on election night or soon after because the winner's margin is beyond reach.
But on election night this year, it was difficult for officials —and the media — to call the presidential race here, in part because the margin was so close and the voting stretched into the evening.
quote:Who are you going to believe, Rasmussen or your own lying eyes? :-)
Originally posted by Carex:
A 120+ vote margin in the Electoral College is not exactly a hair's breadth.
[...]
Of course it would have seemed a lot closer if one were to cherry-pick the polls that gave the results you wanted to hear, or listened to Faux News (which is the same thing.)
quote:It's larger than quite a few elections in relatively recent history (1960, 1968, 2000, 2004).
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Yes, 2% as has been noted. I realize that in the rare air of presidential elections that is substantial. It's still not very large.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Many a man would kill to have that much hair...
Originally posted by Freddy:
Of course there is an implied inverse statement as well, since the Democrats also came within a hair's breadth of losing.
quote:Yes: the fact that Democratic candidates won half a million votes more than their Republican counterparts suggests that not all is as it seems when it comes to the Republican congressional majority. Especially when you consider the absurd gerrymandering that goes on, e.g. North Carolina's 12th district.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So far as mandate questions are concerned, the composition of the House of Representatives following the 2012 elections raises much bigger questions this time than the result of the Presidential election.
).
quote:That certainly is my experience working in a high-tech industry with a large percentage of Asians (often here on H-1 visas, so not eligible to vote). But what I remember from the election-night discussions of the vote in North Carolina was that the "research triangle" there was more Republican than the state as a whole.
Originally posted by Alogon:
...The only explanation the author finds is that Asian young people are highly educated and often work in high-tech industries in the brainiest communities of the country, e.g. Silicon Valley or the North Carolina "research triangle." Hence they have no interest in Republican negativism about immigrants and gays...
quote:David Brooks has discussed the Chinese and Indian communities' rejection of Republican candidates, and suggests that the real basis -- beyond the fascist tendencies of red-neck Republicans scaring the bejesus out of them -- is that these groups are culturally much more attuned to collective concerns. The bedrock of Republican fantasies is that whatever they got they got by themselves alone and to Hell with the rest of the country. Absolutely no civilized person could sign onto that nonsense.
Originally posted by Alogon:
The only explanation the author finds is that Asian young people are highly educated and often work in high-tech industries in the brainiest communities of the country, e.g. Silicon Valley or the North Carolina "research triangle." Hence they have no interest in Republican negativism about immigrants and gays.
quote:That would surprise the heck out of me, considering that the Triangle area contains my hometown of Chapel Hill (aka a mess of godless commie freaks, according to the rest of the state).
Originally posted by Carex:
But what I remember from the election-night discussions of the vote in North Carolina was that the "research triangle" there was more Republican than the state as a whole.
quote:If only there were some kind of world-wide information network that could answer this question!
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
quote:That would surprise the heck out of me, considering that the Triangle area contains my hometown of Chapel Hill (aka a mess of godless commie freaks, according to the rest of the state).
Originally posted by Carex:
But what I remember from the election-night discussions of the vote in North Carolina was that the "research triangle" there was more Republican than the state as a whole.
quote:People were voting while fraudulently claiming to be white males. In fact, some of them were so brazen about it they didn't even bother to claim to be white males and voted anyway.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Lots of people on the right seem to think the election was "stolen" -- by voter fraud or vote-counting fraud, or whatever. Which is a grand case of projection since all the fraud discovered over the course of the last year has been perpetrated by Republicans.
quote:I'm boggling slightly here. Not at the sentiment but that Bachmann would be riffing off one of Malcolm X's most famous speeches.
Originally posted by mousethief:
E.g. "Well the ballot didn't work...", ellipsis in the original, harkening back to somebody's quip (Bachmann?) about using the bullet if the ballot didn't work.
quote:Because urban voters don't vote based on issues. (Who owns those urban radio stations? Rupert "more conservative than thou" Murdoch, perhaps?)
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Paul Ryan blames the loss on the high turnout of "urban" voters. Presumably the same people who listen to "urban" radio stations. Wonder what they look like?
In another article, he was quoted as denying that they lost on the issues... it's just that "urban" thing, I guess.
quote:Interestingly, though, in Korea itself, the most conservative regions are the Gyeongsang provinces in the southeast, which have also been the most historically Buddhist.
Asians, of course, are a diverse group. The author notes that Korean-Americans do tend to vote Republican, but didn't speculate as to why. Comments from readers noted that he neglected to consider religion in his analysis. A political party comprising people who treat non-Christians as traitors is not going to appeal to a minority comprising non-Christians. Of Asian-Americans, Koreans are the most likely to be Christians.
quote:But since this is based on exit polls that doesn't necessarily mean that the same guys were switching sides. It could simply mean that the Romney-voting-mormons were disillusioned and stayed home, but the Obama-voting-mormons came out in force.
Originally posted by Stetson:
I'd speculate that Romney's rep(in some circles) as a New England liberal might have hurt him, but then, Obama improved the Democratic tally among Mormons by the same number of percentage points that Romeny lost.
quote:Might even be quicker than that - if we assume that Spanish-speaking Texans overwhelmingly vote Democrat.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Some estimates say by 2024 Texas will be a swing state. Not many years after that it will be solid blue.
quote:That's true.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:But since this is based on exit polls that doesn't necessarily mean that the same guys were switching sides. It could simply mean that the Romney-voting-mormons were disillusioned and stayed home, but the Obama-voting-mormons came out in force.
Originally posted by Stetson:
I'd speculate that Romney's rep(in some circles) as a New England liberal might have hurt him, but then, Obama improved the Democratic tally among Mormons by the same number of percentage points that Romeny lost.
quote:It was Sharron Angle, who ran against Harry Reid for Senate in 2010.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Maybe it wasn't Bachmann. I do know she made some quip about "second amendment solutions" to problems not amenable to the ballot. Which is in the same ballpark.
quote:Thanks!
Originally posted by Mamacita:
quote:It was Sharron Angle, who ran against Harry Reid for Senate in 2010.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Maybe it wasn't Bachmann. I do know she made some quip about "second amendment solutions" to problems not amenable to the ballot. Which is in the same ballpark.
quote:I wouldn't count on that happening. Spanish-speaking Texans liked George W. Bush okay in 2000, before 9/11 made him derail his plans for immigration reform. The Republican party will have a much harder time recovering in California, where Latinos still haven't forgiven them for the racism of the Proposition 187 campaign in 1994, than in holding onto Texas, where they've historically been more sensible.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Might even be quicker than that - if we assume that Spanish-speaking Texans overwhelmingly vote Democrat.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Some estimates say by 2024 Texas will be a swing state. Not many years after that it will be solid blue.
quote:Perhaps you haven't met Rick Perry.
Originally posted by RuthW:
The Republican party will have a much harder time recovering in California, where Latinos still haven't forgiven them for the racism of the Proposition 187 campaign in 1994, than in holding onto Texas, where they've historically been more sensible.
quote:To quote blogger Brad DeLong, President Obama has "pursued Ronald Reagan's (second term) foreign policy, George H.W. Bush's spending policy, Bill Clinton's tax policy, Rick Perry's immigration policy, the Squam Lake Group's financial regulatory policy, John McCain's climate-change policy, George W. Bush's countercyclical fiscal policy, Richard Nixon's environmental policy, and Mitt Romney's health-care policy", which is clearly proof that this is the most radical and uncompromising administration in American history.
Originally posted by art dunce:
Rick Perry stood up for the Texas version of the DREAM act and has been quoted as saying, "To punish these young Texans for their parents’ actions is not what America has always been about". Can't disagree with that.
quote:Yes, but he's his own man on the issue of gay marriage.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:To quote blogger Brad DeLong, President Obama has "pursued Ronald Reagan's (second term) foreign policy, George H.W. Bush's spending policy, Bill Clinton's tax policy, Rick Perry's immigration policy, the Squam Lake Group's financial regulatory policy, John McCain's climate-change policy, George W. Bush's countercyclical fiscal policy, Richard Nixon's environmental policy, and Mitt Romney's health-care policy", which is clearly proof that this is the most radical and uncompromising administration in American history.
Originally posted by art dunce:
Rick Perry stood up for the Texas version of the DREAM act and has been quoted as saying, "To punish these young Texans for their parents’ actions is not what America has always been about". Can't disagree with that.
quote:So lemme see if I have this straight:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
Apparently Romney is now "explaining" to his donors that Obama won the election by giving financial gifts to minorities and using those "gifts" to turn out the vote. Jindal realizes which way the wind is blowing as well as telling the truth in rejecting this blame tactic by Romney: Jindal blasts Romney claim
Which side of the GOP will win the battle for the party?
quote:Indeed. The idea that people were "bought off" with health care reform is particularly special.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It just seems weird to complain that your opponent had policies which appealed to people.
quote:So Romney wasn't trying to do this ? If so, I think I spot the flaw in his election campaign.
the president courted voters by offering policies - some of them this election year - that appealed to key constituencies.
quote:Or maybe it the access to secure healthcare in perpetuity - rather than just if you don't piss off your boss and get fired - that is 'huge'.
You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you're now going to get free health care, particularly if you don't have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity, I mean, this is huge
quote:As we say in the UK - tax the poor, to help the rich. It's natural law, ain't it?
Originally posted by tclune:
You guys are willfully obtuse. When you throw money at the Makers, you are being a real American. When you offer a leg up to the Help, you are undermining the American way of life by pandering. It ain't that complicated...
--Tom Clune
quote:Of course, the real problem with helping the Help is that they are grateful. The rich expect to be pandered to, and are thus unaffected politically by such largesse. But the great unwashed are easily manipulated by shiny objects, which clearly only serves to undermine the purity of the electoral process.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:As we say in the UK - tax the poor, to help the rich. It's natural law, ain't it?
Originally posted by tclune:
You guys are willfully obtuse. When you throw money at the Makers, you are being a real American. When you offer a leg up to the Help, you are undermining the American way of life by pandering. It ain't that complicated...
--Tom Clune
quote:And my guess is that they'll discover that the reason for the long lines was all the voter fraud in "urban areas..."
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Florida's Governor Rick "any resemblance to Superman villian Lex Luthor is purely coincidental" Scott has ordered a review of Florida's voting procedures in response to the long wait times at polling places on election day. Given that Florida's executive branch (of which Governor Scott is the head) cut early voting days nearly in half and reduced the number of hours during which early voting could happen, I'm guessing this search for the cause of voting delays is necessary only because either there are no mirrors in the Florida governor's mansion or Governor Scott casts no reflection.
quote:There was a US sit-com in the...90s(?) called "Grace Under Fire". In one ep, Grace is having to deal with a sexist boss, and has to cave in on something. Then she says, "but we're never, EVER, giving back the vote!"
Originally posted by John Holding:
No, no. It's because all those urban citizens wanted to vote! Shame on them.
