PDA

View Full Version : 2012 Election Thread



PseudoSABR
09-04-2012, 02:24 PM
The Paul Ryan thread got testy, so let's try another. DNC starts tonight. The keynote speaker, Julian Castro, I've never really heard of.

Here's an interesting article on conservatives for Obama from the Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/04/many-2008-conservative-obama-backers-or-obamacons-will-stay-true.html) today. Money quote:

Wick Allison, former publisher of National Review under William F. Buckley and current publisher of The American Conservative, also reaffirms his Obama decision, albeit in anguished lukewarm tones. “I will probably vote for Obama, unless I have aGary Johnson (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/06/don-t-forget-gary-johnson-how-the-libertarian-could-shake-up-2012.html)–inspiration in the voting booth. (My vote in Texas is wasted anyway.),” Allison wrote in an email. “Romney is the opposite of conservative, with a plan that is fiscally reckless and a foreign policy that is unnecessarily militant. Obama has done about the best that could have been done, considering the united GOP opposition in Congress. My questions about Obamacare and my disappointment that we are not already out of Afghanistan are not enough to make me embrace a candidacy that even George W. Bush would have been repelled by—and, having had time to reflect on his own record, perhaps is.”


Just more fodder, here's some blogs I check daily; I'd like to see what you guys read.
http://www.politico.com/ (Roger Simon)
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ (John Marshall)
Election Forecasts - FiveThirtyEight Blog - NYTimes.com (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/) (Nate Silver)
The Page by Mark Halperin | TIME.com (http://thepage.time.com/)
The Dish | By Andrew Sullivan - The Daily Beast (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/)
The Fix-Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix) (Chris Cillizza)
Daily Politics Blog - Charles P. Pierce - Political Blogging - Esquire (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/)
Et tu, Mr. Destructo? (http://www.mrdestructo.com/)

Brock Beauchamp
09-04-2012, 02:37 PM
The more I learn about Paul Ryan, the more I really, really dislike the guy. Anyone who is a militant Christian and references Ayn Rand (a devout Atheist) on economic policy isn't going to score many points with me. It's taking the worst of both worlds. On the other hand, I also think Joe Biden is an oaf. The vice-presidency doesn't matter much.

Romney's speech was decent on the surface but lacked... everything, really. I know the RNC isn't the place to lay out policy but I would have liked to hear more than pure rhetoric. I really hate his "Defend America" stance... Who are we defending it from? Why should we continue to funnel money into defense and propping up other governments when our own is doing so badly? We need to see funding slashed across the board and defense shouldn't be exempt from the slash and burn. We need to stop spending more money than we generate and it's going to require a change in taxation, policy, and spending to get there. I don't see Romney doing that but I don't necessarily see Obama doing it, either... But I think that Obama will at least take a shot at it, particularly with a Republican-controlled Congress. At the end of the day, I see Romney as an empty suit who will say whatever it takes to get elected. If only the GOP had pushed harder to nominate Jon Huntsman. No way in hell should Paul Ryan get the "party intellectual" moniker when the party is so callously ignoring Huntsman, who is far smarter and mentally balanced than anyone else I see in the GOP. Much like Obama, the guy exudes level-headedness in a party that is quickly running off the rails.

As for the DNC, I don't know what to expect. I'm sure Biden will say something stupid, Democrats will groan and then laugh, Republicans will feign outrage, and then Obama will take the stage and give his typically vague speech. I want to like Obama but honestly, he's just been more of the same. The only reason I will *probably* vote for him is because he's the less dangerous of the two candidates (I have massive issues with Romney being in bed with the banking and finance industries, who deserve NONE of our trust at this point).

Brock Beauchamp
09-04-2012, 06:34 PM
No matter your party affiliation, if you can't laugh at this spoof campaign ad, you're taking yourself too damned seriously. This is freakin' hilarious.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQx3qWL43Qo

drjim
09-04-2012, 07:28 PM
By far my biggest concern about Romney is his foreign policy. I don't care much about a candidate's experience but I do take notice to who he surrounds himself with and who the primary advisors will be. I see no reason to think it will be anything but neo-con on steroids, and no chance Romney would be strong enough to push back against the biggest excesses. I fear where that may ultimately lead, especially if the economy continues to sputter along.

A secondary concern is fiscal policy. There is talk of cutting taxes being balanced by closing loopholes, broadening the tax base and cutting Medicaid/other government spending. This sounds fine in theory but no chance this happens in reality. Once Romney is President little chance he is strong enough to push through tough reforms that will upset large portions of the electorate. So, as usual, we will end up with large tax cuts disproportionately skewed to the wealthy with no cuts in spending to offset them. If you think the deficit looks bad now...

I'm not all that excited for Obama either, but he will at least be relatively moderate to conservative (in the traditional sense) on these two key things that a President actually has control over.

Gary Johnson looks better by the day, here's hoping he gets some legitimate traction (though I'm not counting on it).

TheLeviathan
09-04-2012, 09:38 PM
Yeah, choices like the ones we have in a few months really disillusion me from the entire process.

PseudoSABR
09-04-2012, 10:28 PM
No matter your party affiliation, if you can't laugh at this spoof campaign ad, you're taking yourself too damned seriously. This is freakin' hilarious.
Really clever, well-produced audio editing. Hard to believe that was really Mitt talking and not some stand-in.

gunnarthor
09-05-2012, 02:53 PM
I'm pretty sure I'm going to throw my vote away down ballot somewhere this year. I don't like either candidate and in MN it won't matter, Obama will win the state pretty convincingly. On the other hand, the MN ballot does have a couple ballot amendment questions - voter ID and marriage amendment - that people should vote no on.

You can register to vote at http://www.sos.state.mn.us/index.aspx?page=204

ChiTownTwinsFan
09-05-2012, 05:18 PM
Yeah, choices like the ones we have in a few months really disillusion me from the entire process.

I've often considered my vote as one of the lesser of two evils. It seems that if you want to vote for the person most 'for' the things you want you are just giving a vote to one you least want. The pitfalls of a two-party system. So I end up voting for the person who is most likely going to beat the one I find most reprehensible.

Badsmerf
09-05-2012, 08:34 PM
I vote for who I believe in. I will be voting for Ron Paul no matter what. I don't care if my vote is wasted.

fatbeer
09-06-2012, 04:19 PM
I'm pretty sure I'm going to throw my vote away down ballot somewhere this year. I don't like either candidate and in MN it won't matter, Obama will win the state pretty convincingly. On the other hand, the MN ballot does have a couple ballot amendment questions - voter ID and marriage amendment - that people should vote no on.

You can register to vote at http://www.sos.state.mn.us/index.aspx?page=204

Vote yes on voter ID, the fact that under the current rules certain people don't have ID's has nothing to do with what would happen if we changed the rule to something reasonable. I have full confidence the 86 year old who has no reason to have an ID would be willing to take 15 minutes out of there day and go register to vote the in a legal manor. The 36 year old that is irresponsible might choose not to get an ID, and thats Ok they have the right to choose not to vote. As for throwing your vote away, you only do that if you let someone else control who you vote for. The election will not come down to 1 vote so all you can do is send a message with your vote. A vote for Rosanne Barr or Gary Johnson sends some sort of a message as does a vote for Obama and Romney. I should add though that an old college professor gave an economic lesson that no matter how close an election is voting is a waste of time. He ran for office 2 years ago and got exactly a half vote more then 50%.

fatbeer
09-06-2012, 04:28 PM
I'd vote gary Johnson over writing in Ron Paul. Write in getting 42,168 instead of 42,167 doesn't really send any message. Gary Johnson getting 1 extra vote sends a clear message. I wrote in Paul in 2008 and didn't think i could possibly vote Romney in January, but this election is about firing Obama for me at this point. I hope Romney has a credible primary challenger in 2016 should he at all resemble the republicans who supported without question the spending of Bush, but at the same time am hopeful Romney has full understanding of our economic situation and is ready to make politically unpopular choices.

PseudoSABR
09-06-2012, 04:30 PM
I was surprised about how gracious Clinton was towards Obama; I thought the speech would be a nostalgic look back at the 90s, but he delivered a pretty compelling and dense argument for reelecting Obama.

drjim
09-06-2012, 05:05 PM
I was surprised about how gracious Clinton was towards Obama; I thought the speech would be a nostalgic look back at the 90s, but he delivered a pretty compelling and dense argument for reelecting Obama.

I didn't watch it but read the transcript today (with his ad libs), it was a pretty great speech. I read somewhere that with the speech Clinton more or less takes over the position of the elder statesman of the party (from Ted Kennedy). Seems about right.

glunn
09-06-2012, 07:59 PM
I was surprised about how gracious Clinton was towards Obama; I thought the speech would be a nostalgic look back at the 90s, but he delivered a pretty compelling and dense argument for reelecting Obama.

I didn't watch it but read the transcript today (with his ad libs), it was a pretty great speech. I read somewhere that with the speech Clinton more or less takes over the position of the elder statesman of the party (from Ted Kennedy). Seems about right.

Clinton's speech was the best I have ever seen. And he masterfully exposed the fundamental incorrectness of most of what the Republicans have been saying about Obama.

fatbeer
09-06-2012, 10:14 PM
This is the choice Mitt says when you lose your $22.50 an hour job you do what it takes and get two jobs to support your family. Obama says people on welfare are not a problem. We can be a country of prideful people or we can continue to live in Obama's America.

The economy is not the income of the citizens, it's the work of the citizens.

Brock Beauchamp
09-07-2012, 09:33 AM
Obama looked far more presidential in that speech than Romney did in his last week. I actually thought Romney's speech was decent but Obama's was better.

biggentleben
09-07-2012, 10:24 AM
Obama looked far more presidential in that speech than Romney did in his last week. I actually thought Romney's speech was decent but Obama's was better.

That said, oratory has never been Barack's problem. His has been the extreme partisanship shown by both sides in Congress right now, which pretty much stale mates any decent ideas that may get done.

biggentleben
09-07-2012, 10:52 AM
This is the choice Mitt says when you lose your $22.50 an hour job you do what it takes and get two jobs to support your family. Obama says people on welfare are not a problem. We can be a country of prideful people or we can continue to live in Obama's America.

The economy is not the income of the citizens, it's the work of the citizens.

Interesting, seeing as during Obama's presidency, numerous welfare-to-work programs were set up to encourage those utilizing welfare to work. What Mitt fails to realize is that many in this country would love half of a $22.50 job, and they're just not out there. Clinton actually made a great point when he was discussing the new education for the new economy. My dad is a bright man and not yet 55, but the education he received would not be adequate if he chose to attempt to enter the workforce now, and many of those being moved out of a position by technological advances are finding the same thing. That is not a bad thing, and it's something this country has faced many times before, but for some reason, now it's being politicized in anti-current regime rhetoric from the Republican party as Obama costing jobs. That's not it at all. In the United States' history, aggressive reorder of the job market based on advances in technology have typically happened because of war or depression/recession times that extend multiple years. We're in the midst of that right now, and as unpopular as it may be for people in the country to be out of work, it needs to happen at times to change how we're training students and adults to do their jobs in an ever-changing global economy.

gunnarthor
09-07-2012, 12:54 PM
Vote yes on voter ID, the fact that under the current rules certain people don't have ID's has nothing to do with what would happen if we changed the rule to something reasonable. I have full confidence the 86 year old who has no reason to have an ID would be willing to take 15 minutes out of there day and go register to vote the in a legal manor. The 36 year old that is irresponsible might choose not to get an ID, and thats Ok they have the right to choose not to vote. As for throwing your vote away, you only do that if you let someone else control who you vote for. The election will not come down to 1 vote so all you can do is send a message with your vote. A vote for Rosanne Barr or Gary Johnson sends some sort of a message as does a vote for Obama and Romney. I should add though that an old college professor gave an economic lesson that no matter how close an election is voting is a waste of time. He ran for office 2 years ago and got exactly a half vote more then 50%.

There's a lot wrong with the voter ID plan but on a simple level, why should 200,000+ people have to go to the government to get back their fundamental right? That's sorta the opposite of small government. This election year, I'm moving about 3 weeks before election day. Under the voter ID plan, I probably wouldn't be able to vote b/c my "government issued" ID wouldn't have my correct address and ID + a utility bill wouldn't work. (Incidentally, your 36 year old isn't exercising his right not to vote, the government is prohibiting him from voting b/c he didn't fulfill a government created voting requirment. Huge difference)

Minnesotans typically have the highest voter turnout in the country. Last presidential election, over 70% of eligible voters voted. That's remarkable. Over 500,000 of those voters were people who registered to vote on election day. Voter ID will end same day registration as we enjoy it. Instead some sort of provincial balloting method will be created. Voter ID isn't just affecting old people in nursing homes, it'll also affect MN servicemen and women, students, and victims of domestic abuse.

And what would voter ID try and fix? Voter impersonation. Not voter fraud. The only thing voter ID would try and fight change is me attempting to vote in two different locations under two different names. Something that just doesn't happen (and we've been voting without photo IDs for hundreds of years). And to all that, voter ID will require municipalities to raise property taxes to pay for the new voting system - estimates range from 30-50 million.

Brock Beauchamp
09-07-2012, 01:31 PM
There's a lot wrong with the voter ID plan but on a simple level, why should 200,000+ people have to go to the government to get back their fundamental right? That's sorta the opposite of small government. This election year, I'm moving about 3 weeks before election day. Under the voter ID plan, I probably wouldn't be able to vote b/c my "government issued" ID wouldn't have my correct address and ID + a utility bill wouldn't work. (Incidentally, your 36 year old isn't exercising his right not to vote, the government is prohibiting him from voting b/c he didn't fulfill a government created voting requirment. Huge difference)

Minnesotans typically have the highest voter turnout in the country. Last presidential election, over 70% of eligible voters voted. That's remarkable. Over 500,000 of those voters were people who registered to vote on election day. Voter ID will end same day registration as we enjoy it. Instead some sort of provincial balloting method will be created. Voter ID isn't just affecting old people in nursing homes, it'll also affect MN servicemen and women, students, and victims of domestic abuse.

And what would voter ID try and fix? Voter impersonation. Not voter fraud. The only thing voter ID would try and fight change is me attempting to vote in two different locations under two different names. Something that just doesn't happen (and we've been voting without photo IDs for hundreds of years). And to all that, voter ID will require municipalities to raise property taxes to pay for the new voting system - estimates range from 30-50 million.

That's just it. On one side, we have the small government advocates calling for more government regulation. On the other, we have the big government advocates calling for the status quo (less government regulation). It's this duality in American politics that I find maddening. Voter ID is going to fix so few problems that I just don't see any upside in doing it and I see significant downside in trying. BTW, I would have been able to vote in ONE presidential election (out of the four I've voted in thus far) because I was college age and moved around constantly during two elections (as do most people in their late teens and early 20s) and had just moved out of state for the third.

It's a solution in search of a problem. Since I tend to fall on the side of smaller government, I'm going to vote "no" on every useless proposal I see on the ballot (I'd love to see my record on prop ballot measures... it must be overwhelmingly negative to the tune of 90% or more "no"). We need less stupid laws, not more.

fatbeer
09-07-2012, 05:06 PM
Vote yes on voter ID, the fact that under the current rules certain people don't have ID's has nothing to do with what would happen if we changed the rule to something reasonable. I have full confidence the 86 year old who has no reason to have an ID would be willing to take 15 minutes out of there day and go register to vote the in a legal manor. The 36 year old that is irresponsible might choose not to get an ID, and thats Ok they have the right to choose not to vote. As for throwing your vote away, you only do that if you let someone else control who you vote for. The election will not come down to 1 vote so all you can do is send a message with your vote. A vote for Rosanne Barr or Gary Johnson sends some sort of a message as does a vote for Obama and Romney. I should add though that an old college professor gave an economic lesson that no matter how close an election is voting is a waste of time. He ran for office 2 years ago and got exactly a half vote more then 50%.

There's a lot wrong with the voter ID plan but on a simple level, why should 200,000+ people have to go to the government to get back their fundamental right?

Same reason I can't vote in my living room. If you want to vote you need to take some responsibility. If a convicted felon votes for Obama my legal vote for Romney is rendered meaningless and thats BS.

fatbeer
09-07-2012, 05:14 PM
I would suggest if your moving prior to the election that instead of pretending a law that doesn't exist will skrew you over (also known as the left is willing to tell any lie prior to an election) you take a little responsibility to do what the law requires you to do to legally cast a vote. Or choose not to vote.

PseudoSABR
09-07-2012, 07:01 PM
Vote yes on voter ID, the fact that under the current rules certain people don't have ID's has nothing to do with what would happen if we changed the rule to something reasonable. I have full confidence the 86 year old who has no reason to have an ID would be willing to take 15 minutes out of there day and go register to vote the in a legal manor. The 36 year old that is irresponsible might choose not to get an ID, and thats Ok they have the right to choose not to vote. As for throwing your vote away, you only do that if you let someone else control who you vote for. The election will not come down to 1 vote so all you can do is send a message with your vote. A vote for Rosanne Barr or Gary Johnson sends some sort of a message as does a vote for Obama and Romney. I should add though that an old college professor gave an economic lesson that no matter how close an election is voting is a waste of time. He ran for office 2 years ago and got exactly a half vote more then 50%.

There's a lot wrong with the voter ID plan but on a simple level, why should 200,000+ people have to go to the government to get back their fundamental right?

Same reason I can't vote in my living room. If you want to vote you need to take some responsibility. If a convicted felon votes for Obama my legal vote for Romney is rendered meaningless and thats BS.Voting would be so much more worth while if we had an obstacle court prior to casting our choice.

We live in a Democracy, bub. Even the lazy and derelict have a right to be represented without needing some extra test of responsibility.

gunnarthor
09-07-2012, 09:08 PM
Same reason I can't vote in my living room. If you want to vote you need to take some responsibility. If a convicted felon votes for Obama my legal vote for Romney is rendered meaningless and thats BS.

Voter ID won't have any impact on felon voting. (I think we had something like 200 felon votes out of over 2.9m votes cast in MN so clearly we must create a new law that disenfranchises 200,000 MN and costs tax payers millions of dollars and does nothing to solve that tiny problem).

You can vote from your living room with an absentee ballot, although that will also be changed dramatically under voter ID.

fatbeer
09-07-2012, 11:35 PM
Vote yes on voter ID, the fact that under the current rules certain people don't have ID's has nothing to do with what would happen if we changed the rule to something reasonable. I have full confidence the 86 year old who has no reason to have an ID would be willing to take 15 minutes out of there day and go register to vote the in a legal manor. The 36 year old that is irresponsible might choose not to get an ID, and thats Ok they have the right to choose not to vote. As for throwing your vote away, you only do that if you let someone else control who you vote for. The election will not come down to 1 vote so all you can do is send a message with your vote. A vote for Rosanne Barr or Gary Johnson sends some sort of a message as does a vote for Obama and Romney. I should add though that an old college professor gave an economic lesson that no matter how close an election is voting is a waste of time. He ran for office 2 years ago and got exactly a half vote more then 50%.

There's a lot wrong with the voter ID plan but on a simple level, why should 200,000+ people have to go to the government to get back their fundamental right?

Same reason I can't vote in my living room. If you want to vote you need to take some responsibility. If a convicted felon votes for Obama my legal vote for Romney is rendered meaningless and thats BS.Voting would be so much more worth while if we had an obstacle court prior to casting our choice.

We live in a Democracy, bub. Even the lazy and derelict have a right to be represented without needing some extra test of responsibility.

The other solution is death penalty for election fraud.

fatbeer
09-07-2012, 11:37 PM
[QUOTE=fatbeer;52633]


You can vote from your living room with an absentee ballot, although that will also be changed dramatically under voter ID.

Didn't get my absentee ballot in the mail yet. It would be racist and unfair if I had to do something to get one.

gunnarthor
09-08-2012, 12:32 AM
[QUOTE=fatbeer;52633]


You can vote from your living room with an absentee ballot, although that will also be changed dramatically under voter ID.

Didn't get my absentee ballot in the mail yet. It would be racist and unfair if I had to do something to get one.

Wow, that's just sad.

kab21
09-08-2012, 08:50 AM
So this thread got derailed in typical fashion.

I don't pay attention to much news here in Taiwan but I'm reading/seeing a few things that indicate that Romney has a chance to win. How the hell can this be true? he's an absolutely awful candidate even if you compare him to Obama. I would happy if Obama was not the president of the US but I can't honestly see how anyone is going to vote Romney other than those that just check all of the republican boxes. I have become completely disillusioned with the transformation of the Republican party over the last 20 years. They are completely irresponsible fiscally (even compared to Democrats) and I hate the power that the christian right has over the party.

If I bothered to get an absentee ballot this might be the first year that voted for a democrat for president.

ChiTownTwinsFan
09-08-2012, 09:40 AM
So this thread got derailed in typical fashion.

I don't pay attention to much news here in Taiwan but I'm reading/seeing a few things that indicate that Romney has a chance to win. How the hell can this be true? he's an absolutely awful candidate even if you compare him to Obama. I would happy if Obama was not the president of the US but I can't honestly see how anyone is going to vote Romney other than those that just check all of the republican boxes. I have become completely disillusioned with the transformation of the Republican party over the last 20 years. They are completely irresponsible fiscally (even compared to Democrats) and I hate the power that the christian right has over the party.

If I bothered to get an absentee ballot this might be the first year that voted for a democrat for president.

Of course it got derailed. It's a political thread.

You should still try and vote (or is it too late to get an absentee ballot), even if it's for a 'lesser of two evils.' Or write in someone. Or find another candidate. Exercise your right to vote even if it's a vote in protest. When there are voter suppression laws being passed all over the country, mostly by one party to suppress voters from another party, it's even more important that you vote because you can, even if disillusioned. Just my opinion.

Also ... consider the possible appointments you'd want made to the courts and who you'd want to make them. That's where my thinking tends to lie these days. For me, I do not want anyone on the court who cannot separate their religious ideals from the laws of the court.

kab21
09-08-2012, 10:04 AM
Nice rant on voting but i really don't care enough to go thru the overseas absentee hassle. I haven't lived in MN (where I'm registered) in 15 yrs so I don't care much about the local elections and I'm not planning on going back to the US any time soon.

glunn
09-08-2012, 03:08 PM
The amount of voter fraud in the U.S. is negligible. This is part of a nationwide effort to trim the rolls of Democratic voters.

As for felons voting, I think that the more significant issue is why does the "greatest" country in the world also have the greatest number of felons, and why are so many of the felons people of color. And someone please explain how the war on drugs is working.

Also, because of the outdated electoral college, my vote won't count. I live in California, which will go for Obama no mater what. Indeed, the vast majority of Americans don't live in "swing states", so our votes for president don't have any impact. We are effectively disenfranchised.

The only good news from my perspective is that a Republican administration is going to save me a ton of income taxes. But I will be saddened by the upcoming rape of the poor and the middle class, with the exception of those stupid enough to vote for Romney. I have been giving most of my tax savings from the Bush tax cuts to feed poor children and families, but wish that there was some charity that served only the needy people who are smart enough to vote for their own self interest.

fatbeer
09-08-2012, 04:23 PM
The amount of voter fraud in the U.S. is negligible.

Seems to me this could only be proven if we had a voter ID law. Why is it Democrats assume people that vote for their candidates are stupid lazy and irresponsible?

Brock Beauchamp
09-08-2012, 05:20 PM
The amount of voter fraud in the U.S. is negligible.

Seems to me this could only be proven if we had a voter ID law.

Since when did it become the policy of small government advocates to pass laws and THEN determine whether there was a problem that needed to be fixed?

gunnarthor
09-08-2012, 05:42 PM
This country had several hundred years of no voter ID voting. The reason that voting impersonation doesn't happen is because the risk far outways the payoff. One additional vote for Romney isn't going to mean anything in a state where nearly 3m people vote. But a person who registers himself under another name faces a felony. The better way to improve Romney's turnout is to disenfranchise groups that typically vote Democratic.

Democrats don't assume their supporters are lazy or irresponsible. What Democrats oppose is the idea that 200,000 people will automatically lose their right to vote and have to go to the government to regain that right. In fact, democratic voters are usually better informed on the issues. That's why, when conservatives hear about these sort of issues, they respond with insults and refuse to learn about the issue. Hence we have conservatives who think Obama was born in Kenya, that Saddam was connected to 9/11, that voter fraud exists. All of those things were pretty accurately reported but conservatives refused to believe it. Any report to the contrary - despite valid confirmation - was part of some strange liberal conspiracy.

kab21
09-08-2012, 08:35 PM
Voter ID is just another example of the republican party putting its energy into a trivial issue. there are actual important things that they should be thinking about but instead their campaign completely lacks focus.

TheLeviathan
09-08-2012, 11:35 PM
Good thing we started a new thread!

diehardtwinsfan
09-11-2012, 08:46 PM
I've often considered my vote as one of the lesser of two evils. It seems that if you want to vote for the person most 'for' the things you want you are just giving a vote to one you least want. The pitfalls of a two-party system. So I end up voting for the person who is most likely going to beat the one I find most reprehensible.


and in the end, you get nothing but an evil candidate. Since your vote won't change anything anyways, why not spend it on someone you actually like?

diehardtwinsfan
09-11-2012, 08:55 PM
About voter ID. I'll say what I said (and what was ignored) in the last thread. If people actually cared about vote fraud, this is not what people would be discussing. They would be discussing how electronic voting has been implemented in this country, and how there is very little accountability to the election process that now uses it in most states. Forget someone showing up and casting 1 or 2 illegal votes.

this flaw can allow one or two people to cast thousands of votes.

PseudoSABR
09-12-2012, 06:21 PM
I really don't know how to read the bruhaha over the embassy attacks yesterday. It looks like Romney may have jumped the gun in his criticism of Obama (Real Clear Politics article (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/09/12/dont_politicize_embassy_attacks_115416.html) penned by former McCain aid), but I doubt it will really damage him. The ethics of what to criticize and what not to as a candidate seem unfairly grey to me.

PseudoSABR
09-12-2012, 06:23 PM
About voter ID. I'll say what I said (and what was ignored) in the last thread. If people actually cared about vote fraud, this is not what people would be discussing. They would be discussing how electronic voting has been implemented in this country, and how there is very little accountability to the election process that now uses it in most states. Forget someone showing up and casting 1 or 2 illegal votes.

this flaw can allow one or two people to cast thousands of votes.I remember there was a lot of talk in left-wing circles about the manufacture of voting machines being linked to Republican backers after Gore v. Bush, but it seemed a bit tin-foil hat...though oddly viable at the time.

Exit polls, in part, due check in wide spread voter fraud on the other hand.

Shane Wahl
09-13-2012, 01:27 AM
The amount of voter fraud in the U.S. is negligible. This is part of a nationwide effort to trim the rolls of Democratic voters.

As for felons voting, I think that the more significant issue is why does the "greatest" country in the world also have the greatest number of felons, and why are so many of the felons people of color. And someone please explain how the war on drugs is working.

Also, because of the outdated electoral college, my vote won't count. I live in California, which will go for Obama no mater what. Indeed, the vast majority of Americans don't live in "swing states", so our votes for president don't have any impact. We are effectively disenfranchised.

The only good news from my perspective is that a Republican administration is going to save me a ton of income taxes. But I will be saddened by the upcoming rape of the poor and the middle class, with the exception of those stupid enough to vote for Romney. I have been giving most of my tax savings from the Bush tax cuts to feed poor children and families, but wish that there was some charity that served only the needy people who are smart enough to vote for their own self interest.

Glunn is spot on here. Voter fraud is a LAUGHABLE joke. It is so so rare. Purging voter registration is a much bigger problem (see Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004).

The war on drugs, like the war on crime, and certainly the war on terrorism are all complete shams. They aren't wars to end those problems, they are wars to exacerbate those problems. There is too much money in "corrections" and the military-industrial complex and drug trafficking.

The electoral college situation is merely another reason for Americans to demand powerful and broad electoral reform from limited financing to instant run-off voting to proportional electoral vote counts.

And yes the poor and middle class will be screwed and they WILL NOT KNOW it. They do not vote in their self-interest, which amazes me.

This is not to say that I am a big government fan. If you ever search my name you will find out why. The point is that there is so much manipulation while there is a squashing of real education in this country that effective democracy is completely obsolete. Evidence? That the people still vote for these assclowns again and again and again.

Shane Wahl
09-13-2012, 01:31 AM
But look, small government libertarians who actually are conscientious . . . there is no hope AT ALL in that while voting for this war machine and this create-dependency machine. There will be no such thing as small government in America until it hits the fan hard. And both parties know this and one party lies blatantly about it. The other just rolls with the bunches and rarely stands up for anything progressive.

diehardtwinsfan
09-13-2012, 05:40 PM
remember there was a lot of talk in left-wing circles about the manufacture of voting machines being linked to Republican backers after Gore v. Bush, but it seemed a bit tin-foil hat...though oddly viable at the time.

Exit polls, in part, due check in wide spread voter fraud on the other hand.


That's just it. They don't. The exit polls have been wrong in an unprecedented number of elections since 2004, not just at the Presidential level.

Here's the problem, there's no way to verify if these systems are accurate. A good implementation would have allowed machines to print out a written ballot that a voter must read and certify before they leave. Random machines are audited every election, and random precints are too. But instead, the process in most states is simply a connection to a black box DB where data is stored. This system isn't auditable. Countless places have shown that these machines are hackable as well, and there has been next to no peer review of the code.

the problem with this is that it only takes one or two to change an election, because one person can simply add hundreds or thousands of votes to a total. This whole voter ID thing pales in comparrison.

ChiTownTwinsFan
09-14-2012, 01:28 PM
I've often considered my vote as one of the lesser of two evils. It seems that if you want to vote for the person most 'for' the things you want you are just giving a vote to one you least want. The pitfalls of a two-party system. So I end up voting for the person who is most likely going to beat the one I find most reprehensible.



and in the end, you get nothing but an evil candidate. Since your vote won't change anything anyways, why not spend it on someone you actually like?

I think I answered that in the next paragraph of my original post.

old nurse
09-16-2012, 02:56 PM
The amount of voter fraud in the U.S. is negligible. This is part of a nationwide effort to trim the rolls of Democratic voters.

As for felons voting, I think that the more significant issue is why does the "greatest" country in the world also have the greatest number of felons, and why are so many of the felons people of color. And someone please explain how the war on drugs is working.

Also, because of the outdated electoral college, my vote won't count. I live in California, which will go for Obama no mater what. Indeed, the vast majority of Americans don't live in "swing states", so our votes for president don't have any impact. We are effectively disenfranchised.

The only good news from my perspective is that a Republican administration is going to save me a ton of income taxes. But I will be saddened by the upcoming rape of the poor and the middle class, with the exception of those stupid enough to vote for Romney. I have been giving most of my tax savings from the Bush tax cuts to feed poor children and families, but wish that there was some charity that served only the needy people who are smart enough to vote for their own self interest.

Glunn is spot on here. Voter fraud is a LAUGHABLE joke. It is so so rare. Purging voter registration is a much bigger problem (see Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004).

The war on drugs, like the war on crime, and certainly the war on terrorism are all complete shams. They aren't wars to end those problems, they are wars to exacerbate those problems. There is too much money in "corrections" and the military-industrial complex and drug trafficking.

The electoral college situation is merely another reason for Americans to demand powerful and broad electoral reform from limited financing to instant run-off voting to proportional electoral vote counts.

And yes the poor and middle class will be screwed and they WILL NOT KNOW it. They do not vote in their self-interest, which amazes me.

This is not to say that I am a big government fan. If you ever search my name you will find out why. The point is that there is so much manipulation while there is a squashing of real education in this country that effective democracy is completely obsolete. Evidence? That the people still vote for these assclowns again and again and again.

I complete agree with Shane Wahl on something. this post

PseudoSABR
09-17-2012, 07:06 PM
There's a video/tape that got leaked to day of Romney talkign to some donors, he says some pretty rightwing stuff, and I'm not sure if he's telling these people what they want to hear or if he really believes it, but it seems pretty damning to me.

Here's the money quotes:

“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,”

“My job is not to worry about those people,” Romney said. “I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81312.html?hp=t1_3

The videos have a lot of interesting stuff in them, and oddly Romney shows much more personality than Ive ever seen him have.

TheLeviathan
09-17-2012, 09:42 PM
There's a video/tape that got leaked to day of Romney talkign to some donors, he says some pretty rightwing stuff, and I'm not sure if he's telling these people what they want to hear or if he really believes it, but it seems pretty damning to me.

I fail to see what is so damning. His 47 percent is probably too high, but it's not that different than saying the Republicans cater to the wealthy. Neither side has much room to grandstand on that front - it's just politicians being politicians.

PseudoSABR
09-17-2012, 10:50 PM
2358

What's damning isn't the inaccuracy of his broad brush, but the sneering contempt he shows for such people. The fact that Romney gave a 10pm press conference I think indicates the kind of reverberations his statements are having. I'm not sure what kind of effect it will have in terms of swaying voters, but it certainly reifies the caricature of Romeny-as-Montgomery Burns.

This is the kind of fodder TV ads are made of...

Brock Beauchamp
09-18-2012, 07:25 AM
This map couldn't be more poorly organized but the information is interesting. Most of those awful, no good, horrible tax avoiders come from *gulp* red states...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/where-are-the-47-of-americans-who-pay-no-income-taxes/262499/#.UFfuvcndPDZ.facebook

Shane Wahl
09-18-2012, 08:41 AM
At minimum, probably 40% of that 47% are Romney voters (think old, retired white people and young people who are poor and somehow have no idea that voting for Republicans is not in their self-interest).

Romney is saying that 47% won't take personal responsibility for themselves. He actually said that. Only a vile person can think that (and someone who believes that "middle class" is $200,000 a year).

gunnarthor
09-18-2012, 09:20 AM
Yeah, Romney's had a pretty bad couple weeks. Today's leak (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/romney-secret-video-israeli-palestinian-middle-east-peace)- that he doesn't think he can fix the middle east situation - will continue to burn him.

That 47% comment was really bad, though. There isn't a lot of good ways to get through that esp when, at best, his numbers weren't quite accurate and, at worst, were cooked. But it looks like he's going to double down on it again. I'm starting to think that Santorum could have been a more competitive candidate.

Reginald Maudling's Shin
09-18-2012, 09:33 AM
That's why New York and California are completely out of play for republicans? The huge nanny states that are going broke?
Romney's "point" in this is correct: He will never get the people dependent on government to vote for him. It is sad that so many people have no income tax liability. If they made it 100% that would truly be "fair" not Obama's marxist definition of fair. How anyone can vote for this inept clown of a president is beyond me. For the first time I can remember the republicans are actually nominating someone who has been successful in life but he's being demonized by liberals because he's rich (and worse yet, people are buying into it). No wonder we have ****ty presidents.

Shane Wahl
09-18-2012, 11:04 AM
That's why New York and California are completely out of play for republicans? The huge nanny states that are going broke?
Romney's "point" in this is correct: He will never get the people dependent on government to vote for him. It is sad that so many people have no income tax liability. If they made it 100% that would truly be "fair" not Obama's marxist definition of fair. How anyone can vote for this inept clown of a president is beyond me. For the first time I can remember the republicans are actually nominating someone who has been successful in life but he's being demonized by liberals because he's rich (and worse yet, people are buying into it). No wonder we have ****ty presidents.

Are you being sarcastic or serious?

If you are serious, I feel pretty sorry for you. Anyway, you do realize that those people not paying federal income taxes are primarily retired oldsters or the working poor who don't even make enough to pay federal income taxes, right? You are aware, right, that not paying federal income taxes does not mean that one is "dependent" on the government? Finally, of the 47% who don't pay federal income taxes, I would say 2/5 or even up to 1/2 would be likely Romney voters!!!

Stop calling Obama a Marxist. That is so far from the truth (and that comes from someone who wishes that it were closer to the truth!) it isn't even funny.

Romney is successful, how? He clearly isn't morally successful if he has such disdain and hatred for poor people and says that they don't take "responsibility for themselves." He sounds like a pretty despicable guy, actually.

--Note: I am not voting for Obama, so don't go there.--

Shane Wahl
09-18-2012, 11:07 AM
An important point about how Romney talks in that video vs. how he talks in scripted campaign events where he just says stuff he knows he is supposed to say. Romney in the video is fluent, clear, doesn't stammer, doesn't pause, and actually IS speaking in an "elegant" way. That shows him speakly freely as he truly is and he is expressing what he really thinks.

old nurse
09-18-2012, 12:01 PM
At minimum, probably 40% of that 47% are Romney voters (think old, retired white people and young people who are poor and somehow have no idea that voting for Republicans is not in their self-interest).

Romney is saying that 47% won't take personal responsibility for themselves. He actually said that. Only a vile person can think that (and someone who believes that "middle class" is $200,000 a year).

The statistics are there if those who want to can look. The 47% number was created by the 2009 law "Making Work Pay". That law has expired. The actual numbers of households that do not pay any federal income or payroll tax is between 14-17%. The Congressional office reported that the bottom 20%, with a household income near $19,000 pay on average 4% of their income to federal taxes.
The not voting for your self interest. From message boards to conversations, people say things like "welfare $##@$%^&%$%$ the government never gave me nothin" as justification of voting Republican. When you mention corporate welfare to profitable businesses costs the government more they will respond with a "So" It is a bit absurd. The difference between an entitlement and good budget policy is wether or not it benefits me. People can see the welfare person, the corporate world is foreign, thus it is easier to hate the individual.

Shane Wahl
09-18-2012, 12:06 PM
At minimum, probably 40% of that 47% are Romney voters (think old, retired white people and young people who are poor and somehow have no idea that voting for Republicans is not in their self-interest).

Romney is saying that 47% won't take personal responsibility for themselves. He actually said that. Only a vile person can think that (and someone who believes that "middle class" is $200,000 a year).

The statistics are there if those who want to can look. The 47% number was created by the 2009 law "Making Work Pay". That law has expired. The actual numbers of households that do not pay any federal income or payroll tax is between 14-17%. The Congressional office reported that the bottom 20%, with a household income near $19,000 pay on average 4% of their income to federal taxes.
The not voting for your self interest. From message boards to conversations, people say things like "welfare $##@$%^&%$%$ the government never gave me nothin" as justification of voting Republican. When you mention corporate welfare to profitable businesses costs the government more they will respond with a "So" It is a bit absurd. The difference between an entitlement and good budget policy is wether or not it benefits me. People can see the welfare person, the corporate world is foreign, thus it is easier to hate the individual.

Exactly, exactly. I have students who won't stop talking about "welfare fraud" and then I have to devote special time with them looking through the budget of the United States, showing them what on earth is really being spent on what. And this is a community college with generally fairly poor students! I guess the point is to make poor people hate other poor people, though . . .

old nurse
09-18-2012, 02:17 PM
At minimum, probably 40% of that 47% are Romney voters (think old, retired white people and young people who are poor and somehow have no idea that voting for Republicans is not in their self-interest).

Romney is saying that 47% won't take personal responsibility for themselves. He actually said that. Only a vile person can think that (and someone who believes that "middle class" is $200,000 a year).

The statistics are there if those who want to can look. The 47% number was created by the 2009 law "Making Work Pay". That law has expired. The actual numbers of households that do not pay any federal income or payroll tax is between 14-17%. The Congressional office reported that the bottom 20%, with a household income near $19,000 pay on average 4% of their income to federal taxes.
The not voting for your self interest. From message boards to conversations, people say things like "welfare $##@$%^&%$%$ the government never gave me nothin" as justification of voting Republican. When you mention corporate welfare to profitable businesses costs the government more they will respond with a "So" It is a bit absurd. The difference between an entitlement and good budget policy is wether or not it benefits me. People can see the welfare person, the corporate world is foreign, thus it is easier to hate the individual.

Exactly, exactly. I have students who won't stop talking about "welfare fraud" and then I have to devote special time with them looking through the budget of the United States, showing them what on earth is really being spent on what. And this is a community college with generally fairly poor students! I guess the point is to make poor people hate other poor people, though . . .

Hate motivates. One of the more disturbing trends of human nature.
Money motivates also. The book Freakenomics pointed out through drug dealing. The guy selling drugs on the corner was motivated to do the statistically most likely job to get you killed (1/7) because if they moved up in the chain far enough they would make a lot of money. Nowhere does it mention they go after the ones above them to move up. Eventual attrition through jail takes care of that. I propose the economically disadvantaged do not go after the more wealthy voting wise on the same principal. I am going to move up (through divine intervention?) so therefore I will not do anything that will disenfranchise those in a higher economic standing.
Welfare fraud. One conservative website said it might run 9 billion a year. Rates for catching welfare fraud run at about 34%. Picking on conservative websites, Medicare fraud is about 60 billion/yr. There are bigger problems than welfare fraud. Liberal sites claim 60 billion was lost/profiteered in the gulf wars. Forbes once reported on the 100 billion wasted since the start of the cold war on weapons that did not work. There are bigger problems than welfare fraud. People don't come into contact with it.
If you really want to scare them, obesity costs 190 billion per year for America according to Rueters.

Shane Wahl
09-18-2012, 02:34 PM
At minimum, probably 40% of that 47% are Romney voters (think old, retired white people and young people who are poor and somehow have no idea that voting for Republicans is not in their self-interest).

Romney is saying that 47% won't take personal responsibility for themselves. He actually said that. Only a vile person can think that (and someone who believes that "middle class" is $200,000 a year).

The statistics are there if those who want to can look. The 47% number was created by the 2009 law "Making Work Pay". That law has expired. The actual numbers of households that do not pay any federal income or payroll tax is between 14-17%. The Congressional office reported that the bottom 20%, with a household income near $19,000 pay on average 4% of their income to federal taxes.
The not voting for your self interest. From message boards to conversations, people say things like "welfare $##@$%^&%$%$ the government never gave me nothin" as justification of voting Republican. When you mention corporate welfare to profitable businesses costs the government more they will respond with a "So" It is a bit absurd. The difference between an entitlement and good budget policy is wether or not it benefits me. People can see the welfare person, the corporate world is foreign, thus it is easier to hate the individual.

Exactly, exactly. I have students who won't stop talking about "welfare fraud" and then I have to devote special time with them looking through the budget of the United States, showing them what on earth is really being spent on what. And this is a community college with generally fairly poor students! I guess the point is to make poor people hate other poor people, though . . .

Hate motivates. One of the more disturbing trends of human nature.
Money motivates also. The book Freakenomics pointed out through drug dealing. The guy selling drugs on the corner was motivated to do the statistically most likely job to get you killed (1/7) because if they moved up in the chain far enough they would make a lot of money. Nowhere does it mention they go after the ones above them to move up. Eventual attrition through jail takes care of that. I propose the economically disadvantaged do not go after the more wealthy voting wise on the same principal. I am going to move up (through divine intervention?) so therefore I will not do anything that will disenfranchise those in a higher economic standing.
Welfare fraud. One conservative website said it might run 9 billion a year. Rates for catching welfare fraud run at about 34%. Picking on conservative websites, Medicare fraud is about 60 billion/yr. There are bigger problems than welfare fraud. Liberal sites claim 60 billion was lost/profiteered in the gulf wars. Forbes once reported on the 100 billion wasted since the start of the cold war on weapons that did not work. There are bigger problems than welfare fraud. People don't come into contact with it.
If you really want to scare them, obesity costs 190 billion per year for America according to Rueters.

Yes and $9 billion is not even a drop in the bucket. That's a month in Afghanistan. And who knows why the fraud takes place. I have hard time believing that well-off people are committing the fraud--I assume it is more like marginal cases where people don't quite qualify? I see, big deal, the cut-off point is arbitrary anyway.

I am disgusted by the Romney-is-successful nonsense. How this country can associate success with money alone is just appalling.

TheLeviathan
09-18-2012, 06:10 PM
If you are serious, I feel pretty sorry for you. Anyway, you do realize that those people not paying federal income taxes are primarily retired oldsters or the working poor who don't even make enough to pay federal income taxes, right?

We can quibble about 47% until the cows come home, of course the number is invented. Just like the Democrats have invented a "rich" group that is milking the economy. Neither is true, but they play to the bases. All Romney said is what Reg. repeated - there is a group of Americans dependent on the government that are hooked to a party that won't vote for him. Likewise, there is a group of people hooked to the Republicans that won't vote for Obama. If this (or the fact that what he says on and off camera are different) is shocking to you - you are really, really naive.


Romney is successful, how? He clearly isn't morally successful if he has such disdain and hatred for poor people and says that they don't take "responsibility for themselves." He sounds like a pretty despicable guy, actually.

He didn't say "poor people" - he said those dependent on government which, by definition, makes them irresponsible for themselves. What you're doing is not unlike what he did - just from a left-wing slant.

And note - this is coming from someone that is most likely going to vote independent.

Frozented9
09-18-2012, 07:16 PM
I work in the mortgage industry and I run across people all the time who make 6 figures a year and pay no income tax. Are they dependent on the government?

TheLeviathan
09-18-2012, 08:30 PM
I work in the mortgage industry and I run across people all the time who make 6 figures a year and pay no income tax. Are they dependent on the government?

Agreed, we need to shut that BS down too.

PseudoSABR
09-18-2012, 11:05 PM
If this (or the fact that what he says on and off camera are different) is shocking to you - you are really, really naive. Look, this is a big deal, Levi (I didn't think it would quite play this loudly and broadly...); both the right, left and the media are reacting negatively and fiercely to his comments. Maybe we all kind of thought Romney believes this way, but when you get a candidate on tape revealing (with authenticity) a caricature like that, it's pretty rare. It's not that he said some people are dependent (which is really about 8% whom aren't elderly) it's that he said he doesn't worry about them nor will he try to change them. It's despicable. When he calls half the nation 'victims,' and sneers about it, we have every right to call him Thurston Howell, and tell the guy to **** off.


He didn't say "poor people" - he said those dependent on government which, by definition, makes them irresponsible for themselves. What you're doing is not unlike what he did - just from a left-wing slant. He also said these people made up 47%! He suggested that all Obama voters (or all non-income tax payers) are dependent on the government which is total crap; and you're letting it slide. Look, David Brooks, David Frum, Peggy Noonan plenty of non-tea party conservatives are condemning his statements (even wingnut Kristol calls Romney arrogant and stupid). Are you just not reading and paying attention to how a broad range of reasonable people are reacting?

The truth is, I'm not exactly surprised by your reaction here. This reminds me of why the Paul Ryan thread went haywire. I think you kind of agree with Romney on this issue. I think it's good for people who believe this way to see how these beliefs play out in a public sphere, and to see how out of touch and rather baseless such beliefs are.

Levi, I know you're reasonable on lots of issues, but the notion of people depending on the government really offends you, in a sense that seems exaggerated--to the point where you can forgive a 39 point over-estimate from Romney. It just seems so inherently ideological.

PseudoSABR
09-18-2012, 11:08 PM
I work in the mortgage industry and I run across people all the time who make 6 figures a year and pay no income tax. Are they dependent on the government?

Agreed, we need to shut that BS down too.
I thought the liberals invented these people.

Just like the Democrats have invented a "rich" group that is milking the economy.
Rich people taking advantage of the gov't is different than poor people taking advantage of the government.

Fatt Crapps
09-18-2012, 11:43 PM
How anyone can vote for this inept clown of a president is beyond me. For the first time I can remember the republicans are actually nominating someone who has been successful in life but he's being demonized by liberals because he's rich (and worse yet, people are buying into it). No wonder we have ****ty presidents.

Successful in life? Oh this is rich. (See what I did there? :))

Keep American American brother Reg!!

PseudoSABR
09-19-2012, 12:15 AM
Keep American American [...]!!What does this even mean?

Shane Wahl
09-19-2012, 12:32 AM
If you are serious, I feel pretty sorry for you. Anyway, you do realize that those people not paying federal income taxes are primarily retired oldsters or the working poor who don't even make enough to pay federal income taxes, right?

We can quibble about 47% until the cows come home, of course the number is invented. Just like the Democrats have invented a "rich" group that is milking the economy. Neither is true, but they play to the bases. All Romney said is what Reg. repeated - there is a group of Americans dependent on the government that are hooked to a party that won't vote for him. Likewise, there is a group of people hooked to the Republicans that won't vote for Obama. If this (or the fact that what he says on and off camera are different) is shocking to you - you are really, really naive.


Romney is successful, how? He clearly isn't morally successful if he has such disdain and hatred for poor people and says that they don't take "responsibility for themselves." He sounds like a pretty despicable guy, actually.

He didn't say "poor people" - he said those dependent on government which, by definition, makes them irresponsible for themselves. What you're doing is not unlike what he did - just from a left-wing slant.

And note - this is coming from someone that is most likely going to vote independent.

I am not sure what you are saying here. The implication in the video is that the 47% guaranteed Obama voters are those who are dependent on government. That is completely false. There are a whole bunch of middle class and upper class Obama voters out there, in fact, they are almost equal to Romney voters in numbers.

"He didn't say 'poor people' - he said those dependent on government, which, by definition, makes them irresponsible for themselves."

Read that garbage out loud to yourself, please. Clearly he meant poor people who aren't paying federal income taxes. And clearly, saying "dependent" on government is a gross exaggeration. But what is worst about your endorsement of this view is that you think such people are "irresponsible for themselves." In what way? As human beings? Or as economically successful? There are plenty of people who are fully responsible for themselves, their children, and their community who are not making enough money to pay federal income taxes. One has to be an ass to declare such people "irresponsible."

The rich are milking the economy, by the way. They are the ones who spend millions on lobbyists to save tens or hundreds of million on tax breaks and subsidies. YOU are the naive one.

Bark's Lounge
09-19-2012, 01:29 AM
Although this is a political thread being used as an outlet of passion for the participants' belief system. I am not seeing many stories that link the said ideas to personal experience.

I am a 37 year old man who was a citizen of the inner city internment camp, which some of you might know as being the ghetto. To start this out, I came from parents who were cocaine users and dealers. My father was a man who would beat the **** out of one of his kids like he/she was an adult. My mother was much more compassionate, but was an addict herself, which rendered her useless to being a good parent. My parents divorced and went their separate ways. My dad becoming a crack head, my mother becoming a anti-child management alcoholic.

After the divorce, my grandparents interceded and I went to live with them as a teenager. My much younger sister and brother stayed with my mother. That in turn ended up being a slow disaster of which no one fully realized until I was in my early twenties. As it turns out I find out my little sister has been molested by my mother's long term companion, he was arrested, convicted, given probation and went back to my mother's house to live. I was incensed and searched this man out and beat the living **** out of him. I held back a bit, not wanting to be a perpetrator of murder.

As it turned out, my assault on this molester did no good and I moved out of a place I was sharing with some room mates to be the overseer of my younger siblings. Unfortunately my sister was embittered and too advanced of an age where my efforts were rendered useless, but my brother was very open to influence and with him I had a chance to make a difference.

My sister ended up having a child at the age of 16 and a few years later my brother died in a tragic accident when he was 16. Today my sister is a fighting spirit and works towards success with her 3 children - working her ass off none the less.

My memories are this: Bad Parents, a dad who beat the **** out of me, a mother who in my early youth was compassionate and loving, but turned into a drunken land mark of which low life humans tied their ship to. I have hope hope for my sister - she is an angry young lady that will get the job done. Losing my brother changed my life... ruined my life... after 9 years I am still trying to find my peace with it.

For me: I was beat down by the school kids because I was poor and didn't fit in. I was beaten by my dad who was a violent drug addict sociopath. All of these situations have made me stronger and more forthright in my beliefs.

What I am seeing on this site is a bunch or number crunchers who have never really experienced adversity and want to make it an economical debate or even a religious moral debate, or maybe you are being your true selves in not giving a bleep about your fellow humans because the almighty dollar runs your existence. Of course I am a leftist, could anyone expect any different? I am a Humanist foremost and the fact I do not see any humanism floating around these parts makes me a bit depressed.

TheLeviathan
09-19-2012, 06:28 AM
It's not that he said some people are dependent (which is really about 8% whom aren't elderly) it's that he said he doesn't worry about them nor will he try to change them. It's despicable. When he calls half the nation 'victims,' and sneers about it, we have every right to call him Thurston Howell, and tell the guy to **** off. [quote]

Is it really that much different than "You didn't build that business yourself?" I would say no. They are both massive gaffes that speak to the inner soul of both parties. You are being more offended by this one than the last because the opposition is the one making the gaffe. As someone looking from the outside of both - this isn't that big of a deal. Much like Obama's offensively stupid remark, this one will just get thrown in the pile.

[QUOTE] He suggested that all Obama voters (or all non-income tax payers) are dependent on the government which is total crap; and you're letting it slide.

I'm sorry, did you "let it slide" with Obama's remark? Hell, you rushed to BYTO to down-play it! His number is innaccurate, his framing of the issue is playing to the lowest common denominator of the base, and he picked a terrible time to do it. But just like Obama's stupid remark, there is a point to it that isn't entirely untrue. The two situtations aren't that much different. Why is your schtick on this so different? Or should we just assume your pretended fairness is just that - pretended?


The truth is, I'm not exactly surprised by your reaction here. This reminds me of why the Paul Ryan thread went haywire. I think you kind of agree with Romney on this issue.

I agree insofar as there is about 20% of the population he isn't going to change the minds of. Nor is Obama going to change another 20%. Again, reality doesn't have to be fun to swallow, but the truth is the truth. Politically he chose a stupid way to phrase it, but that doesn't make it untrue.

No one is agreeing with his number - it's inflated intentionally. But I don't see you getting hot and bothered by the same game on the other side. It happens all the time in politics - am I the only non-naive person here? It doesn't make it right, but it happens. I don't get hot and bothered by either side doing it - I'd prefer to criticize the deeper issues than these stupid superficial ones.

TheLeviathan
09-19-2012, 06:38 AM
Read that garbage out loud to yourself, please. Clearly he meant poor people who aren't paying federal income taxes. And clearly, saying "dependent" on government is a gross exaggeration. But what is worst about your endorsement of this view is that you think such people are "irresponsible for themselves." In what way? As human beings? Or as economically successful? There are plenty of people who are fully responsible for themselves, their children, and their community who are not making enough money to pay federal income taxes. One has to be an ass to declare such people "irresponsible."

First - you can't insert your own interpretation of a remark and then lambast someone for it. His decision here was dumb enough without you committing that fallacy. Again, "people dependent on government" ARE, by definition, not responsible for themselves. If they were, they wouldn't be "dependent". Debating the dictionary is not wise.

As someone who has worked in social services for a long time, I can tell you that many people "dependent" on government services are, indeed, NOT poor. Unfortunately our system has long ago stopped focusing on true need and instead opened blank checks across dozens of programs that are far easier to manipulate and take advantage of than most think.

I can't think of a more offensive moral mantra than the idea that anyone who believes there is a difference between "need" and want" is somehow inconsiderate towards people. Hell, my beliefs are driven by true "need" and how often I see it shunned in favor of this liberal, left-wing driven concoction of what "need" is. Yeah, the rich need to be paying more. Company tax loopholes need to be closed. No disagreement here - now let's see if you're as fair in your thinking when the reality of left-wing social programs is on the table. College loans, welfare, and just about any other federal aid you can think of is saturated with abuse by people claiming "need" who would really just rather milk the system. Or the system itself, as in college loans, actually makes everyone worse off.

So we flush billions down the toilet every year that could go to skills training, better subsidized housing, early education services, etc. That's the reality you're blindly supporting. To me, if someone is making me choose, I'd say defending that under the guise of moral superiority is a far worse crime.

biggentleben
09-19-2012, 07:08 AM
This debate, as do most in the political arena, has gone from functionality to ideals. The functional end of how we work with our elderly and disabled is that currently we throw money at them with minimal oversight. I work for a boss that is livid when someone with $50,000 in the bank is getting any food stamps and has us crush that. That said, if we didn't know that and the consumer didn't reveal it to DSS, they'd be getting plenty of food stamps every single month. That's just one area. I've seen similar with disability benefits, with section 8 housing, and with scores of other programs intended to help those neediest among us, but the design of oversight in those programs is poor, to say the least. Nevermind that those that are being taxed with doing that oversight are not paid anywhere near enough for what they work with on a daily basis. That breeds apathy in a quick hurry and leads to less focus on the job or quick turnover on the job, and every new person on the job has many unwritten things to learn about how people will try to get "free money". A great example was the "Ticket To Work" program for those accessing SSI or SSDI benefits. The program, in its launch, was not easily understood to those who would be doing the exact work and be receiving the least benefit from the program, though the program can be marked for giving the provider an incentive benefit upon advancement in work status for the consumer. However, there was never anyone who really knew the program if someone had questions, and those who were available to do trainings on the program had obviously not had real-life experience in the field, so they spoke completely over the head of those doing the job day to day. Now that program, while still running, has received no promotion and no offered trainings for nearly two full years, and one of the better attempts at both improving the work status of those receiving disability benefits while incentivizing those who spend their time assisting those consumers in their improvements is now dead. I've seen programs like this come and go through multiple presidents of both parties and multiple governors of many different parties, and the main reason they fail is a consistent lack of understanding about the middle - between the political "Do this!" and the social workers that actually have to implement it. We could drastically alter the amount of people who "milk" the system for handouts by structuring better implementation and oversight of the positive programs that could make a difference in the life of someone on disability and help them move to the point of independent living.

Now correcting the tax breaks that those with plenty get, that's not my expertise, and I don't have hands-on experience with it. I do know there are those out there who want to repeal agricultural assistance before dealing with the tax loopholes, yet out of the other side of their mouth, they'll lament "corporate farming". Too many decisions, frankly, are being made by a number of people in Washington who have no direct idea what it's like to be in a certain situation, and rather than do the research to actually find out, they stick to their assumptions along a partisan line that never really helps anyone truly move up.

Fatt Crapps
09-19-2012, 12:00 PM
Keep American American [...]!!What does this even mean?

Romney was using it as a campaign slogan. The KKK used it as well.

old nurse
09-19-2012, 12:41 PM
No recent administration has ever worked on getting the government to run more efficiently. If the Republicans did, they would lose one of their rallying points. The Democrats seem incapable of it. 20 years ago Al Gore talked about it after the election, but nothing came of it. Perhaps the operation is too unwieldy. To rethink a whole new process is beyond the current crop of politicians.

old nurse
09-19-2012, 02:33 PM
Although this is a political thread being used as an outlet of passion for the participants' belief system. I am not seeing many stories that link the said ideas to personal experience.

I am a 37 year old man who was a citizen of the inner city internment camp, which some of you might know as being the ghetto. To start this out, I came from parents who were cocaine users and dealers. My father was a man who would beat the **** out of one of his kids like he/she was an adult. My mother was much more compassionate, but was an addict herself, which rendered her useless to being a good parent. My parents divorced and went their separate ways. My dad becoming a crack head, my mother becoming a anti-child management alcoholic.

After the divorce, my grandparents interceded and I went to live with them as a teenager. My much younger sister and brother stayed with my mother. That in turn ended up being a slow disaster of which no one fully realized until I was in my early twenties. As it turns out I find out my little sister has been molested by my mother's long term companion, he was arrested, convicted, given probation and went back to my mother's house to live. I was incensed and searched this man out and beat the living **** out of him. I held back a bit, not wanting to be a perpetrator of murder.

As it turned out, my assault on this molester did no good and I moved out of a place I was sharing with some room mates to be the overseer of my younger siblings. Unfortunately my sister was embittered and too advanced of an age where my efforts were rendered useless, but my brother was very open to influence and with him I had a chance to make a difference.

My sister ended up having a child at the age of 16 and a few years later my brother died in a tragic accident when he was 16. Today my sister is a fighting spirit and works towards success with her 3 children - working her ass off none the less.

My memories are this: Bad Parents, a dad who beat the **** out of me, a mother who in my early youth was compassionate and loving, but turned into a drunken land mark of which low life humans tied their ship to. I have hope hope for my sister - she is an angry young lady that will get the job done. Losing my brother changed my life... ruined my life... after 9 years I am still trying to find my peace with it.

For me: I was beat down by the school kids because I was poor and didn't fit in. I was beaten by my dad who was a violent drug addict sociopath. All of these situations have made me stronger and more forthright in my beliefs.

What I am seeing on this site is a bunch or number crunchers who have never really experienced adversity and want to make it an economical debate or even a religious moral debate, or maybe you are being your true selves in not giving a bleep about your fellow humans because the almighty dollar runs your existence. Of course I am a leftist, could anyone expect any different? I am a Humanist foremost and the fact I do not see any humanism floating around these parts makes me a bit depressed.

I had a few reactions to your story that were kicking around in my brain. I hope the reaction don't come out nonsensical.

First off, kudos for making it out and generally sounding like a reasonable, intelligent human being.

People out there that have never faced adversity or been out there on the edge of life have no clue what it is like to be there. It makes them lucky individuals. When you get the blank look it is disheartening. Worse yet is a proposed "easy " fix. The complications of life are not that easy. Sometimes I think you get shunned as people think whatever is going on with you will somehow have an effect on them.

The last statement is my problem with the libertarian and conservative people. I start to view government more as an entity that attempts to correct problems. The genesis of legislation is to correct a societal problem. If you get rid of the legislation does the problem go away? Look back on history for that answer.

Looking only in terms of numbers reduces the complexity of things. It reduces the human factors of the game.

TheLeviathan
09-19-2012, 04:12 PM
The last statement is my problem with the libertarian and conservative people. I start to view government more as an entity that attempts to correct problems. The genesis of legislation is to correct a societal problem. If you get rid of the legislation does the problem go away? Look back on history for that answer.

So why can't we criticize legislation that is not correcting the problem but is, in many cases, exacerbating it? Part of the problem is we can't have a meaningful discussion about fixing legislation when one side wants it gone altogether and the other wants to demonize anyone who dares suggest there is a problem. You happen to fall into the second group.

Brock Beauchamp
09-19-2012, 04:21 PM
The last statement is my problem with the libertarian and conservative people. I start to view government more as an entity that attempts to correct problems. The genesis of legislation is to correct a societal problem. If you get rid of the legislation does the problem go away? Look back on history for that answer.


I think you're simplifying the Libertarian viewpoint quite a bit. Some of us aren't against legislation entirely (though we are against stupid legislation and/or legislation that doesn't work). My Libertarianism comes from the core belief that the government is not a good service provider. In most cases, competition breeds efficiency and there is no competing force against the government. The government's role is to legislate private industry and prevent them from strong-arming the population into submission, not to avoid legislating entirely.

Of course, there are Libertarians who call for much more radical government reform/de-legislation than myself, though after the financial debacle of 2007/2008, I do not understand how they reconcile those beliefs with reality.

old nurse
09-19-2012, 04:30 PM
The last statement is my problem with the libertarian and conservative people. I start to view government more as an entity that attempts to correct problems. The genesis of legislation is to correct a societal problem. If you get rid of the legislation does the problem go away? Look back on history for that answer.

So why can't we criticize legislation that is not correcting the problem but is, in many cases, exacerbating it? Part of the problem is we can't have a meaningful discussion about fixing legislation when one side wants it gone altogether and the other wants to demonize anyone who dares suggest there is a problem. You happen to fall into the second group.

If the criticism leads to action and improvement I am all for it. There is no action.

Shane Wahl
09-19-2012, 04:49 PM
Although this is a political thread being used as an outlet of passion for the participants' belief system. I am not seeing many stories that link the said ideas to personal experience.

I am a 37 year old man who was a citizen of the inner city internment camp, which some of you might know as being the ghetto. To start this out, I came from parents who were cocaine users and dealers. My father was a man who would beat the **** out of one of his kids like he/she was an adult. My mother was much more compassionate, but was an addict herself, which rendered her useless to being a good parent. My parents divorced and went their separate ways. My dad becoming a crack head, my mother becoming a anti-child management alcoholic.

After the divorce, my grandparents interceded and I went to live with them as a teenager. My much younger sister and brother stayed with my mother. That in turn ended up being a slow disaster of which no one fully realized until I was in my early twenties. As it turns out I find out my little sister has been molested by my mother's long term companion, he was arrested, convicted, given probation and went back to my mother's house to live. I was incensed and searched this man out and beat the living **** out of him. I held back a bit, not wanting to be a perpetrator of murder.

As it turned out, my assault on this molester did no good and I moved out of a place I was sharing with some room mates to be the overseer of my younger siblings. Unfortunately my sister was embittered and too advanced of an age where my efforts were rendered useless, but my brother was very open to influence and with him I had a chance to make a difference.

My sister ended up having a child at the age of 16 and a few years later my brother died in a tragic accident when he was 16. Today my sister is a fighting spirit and works towards success with her 3 children - working her ass off none the less.

My memories are this: Bad Parents, a dad who beat the **** out of me, a mother who in my early youth was compassionate and loving, but turned into a drunken land mark of which low life humans tied their ship to. I have hope hope for my sister - she is an angry young lady that will get the job done. Losing my brother changed my life... ruined my life... after 9 years I am still trying to find my peace with it.

For me: I was beat down by the school kids because I was poor and didn't fit in. I was beaten by my dad who was a violent drug addict sociopath. All of these situations have made me stronger and more forthright in my beliefs.

What I am seeing on this site is a bunch or number crunchers who have never really experienced adversity and want to make it an economical debate or even a religious moral debate, or maybe you are being your true selves in not giving a bleep about your fellow humans because the almighty dollar runs your existence. Of course I am a leftist, could anyone expect any different? I am a Humanist foremost and the fact I do not see any humanism floating around these parts makes me a bit depressed.

Just wanted to say I am not really sure what to say. But this deserved a response.

Shane Wahl
09-19-2012, 04:57 PM
Yikes, The Leviathan, you mentioned "you didn't build that." As though that hasn't been debunked again and again and again. Clearly, he did not say "you didn't build the business." The fact that you are swept away by such propaganda (in this case, the propaganda of selective editing) says a lot and it tells me that there is little point in trying to argue with you about any of this.

TheLeviathan
09-19-2012, 06:04 PM
If the criticism leads to action and improvement I am all for it. There is no action.

Quite frankly, it's hard for we libertarians to get much traction when we're being morally demonized by both sides.

TheLeviathan
09-19-2012, 06:07 PM
Yikes, The Leviathan, you mentioned "you didn't build that." As though that hasn't been debunked again and again and again. Clearly, he did not say "you didn't build the business." The fact that you are swept away by such propaganda (in this case, the propaganda of selective editing) says a lot and it tells me that there is little point in trying to argue with you about any of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng - Except, that is precisely what he said. Well, "If you have a business....you didn't build that" is slightly different - if you want to quibble about that let me know and I'll stop taking you seriously. Now I understand his point and I don't completely disagree with him. There is no selective editing here - he went too far with a point and came off insultingly. He took his party mantra too far and it sounds badly. They are very much the same issue.

I don't think either argument is crippling, but both are indicative of the stupidity that reigns on both sides.

ChiTownTwinsFan
09-19-2012, 09:15 PM
If the criticism leads to action and improvement I am all for it. There is no action.

Quite frankly, it's hard for we libertarians to get much traction when we're being morally demonized by both sides.

You are a Libertarian??? wow ... I am truly shocked. The way you argue I had you pegged as a died in the wool, to the core, Republican. Not trying to offend here, if you are offended, I am just really shocked at this revelation.

TheLeviathan
09-19-2012, 09:19 PM
You are a Libertarian??? wow ... I am truly shocked. The way you argue I had you pegged as a died in the wool, to the core, Republican. Not trying to offend here, if you are offended, I am just really shocked at this revelation.

Then you're listening to what is being said in response and not what is actually being said. I'm not defending Romney - I'm disagreeing with the scope of the interpretation.

ChiTownTwinsFan
09-19-2012, 11:18 PM
You are a Libertarian??? wow ... I am truly shocked. The way you argue I had you pegged as a died in the wool, to the core, Republican. Not trying to offend here, if you are offended, I am just really shocked at this revelation.

Then you're listening to what is being said in response and not what is actually being said. I'm not defending Romney - I'm disagreeing with the scope of the interpretation.

It's not this thread ... it's every political thread back to BYTO.

old nurse
09-19-2012, 11:59 PM
The last statement is my problem with the libertarian and conservative people. I start to view government more as an entity that attempts to correct problems. The genesis of legislation is to correct a societal problem. If you get rid of the legislation does the problem go away? Look back on history for that answer.

I think you're simplifying the Libertarian viewpoint quite a bit. Some of us aren't against legislation entirely (though we are against stupid legislation and/or legislation that doesn't work). My Libertarianism comes from the core belief that the government is not a good service provider. In most cases, competition breeds efficiency and there is no competing force against the government. The government's role is to legislate private industry and prevent them from strong-arming the population into submission, not to avoid legislating entirely.

Of course, there are Libertarians who call for much more radical government reform/de-legislation than myself, though after the financial debacle of 2007/2008, I do not understand how they reconcile those beliefs with reality.

Libertarianism as expressed by the party and Ron Paul is what I don't get. I get wanting less government. Working in health care (the moniker isn't a joke) the efficiency in private health insurance is called non coverage and fighting tooth and nail for benefits.

Efficiency in government. Separate agencies for food, WIC, housing and general handouts. Doesn't make sense for four eligibility organizations. Two for seniors (medicare and the VA). I am all for lifetime limits on benefits. I am also for only giving out staples for food.

old nurse
09-20-2012, 12:09 AM
If the criticism leads to action and improvement I am all for it. There is no action.

Quite frankly, it's hard for we libertarians to get much traction when we're being morally demonized by both sides.

Instead of action I should have said proposals for solutions to problems. Best way to solve things is to look at it from many different angles. Of course that requires politicians to work together and compromise.

Shane Wahl
09-20-2012, 01:18 AM
A key problem is that we are all so centered on the federal government and these national elections instead of focusing on local elections and local initiatives/movements that are always bound to be a more efficient use of resources. People are terribly disengaged from the world and that is the problem. I would move way more towards the libertarian point of view if we saw a big effort of participation by people in local government. But that doesn't happen.

It's a shame because need for federal government diminishes with increased local participation in government (school board up).

old nurse
09-20-2012, 01:57 AM
A key problem is that we are all so centered on the federal government and these national elections instead of focusing on local elections and local initiatives/movements that are always bound to be a more efficient use of resources. People are terribly disengaged from the world and that is the problem. I would move way more towards the libertarian point of view if we saw a big effort of participation by people in local government. But that doesn't happen.

It's a shame because need for federal government diminishes with increased local participation in government (school board up).

Professor you provoked a very strange thought. I do not know how i got it from your comment but it is a bit twisted. (Please feel free to use your education to improve the thought if you follow it)

The world would be a better place if we were all cognizant of the impact of our actions on others and acted accordingly. Charitably our time, talents, and excess is a second trait that would be beneficial. Given those two traits in the general population we would all be libertarians.

biggentleben
09-20-2012, 04:41 PM
A key problem is that we are all so centered on the federal government and these national elections instead of focusing on local elections and local initiatives/movements that are always bound to be a more efficient use of resources. People are terribly disengaged from the world and that is the problem. I would move way more towards the libertarian point of view if we saw a big effort of participation by people in local government. But that doesn't happen.

It's a shame because need for federal government diminishes with increased local participation in government (school board up).

...and this is where I laugh at the accusations of Obama having any control over the Medicaid/Medicare moneys skewing. States decide how Medicaid is distributed and have a large say in how Medicare money is distributed within the state. States that have poor oversight are the states that see a high amount of fraud. I can tell you that South Dakota recently moved all Medicaid/Medicare receiving departments under one department head, and it has allowed for better budgeting of all funds needed by each area. It has also allowed South Dakota to claim more funds by having a better totality indicator of need than each individual department reporting.

TheLeviathan
09-20-2012, 08:24 PM
It's not this thread ... it's every political thread back to BYTO.

Hard to be a Republican when you support pro-choice leg., anti-education privitization, pro-gay marriage, pro some tax increases, etc.

Hell, I'm probably more liberal in my actual views - I just can't stand the phony, obnoxious, shallow thought behind most liberal policy.

glunn
09-23-2012, 04:09 PM
A key problem is that we are all so centered on the federal government and these national elections instead of focusing on local elections and local initiatives/movements that are always bound to be a more efficient use of resources. People are terribly disengaged from the world and that is the problem. I would move way more towards the libertarian point of view if we saw a big effort of participation by people in local government. But that doesn't happen.

It's a shame because need for federal government diminishes with increased local participation in government (school board up).

...and this is where I laugh at the accusations of Obama having any control over the Medicaid/Medicare moneys skewing. States decide how Medicaid is distributed and have a large say in how Medicare money is distributed within the state. States that have poor oversight are the states that see a high amount of fraud. I can tell you that South Dakota recently moved all Medicaid/Medicare receiving departments under one department head, and it has allowed for better budgeting of all funds needed by each area. It has also allowed South Dakota to claim more funds by having a better totality indicator of need than each individual department reporting.

I would like to empty our prisons of drug offenders and try to fill them with people who have scammed the government and internet scammers.