On February 18 2012 06:27 ticklishmusic wrote: I want to make a point about what the US really is. Yesterday, I had dinner with the President of my university (okay, it's not cool as it sounds), and he said some things that I feel are worth sharing.
The US is not a democracy. Look on a list of democracies. The US is not there. The US is a Republic, you could even call it a Democratic Republic. We democratically elect people to represent us in government. But look at the gridlock and partisanship in Congress. Sure, it sounds noble when a politician sits on the steps of the Capitol and say "we are doing what our constituents want." But think about it, isn't it kind of sad? What these elected officials should be doing is what their constituents NEED, not what they WANT.
Take for example: Civil Rights legislation. I (my uni president) argue that if the decision had been left to democracy, a referendum, it would not have passed. The same thing for gay rights, as shown by Prop 8 in California. But, the ones who who elected stood up and said "hey look, we know that this isn't what you want, but it is what the country needs." Passing Civil Rights arguably cost the LBJ Democrats dearly-- since then, the South has been Republican. However, you can't argue that what they did wasn't the right thing in retrospect.
We elect representatives not to do what we want, but to do what we need. I can't emphasize that enough. You can make fun of some of them for being "ivory tower intellectuals", but the truth is, those who often get ripped on for being educated and philosophical are the kind of people, our better selves, that we need to govern us. Why does a representative then choose to do what their constituent wants, rather than what they need? Because they want to stay elected, and doing what their constituents want is the easiest way to do that. Leaders need to have their own identity, their own beliefs-- they shouldn't just merely take on those of the voters to get elected.
This is a great post. Voters want big entitlement programs, a huge military, and low taxes. Politicians have given us all of those things, and look at the debt. Even if one argues that deficits during a recession are a good thing, there's no reason to do that during a boom.
Politicians have to start making difficult decisions that may cost them their careers but help our country in the long run. Controlling the government has become more important than running it effectively.
Uh... that's actually how our country is designed. It's designed to be inefficient and difficult. That way it is more difficult to erode the rights of the citizens. It's honestly very American that controlling our government is more important than running it effectively. That's how it's supposed to be!
My wording was vague. I mean that it is more important to politicians that they are in charge of the government than that they make sensible policies.
Rejecting gay marriage in a referendum is not necessarily the problem. The problem is tax-exempt religious organizations who are spending millions on millions to influence outcomes by spreading outright lies and bullshit. Santorum's position is a grand example of someone completely unconcerned about how true the words coming from his mouth are, as long as they influence people in the way that he intends. It doesn't matter how many times he gets exposed, nothing from his mouth ever changes.
I'm not so sure that the point of doing what the people need, not what they want is a valid one. This is just begging for abuse. The main trick is a citizenry well-informed and educated enough to seek outcomes slightly longer term than just immediate gratification.
On February 18 2012 06:27 ticklishmusic wrote: I want to make a point about what the US really is. Yesterday, I had dinner with the President of my university (okay, it's not cool as it sounds), and he said some things that I feel are worth sharing.
The US is not a democracy. Look on a list of democracies. The US is not there. The US is a Republic, you could even call it a Democratic Republic. We democratically elect people to represent us in government. But look at the gridlock and partisanship in Congress. Sure, it sounds noble when a politician sits on the steps of the Capitol and say "we are doing what our constituents want." But think about it, isn't it kind of sad? What these elected officials should be doing is what their constituents NEED, not what they WANT.
Take for example: Civil Rights legislation. I (my uni president) argue that if the decision had been left to democracy, a referendum, it would not have passed. The same thing for gay rights, as shown by Prop 8 in California. But, the ones who who elected stood up and said "hey look, we know that this isn't what you want, but it is what the country needs." Passing Civil Rights arguably cost the LBJ Democrats dearly-- since then, the South has been Republican. However, you can't argue that what they did wasn't the right thing in retrospect.
We elect representatives not to do what we want, but to do what we need. I can't emphasize that enough. You can make fun of some of them for being "ivory tower intellectuals", but the truth is, those who often get ripped on for being educated and philosophical are the kind of people, our better selves, that we need to govern us. Why does a representative then choose to do what their constituent wants, rather than what they need? Because they want to stay elected, and doing what their constituents want is the easiest way to do that. Leaders need to have their own identity, their own beliefs-- they shouldn't just merely take on those of the voters to get elected.
This is a great post. Voters want big entitlement programs, a huge military, and low taxes. Politicians have given us all of those things, and look at the debt. Even if one argues that deficits during a recession are a good thing, there's no reason to do that during a boom.
Politicians have to start making difficult decisions that may cost them their careers but help our country in the long run. Controlling the government has become more important than running it effectively.
The problem I feel with America is the lack awareness and education of the voting public. The extreme bias of mainstream media combined with, sorry for a lack of a better word, the ignorance of the general population about what is right for them means that politicians have to do wrong things to stay in office.
This can only be solved by making people aware of the problems in there demands and the focus of elections but how you wanne manage that is something of a problem ^^
Unfortunately, when you look at countries with better educated populations, the same thing often ends up happening. Education does not prevent people from being emotionally manipulated.
On February 17 2012 21:55 DoubleReed wrote: Honestly xDaunt, it sounds like you disagree with Santorum just like the rest of us. He's said that he wants to make this part of his public policy, so just because he doesn't have the power to ban it should still worry you considering this is apparently what he really cares about.
I do not understand why teaching abstinence teaches virtues or morals in any way. I'm still not understanding that point.
It doesn't worry me because, as I said above, Santorum has not said he would advocate legislation banning contraceptives, and he doesn't have that power anyway. All he is doing is starting a conversation about some of the fundamental problems in our society today, which I think is a good thing.
What offends me is how Santorum's views are being spun by liberals and the media. It's dishonest fear-mongering.
Well it is justified fear mongering that someone who is running for president of the united states is decrying the immorality of contraception. I don't want someone like that to be president and I don't think a lot of women do either.
Again, what exactly is his issue with it? It seems to come back to his religious beliefs. And I don't want theology getting involved with our government like that. For instance, he doesn't want gays to be legally married for exactly these reasons.
There's plenty to be fearful of. Santorum could do plenty of damage to our society with his social views.
See, this is the kind of thing that I don't understand. The country has real problems right now -- problems with a capital P. Regardless of where you fall on the birth control issue, federal funding (or lack thereof) is not one of those big problems. Yet, people blow issues like this one up way out of proportion and base their electoral issues on where candidates fall on these relativity minor issues. So instead of focusing on real issues like looming fiscal disaster and seemingly imminent war in and around Iran, the country is talking about contraception right now. How stupid are we?
It's because social freedoms are NOT a minor issue to many in this country. Consistently ignoring "minor" social issues is what ends you up in a police state or a theocracy that takes away rights based on arbitrary religious beliefs.
Yeah, except no one's talking about taking away social freedoms. The conversation, to the extent that it exists, revolves around who has to pay for the exercise of those freedoms.
Except that those very same insurance plans already all cover Viagra, Cialis, etc, and no one seems to be complaining about that. There's so little consistency between conservative rhetoric and actions.
On February 17 2012 21:55 DoubleReed wrote: Honestly xDaunt, it sounds like you disagree with Santorum just like the rest of us. He's said that he wants to make this part of his public policy, so just because he doesn't have the power to ban it should still worry you considering this is apparently what he really cares about.
I do not understand why teaching abstinence teaches virtues or morals in any way. I'm still not understanding that point.
It doesn't worry me because, as I said above, Santorum has not said he would advocate legislation banning contraceptives, and he doesn't have that power anyway. All he is doing is starting a conversation about some of the fundamental problems in our society today, which I think is a good thing.
What offends me is how Santorum's views are being spun by liberals and the media. It's dishonest fear-mongering.
Well it is justified fear mongering that someone who is running for president of the united states is decrying the immorality of contraception. I don't want someone like that to be president and I don't think a lot of women do either.
Again, what exactly is his issue with it? It seems to come back to his religious beliefs. And I don't want theology getting involved with our government like that. For instance, he doesn't want gays to be legally married for exactly these reasons.
There's plenty to be fearful of. Santorum could do plenty of damage to our society with his social views.
See, this is the kind of thing that I don't understand. The country has real problems right now -- problems with a capital P. Regardless of where you fall on the birth control issue, federal funding (or lack thereof) is not one of those big problems. Yet, people blow issues like this one up way out of proportion and base their electoral issues on where candidates fall on these relativity minor issues. So instead of focusing on real issues like looming fiscal disaster and seemingly imminent war in and around Iran, the country is talking about contraception right now. How stupid are we?
It's because social freedoms are NOT a minor issue to many in this country. Consistently ignoring "minor" social issues is what ends you up in a police state or a theocracy that takes away rights based on arbitrary religious beliefs.
Yeah, except no one's talking about taking away social freedoms. The conversation, to the extent that it exists, revolves around who has to pay for the exercise of those freedoms.
Except that those very same insurance plans already all cover Viagra, Cialis, etc, and no one seems to be complaining about that. There's so little consistency between conservative rhetoric and actions.
That's because no religion (that I know of) has a stance against sexual enhancement medication or treatments. Even in a "sex isn't meant for recreation" sense, Viagra could be used solely for procreation.
Mitt Romney is stuck in the worst possible position this week in Michigan when it comes to the auto bailout. On the one hand, he’s being pilloried by both Democrats and the local press for his confusing criticism of the federal intervention that rescued the auto industry. On the other hand, his claim that he would have rescued Detroit too — maybe even with similar measures! — is drawing jeers from conservatives as well. That’s right, the Tea Party isn’t happy with his bailout position either.
At issue is confusion over just what the “bailout” was. Romney, who even in his “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” days in 2008 hinted that the government would need to provide help to keep the car companies alive, can’t fully embrace the idea that taxpayer money should have gone to GM and Chrysler without angering the right. So instead he keeps winking at Michigan voters that the Obama administration’s managed bankruptcy solution in mid-2009 was exactly what he would have recommended himself and GM would still be posting record profits if they had just taken his advice sooner without all those bailouts beforehand. Left unsaid is that in order to make that managed bankruptcy work without destroying the companies, the government had to step in with tens of billions of additional dollars in loans to keep them afloat.
Romney doesn’t like to talk about this part, alluding only to vague “help” from the federal government that he would have provided as president (and driving Detroit News columnists insane in the process). This week he at least hinted for the first time that this “help” could have included direct loans. But for conservatives, using taxpayer money to ease GM and Chrysler through bankruptcy at all was a bailout. For Tea Partiers, it’s one of the ultimate bailouts.
“It was a managed bankruptcy and taxpayers were there the whole way,” Daniel J. Ikenson, director Cato’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, told TPM. “I’m not sure what distinction Romney is trying to draw, but he’s awfully good at trying to flip flop.”
Mark Meckler, co-founder of the Tea Party patriots, said in an interview that a central Tea Party objection to the White House’s process was that the car companies received government loans and special treatment rather than going through a normal private sector bankruptcy.
“We have a bankruptcy system that applies to everyone else,” Meckler said.
On February 17 2012 21:55 DoubleReed wrote: Honestly xDaunt, it sounds like you disagree with Santorum just like the rest of us. He's said that he wants to make this part of his public policy, so just because he doesn't have the power to ban it should still worry you considering this is apparently what he really cares about.
I do not understand why teaching abstinence teaches virtues or morals in any way. I'm still not understanding that point.
It doesn't worry me because, as I said above, Santorum has not said he would advocate legislation banning contraceptives, and he doesn't have that power anyway. All he is doing is starting a conversation about some of the fundamental problems in our society today, which I think is a good thing.
What offends me is how Santorum's views are being spun by liberals and the media. It's dishonest fear-mongering.
Well it is justified fear mongering that someone who is running for president of the united states is decrying the immorality of contraception. I don't want someone like that to be president and I don't think a lot of women do either.
Again, what exactly is his issue with it? It seems to come back to his religious beliefs. And I don't want theology getting involved with our government like that. For instance, he doesn't want gays to be legally married for exactly these reasons.
There's plenty to be fearful of. Santorum could do plenty of damage to our society with his social views.
See, this is the kind of thing that I don't understand. The country has real problems right now -- problems with a capital P. Regardless of where you fall on the birth control issue, federal funding (or lack thereof) is not one of those big problems. Yet, people blow issues like this one up way out of proportion and base their electoral issues on where candidates fall on these relativity minor issues. So instead of focusing on real issues like looming fiscal disaster and seemingly imminent war in and around Iran, the country is talking about contraception right now. How stupid are we?
It's because social freedoms are NOT a minor issue to many in this country. Consistently ignoring "minor" social issues is what ends you up in a police state or a theocracy that takes away rights based on arbitrary religious beliefs.
Yeah, except no one's talking about taking away social freedoms. The conversation, to the extent that it exists, revolves around who has to pay for the exercise of those freedoms.
Except that those very same insurance plans already all cover Viagra, Cialis, etc, and no one seems to be complaining about that. There's so little consistency between conservative rhetoric and actions.
They're actually incredibly consistent. The primary difference is that one benefits men, the other benefits women. I don't think any of the major religions have ever shown inconsistency when it comes to that.
Ron Paul and Mittens Romney are apparently great personal friends, their wives like each other too, all that jazz.
I think Mittens will limp into the convention and Paul will throw him his delegates in exchange for being Treasury Secretary. Has the added benefit of keeping Ron Paulians on the Republican bandwagon instead of staying at home too.
Being from PA and having gone to several of his speeches / meet-ups back in the day, particularly in 2006, I know the man just a wee little bit, and aside from his rather bad ability to articulate his social conservatism, Rick Santorum is just weird. He just doesn't understand or doesn't care how he comes off to people who aren't as old-fashioned as he is.
And God is Rachel Maddow's voice pure torture to listen to.
States that vote by caucus instead of a regular primary seem a bit iffy to me anyway; whoever has the most passionate and deep-pocketed organization rather than whoever the majority (or plurality) of a state's party voters prefer wins.
On February 19 2012 09:53 DeepElemBlues wrote: Ron Paul and Mittens Romney are apparently great personal friends, their wives like each other too, all that jazz.
I think Mittens will limp into the convention and Paul will throw him his delegates in exchange for being Treasury Secretary. Has the added benefit of keeping Ron Paulians on the Republican bandwagon instead of staying at home too.
Being from PA and having gone to several of his speeches / meet-ups back in the day, particularly in 2006, I know the man just a wee little bit, and aside from his rather bad ability to articulate his social conservatism, Rick Santorum is just weird. He just doesn't understand or doesn't care how he comes off to people who aren't as old-fashioned as he is.
I don't think Ron Paul's votes are significant enough nationally nor will his voters accept his endorsement for another candidate, the way other candidate's supporters would. Gingrich is the most likely king maker in this election, although it may be more like a jester maker.
I don't think Ron Paul's votes are significant enough nationally nor will his voters accept his endorsement for another candidate, the way other candidate's supporters would.
Not if it's just an endorsement with Ron Paul returning to being a Congressman and nothing else. If he accepts a position in a potential Romney cabinet, I think it would be a different story for most of the newer, younger support he's gotten during this election cycle.
Now I agree that the really hardcore Ron Paul supporters won't vote for anyone but him, but they aren't the bulk of his supporters anymore. They're a loud minority. These are the people who were saying they supported Ron Paul when he was getting 5-10% of a vote in a primary in 2008, not 20-30% (or more) like he gets now.
His voters are significant enough nationally to hand Obama re-election in a close contest if a big majority of them stay home. If you (very roughly) extrapolate his support, it's gone from being like 2% of the total electorate in 2008 to closer to 10% today. If they can be persuaded to vote, that is.
Gingrich is the most likely king maker in this election, although it may be more like a jester maker.
Gingrich currently couldn't make a dog catcher in West Hollow, Georgia, much less a king. Six weeks ago yeah, not anymore. His casino buddy can keep throwing in 10 million dollar hot fudge injections into his campaign all he wants, Romney grabbed him by his weaknesses and shook him damn hard and Newt couldn't handle it. That's the biggest part of why he's nose-dived, the going got tough and Newt didn't respond in a way that proved positive for his campaign.
I don't think Ron Paul's votes are significant enough nationally nor will his voters accept his endorsement for another candidate, the way other candidate's supporters would.
Not if it's just an endorsement with Ron Paul returning to being a Congressman and nothing else. If he accepts a position in a potential Romney cabinet, I think it would be a different story for most of the newer, younger support he's gotten during this election cycle.
Now I agree that the really hardcore Ron Paul supporters won't vote for anyone but him, but they aren't the bulk of his supporters anymore. They're a loud minority. These are the people who were saying they supported Ron Paul when he was getting 5-10% of a vote in a primary in 2008, not 20-30% (or more) like he gets now.
His voters are significant enough nationally to hand Obama re-election in a close contest if a big majority of them stay home. If you (very roughly) extrapolate his support, it's gone from being like 2% of the total electorate in 2008 to closer to 10% today. If they can be persuaded to vote, that is.
Gingrich is the most likely king maker in this election, although it may be more like a jester maker.
Gingrich currently couldn't make a dog catcher in West Hollow, Georgia, much less a king. Six weeks ago yeah, not anymore. His casino buddy can keep throwing in 10 million dollar hot fudge injections into his campaign all he wants, Romney grabbed him by his weaknesses and shook him damn hard and Newt couldn't handle it. That's the biggest part of why he's nose-dived, the going got tough and Newt didn't respond in a way that proved positive for his campaign.
Paul actually hasn't gained much in the past 4 years. He's in a weak field with weak turnouts. Especially since there are no Democrat contests, he's able to pull in social liberals for the primaries.
EPT
