|
|
On August 09 2012 10:21 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 10:15 xDaunt wrote:On August 09 2012 10:11 Defacer wrote:On August 09 2012 09:31 Probulous wrote:On August 09 2012 08:50 darthfoley wrote:
What hasn't Mitt Romney lied or flip flopped about? Why would anyone want a president who's made complete 360's on every major policy to pander to whoever?
it's comical. So he ends up where he started? 360's look impressive too. What's wrong with that  Happy Birthday. Maybe he's referring to THIS 360. So, it's come to this. Today, a spokeswoman for Mitt Romney responded to an attack ad disseminated by a super PAC supporting President Barack Obama. The ad was a controversial broadside, worthy of a response. The spokeswoman spoke against the ad with conviction. She offered a counter argument that was precise and logical and fair. The spokeswoman cleanly invoked her candidate's greatest legislative achievement, in an eminently reasonable way, in her candidate's defense.
And that spokeswoman's response is being hailed as one of the 2012 campaign season's most collossal cock-ups.
In the immediate aftermath of the ad's deployment, the Romney camp issued a relatively standard response, referring to the ad as dishonest and accusing the president and his allies of using such attacks to distract from economic issues. And nothing more might have come of this had Romney's team stuck to that story.
But on Fox News this morning, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul went "off-script," and amid a larger declaration about the ad being despicable and some pushback on the facts of the ad, she offered this statement in Romney's defense: "To that point, if people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney's health care plan, they would have had health care."
After that came the deluge of conservatives savaging Saul for getting lost on the road to Damascus, essentially accusing her of giving away the election.
The thing is, though, Saul's logic in citing Romney's creation and implementation of CommonwealthCare in Massachusetts is impeccable. Her baseline argument: If you are going to hit Romney with the Bain practices that allegedly led to this woman losing her health insurance, you surely must credit him for his legislative accomplishments, which enabled thousands of uninsured people to obtain life-saving care. That is, for the most part, pristine reasoning.
The only problem, of course, is that this wasn't offered in 2008, when it would have been hailed as a brilliant defense. We've once again come face to face with the perplexing weirdness at the center of Romney's entire presidential effort: in 2012, Romney is not allowed to run on the singular achievement of his career -- Massachusetts health care -- that earned him a spot in the world of GOP presidential contenders in the first place.
Yes, that was colossally stupid. She should be summarily fired from the campaign for incompetence. For telling the truth. It is a monumentally stupid thing to say from a political stance but it also happens to be true. Poor Romney, must be so hard to run a campaign like this.
He did it to himself, i don't feel sorry for him at all. It's amazing that once you flip flop positions 5 times (per issue), hypocrisy is found by the media!
|
But on the other side, here's the Obama campaign saying they don't know anything about the guy.
Asked about the Priorities spot on MSNBC Wednesday morning, Robert Gibbs said he doesn’t “know the specifics” while Stephanie Cutter said on CNN: “I don’t know the facts about when Mr. Soptic’s wife got sick or the facts about his health insurance.”
And Jen Psaki told reporters on Air Force One that “we don't' have any knowledge of the story of the family,” according to Yahoo! News.
But Cutter hosted an Obama campaign conference call in May in which Soptic told reporters the very story featured in the Priorities spot.
Both the campaign and the Priorities USA Action said there was no coordination about Soptic’s appearances. In the campaign’s ad, Soptic speaks only about the plant. In the Priorities spot, he tells the personal story he relayed during the Obama campaign conference call.
“We have no idea when Priorities shot their spot,” an Obama campaign official said. “We’re not allowed to coordinate with them – but we can tell you it wasn’t when we shot ours.”
The aide didn’t answer questions about when the Obama campaign shot its Soptic footage or explain Cutter’s televised statement.
Obama campaign Ben LaBolt responds: "As you know, we can’t coordinate with super PACs and didn’t produce the Priorities ad. Many workers around the country have a story to tell about what happened to their jobs and benefits when Mitt Romney and his partners made millions in profits by loading up companies up with debt, forcing them into bankruptcy. Joe Soptic suffered when he lost his job in the aftermath of the GST Steel plant closing, and no one is denying that he discussed that when he appeared in a campaign advertisement and on a conference call. The important point here is that Mitt Romney’s campaign is based solely on his experience as a corporate buyout specialist, and while he has been quick to claim he created jobs, he refuses to accept responsibility for the jobs that were lost and workers that were impacted."
So...the Obama campaign doesn't know a guy that they featured in an ad they produced was also in an ad that their Super PAC produced? C'mon.
|
Looks like the race to the bottom has begun. Who is the most incompetent, we'll find out come November 
|
Bring on the debates already!
|
Santorum was totally right. Romney is the worst candidate, specifically for healthcare... I was always surprised he got thrashed for that particular statement. I guess the media just sensationalized it and took it out of context. Because he really did have a point. How is Romney supposed to win this thing when Obamacare is not at all on the table for the attack and Romneycare is not at all on the table for defense.
Those are some of the strongest policy points!
|
I have zero understanding of politics or country management.
Now that that's out of the way, I will not vote for Obama. I am hoping to get into the military soon. Obama plans to reduce the military to barebones spending, something I am strongly against. I also have seen very little change in what Obama has done. I have seen things get worse, therefore I will cast my vote for someone else.
|
On August 09 2012 11:37 OpTiKAiTech wrote:
I have zero understanding of politics or country management.
Now that that's out of the way, I will not vote for Obama. I am hoping to get into the military soon. Obama plans to reduce the military to barebones spending, something I am strongly against. I also have seen very little change in what Obama has done. I have seen things get worse, therefore I will cast my vote for someone else.
This is one of the best things that could happen to this country. We spend absurd amounts of money on defense, at the sacrifice of education/healthcare etc. While I strongly respect the service the military provides, the ratio at which this country spends on defense is atrocious.
|
I'm not sure. I mean, I see what you're saying, I completely understand that. But also, everything that I have read. There are a lot of countries that really hate us. Like real hate that they breed their children to hate the U.S. I'm just a little nervous at how much Obama will cut..
EDIT: Also with the European debt crisis and our own economy crisis, I just think things are going very badly right now all over the world. I don't know what will happen. I think that some serious wars will start within the next few years. I honestly just want the safety of the U.S. and it's people.
|
I see what you are saying but you have nothing to fear  U.S. could stop defense spending to 0 and still be ahead of the world for many years. Outside of the completely pacifist/neutral countries, The U.S. is the safest country to be in if a war were to ever break out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
just a little perspective for how far ahead we are, I think at some point we have to stop calling it "defense" spending.
Edit: I don't want defense to go to 0 lol that was just a hypothetical :p
wow the U.S. has spent 44% of the world military expenditure... 1 country...
|
On August 09 2012 11:44 OpTiKAiTech wrote:
I'm not sure. I mean, I see what you're saying, I completely understand that. But also, everything that I have read. There are a lot of countries that really hate us. Like real hate that they breed their children to hate the U.S. I'm just a little nervous at how much Obama will cut..
Honestly, Obama deserves a lot of credit for improving American's image abroad. Killing Bin Laden and taking a firm but reasonable stance against Iran has improved relations with allies you lost during the Bush Administration.
Obama's strategy of discreetly and specifically targeting terrorists, while publicly building consensus with other nations (even if it's just for appearances) has restored a lot of the moral authority that the US lost. If Obama chose to go to war with Iran, a lot of other nations, including Canada, would probably send troops with you.
On the flip side, Romney's recent cheap tough-guy rhetoric might charm conservative Jews and Zionists, but it's exactly the kind of shameless, irresponsible drum-beating that draws skepticism and wariness from traditional US allies.
To address your question of what would Obama cut from the military, I would think it would start with retiring unnecessary or outdated military bases that haven't been strategically relevant in 25 years.
US Military Bases in Germany
Edit: Also, as biologyMajor notes, your military is leaps and bounds more advanced than any other on the planet. There's not another first world nation that even comes close to matching US' arsenal. Unless America plans on going to war with the entire planet, you got nothing to worry about.
|
We out spend the next 14-15? Countries combined in defense. Obama could cut 80% of the military budget and we would still spend more than anyone. Or put it this way. We could cut 500 billion a year and still spend twice as much as china on defense/military. That's absurd.
|
On August 09 2012 05:15 mmR wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 05:12 Tarot wrote:On August 09 2012 05:09 mmR wrote:On August 09 2012 05:07 Gorsameth wrote:On August 09 2012 05:03 mmR wrote:
The whole troops being pulled out thing upsets me as well. I know people who are stationed in the Middle East still, where Obama campaigned on us being pulled out rapidly.
"The wars + tax cuts would be in effect regardless of who was in president." I totally agree! But the tax raises aren't necessarily a good thing. The top 50% of earners in America pays 100% of the taxes. This is just unfortunate because the super wealthy and wealthy get stuck with this negative image of not paying their "fair share". It seems like they have worked hard and earned what they have, when many of the not as fortunate give up on their jobs, quit, and live literally forever off of food stamps. lol
As for being in a depression, the market has not gotten significantly better since Obama has taken office. The "real" rate of unemployment is not 8% (this is apparently the percentage of those both willing AND able to work, not truly unemployed), but closer to 20%. This scares me.
Again, just the overarching image I receive as someone who doesn't like to listen to CNN liberal or Fox hyper-conservative rhetoric. Thoughts? While the US isnt doing that much better you also have to look at the rest of the world. Now im no financial expert and i dont follow it all as close as i can but the entire world is still pretty fucked. With the interconnection of modern day economics your not going to pull the US out if the rest of the world isnt doing well either. So why Obama? Why pick someone who has, seemingly, only worsened the overall American economic situation? The other choice seems even worse. As much as I'd like to agree, the Democratic party is based on the ideal that we need to tax more so we can spend more where the Republican party is based on less government and less spending period, and I really like this idea. Doesn't exaclty seem like Romney is the knight in shining white armor, of course, but his party seems to have the right ideas during this massive economic downturn. So, yes, I am 'hoping' that Romney decides to really stand for something or Obama decides to help the economy.
That's not an unreasonable position to hold.
However, with the state of the Republican party, you'd have to be a fool to vote for them. They've become hyper-partisan and more concerned with politicking than with any reasonable issues.
|
You have to also understand that a huge amount of defense spending is (often somewhat corrupt) government contractors, not actual military. Defense spending isn't necessarily on the military.
|
There is a difference between Defense spending and Military spending.
|
I can understand a lot of arguments, but I just can't understand an argument for our military/defense spending. You can go join the military, that's cool if you do, I respect those that choose to serve for the right reasons. But our military spending is freaking outrageous and unjustified.
I can't stand when people say we should cut social programs and freak out at the mention of military budget.
|
Honestly, I'm not too opposed to a large military budget because it's one of the few things we still have that incentivizes important technological/scientific advances. We've all but left scientists to die in this country given the state of our PhD/postdoc programs, but at least the military still does some valuable work. Curing tropical diseases in Vietnam, the internet, rocketry, etc. Also, GI Bill is good overall I suppose.
We could put more money directly into those programs, but when have we done reasonable things in this country?
|
On August 09 2012 12:41 Lightwip wrote:
Honestly, I'm not too opposed to a large military budget because it's one of the few things we still have that incentivizes important technological/scientific advances. We've all but left scientists to die in this country given the state of our PhD/postdoc programs, but at least the military still does some valuable work. Curing tropical diseases in Vietnam, the internet, rocketry, etc. Also, GI Bill is good overall I suppose.
We could put more money directly into those programs, but when have we done reasonable things in this country?
our defense spending is exactly what is hindering programs like NASA and scientific fields from growing imo. if the majority of research is done (or at least prioritized) to kill people more efficiently, it's easy to see where more natural sciences might get left behind...
|
On August 09 2012 12:30 BlueBird. wrote:
I can understand a lot of arguments, but I just can't understand an argument for our military/defense spending. You can go join the military, that's cool if you do, I respect those that choose to serve for the right reasons. But our military spending is freaking outrageous and unjustified.
I can't stand when people say we should cut social programs and freak out at the mention of military budget.
Especially when they seemed concerned over concepts such as "bureaucracy" and "waste". They want to cut social programs, but they say that won't effect any of us much because it's all so much "red tape" and "bureaucracy".
But mention cutting military spending, and you're immediately accused of weakening America. We give multiple billion-dollar, no-bid, crony contracts to companies like Halliburton, and the same people responsible for that want to tell us that we should cut Medicare because there's too much money wasted in it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4051-2004Jul21.html
That is just one example of real government waste and bureaucracy at its dirtiest. There are plenty of other stories out there -- like replacing $100,000 trucks because they got a flat tire. Easy to do when you're spending that money out of a never-ending trust coming from the ignorant taxpayers. Social programs are much more regulated and much easier to monitor than the crap we have going on in our military-industrial complex.
|
On August 09 2012 13:11 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 12:41 Lightwip wrote:
Honestly, I'm not too opposed to a large military budget because it's one of the few things we still have that incentivizes important technological/scientific advances. We've all but left scientists to die in this country given the state of our PhD/postdoc programs, but at least the military still does some valuable work. Curing tropical diseases in Vietnam, the internet, rocketry, etc. Also, GI Bill is good overall I suppose.
We could put more money directly into those programs, but when have we done reasonable things in this country? our defense spending is exactly what is hindering programs like NASA and scientific fields from growing imo. if the majority of research is done (or at least prioritized) to kill people more efficiently, it's easy to see where more natural sciences might get left behind...
The problems in science are more complex than a lack of a budget. There's some serious politics going on there and frankly, it's a bigger mess than anyone thinks it is. It's not really a big button political issue because few people know what's actually going on in the actual line of work.
Our current model of research goes back to reforms under FDR I believe. Essentially, he asked a few important scholars what would be important to the future of American science. They suggested a few reforms, including the current system of university-based research. Basically, there was only a single reform that they failed to get passed, one of the most critical: stability in funding. A lot of the problems with modern research stem back to this problem.
Throughout the FDR years, we had WWII. We needed quite a few scientists for that for pretty much everything that war asks for. After that, we were in the major years of the Cold War. In terms of research, things went relatively well for pretty much 30-35 years.
Eventually, we reached the 70's. Cold War troubles started to die down, what with the internal troubles in the USSR and a general trend towards peace. The U.S. really lost all interest in spending money on science. Want to know why we picked the space shuttle project? It was the cheapest of the cheapest of the myriad of space programs proposed for the future. We've even started to retire that. Look at how cheap we are with space programs nowadays.
So it has been a downward trend since the 70s or so, but it never got better. The Cold War ended, and more of the same happened. Prominent scientists warned about the dismal state of chemistry in the 1990s. It's only gotten worse since then.
How does the field look now? Absolutely dismal, really. The problem in the start was only a lack of stability in funding, but the politics have really caught up to the research as well. It's starting to take longer and longer to finish a PhD program in the hard sciences for a number of reasons. Funding is relatively low and students spend quite a lot of time doing grunt work and in general just anything that the professor in charge wants. This continues through the postdoc phase as well. Grant money basically follows the current fads in research and the system discourages any meaningful cooperation or quality of work from researchers (publish or perish = publish anything you possibly can no matter how useful it happens to be).
Professorship is in a pretty poor position for the sciences. You're never getting a well-paying position if you don't have pedigree (there's a lot of postdocs looking for that position, so name brand becomes important), and after you do manage to get one of those positions, you're pretty much out of luck if you don't pass tenure review. Industry is even worse; a job with a 40k salary and no benefits/room for advancement is lucky nowadays for a PhD in one of the hard sciences. A lot of these guys choose to go towards greener pastures if they happen to be in a well-known school and are offered a well-paying finance job.
This is really quite a mess that would need some reform to fix. But the biggest problem is that we're absolutely missing the point. Everyone campaigns on additional education so that we can pump out more scientists when we already have many more than we need. Our education problem is the worst students; our best are just as smart as the best in any other country, but we have quite a few more of them.
Basically, to fix the system, we'd need 3 things:
1. To realize what the root of the problem really is.
2. Reform the current system of education to stop overproduction and take away pressure to work inefficiently at the higher levels of science.
3. Guarantee stable funding for research.
None of these three are going to happen any time in the near future, so we might as well look to the one stable source of technological advancement in our country: the military.
|
So we should extremely overpay on all of the military and defense, not just the research/science part of it, so we can keep the research/science part cause the rest of our countries policies towards science suck?
I find it hard to believe the majority of that money is going to r&d, maybe half of it is, and if it is, I find it hard to believe it's anywhere near efficiently spent. We could do much much better in the sciences with that money, and probably improve social programs as well as reduce the nations debt, all in one fell swoop if we cut the funding for the military in half. Oh and we would probably still be more armed and dangerous then every other nation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
