I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Bush: "Iraq has WOMD" Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol. He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever. Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product. Scary times.
Shame one of them will win. America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote: I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Bush: "Iraq has WOMD" Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol. He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever. Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product. Scary times.
Shame one of them will win. America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain.
I've met Herman. While he's a nice guy and has an incredible presence, I'm glad he's not a presidential candidate.
On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote: I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Bush: "Iraq has WOMD" Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol. He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever. Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product. Scary times.
Shame one of them will win. America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain.
I've met Herman. While he's a nice guy and has an incredible presence, I'm glad he's not a presidential candidate.
I did as well, in Ga (where he is from). I like how he has no problem talking to normal people and doesn't feel entitled. But most of all I liked his policies.
On August 26 2012 00:32 SayGen wrote: I refuse to vote for Obama cause he lied, like the 2 presidnets before him.
Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" Bush: "Iraq has WOMD" Obama: "I will not raise taxes"
I can't vote for Romney cause he sort of lied to about what exactly he knew about Bain Capitol. He did alot of dodging.
And Obama just screwed me with a 250-500$ tax increase every year-- the largest tax increase ever. Obamacare- The first time in American history the goverment can force you to buy a product. Scary times.
Shame one of them will win. America, the country i've served 5+ years of military duty is on a massive decline.
Wish we had Hermain Cain.
Uhhh... well State Governments force you to buy shit all the time. Like Romneycare... the precursor to Obamacare? Although it's just a necessary fix if we're going to have the private health insurance industry that (apparently) we want as Americans.
I just love the way Romney defends the individual mandate. I know it's old news, but it always makes me smile:
On August 25 2012 14:17 ref4 wrote: I vote for Obama because he (most) likely won't cut science funding X_X
here's to hoping I am correct, NIH and NSF funds are drying up too fast and too much, tough time being a scientist when your country spends more money on air condition for troops than in investing in humanity's future.
Obama is bad for basic science. He's putting more money in science but only for very specific problems such as curing cancer, alternative energy, or building new drones. So if you're asking something more basic that doesn't necessarily get you closer to those things, then your funding will get cut.
Is that good or bad for science? It depends on your perspective. Certainly this way provides some discipline to science by forcing it to answer specific questions. At the same time, you might argue that it stifles creativity and the essence of science because it forces that kind of discipline rather than providing intellectual freedom for scientists to explore new territory. But with tight budgets and a lack of public breakthroughs (Curiosity notwithstanding), Obama doesn't want to get caught funding IgNobel Prizes.
It's not like Romney would be any better though. At this point, a vote for either one will probably come at cuts to professional science projects. With Romney's plan of gutting all government programs, however, you're probably better off choosing Obama.
You don't know that. You have to look beyond the false dichotomy of red vs blue, "vote for my guy just because the other guy would be worse".
Romney has teased out stronger commitments to science and to more basic science than Obama. However, he hasn't said how he plans to reshuffle funding projects or whether he could spare science as he cuts other departments.
The irony is that many Democrats want Obama to focus MORE on specific projects such as medicine rather than on basic research about the cell.
On August 25 2012 14:17 ref4 wrote: I vote for Obama because he (most) likely won't cut science funding X_X
here's to hoping I am correct, NIH and NSF funds are drying up too fast and too much, tough time being a scientist when your country spends more money on air condition for troops than in investing in humanity's future.
Obama is bad for basic science. He's putting more money in science but only for very specific problems such as curing cancer, alternative energy, or building new drones. So if you're asking something more basic that doesn't necessarily get you closer to those things, then your funding will get cut.
Is that good or bad for science? It depends on your perspective. Certainly this way provides some discipline to science by forcing it to answer specific questions. At the same time, you might argue that it stifles creativity and the essence of science because it forces that kind of discipline rather than providing intellectual freedom for scientists to explore new territory. But with tight budgets and a lack of public breakthroughs (Curiosity notwithstanding), Obama doesn't want to get caught funding IgNobel Prizes.
It's not like Romney would be any better though. At this point, a vote for either one will probably come at cuts to professional science projects. With Romney's plan of gutting all government programs, however, you're probably better off choosing Obama.
You don't know that. You have to look beyond the false dichotomy of red vs blue, "vote for my guy just because the other guy would be worse".
Romney has teased out stronger commitments to science and to more basic science than Obama. However, he hasn't said how he plans to reshuffle funding projects or whether he could spare science as he cuts other departments.
The irony is that many Democrats want Obama to focus MORE on specific projects such as medicine rather than on basic research about the cell.
I don't understand how this is a false dichotomy at all. Whether or not it's indicative of a broken electoral system (obvious answer), there are only two ballot choices that matter. You can vote for who you actually want to win, but it's either a waste of time (in a red/blue state) or a waste of a vote (in a swing state).
And, on a related note, I know [way too] many people that have let themselves be fooled into thinking that a vote for Romney is good because he "can't possibly be worse than Obama."
On August 25 2012 14:17 ref4 wrote: I vote for Obama because he (most) likely won't cut science funding X_X
here's to hoping I am correct, NIH and NSF funds are drying up too fast and too much, tough time being a scientist when your country spends more money on air condition for troops than in investing in humanity's future.
Obama is bad for basic science. He's putting more money in science but only for very specific problems such as curing cancer, alternative energy, or building new drones. So if you're asking something more basic that doesn't necessarily get you closer to those things, then your funding will get cut.
Is that good or bad for science? It depends on your perspective. Certainly this way provides some discipline to science by forcing it to answer specific questions. At the same time, you might argue that it stifles creativity and the essence of science because it forces that kind of discipline rather than providing intellectual freedom for scientists to explore new territory. But with tight budgets and a lack of public breakthroughs (Curiosity notwithstanding), Obama doesn't want to get caught funding IgNobel Prizes.
It's not like Romney would be any better though. At this point, a vote for either one will probably come at cuts to professional science projects. With Romney's plan of gutting all government programs, however, you're probably better off choosing Obama.
Is it just me or is it kind of sad that he's voting on who will give him more free shit? And we wonder why we're in so much debt...
getting more "free shit" is very much a top incentive for voters, especially uneducated ones who are unable to recognise the feasibility and ramifications of each proposition.
i don't see a problem with people basing their votes on what they perceive they will receive the most from, it's only logical and a primary form of self-preservation. just my 2cents anyway
And I think this is sad.
Why is this sad? The United States is not some poor, destitute, impoverished nation the way people like to make it out to be. We are not Somalia or Kygyzstan or Moldova or something. The United States is an extremely wealthy country, in terms of natural resources, in terms of arable land, in terms of finance, in terms of trade, etc. We can afford to provide an awful lot for our citizens, but choose not to. If anything, the biggest problem is that people DON'T base their vote on who they think will give them the most, but instead on who they think will deprive others of the most. Even if you believe in all the antiquated ideas of our Founding Fathers, Madison himself felt that the government would function properly because opposing parties would represent the interests of their respective constituents, tempered by checks on pure democracy. But instead there are people today who advocate that parties should NOT even represent the interests of the majority of their constituents, and what's more, that people shouldn't even vote in their own interests! That's not republicanism at all, it's just elevating worship of the rich to some sort of cult.
Haven't been in this thread for a while. Decided to take a break because I found myself getting too pissy
Anyhoo, can anyone explain to be me about how the nomination process and delegates work in America? There seems to be a lot of hulabaloo around Romney's rule changes prior to the convention, but frankly I'm not sure I completely understand the implications.
Romney Rules Changes Could Spark GOP Convention Floor Fight
[b]Romney campaign pushes rules change that has the grassroots livid — and trying to force a fight at the convention on Monday.
TAMPA — Frustration over changes to the Republican Party's rules pushed through by the Romney Campaign on Friday may lead to a fight on the floor of the Republican National Convention on Monday.
The Convention Committee on Rules took a number of steps on Friday to weaken the power of state conventions and state parties, while consolidating the power of presidential candidates in the nominating process. Some of the changes — to require that delegations from statewide caucuses and primaries to the convention adhere to the will of voters — weakened the hand of insurgent-type candidates but have been well received by the committee. But a change allowing presidential candidates the right to vet their own delegates to the national convention has many state party officials up in arms — and they are planning to bring it to the convention floor.
The change, pushed by the Romney campaign's top lawyer Ben Ginsburg originally allowed candidates to select all the delegates bound to them in state contests. Now it allows candidates to refuse the delegate, requiring another in his or her stead to be selected by the state.
"The bottom line is that the change adopted today essentially allows the Presidential campaigns to pick there own delegates, which makes it a complete insider's ballgame and allows a bunch of Washington D.C. consultants to decide who does and doesn't get to be a delegate," said South Carolina delegate Drew McKissick.
McKissick is leading an effort to bring a "minority report" to the convention floor on Monday — essentially offering an amendment stripping the Ginsberg-backed changes from the Party rules and giving candidates no rights with respect to their delegates. The provision would also reinstate language requiring that all primaries and caucuses held before April 1 bind delegates proportionally, rather than winner-take-all — a measure to elongate the primary process.
McKissick told BuzzFeed late Friday that he has the votes to bring the minority report to the floor, setting the stage for debate and a vote on the rules changes on Monday.
The incident highlights the at-times tenuous grip Romney has on the grassroots and political organizations of his party. The coalition opposing the amendment includes Ron Paul supporters and state party officials who see the effort as overreach by national campaigns into the workings of their state.
One delegate raised the possibility of calling for a time-consuming roll call vote on the issue, which would require a majority of the delegations of six states.
[/b]
All I can really say is that it seems consistent with everything I've read about Romney, his advisors, and his style of adminstration. While Obama is known for leaning on a highly combative, opinionated boys club -- Emanuel, Gibbs and Biden come to mind -- Romney is known for keeping people around that are close to him in age, values, culture. A big reason why Romney picked Ryan is that his the same privileged, handsome, highly conservative white-bread family man he is.
Obama thrives on differences and eccentricity, while Romney loves homogenity and scrubbing dissent and differences out.
RNC is exactly the kind of insider baseball that groups like the tea party hoped to reform. Let me tell you from my dealings with the ultra corrupt California Republican Party leadership that they would like nothing better than to decide on their candidate without the aid of the primary process. Let me say it again, at the highest levels right now, it was seen preferable for the highest leadership to decide on which candidate to send in (presidential and other races) and unite the money behind him and all that. The way I see this is Romney changing the rules he sees are bad, aka leaving his impact on the Republican party now that he's their only hope. Until he gives his view why this is necessary (probably in unbroadcast portions of the convention, but will be available after), I will hold judgement on whether these changes are a good idea to stop something wrong going on, or more insider politics.
Speaking of what Obama thrives on, a documentary recently opened on him to try to explain these eccentricities. Strangely enough, even with its very limited release to theatres actually made 4th place
1. The Expendables 2 (Millenium/Lionsgate) Week 2 [3,355 Runs] R Friday $3.7M (-64%), Weekend $12.3M, Cume $51.2M
4. 2016 Obama’s America (Rocky Mountain) NEW [1,091 Runs] PG Friday $2.2M, Weekend $5.7M, Cume $8.6M
5. The Campaign (Warner Bros) Week 3 [3,302 Runs] R Friday $2.2, Weekend $7.0M, Cume $64.2M
I've seen enough of what he seeks to do with his presidential power to not be interested in a documentary on the man, but, though its definitely a conservative release, it has been recommended to me by both democratic friends and independents. Garnering that much money from so limited a release is really surprising. Article has more.
Now about how I view Romney's team ... the way he has run his campaign. I agree with his choice of Ryan as it shows he is serious about entitlement reform. His biggest fault in my opinion is standing by his Massachusetts "Romneycare," so here's a vice presidential candidate that does more than just talk about reform. I disagreed with his pandering to all sides in the Primary campaign, continuing to alienate the conservative base and play it safe with moderates. So essentially, my vote for him in November will be yet again a vote for the guy I'm least opposed to. But I do like a successful, rich businessman that was good at making money that didn't spend the last 20 years commuting to Washington D.C. I would consider him a moderate that has conservative leanings. It'll take quite a future record to erase his past.
On August 26 2012 06:12 Defacer wrote: Anyhoo, can anyone explain to be me about how the nomination process and delegates work in America? There seems to be a lot of hulabaloo around Romney's rule changes prior to the convention, but frankly I'm not sure I completely understand the implications.
I can't lay out the exact details, but the GOP has been doing a lot of internal rule changes based on the last couple nominations. They didn't like 2008 because McCain won too easily and too early on, so that the Obama v Clinton debates got a lot more air time and gave Democrats too much of the spotlight. So they changed the rules to encourage more debates in the GOP race. The problem in 2012 is that the debates got too ugly and too divisive for Republicans. I mean, Santorum really went after Romney in a way that wasn't healthy for either candidate. And Ron Paul just won't give up, having outsized influence than he deserves. The nominating process gave lots of people a bad taste in their mouth about Romney and it didn't clarify anything at all about his policies.
Obama thrives on differences and eccentricity, while Romney loves homogenity and scrubbing dissent and differences out.
I have no idea who you think is eccentric and different in Obama's cabinet and why that's been a good thing.
On August 25 2012 14:17 ref4 wrote: I vote for Obama because he (most) likely won't cut science funding X_X
here's to hoping I am correct, NIH and NSF funds are drying up too fast and too much, tough time being a scientist when your country spends more money on air condition for troops than in investing in humanity's future.
Obama is bad for basic science. He's putting more money in science but only for very specific problems such as curing cancer, alternative energy, or building new drones. So if you're asking something more basic that doesn't necessarily get you closer to those things, then your funding will get cut.
Is that good or bad for science? It depends on your perspective. Certainly this way provides some discipline to science by forcing it to answer specific questions. At the same time, you might argue that it stifles creativity and the essence of science because it forces that kind of discipline rather than providing intellectual freedom for scientists to explore new territory. But with tight budgets and a lack of public breakthroughs (Curiosity notwithstanding), Obama doesn't want to get caught funding IgNobel Prizes.
It's not like Romney would be any better though. At this point, a vote for either one will probably come at cuts to professional science projects. With Romney's plan of gutting all government programs, however, you're probably better off choosing Obama.
You don't know that. You have to look beyond the false dichotomy of red vs blue, "vote for my guy just because the other guy would be worse".
Romney has teased out stronger commitments to science and to more basic science than Obama. However, he hasn't said how he plans to reshuffle funding projects or whether he could spare science as he cuts other departments.
The irony is that many Democrats want Obama to focus MORE on specific projects such as medicine rather than on basic research about the cell.
I don't understand how this is a false dichotomy at all. Whether or not it's indicative of a broken electoral system (obvious answer), there are only two ballot choices that matter. You can vote for who you actually want to win, but it's either a waste of time (in a red/blue state) or a waste of a vote (in a swing state).
And, on a related note, I know [way too] many people that have let themselves be fooled into thinking that a vote for Romney is good because he "can't possibly be worse than Obama."
It's a false dichotomy because you're just assuming Romney would be worse without looking at his track record or campaign promises. You don't seem to really care about the issue as a principle, you just want Romney to lose.
I don't care if lots of people do that, let's try to elevate the debate on TL. If you want to drink Kool-Aid, just go to the Daily Kos, you'll be much happier.
On August 25 2012 14:17 ref4 wrote: I vote for Obama because he (most) likely won't cut science funding X_X
here's to hoping I am correct, NIH and NSF funds are drying up too fast and too much, tough time being a scientist when your country spends more money on air condition for troops than in investing in humanity's future.
Obama is bad for basic science. He's putting more money in science but only for very specific problems such as curing cancer, alternative energy, or building new drones. So if you're asking something more basic that doesn't necessarily get you closer to those things, then your funding will get cut.
Is that good or bad for science? It depends on your perspective. Certainly this way provides some discipline to science by forcing it to answer specific questions. At the same time, you might argue that it stifles creativity and the essence of science because it forces that kind of discipline rather than providing intellectual freedom for scientists to explore new territory. But with tight budgets and a lack of public breakthroughs (Curiosity notwithstanding), Obama doesn't want to get caught funding IgNobel Prizes.
It's not like Romney would be any better though. At this point, a vote for either one will probably come at cuts to professional science projects. With Romney's plan of gutting all government programs, however, you're probably better off choosing Obama.
You don't know that. You have to look beyond the false dichotomy of red vs blue, "vote for my guy just because the other guy would be worse".
Romney has teased out stronger commitments to science and to more basic science than Obama. However, he hasn't said how he plans to reshuffle funding projects or whether he could spare science as he cuts other departments.
The irony is that many Democrats want Obama to focus MORE on specific projects such as medicine rather than on basic research about the cell.
I don't understand how this is a false dichotomy at all. Whether or not it's indicative of a broken electoral system (obvious answer), there are only two ballot choices that matter. You can vote for who you actually want to win, but it's either a waste of time (in a red/blue state) or a waste of a vote (in a swing state).
And, on a related note, I know [way too] many people that have let themselves be fooled into thinking that a vote for Romney is good because he "can't possibly be worse than Obama."
It's a false dichotomy because you're just assuming Romney would be worse without looking at his track record or campaign promises. You don't seem to really care about the issue as a principle, you just want Romney to lose.
I don't care if lots of people do that, let's try to elevate the debate on TL. If you want to drink Kool-Aid, just go to the Daily Kos, you'll be much happier.
You can either vote red, or blue, or waste a vote (if it would have mattered). That's actual dichotomy. If I'd said "Too many people let themselves be fooled into thinking a vote for Obama is good because he 'can't possibly be worse than Romney'" the point would have been the same.
Good effort, though. (Not really.) You should try responding without assuming what I'm basing my own stance on, after you figure out what my actual stance is. Not that that's relevant to what I said, though you seem to want it to be.
EDIT: And, to clarify, I didn't go with the "Obama > Romney" example because I don't know many (if any) people who've said that. My state is red, the people around me generally support Romney. And yes, by the way, I do want Romney to lose. Part of that is spite (I'm very spiteful, for comedy's sake), but part of that is that I just don't like his ideas. But, oh lord, far be it from you to understand that anyone might actually consider Obama a better candidate, it seems. Or that anyone who would vote for Obama actually understands the words Romney says.
On August 26 2012 14:06 DoubleReed wrote: Dichotomy means two choices, like Dilemma. If you're choices are Red, Blue, or Waste-a-Vote/Abstain then that's not a dichotomy.
Obama is the better candidate by far. I'll certainly be voting for him because of that.
Ok. That's fair, I suppose. I don't entirely agree with considering "Do Nothing" as a productive choice (*coughcongress*), though you're right, it is a choice.
But, if you want to have a say in who the next president is (<--new qualifier), you have to be voting in a swing state, and you have two choices, in which case my original point stands.
Either requirement alone would be frustrating enough, I think.
On August 25 2012 14:17 ref4 wrote: I vote for Obama because he (most) likely won't cut science funding X_X
here's to hoping I am correct, NIH and NSF funds are drying up too fast and too much, tough time being a scientist when your country spends more money on air condition for troops than in investing in humanity's future.
Obama is bad for basic science. He's putting more money in science but only for very specific problems such as curing cancer, alternative energy, or building new drones. So if you're asking something more basic that doesn't necessarily get you closer to those things, then your funding will get cut.
Is that good or bad for science? It depends on your perspective. Certainly this way provides some discipline to science by forcing it to answer specific questions. At the same time, you might argue that it stifles creativity and the essence of science because it forces that kind of discipline rather than providing intellectual freedom for scientists to explore new territory. But with tight budgets and a lack of public breakthroughs (Curiosity notwithstanding), Obama doesn't want to get caught funding IgNobel Prizes.
It's not like Romney would be any better though. At this point, a vote for either one will probably come at cuts to professional science projects. With Romney's plan of gutting all government programs, however, you're probably better off choosing Obama.
Is it just me or is it kind of sad that he's voting on who will give him more free shit? And we wonder why we're in so much debt...
getting more "free shit" is very much a top incentive for voters, especially uneducated ones who are unable to recognise the feasibility and ramifications of each proposition.
i don't see a problem with people basing their votes on what they perceive they will receive the most from, it's only logical and a primary form of self-preservation. just my 2cents anyway
And I think this is sad.
Why is this sad? The United States is not some poor, destitute, impoverished nation the way people like to make it out to be. We are not Somalia or Kygyzstan or Moldova or something. The United States is an extremely wealthy country, in terms of natural resources, in terms of arable land, in terms of finance, in terms of trade, etc. We can afford to provide an awful lot for our citizens, but choose not to. If anything, the biggest problem is that people DON'T base their vote on who they think will give them the most, but instead on who they think will deprive others of the most. That's not republicanism at all, it's just elevating worship of the rich to some sort of cult.
The problem is in the give fish/learn to catch the fish department.
Instead of voting and demanding more opportunities to work better yourself and become better of, people just want somebody else to work and provide for the them, because it is easier.
The problem is, in the end, society only has as much resourses to distribute as the amount of work is done.
It is not just about the rich. Nobody wants most of their work getting sucked by the "public". Especially considering the punitive tax brackets and wellfare based on the poorness, so if you have money, you`re not ellighable for many services that you actually pay for with your taxes.
I have no idea who you think is eccentric and different in Obama's cabinet and why that's been a good thing.
Let's look at two examples, one for each candidate.
A popular example is Rahm Emanuel urging Obama NOT to push for Health Reform in his first term, because he felt it was political suicide. When his dissent leaked and hit the press, Rahm knew this could potentially hurt the administration, and he offered Obama his resignation. Obama refused it, saying, "Your punishment is to see this through and help reform healthcare."
On the other hand, Romney originally had a foreign policy advisor, Richard Grenell, on his campaign. Grenell was a career neocon, a rising talent and holdover from the Bush adminstration, and as hard-right as they come. He also happened to openly gay. After a small-time Christian radio host bitched and moaned about this 'infiltration', Romney unceremonious fired him from the campaign.
Obama is notorious for being too pensive, too 'balanced', and actually enjoying hearing and arguing multiple sides of an issue.
Romney can't be bothered to defend or fight for people that represent his interests, as soon as they pose a threat to his image.
So, to answer your question, it all depends on your philosophy on leadership, and your personal preference.
Would you want a boss that you can disagree with openly -- hell, the kind of boss that gets more annoyed if you have a problem but don't say anything?
OR
Do you prefer a boss that expects everyone to think, act, look, smell, and live like them, and will throw you under the bus at the drop of a hat to cover their own ass?
Here's a quote from that radio host, bragging about how he managed to bully Romney so easily.
Bryan Fischer, issue director at the American Family Association, a conservative group opposed to same-sex marriage, bragged about his role in the episode.
"It's very clear from the Washington Post that he resigned because of pressure that was put on the Romney campaign by the pro-family community," he said on his radio show, Focal Point. "So ladies and gentlemen, this is a huge win, and it's a huge win for us in regard to Mitt Romney, because Mitt Romney has been forced to say, 'Look, I overstepped my bounds here, I went outside my parameters here, I went off the reservation with this hire, the pro-family community has called me back to the table here, called me back inside the borders of the reservation.'"
Fischer then boasted, "There is no way in the world that Mitt Romney is going to put a homosexual activist in any position of importance in his campaign."
EPT
