|
|
On September 12 2012 07:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 05:28 Signet wrote:Probably also because, historically, the religious position on abortion hasn't been so one-sided. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/02/18/the-biblical-view-thats-younger-than-the-happy-meal/In the US, Catholics may also be more wary about breaching the separation of church and state, since it wasn't that long ago that Catholicism itself was frowned upon by the Protestant majority in this country. (this would probably apply more to gay marriage than to abortion, since the latter is seen as an issue of life-or-death, while the former is about who gets what legal rights) that is a slightly disingenuous article. i can see why they wouldn't excommunicate people, and i half approve of their (and your) reasoning, but at the same time... it's kinda weird not to.
I don't find the article totally convincing myself, and there has been an anti-abortion movement that predates the 20th century. It's just the other side of the coin. But it is true that there has historically been a debate within the Christian religion over when life begins / when the soul enters the body. It's more interesting when those arguments aren't arrived at backwards to justify a position for/against abortion, as they mostly are today.
|
The new Egyptian developments might make stuff interesting, if the situation deteriorates
|
On September 12 2012 09:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:I dunno during office when you look at what he did it is hard to argue he wasn't a good president during his period in office.
I'd honestly be hard pressed to remember very many progressive policies during his term. There was FMLA, but considering how I was fired and denied unemployment a week into my FMLA leave, I would say it's a fairly toothless piece of legislation.
The best thing that came from his 8 years, was a strong showing by the fed up left for Nader in '00. Maybe we'll see it again after another 8 years of a Democrat administration?
|
On September 12 2012 07:59 xDaunt wrote:
I'm kinda surprised by Obama's handling of the Israel-Iran situation. He has let the situation devolve to a point where there it is obvious to everyone that there is a rather large rift between the US and Israel.
Me too.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is using the election to his advantage, by playing both sides and backing them (and the US) into the position that he wants. He knows that the Israel-Iran conflict is a political football that might impact how people vote.
Romney has already folded like a cheap rug, and now he's trying to get Obama to roll as well. Israel is inching closer and closer to pre-emptively attacking Iran, and Netanyahu wants to US to clean up the mess.
|
On September 12 2012 09:32 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 09:20 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On September 12 2012 08:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I feel Romney is in a lose/lose situation as far as details go. If he said he wants to reform social security for example, even though it's absolutely needed he will get killed by the irrational elderly vote. As soon as your start giving out details you open yourself up to all sorts of criticism and nitpicking and fear mongering. Of course he loses as well by keeping quiet, but loses much less.
Talking about a "secretary of explaining stuff" implies that the American people actually want to or are capable of understanding complicated issues, which I feel is a false assumption. The article seems to mention "armloads of statistics" about how Obama's policies help people, so sounds more like "secretary of spin" to me. This is a funny post. You say it's bad for Romney's chances at election if he actually is specific about his policies. If they were good policies, one would think it would benefit him to explain them, no? Not really. People are often opposed to "good" reforms if it affects them in a negative way. Ex: We need to raise taxes on everyone to pay down the debt. But no one wants THEIR taxes raised.
Thats kind of my point. His policies are negative for your average voter. --> don't vote Romney.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 12 2012 10:12 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 09:32 RJGooner wrote:On September 12 2012 09:20 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On September 12 2012 08:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I feel Romney is in a lose/lose situation as far as details go. If he said he wants to reform social security for example, even though it's absolutely needed he will get killed by the irrational elderly vote. As soon as your start giving out details you open yourself up to all sorts of criticism and nitpicking and fear mongering. Of course he loses as well by keeping quiet, but loses much less.
Talking about a "secretary of explaining stuff" implies that the American people actually want to or are capable of understanding complicated issues, which I feel is a false assumption. The article seems to mention "armloads of statistics" about how Obama's policies help people, so sounds more like "secretary of spin" to me. This is a funny post. You say it's bad for Romney's chances at election if he actually is specific about his policies. If they were good policies, one would think it would benefit him to explain them, no? Not really. People are often opposed to "good" reforms if it affects them in a negative way. Ex: We need to raise taxes on everyone to pay down the debt. But no one wants THEIR taxes raised. Thats kind of my point. His policies are negative for your average voter. --> don't vote Romney.
I think what he's trying to say is that the average voter is very short-sighted, so while the reforms may benefit everyone in the long-term, if it hurts them in the short-term they'll be outraged. Obviously I disagree with what Ryan has proposed for entitlement reform but it is true that the average voter is very short-sighted.
|
On September 12 2012 09:29 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 09:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Does anyone have a good source on Obama's economic plans for the next four years? His website is mostly about what he did during his first term. Sec, let me ask Bill Clinton.  Honestly, I hate how Obama needs to rely on Clinton to do his dirty work. He needs to be out on the front lines addressing all of his plans and the details.
Think about it -- Obama could go into detail and defend his policies, but that's not going to change swing voter's minds, because of the assumed natural-bias Obama has for his own policies.
There is no better advocate than a third party that also happens to be a former president with a 60% approval rating. And the backstory that Clinton and Obama aren't even friends makes Clinton's argument even MORE powerful.
Clinton has no real incentive to help Obama. He's not perceived as towing the company line the way Pelosi or Reid or Emmanuel are. He was already president, and its obvious he's doesn't have to prove anything to anybody anymore. He certainly doesn't have to kiss Obama's ass. He has no political skin in the game.
Both campaigns have pointed to the Clinton administration as a period of bi-partisan prosperity. This, combined with his lack of obligation to the current administration, creates the perception that Clinton is an impartial, objective authority on policy and what it takes to be president in the eyes of swing voters (even if that's not actually true).
Clinton's defense of Obama has more credibility than Obama's own defense ever could. If Romney could get Clinton's endorsement, he would be doing backflips. In fact, I'm surprised Romney and his cronies haven't figured out a way to buy his endorsement.
|
For anyone interested in an alternative perspective, Jill Stein was on Bill Moyers talking about why she is running and more!
http://vimeo.com/49005697
|
On September 12 2012 10:25 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 10:12 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On September 12 2012 09:32 RJGooner wrote:On September 12 2012 09:20 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On September 12 2012 08:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I feel Romney is in a lose/lose situation as far as details go. If he said he wants to reform social security for example, even though it's absolutely needed he will get killed by the irrational elderly vote. As soon as your start giving out details you open yourself up to all sorts of criticism and nitpicking and fear mongering. Of course he loses as well by keeping quiet, but loses much less.
Talking about a "secretary of explaining stuff" implies that the American people actually want to or are capable of understanding complicated issues, which I feel is a false assumption. The article seems to mention "armloads of statistics" about how Obama's policies help people, so sounds more like "secretary of spin" to me. This is a funny post. You say it's bad for Romney's chances at election if he actually is specific about his policies. If they were good policies, one would think it would benefit him to explain them, no? Not really. People are often opposed to "good" reforms if it affects them in a negative way. Ex: We need to raise taxes on everyone to pay down the debt. But no one wants THEIR taxes raised. Thats kind of my point. His policies are negative for your average voter. --> don't vote Romney. I think what he's trying to say is that the average voter is very short-sighted, so while the reforms may benefit everyone in the long-term, if it hurts them in the short-term they'll be outraged. Obviously I disagree with what Ryan has proposed for entitlement reform but it is true that the average voter is very short-sighted.
I would describe it as Romney, and the right in general, making their case from a religious or social perspective, instead of being policy driven. I have an obvious bias, but it bothers me that the most obvious Republican selling points are usually centered around God and Christian values, instead of specific policies, plans, and numbers that will enhance education, economy, etc.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 12 2012 10:29 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 09:29 Souma wrote:On September 12 2012 09:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Does anyone have a good source on Obama's economic plans for the next four years? His website is mostly about what he did during his first term. Sec, let me ask Bill Clinton. Honestly, I hate how Obama needs to rely on Clinton to do his dirty work. He needs to be out on the front lines addressing all of his plans and the details. Think about it -- Obama could go into detail and defend his policies, but that's not going to change swing voter's minds, because of the assumed natural-bias Obama has for his own policies. There is no better advocate than a third party that also happens to be a former president with a 60% approval rating. And the backstory that Clinton and Obama aren't even friends makes Clinton's argument even MORE powerful. Clinton has no real incentive to help Obama. He's not perceived as towing the company line the way Pelosi or Reid or Emmanuel are. He was already president, and its obvious he's doesn't have to prove anything to anybody anymore. He certainly doesn't have to kiss Obama's ass. He has no political skin in the game. Both campaigns have pointed to the Clinton administration as a period of bi-partisan prosperity. This, combined with his lack of obligation to the current administration, creates the perception that Clinton is an impartial, objective authority on policy and what it takes to be president in the eyes of swing voters (even if that's not actually true). Clinton's defense of Obama has more credibility than Obama's own defense ever could. If Romney could get Clinton's endorsement, he would be doing backflips. In fact, I'm surprised Romney and his cronies haven't figured out a way to buy his endorsement.
There is no doubt Obama needs support from others to justify his policies (and that Clinton is an incredibly strong supporter); however, the problem comes even before that. Obama does not even mention some of his policies to the public. How many people here actually knew about the student loan thing before Clinton?
And even then, Obama still needs to go out and defend his policies alongside Clinton and others. While it may not affect swing voters as much as Clinton's defense, it shows the left that he is not sitting on his ass.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 12 2012 10:30 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 10:25 Souma wrote:On September 12 2012 10:12 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On September 12 2012 09:32 RJGooner wrote:On September 12 2012 09:20 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On September 12 2012 08:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I feel Romney is in a lose/lose situation as far as details go. If he said he wants to reform social security for example, even though it's absolutely needed he will get killed by the irrational elderly vote. As soon as your start giving out details you open yourself up to all sorts of criticism and nitpicking and fear mongering. Of course he loses as well by keeping quiet, but loses much less.
Talking about a "secretary of explaining stuff" implies that the American people actually want to or are capable of understanding complicated issues, which I feel is a false assumption. The article seems to mention "armloads of statistics" about how Obama's policies help people, so sounds more like "secretary of spin" to me. This is a funny post. You say it's bad for Romney's chances at election if he actually is specific about his policies. If they were good policies, one would think it would benefit him to explain them, no? Not really. People are often opposed to "good" reforms if it affects them in a negative way. Ex: We need to raise taxes on everyone to pay down the debt. But no one wants THEIR taxes raised. Thats kind of my point. His policies are negative for your average voter. --> don't vote Romney. I think what he's trying to say is that the average voter is very short-sighted, so while the reforms may benefit everyone in the long-term, if it hurts them in the short-term they'll be outraged. Obviously I disagree with what Ryan has proposed for entitlement reform but it is true that the average voter is very short-sighted. I would describe it as Romney, and the right in general, making their case from a religious or social perspective, instead of being policy driven. I have an obvious bias, but it bothers me that the most obvious Republican selling points are usually centered around God and Christian values, instead of specific policies, plans, and numbers that will enhance education, economy, etc.
In regards to the budget and entitlement reform, Romney-Ryan do want to talk numbers. It's just, if they do, they know they're going to catch a lot of backlash.
|
On September 12 2012 10:40 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 10:30 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On September 12 2012 10:25 Souma wrote:On September 12 2012 10:12 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On September 12 2012 09:32 RJGooner wrote:On September 12 2012 09:20 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On September 12 2012 08:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I feel Romney is in a lose/lose situation as far as details go. If he said he wants to reform social security for example, even though it's absolutely needed he will get killed by the irrational elderly vote. As soon as your start giving out details you open yourself up to all sorts of criticism and nitpicking and fear mongering. Of course he loses as well by keeping quiet, but loses much less.
Talking about a "secretary of explaining stuff" implies that the American people actually want to or are capable of understanding complicated issues, which I feel is a false assumption. The article seems to mention "armloads of statistics" about how Obama's policies help people, so sounds more like "secretary of spin" to me. This is a funny post. You say it's bad for Romney's chances at election if he actually is specific about his policies. If they were good policies, one would think it would benefit him to explain them, no? Not really. People are often opposed to "good" reforms if it affects them in a negative way. Ex: We need to raise taxes on everyone to pay down the debt. But no one wants THEIR taxes raised. Thats kind of my point. His policies are negative for your average voter. --> don't vote Romney. I think what he's trying to say is that the average voter is very short-sighted, so while the reforms may benefit everyone in the long-term, if it hurts them in the short-term they'll be outraged. Obviously I disagree with what Ryan has proposed for entitlement reform but it is true that the average voter is very short-sighted. I would describe it as Romney, and the right in general, making their case from a religious or social perspective, instead of being policy driven. I have an obvious bias, but it bothers me that the most obvious Republican selling points are usually centered around God and Christian values, instead of specific policies, plans, and numbers that will enhance education, economy, etc. In regards to the budget and entitlement reform, Romney-Ryan do want to talk numbers. It's just, if they do, they know they're going to catch a lot of backlash.
You say they want to, but they don't. If they do, they'll tell people their plan to give super wealthy people a large tax break, and make up the difference in critical federal budgets.
My point is, the reason they don't want to talk about their policies, is because their policies are shit.
|
On September 12 2012 10:40 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 10:30 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On September 12 2012 10:25 Souma wrote:On September 12 2012 10:12 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On September 12 2012 09:32 RJGooner wrote:On September 12 2012 09:20 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On September 12 2012 08:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I feel Romney is in a lose/lose situation as far as details go. If he said he wants to reform social security for example, even though it's absolutely needed he will get killed by the irrational elderly vote. As soon as your start giving out details you open yourself up to all sorts of criticism and nitpicking and fear mongering. Of course he loses as well by keeping quiet, but loses much less.
Talking about a "secretary of explaining stuff" implies that the American people actually want to or are capable of understanding complicated issues, which I feel is a false assumption. The article seems to mention "armloads of statistics" about how Obama's policies help people, so sounds more like "secretary of spin" to me. This is a funny post. You say it's bad for Romney's chances at election if he actually is specific about his policies. If they were good policies, one would think it would benefit him to explain them, no? Not really. People are often opposed to "good" reforms if it affects them in a negative way. Ex: We need to raise taxes on everyone to pay down the debt. But no one wants THEIR taxes raised. Thats kind of my point. His policies are negative for your average voter. --> don't vote Romney. I think what he's trying to say is that the average voter is very short-sighted, so while the reforms may benefit everyone in the long-term, if it hurts them in the short-term they'll be outraged. Obviously I disagree with what Ryan has proposed for entitlement reform but it is true that the average voter is very short-sighted. I would describe it as Romney, and the right in general, making their case from a religious or social perspective, instead of being policy driven. I have an obvious bias, but it bothers me that the most obvious Republican selling points are usually centered around God and Christian values, instead of specific policies, plans, and numbers that will enhance education, economy, etc. In regards to the budget and entitlement reform, Romney-Ryan do want to talk numbers. It's just, if they do, they know they're going to catch a lot of backlash.
I'm curious to know what you are basing that opinion on. Not the fact that they might catch a lot flak for talking numbers but the statement that they want to talk them in the first place.
So far they have stuck fairly close to the classic opposition style: "I'd do everything better but please don't ask me for details".
|
On September 12 2012 10:25 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 10:12 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On September 12 2012 09:32 RJGooner wrote:On September 12 2012 09:20 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On September 12 2012 08:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I feel Romney is in a lose/lose situation as far as details go. If he said he wants to reform social security for example, even though it's absolutely needed he will get killed by the irrational elderly vote. As soon as your start giving out details you open yourself up to all sorts of criticism and nitpicking and fear mongering. Of course he loses as well by keeping quiet, but loses much less.
Talking about a "secretary of explaining stuff" implies that the American people actually want to or are capable of understanding complicated issues, which I feel is a false assumption. The article seems to mention "armloads of statistics" about how Obama's policies help people, so sounds more like "secretary of spin" to me. This is a funny post. You say it's bad for Romney's chances at election if he actually is specific about his policies. If they were good policies, one would think it would benefit him to explain them, no? Not really. People are often opposed to "good" reforms if it affects them in a negative way. Ex: We need to raise taxes on everyone to pay down the debt. But no one wants THEIR taxes raised. Thats kind of my point. His policies are negative for your average voter. --> don't vote Romney. I think what he's trying to say is that the average voter is very short-sighted, so while the reforms may benefit everyone in the long-term, if it hurts them in the short-term they'll be outraged. Obviously I disagree with what Ryan has proposed for entitlement reform but it is true that the average voter is very short-sighted.
I'm saying the average person has no clue what hurts them or what benefits them. To continue my example, we could go for reform that doesn't affect anyone currently receiving social security. We could do like Obamacare and have no changes take effect for years, Romney could tell the entire country, "Listen, these changes to social security won't affect ANYONE currently receiving social security, it won't change your payments one penny!" And yet you would have literally thousands of seniors paranoid and up in arms thinking that their monthly checks are going to be taken away.
Politics is 100% about catering to really stupid, irrational people. That's why these graduates from Harvard and Yale say things like they oppose gay marriage or don't believe in evolution, not because they are really that fucking stupid, but because they don't want to lose the stupid vote. Smart people understand politics and understand politicians have to say, or NOT say, certain things to get elected. Going into details about reform is precisely the sort of thing you have to NOT say in order to get elected. Sure, you can offer a few crumbs that the vast majority of people support, but you can't say what is NECESSARY to say.
And you can't use your individual benefit as the sole barometer for what is good or bad in policy. We could send everyone in the country checks in the mail from the government, and that would benefit people immediately, and they would vote for it because they are too stupid to see that the nation would go bankrupt if we attempted it. People who say they oppose pure greed and selfishness sure start to sound pretty selfish when they talk about voting for anything that benefits them at the expense of other people or at the expense of the economic future of the country.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Their policies ARE shit, but Ryan has a history of talking about numbers before this campaign (someone mentioned before about Ryan getting Romneyized lately). I may have phrased it wrong when I said Romney "wants" to talk about them - I meant he probably can (or at least Ryan can), but he doesn't want to because he knows he'll endure a lot of backlash. And the brunt of that reasoning is because voters can be very short-sighted in regards to entitlement reform. I mean, hell, did you not see people up in arms when they thought Obama was going to remove $716 billion worth of benefits from Medicare?
|
On September 12 2012 10:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 10:25 Souma wrote:On September 12 2012 10:12 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On September 12 2012 09:32 RJGooner wrote:On September 12 2012 09:20 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On September 12 2012 08:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I feel Romney is in a lose/lose situation as far as details go. If he said he wants to reform social security for example, even though it's absolutely needed he will get killed by the irrational elderly vote. As soon as your start giving out details you open yourself up to all sorts of criticism and nitpicking and fear mongering. Of course he loses as well by keeping quiet, but loses much less.
Talking about a "secretary of explaining stuff" implies that the American people actually want to or are capable of understanding complicated issues, which I feel is a false assumption. The article seems to mention "armloads of statistics" about how Obama's policies help people, so sounds more like "secretary of spin" to me. This is a funny post. You say it's bad for Romney's chances at election if he actually is specific about his policies. If they were good policies, one would think it would benefit him to explain them, no? Not really. People are often opposed to "good" reforms if it affects them in a negative way. Ex: We need to raise taxes on everyone to pay down the debt. But no one wants THEIR taxes raised. Thats kind of my point. His policies are negative for your average voter. --> don't vote Romney. I think what he's trying to say is that the average voter is very short-sighted, so while the reforms may benefit everyone in the long-term, if it hurts them in the short-term they'll be outraged. Obviously I disagree with what Ryan has proposed for entitlement reform but it is true that the average voter is very short-sighted. I'm saying the average person has no clue what hurts them or what benefits them. To continue my example, we could go for reform that doesn't affect anyone currently receiving social security. We could do like Obamacare and have no changes take effect for years, Romney could tell the entire country, "Listen, these changes to social security won't affect ANYONE currently receiving social security, it won't change your payments one penny!" And yet you would have literally thousands of seniors paranoid and up in arms thinking that their monthly checks are going to be taken away. Politics is 100% about catering to really stupid, irrational people. That's why these graduates from Harvard and Yale say things like they oppose gay marriage or don't believe in evolution, not because they are really that fucking stupid, but because they don't want to lose the stupid vote. Smart people understand politics and understand politicians have to say, or NOT say, certain things to get elected. Going into details about reform is precisely the sort of thing you have to NOT say in order to get elected. Sure, you can offer a few crumbs that the vast majority of people support, but you can't say what is NECESSARY to say. And you can't use your individual benefit as the sole barometer for what is good or bad in policy. We could send everyone in the country checks in the mail from the government, and that would benefit people immediately, and they would vote for it because they are too stupid to see that the nation would go bankrupt if we attempted it. People who say they oppose pure greed and selfishness sure start to sound pretty selfish when they talk about voting for anything that benefits them at the expense of other people or at the expense of the economic future of the country.
Yet, the Obama campaign has been much more forthright with details. It's still dumbed down, but it's certainly a lot less vague than what Romney is offering. He seems to be doing well in the polls, so I don't think your theory of catering to the lowest common denominator is as universal as you say.
Like I said, I'm biased, but I have got the impression since the Bush administration that the right appeals to its voter base not through rationality or policy, but by religious values. Romney doesn't introduce his policies because his votes will be the result of people who are pro-God, pro-Christian, anti-abortion, and anti gay marriage. His other policies are irrelevant.
I think that's fucked up.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 12 2012 10:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 10:25 Souma wrote:On September 12 2012 10:12 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On September 12 2012 09:32 RJGooner wrote:On September 12 2012 09:20 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On September 12 2012 08:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I feel Romney is in a lose/lose situation as far as details go. If he said he wants to reform social security for example, even though it's absolutely needed he will get killed by the irrational elderly vote. As soon as your start giving out details you open yourself up to all sorts of criticism and nitpicking and fear mongering. Of course he loses as well by keeping quiet, but loses much less.
Talking about a "secretary of explaining stuff" implies that the American people actually want to or are capable of understanding complicated issues, which I feel is a false assumption. The article seems to mention "armloads of statistics" about how Obama's policies help people, so sounds more like "secretary of spin" to me. This is a funny post. You say it's bad for Romney's chances at election if he actually is specific about his policies. If they were good policies, one would think it would benefit him to explain them, no? Not really. People are often opposed to "good" reforms if it affects them in a negative way. Ex: We need to raise taxes on everyone to pay down the debt. But no one wants THEIR taxes raised. Thats kind of my point. His policies are negative for your average voter. --> don't vote Romney. I think what he's trying to say is that the average voter is very short-sighted, so while the reforms may benefit everyone in the long-term, if it hurts them in the short-term they'll be outraged. Obviously I disagree with what Ryan has proposed for entitlement reform but it is true that the average voter is very short-sighted. I'm saying the average person has no clue what hurts them or what benefits them. To continue my example, we could go for reform that doesn't affect anyone currently receiving social security. We could do like Obamacare and have no changes take effect for years, Romney could tell the entire country, "Listen, these changes to social security won't affect ANYONE currently receiving social security, it won't change your payments one penny!" And yet you would have literally thousands of seniors paranoid and up in arms thinking that their monthly checks are going to be taken away. Politics is 100% about catering to really stupid, irrational people. That's why these graduates from Harvard and Yale say things like they oppose gay marriage or don't believe in evolution, not because they are really that fucking stupid, but because they don't want to lose the stupid vote. Smart people understand politics and understand politicians have to say, or NOT say, certain things to get elected. Going into details about reform is precisely the sort of thing you have to NOT say in order to get elected. Sure, you can offer a few crumbs that the vast majority of people support, but you can't say what is NECESSARY to say. And you can't use your individual benefit as the sole barometer for what is good or bad in policy. We could send everyone in the country checks in the mail from the government, and that would benefit people immediately, and they would vote for it because they are too stupid to see that the nation would go bankrupt if we attempted it. People who say they oppose pure greed and selfishness sure start to sound pretty selfish when they talk about voting for anything that benefits them at the expense of other people or at the expense of the economic future of the country.
That comment was addressing RJGooner's statement.
I pretty much agree with what you are saying here. What I don't agree with is even more tax cuts for the rich when we KNOW it won't help (you can say that Romney and his politics are also catering to the rich, and not just stupid, irrational people), privatizing social security (which some conservative politicians have advocated, even Ryan iirc. Correct me if I'm wrong), and voucherizing Medicare. Those are bad policies. People have the right to be outraged.
|
On September 12 2012 10:53 Souma wrote:
Their policies ARE shit, but Ryan has a history of talking about numbers before this campaign (someone mentioned before about Ryan getting Romneyized lately). I may have phrased it wrong when I said Romney "wants" to talk about them - I meant he probably can (or at least Ryan can), but he doesn't want to because he knows he'll endure a lot of backlash. And the brunt of that reasoning is because voters can be very short-sighted in regards to entitlement reform. I mean, hell, did you not see people up in arms when they thought Obama was going to remove $716 billion worth of benefits from Medicare?
From what we've seen of Ryan's 'number talk' during this campaign, they are downright wacky. It shows a pretty blatant disregard for lower income citizens, which is why he's not talking.
We may be agreeing with each other, I'm not sure.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 12 2012 11:00 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 10:53 Souma wrote:
Their policies ARE shit, but Ryan has a history of talking about numbers before this campaign (someone mentioned before about Ryan getting Romneyized lately). I may have phrased it wrong when I said Romney "wants" to talk about them - I meant he probably can (or at least Ryan can), but he doesn't want to because he knows he'll endure a lot of backlash. And the brunt of that reasoning is because voters can be very short-sighted in regards to entitlement reform. I mean, hell, did you not see people up in arms when they thought Obama was going to remove $716 billion worth of benefits from Medicare? From what we've seen of Ryan's 'number talk' during this campaign, they are downright wacky. It shows a pretty blatant disregard for lower income citizens, which is why he's not talking. We may be agreeing with each other, I'm not sure.
I think we are. =)
|
On September 12 2012 09:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2012 09:08 HunterX11 wrote:On September 12 2012 09:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote:I dunno during office when you look at what he did it is hard to argue he wasn't a good president during his period in office. Just because the mess he helped create didn't take hold until he was out of office doesn't mean it's okay. If not for the 22nd amendment he'd probably have been re-elected and would've been around when the shit hit the fan (then again he probably also would have prevented 9/11 so there's that). The guy who passed up multiple opportunities to kill bin Laden would have prevented 9/11? Not only is this a hilariously stupid statement, but do you realize what today is?
After Nixon and before George W. Bush, extrajudicial assassination wasn't really considered a legitimate presidential power.
e: though Clinton did start extraordinary rendition but back then all of the torture was outsourced instead of just most of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
