On October 12 2012 00:52 SkelA wrote: Why do ppl care if Obama or Romney will get elected ? In the end everybody gets the same shit in a different package.
Politics is a joke and fake because you think you have a choice but you actually dont. In the end if I have to make a comparation then Politics = WWE .
At least thats my personal view on it .
yeahhhhh so if you think Mccain would of won that america would of gotten the ACA? or do you think that if romney gets elected road v wade is going to stick around? elections really do matter man
Don't worry, the Supreme Court won't be outlawing abortion ever, regardless of whom is elected.
On October 12 2012 04:59 sam!zdat wrote:
On October 12 2012 04:56 Deathmanbob wrote: road v wade
The landmark decision in which it was ruled that it is constitutional to cross a river on a bridge, but not by fording it.
Hahaha.
well what do you think will happen with a republican win? i believe there are 3-4 judges who are up for retirement within the next 4 years. Both sides will replace with judges with their views and i do not think abortion stands a chance with a very conservative court. I could be wrong though
Scalia and Thomas would reverse Roe v Wade. Alito might. I highly doubt that Roberts would. Kennedy won't. Unless some very conservative judges are appointed, Roe v Wade isn't going anywhere simply because of stare decisis issues.
We scare old people by talking about death panels. We scare southerners by talking about war on religion. Suggesting that Roe v Wade is going to be reversed strikes me as another ridiculous scare tactic not grounded in reality.
A woman makes it clear to the Obama campaign that she can vote in either Texas or Florida and wants to do so in both. Instead of telling her it is illegal, they seem to encourage her behavior.
Reporter: And there's no way they'd be able to cross reference the ballots? Obama Campaign: If you voted twice? Reporter: Yeah. Obama Campaign: I don't know this. That's not my expertise.
Reporter: Yea I don't want to get in any trouble but like I said if no one's gonna know Reporter: I don't have a problem with it. Reporter: Yea, so anyway - But - Obama Campaign: Oh my God this is so funny. It's cool though!
Reporter: But I was gonna see as far as all the registering for Florida - Obama Campaign: Mhm Reporter: Where do I get the forms to do that? Reporter: Or not registering but voting in Florida for the absentee - Obama Campaign: So what you'll have to do is you're going to call in to Florida. Reporter: Okay. Obama Campaign: And call - Let me see. Obama Campaign: Are you going to do what I think you are going to do? Reporter: Well I mean if no one's gonna know - Obama Campaign: Laughter Obama Campaign: You're so hilarious!
Forgot to mention the part where she specifically says she should just vote in Florida and not Texas, because Texas is going to be republican either way. If you actually watch the video she's just trying to be polite and nice and laughing along with this person who seems to be joking around too. The campaign person says she'll look into it and see what she can do without breaking the law.
As for the second part when she comes back in yes, she should probably be fired for not taking the person seriously and telling her she can only vote once.
Also I like how the "republican" person going to get forms so he can register people to vote for Romney is wearing a suit, blaring music and driving a super expensive car with a custom license plate. As he rolls up to the little rickety looking table outside a grocery store in a run down part of town asking for free registration forms, totally won me over...
Anyway I'm 100% sure you could find a campaign office doing the exact same thing for Romney, both campaigns are doing this because they can't watch over all these people working for them. Doesn't make it anymore right though.
On October 12 2012 04:12 xDaunt wrote: I don't understand why this woman still has a job.
In fairness, there's a woman on the Romney campaign that needs to be canned as well, I just can't remember her name.
I'll let you know why once I figure out the appeal of Ann Coulter.
As for the second lady, you're thinking of the one that defended Romney from that attack ad by citing his healthcare plan in Massachusetts. That was pretty funny.
On October 12 2012 04:12 xDaunt wrote: I don't understand why this woman still has a job.
In fairness, there's a woman on the Romney campaign that needs to be canned as well, I just can't remember her name.
I'll let you know why once I figure out the appeal of Ann Coulter.
As for the second lady, you're thinking of the one that defended Romney from that attack ad by citing his healthcare plan in Massachusetts. That was pretty funny.
Yeah, Andrea Saul or whatever her name is. It wasn't just that. She's said one stupid thing after another. I kinda understand politicians fucking up every now and then (or quite often if your name is Joe Biden). I don't understand why there should be any tolerance of campaign managers fucking up. They have one job: make their boss's campaign look good. This necessarily includes not saying anything stupid. If they can't get their stories straight and given coherent answers to issues, them they are failing at their job.
EDIT: As for Ann Coulter, she's attractive to a lot of people (those that like the tall bitchy, blonde look), is very smart, and has a wickedly sharp tongue. Though I don't really care for her, I can see why a lot of conservatives do.
On October 12 2012 06:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: We scare old people by talking about death panels. We scare southerners by talking about war on religion. Suggesting that Roe v Wade is going to be reversed strikes me as another ridiculous scare tactic not grounded in reality.
I don't know, I don't really see the connection between those issues. Death panels and war on religion aren't grounded in reality, but it might seem that way from their perspective and with enough propaganda behind it. But the abortion debate is fairly cut and dry. Pro-choice proponents want abortions to be legal and easy to get, while pro-life proponents do not want abortions to occur. I fail to see any outcome that is considered a pro-life victory on the abortion issue that does not include reversing roe v. wade. Even if it won't happen because of the make-up of the court, that's what pro-life proponents want right?
I guess what I'm saying is that nobody wants death panels and war on religion or think that they are a good idea for this country. I think a large percent (maybe a minority, maybe a majority) would like to see Roe v. Wade reversed, so I don't think it's fair to think that it's not grounded in reality.
On October 12 2012 06:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: We scare old people by talking about death panels. We scare southerners by talking about war on religion. Suggesting that Roe v Wade is going to be reversed strikes me as another ridiculous scare tactic not grounded in reality.
I don't know, I don't really see the connection between those issues. Death panels and war on religion aren't grounded in reality, but it might seem that way from their perspective and with enough propaganda behind it. But the abortion debate is fairly cut and dry. Pro-choice proponents want abortions to be legal and easy to get, while pro-life proponents do not want abortions to occur. I fail to see any outcome that is considered a pro-life victory on the abortion issue that does not include reversing roe v. wade. Even if it won't happen because of the make-up of the court, that's what pro-life proponents want right?
I guess what I'm saying is that nobody wants death panels and war on religion or think that they are a good idea for this country. I think a large percent (maybe a minority, maybe a majority) would like to see Roe v. Wade reversed, so I don't think it's fair to think that it's not grounded in reality.
Death panels most certainly are grounded in reality. It's called rationing and it's a necessary part of any government-provided healthcare system.
On October 12 2012 04:12 xDaunt wrote: I don't understand why this woman still has a job.
In fairness, there's a woman on the Romney campaign that needs to be canned as well, I just can't remember her name.
I'll let you know why once I figure out the appeal of Ann Coulter.
As for the second lady, you're thinking of the one that defended Romney from that attack ad by citing his healthcare plan in Massachusetts. That was pretty funny.
Yeah, Andrea Saul or whatever her name is. It wasn't just that. She's said one stupid thing after another. I kinda understand politicians fucking up every now and then (or quite often if your name is Joe Biden). I don't understand why there should be any tolerance of campaign managers fucking up. They have one job: make their boss's campaign look good. This necessarily includes not saying anything stupid. If they can't get their stories straight and given coherent answers to issues, them they are failing at their job.
Politicians are basically celebrities, now more than ever. So much of what they do and say is on public record. The emergence of the internet and social media just puts them under more scrutiny.
I'm sure if we dug up the past four years of ANYONE, we'll find enough material to hurt their reputation or career. To be clear, I don't think that means politicians should be held any less accountable for their decisions and actions, but I'm a little tired of this media/political culture that treats every stutter or poor choice of words as a game-changing, potentially treasonous event.
On October 12 2012 06:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: We scare old people by talking about death panels. We scare southerners by talking about war on religion. Suggesting that Roe v Wade is going to be reversed strikes me as another ridiculous scare tactic not grounded in reality.
I don't know, I don't really see the connection between those issues. Death panels and war on religion aren't grounded in reality, but it might seem that way from their perspective and with enough propaganda behind it. But the abortion debate is fairly cut and dry. Pro-choice proponents want abortions to be legal and easy to get, while pro-life proponents do not want abortions to occur. I fail to see any outcome that is considered a pro-life victory on the abortion issue that does not include reversing roe v. wade. Even if it won't happen because of the make-up of the court, that's what pro-life proponents want right?
I guess what I'm saying is that nobody wants death panels and war on religion or think that they are a good idea for this country. I think a large percent (maybe a minority, maybe a majority) would like to see Roe v. Wade reversed, so I don't think it's fair to think that it's not grounded in reality.
What the majority wants is irrelevant, abortion isn't dictated by popular vote. The supreme court is not going to reverse Roe v Wade, they won't even hear the case again. I'm suggesting the claim that abortion is ever going to be taken away from women is a scare idea not actually grounded in reality.
On October 12 2012 06:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: We scare old people by talking about death panels. We scare southerners by talking about war on religion. Suggesting that Roe v Wade is going to be reversed strikes me as another ridiculous scare tactic not grounded in reality.
I don't know, I don't really see the connection between those issues. Death panels and war on religion aren't grounded in reality, but it might seem that way from their perspective and with enough propaganda behind it. But the abortion debate is fairly cut and dry. Pro-choice proponents want abortions to be legal and easy to get, while pro-life proponents do not want abortions to occur. I fail to see any outcome that is considered a pro-life victory on the abortion issue that does not include reversing roe v. wade. Even if it won't happen because of the make-up of the court, that's what pro-life proponents want right?
I guess what I'm saying is that nobody wants death panels and war on religion or think that they are a good idea for this country. I think a large percent (maybe a minority, maybe a majority) would like to see Roe v. Wade reversed, so I don't think it's fair to think that it's not grounded in reality.
Death panels most certainly are grounded in reality. It's called rationing and it's a necessary part of any government-provided healthcare system.
Sure, but rationing is necessary in ALL systems, including capitalism. In the market we simply ration by cost not by bureaucratic panels. I agree there is some truth to the death panel statement, but it ignores that economic necessity is also dictating death for many people.
Roe v. Wade may not get overturned, but stuff like funding for Planned Parenthood, invasive mandatory sonograms, proper sex education, and allocation of contraceptives are all very real, on the table, and controversial.
On October 12 2012 00:34 Agathon wrote: Just a little question for my own curiosity.
Do small candidates have the same visibility in the medias than the two big ones? Is there rules to ensure that everybody can present his program to the US citizen? Or does it just depend on the money they can spend for ads and the good will of big medias?
With regards to tonight, I don't see Biden "winning" this debate unless Ryan screws the pooch. The most that democrats can reasonably expect out of Biden is that he plays the style over substance game very well against Ryan and earn a draw (which is the most likely outcome). If Biden tries to engage Ryan on the details of substantive policy, there's a very high risk that he'll get slaughtered. Honestly, a draw is all that Biden needs. He doesn't need to win outright. He just needs to stop the bleeding from the first debate and make the Obama campaign look competent again. He's just asking for trouble if he overextends himself.
On October 12 2012 04:12 xDaunt wrote: I don't understand why this woman still has a job.
In fairness, there's a woman on the Romney campaign that needs to be canned as well, I just can't remember her name.
I'll let you know why once I figure out the appeal of Ann Coulter.
As for the second lady, you're thinking of the one that defended Romney from that attack ad by citing his healthcare plan in Massachusetts. That was pretty funny.
Yeah, Andrea Saul or whatever her name is. It wasn't just that. She's said one stupid thing after another. I kinda understand politicians fucking up every now and then (or quite often if your name is Joe Biden). I don't understand why there should be any tolerance of campaign managers fucking up. They have one job: make their boss's campaign look good. This necessarily includes not saying anything stupid. If they can't get their stories straight and given coherent answers to issues, them they are failing at their job.
EDIT: As for Ann Coulter, she's attractive to a lot of people (those that like the tall bitchy, blonde look), is very smart, and has a wickedly sharp tongue. Though I don't really care for her, I can see why a lot of conservatives do.
I assume campaign managers also manage the campaign somewhat. So even if they say stupid things every now and then doesn't speak to how they actually do their job.
On October 12 2012 04:12 xDaunt wrote: I don't understand why this woman still has a job.
In fairness, there's a woman on the Romney campaign that needs to be canned as well, I just can't remember her name.
I'll let you know why once I figure out the appeal of Ann Coulter.
As for the second lady, you're thinking of the one that defended Romney from that attack ad by citing his healthcare plan in Massachusetts. That was pretty funny.
Yeah, Andrea Saul or whatever her name is. It wasn't just that. She's said one stupid thing after another. I kinda understand politicians fucking up every now and then (or quite often if your name is Joe Biden). I don't understand why there should be any tolerance of campaign managers fucking up. They have one job: make their boss's campaign look good. This necessarily includes not saying anything stupid. If they can't get their stories straight and given coherent answers to issues, them they are failing at their job.
EDIT: As for Ann Coulter, she's attractive to a lot of people (those that like the tall bitchy, blonde look), is very smart, and has a wickedly sharp tongue. Though I don't really care for her, I can see why a lot of conservatives do.
I assume campaign managers also manage the campaign somewhat. So even if they say stupid things every now and then doesn't speak to how they actually do their job.
Their main job is to manage campaign messaging. They of all people shouldn't be saying stupid things.
EDIT: I'm watching Stephanie Cutter explain herself right now on Special Report. She's doubling down on what she said. She's a fucking idiot, and Obama's campaign should summarily fire her dumb ass.
Regarding the vice presidential debate, my feeling is that the pressure is going to get to Biden and he'll crack while Paul Ryan is going to just go out there and be himself and it'll be a repeat of Denver's debate.
On October 12 2012 04:12 xDaunt wrote: I don't understand why this woman still has a job.
In fairness, there's a woman on the Romney campaign that needs to be canned as well, I just can't remember her name.
I'll let you know why once I figure out the appeal of Ann Coulter.
As for the second lady, you're thinking of the one that defended Romney from that attack ad by citing his healthcare plan in Massachusetts. That was pretty funny.
Yeah, Andrea Saul or whatever her name is. It wasn't just that. She's said one stupid thing after another. I kinda understand politicians fucking up every now and then (or quite often if your name is Joe Biden). I don't understand why there should be any tolerance of campaign managers fucking up. They have one job: make their boss's campaign look good. This necessarily includes not saying anything stupid. If they can't get their stories straight and given coherent answers to issues, them they are failing at their job.
EDIT: As for Ann Coulter, she's attractive to a lot of people (those that like the tall bitchy, blonde look), is very smart, and has a wickedly sharp tongue. Though I don't really care for her, I can see why a lot of conservatives do.
I assume campaign managers also manage the campaign somewhat. So even if they say stupid things every now and then doesn't speak to how they actually do their job.
Their main job is to manage campaign messaging. They of all people shouldn't be saying stupid things.
Yea, but managing is managing people. They could be very good at that, and still be bad in front of a camera.
I dunno. I'm sure it also doesn't look very good for a campaign to fire a campaign manager.
Edit: And Paul Ryan has also been surprisingly weak and lame in front of a camera in many of the interviews he's had. Maybe with some prep he'll be more clear with his whole Randroid message. Maybe with someone in front of him to attack, he'll be more vicious.
On October 12 2012 07:24 Darknat wrote: Regarding the vice presidential debate, my feeling is that the pressure is going to get to Biden and he'll crack while Paul Ryan is going to just go out there and be himself and it'll be a repeat of Denver's debate.
I wouldn't be surprised if this happens, but I really am not expecting it. Biden is a veteran politician who should know better than to swing for the fences rather than going for the single in the situation.
Oh my God. Stephanie Cutter is unbelievable. This interview that she's giving on Special Report is going to appear in a campaign ad somewhere (or worse, at a congressional hearing).
EPT
