|
|
Clearly if you're pro-choice Obama wins on that issue, and if you're pro-life Romney wins on the abortion issue.
However it's important to remember that like I said, the odds of either of them doing anything meaningful pro or con is basically nill.
As such anyone casting their vote SOLELY based on the abortion issue is a fool IMO.
This country is facing a ton of serious ass problems and abortion is not even in my top 10 things to care about.
If unemployment runs amock or the dollar collapses or some other horrible finanical mess breaks out, I can guarantee nobody will give a crap about these little social issues.
Anyone who votes purely on the basis of one issue period is short sided IMO, no matter what the issue is.
|
On October 22 2012 14:58 Zaqwert wrote:
Clearly if you're pro-choice Obama wins on that issue, and if you're pro-life Romney wins on the abortion issue.
However it's important to remember that like I said, the odds of either of them doing anything meaningful pro or con is basically nill.
As such anyone casting their vote SOLELY based on the abortion issue is a fool IMO.
This country is facing a ton of serious ass problems and abortion is not even in my top 10 things to care about.
If unemployment runs amock or the dollar collapses or some other horrible finanical mess breaks out, I can guarantee nobody will give a crap about these little social issues.
Anyone who votes purely on the basis of one issue period is short sided IMO, no matter what the issue is.
Pretty much this. I can't stand when people argue about this shit in presidential politics. It's just mindless partisan bickering detached from reality. Unfortunately, both parties are counting on a very large "fool" vote.
|
On October 22 2012 14:58 Zaqwert wrote:
Clearly if you're pro-choice Obama wins on that issue, and if you're pro-life Romney wins on the abortion issue.
However it's important to remember that like I said, the odds of either of them doing anything meaningful pro or con is basically nill.
As such anyone casting their vote SOLELY based on the abortion issue is a fool IMO.
This country is facing a ton of serious ass problems and abortion is not even in my top 10 things to care about.
If unemployment runs amock or the dollar collapses or some other horrible finanical mess breaks out, I can guarantee nobody will give a crap about these little social issues.
Anyone who votes purely on the basis of one issue period is short sided IMO, no matter what the issue is.
I'm not sure about that. I mean, from a "meaningful" standpoint neither candidate will accomplish much of anything to deal with any of the big issues solely because of a divided congress in a vitriolic era. Both are going to get 12 million jobs pretty much no matter what according to most researchers, both will probably deal with a Eurozone meltdown the same way (by frowning a lot), and neither is seriously going to depart from the other on foreign policy besides one spending slightly more.
I mean, Romney's tax plan will probably end up like Reagan's and screw over a big group of people, but we can't know which ones, and it still won't do anything of substance to affect things about 10-20 years in the future.
All you're really left with is the social issues, some little things, and assessments of a candidate's honesty, preparedness, and character. I'm not going to criticize anyone for voting on those.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Abortion, like any issue, still warrants a discussion, regardless of what it is on the "importance" scale. Roe v. Wade may not be overturned, but things like mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds and Planned Parenthood funding are all very real issues.
|
On October 22 2012 14:54 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 14:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:41 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 14:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:27 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 14:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 14:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
What you're saying is they're siphoning money from federal funding into their action committee to support Obama, even if that committee is entirely using money generated explicitly for political purposes. The IRS even supports them, dude, it's not even shady for them to be doing this.
What you're doing is accusing Planned Parenthood of something illegal. If you have evidence, go for it with the IRS! Then they'll be defunded and you'll get your wish. I'm not accusing PP of doing anything illegal. Oh really? That's what it sounds like when you talk about "creative accounting." Creative accounting is not illegal... the whole point of being creative with your accounting is so that you get what you want within the law. Edit: Isn't that a teacher's union PAC? A bit different if that's what you are talking about. Is it really, when the unions take money directly from teacher paychecks and administer the PAC? It would be weird if schools banded together to form a PAC and endorse candidates. A union runs a PAC ad as the position of the union, not the school. PP's action fund runs ads that are the position of PP. So they get extra clout from their organization's reputation. The PAC of the American Teacher's Federation runs ads and gives donations that are the positions of teachers (it's in their bylaws the members must approve donations) and gets extra clout because of the fact that their organization consists of teachers, all of whom partially live on federal funding. Edit: A better example is AARP to be honest. Apples to oranges. Teachers are not schools, they just work there. I'm not suggesting that PP's employees can't have a political voice. I don't like the organization itself playing politics. What about defense contractors, the oil/energy sector, etc.? I would love it if they all didn't have a voice as well.
I'd agree with that.
Though perhaps I've opened a bad can of worms. I wouldn't want farmers to have no say since they receive government subsidies. Drawing an appropriate line could be tricky.
Either way no one seems happy with the current rules.
Edit: although no one being happy could also mean that the current rules are brilliant... hrmmm...
|
Jonny you realize the farm lobby is kinda evil, right?
edit: the corn one, more specifically. And agribusiness/monoculture.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 22 2012 15:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Either way no one seems happy with the current rules.
The day Democrat and Republican voters band together on things they agree on, such as changing the rules so that they make more sense, this country will start progressing in a great direction!
|
On October 22 2012 15:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 14:54 Souma wrote:On October 22 2012 14:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:41 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 14:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:27 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 14:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 14:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
What you're saying is they're siphoning money from federal funding into their action committee to support Obama, even if that committee is entirely using money generated explicitly for political purposes. The IRS even supports them, dude, it's not even shady for them to be doing this.
What you're doing is accusing Planned Parenthood of something illegal. If you have evidence, go for it with the IRS! Then they'll be defunded and you'll get your wish. I'm not accusing PP of doing anything illegal. Oh really? That's what it sounds like when you talk about "creative accounting." Creative accounting is not illegal... the whole point of being creative with your accounting is so that you get what you want within the law. Edit: Isn't that a teacher's union PAC? A bit different if that's what you are talking about. Is it really, when the unions take money directly from teacher paychecks and administer the PAC? It would be weird if schools banded together to form a PAC and endorse candidates. A union runs a PAC ad as the position of the union, not the school. PP's action fund runs ads that are the position of PP. So they get extra clout from their organization's reputation. The PAC of the American Teacher's Federation runs ads and gives donations that are the positions of teachers (it's in their bylaws the members must approve donations) and gets extra clout because of the fact that their organization consists of teachers, all of whom partially live on federal funding. Edit: A better example is AARP to be honest. Apples to oranges. Teachers are not schools, they just work there. I'm not suggesting that PP's employees can't have a political voice. I don't like the organization itself playing politics. What about defense contractors, the oil/energy sector, etc.? I would love it if they all didn't have a voice as well. I'd agree with that. Though perhaps I've opened a bad can of worms. I wouldn't want farmers to have no say since they receive government subsidies. Drawing an appropriate line could be tricky. Either way no one seems happy with the current rules.
Honestly, I was being nitpicky, the best situation is pre-Citizen's United, as near as I can tell because that drastically limits the impacts of groups like the Planned Parenthood Fund (to the extent that they couldn't efficiently be running televised ads, I think). Too much money in politics now; I just don't think them playing the game with the cards they've been dealt merits large-scale defunding.
|
On October 22 2012 15:03 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 14:58 Zaqwert wrote:
Clearly if you're pro-choice Obama wins on that issue, and if you're pro-life Romney wins on the abortion issue.
However it's important to remember that like I said, the odds of either of them doing anything meaningful pro or con is basically nill.
As such anyone casting their vote SOLELY based on the abortion issue is a fool IMO.
This country is facing a ton of serious ass problems and abortion is not even in my top 10 things to care about.
If unemployment runs amock or the dollar collapses or some other horrible finanical mess breaks out, I can guarantee nobody will give a crap about these little social issues.
Anyone who votes purely on the basis of one issue period is short sided IMO, no matter what the issue is. I'm not sure about that. I mean, from a "meaningful" standpoint neither candidate will accomplish much of anything to deal with any of the big issues solely because of a divided congress in a vitriolic era. Both are going to get 12 million jobs pretty much no matter what according to most researchers, both will probably deal with a Eurozone meltdown the same way (by frowning a lot), and neither is seriously going to depart from the other on foreign policy besides one spending slightly more. All you're really left with is the social issues, some little things, and assessments of a candidate's honesty, preparedness, and character. I'm not going to criticize anyone for voting on those.
The Affordable Care Act does not fall into any of your categories. It's not social issue, it's not some little thing, it's not character. There's one example at least.
|
On October 22 2012 15:07 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 15:03 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 14:58 Zaqwert wrote:
Clearly if you're pro-choice Obama wins on that issue, and if you're pro-life Romney wins on the abortion issue.
However it's important to remember that like I said, the odds of either of them doing anything meaningful pro or con is basically nill.
As such anyone casting their vote SOLELY based on the abortion issue is a fool IMO.
This country is facing a ton of serious ass problems and abortion is not even in my top 10 things to care about.
If unemployment runs amock or the dollar collapses or some other horrible finanical mess breaks out, I can guarantee nobody will give a crap about these little social issues.
Anyone who votes purely on the basis of one issue period is short sided IMO, no matter what the issue is. I'm not sure about that. I mean, from a "meaningful" standpoint neither candidate will accomplish much of anything to deal with any of the big issues solely because of a divided congress in a vitriolic era. Both are going to get 12 million jobs pretty much no matter what according to most researchers, both will probably deal with a Eurozone meltdown the same way (by frowning a lot), and neither is seriously going to depart from the other on foreign policy besides one spending slightly more. All you're really left with is the social issues, some little things, and assessments of a candidate's honesty, preparedness, and character. I'm not going to criticize anyone for voting on those. The Affordable Care Act does not fall into any of your categories. It's not social issue, it's not some little thing, it's not character. There's one example at least.
And Romney is keeping all of it except the review board that doesn't really exist and the cuts to hospital reimbursement for nosocomially acquired infections, as far as I can tell from his statements in debates. He hasn't mentioned cutting the funding to states for creating insurance exchanges, and I'm pretty sure you can't legally rescind that money anyway.
Edit: Basically, there's really not that huge a healthcare difference-not enough to impact the real problem. My only "difference" is that a 2nd term president is slightly more likely to attempt further reform than a 1st term one.
|
Also, it seems really unfair to complain about PP getting to lobby because it is ideological in some sense.
I feel as morally outraged about the corn lobby, the defense lobby, the oil lobby, et al. as y'all do about the PP lobby. I feel pretty damn "ideological" about that, in fact. How come PP is supposed to be the one sitting demurely in the corner while the boys sidle up to the trough? Fuck that.
|
On October 22 2012 15:06 sam!zdat wrote:
Jonny you realize the farm lobby is kinda evil, right?
Lol true, bad example. I still knee-jerk think of the "poor farmers" everyone used to be worried about.
Remember Farm Aid? Those were the days....
|
On October 22 2012 15:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 15:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:54 Souma wrote:On October 22 2012 14:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:41 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 14:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:27 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 14:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 14:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
I'm not accusing PP of doing anything illegal. Oh really? That's what it sounds like when you talk about "creative accounting." Creative accounting is not illegal... the whole point of being creative with your accounting is so that you get what you want within the law. Edit: Isn't that a teacher's union PAC? A bit different if that's what you are talking about. Is it really, when the unions take money directly from teacher paychecks and administer the PAC? It would be weird if schools banded together to form a PAC and endorse candidates. A union runs a PAC ad as the position of the union, not the school. PP's action fund runs ads that are the position of PP. So they get extra clout from their organization's reputation. The PAC of the American Teacher's Federation runs ads and gives donations that are the positions of teachers (it's in their bylaws the members must approve donations) and gets extra clout because of the fact that their organization consists of teachers, all of whom partially live on federal funding. Edit: A better example is AARP to be honest. Apples to oranges. Teachers are not schools, they just work there. I'm not suggesting that PP's employees can't have a political voice. I don't like the organization itself playing politics. What about defense contractors, the oil/energy sector, etc.? I would love it if they all didn't have a voice as well. I'd agree with that. Though perhaps I've opened a bad can of worms. I wouldn't want farmers to have no say since they receive government subsidies. Drawing an appropriate line could be tricky. Either way no one seems happy with the current rules. Honestly, I was being nitpicky, the best situation is pre-Citizen's United, as near as I can tell because that drastically limits the impacts of groups like the Planned Parenthood Fund (to the extent that they couldn't efficiently be running televised ads, I think). Too much money in politics now; I just don't think them playing the game with the cards they've been dealt merits large-scale defunding.
That's fair. The free speech argument is a good one. They should be treated same as the rest.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 22 2012 15:06 sam!zdat wrote:
Jonny you realize the farm lobby is kinda evil, right?
edit: the corn one, more specifically. And agribusiness/monoculture.
I'm not well versed in the practices of the monoculture industry. What's so bad about them, Professor Sam?
|
On October 22 2012 15:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 15:06 sam!zdat wrote:
Jonny you realize the farm lobby is kinda evil, right? Remember Farm Aid? Those were the days....
nope, sorry, you're old 
|
On October 22 2012 15:15 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 15:06 sam!zdat wrote:
Jonny you realize the farm lobby is kinda evil, right?
edit: the corn one, more specifically. And agribusiness/monoculture. I'm not well versed in the practices of the monoculture industry. What's so bad about them, Professor Sam?
idk man, I'm not really an expert. Lotta people I know have a great deal to say about it, though, and are generally pretty persuasive, so I kinda take it as a working axiom.
Mostly it has to do with the fact that ecosystems simply don't work as well when you have a whole bunch of one species in one place. Biodiversity is just generally a good thing (this statement is generalizable for all complex systems, I'll let the implications of that sink in).
edit; sorry, crucially important typo fixed
|
On October 22 2012 15:22 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 15:15 Souma wrote:On October 22 2012 15:06 sam!zdat wrote:
Jonny you realize the farm lobby is kinda evil, right?
edit: the corn one, more specifically. And agribusiness/monoculture. I'm not well versed in the practices of the monoculture industry. What's so bad about them, Professor Sam? idk man, I'm not really an expert. Lotta people I know have a great deal to say about it, though, and are generally pretty persuasive, so I kinda take it as a working axiom. Mostly it has to do with the fact that ecosystems simply don't work as well when you have a whole bunch of one species in one place. Biodiversity is just generally a good thing (this statement is generalizable for all complex systems, I'll let the implications of that sink in). edit; sorry, crucially important typo fixed
also, many of these businesses fix their seeds so you have to keep buying from them year after year-- they modify them so they produce non viable seeds (ridiculous profit motive). also, these GMO's tend to need a lot of water and resources to produce for their vaunted high yield. yes, it might be easier, but other methods of farming where multiple varieties or crops are planted together have been shown to have higher yield.
there's also the question about how healthy these GMO's are. some, if i understand correctly, produce their own pesticides. this is stuff that kills pests, and when you eat it, it goes into you. it's been a couple years since i took APES (which was a BS class anyways), but i think the companies which make the seed also make the fertilizers and pesticides too.
err, yeah. loss of genetic diversity is really bad. if a significant fraction of the world's food comes from a handful of varieties, bad things couple happen if a bug hits one of them. also, the risk of cross pollination affects other farmers with natural varieties and stuff.
basically there's a lot of environmental and health problems with the green revolution, but the agribusiness lobby is really powerful now.
|
Is it even possible to get the money out of politics?
edit: which is to say, how do you possibly legislate against people turning money into political 'signal'
|
On October 22 2012 14:07 sam!zdat wrote:
I think we should regulate contentious issues like abortion, gay marriage, weed, et al at the county level, allow communities to establish their own normative codes and avoid conflict on these issues between urban and rural areas and let each of them do as they see fit.
But then we would have to focus on actually important things in national politics, so maybe not.
You do realize that you're a Republican then, right?
|
On October 22 2012 16:11 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 14:07 sam!zdat wrote:
I think we should regulate contentious issues like abortion, gay marriage, weed, et al at the county level, allow communities to establish their own normative codes and avoid conflict on these issues between urban and rural areas and let each of them do as they see fit.
But then we would have to focus on actually important things in national politics, so maybe not. You do realize that you're a Republican then, right?
yes, actually
edit: well, idk, what do you mean "republican"? what does that commit me to believing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
