|
On April 11 2012 12:40 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2012 07:50 Housemd wrote:On April 11 2012 07:35 Omnipresent wrote:On April 11 2012 06:21 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 11 2012 06:19 ECHOZs wrote:On April 11 2012 04:38 RCMDVA wrote:
Santorum was in a tough spot anyway as far as the delegate count went. Almost impossible to overcome unless Romney did something astonomically stupid.
But Rick was facing the possibility of losing the Pennsylvania primary... down 5% or so in the polls. If Santorm has hopes of any national office down the road... Senate again or another Presidential run.... he could not lose Pennsylvania. That would have ended his future chances in 2016 and beyond.
And I'm taking Rand Paul (Ron's Son) in the Veepstakes. Yeah losing PA would have been devestating to his political career it was a no brainer to dropout now. Rand Paul would be a good chocie he could certainly bring in some support of the independents which Romeny never appealed to. he needs a female. and not the crazy bachmann or palin. An evangelical woman would be best, preferably a Southern evangelical woman. Romney has major problems in all three of those demographics, which are all key. Good luck finding a viable VP who meets those requirements. I know this whole Rand Paul thing has been floating around lately, even in mainstream print/television. I like to think that they just got some of the Ron Paul internet crazy sauce on them. It's sticky, so it could happen. Rand Paul would be a disasterous candidate. It seems people have forgotten all the bizarre stories that came out when he ran for senate. I assure you, there are more. And if you think Ron Paul was a little shady on race, just wait for Rand. Not so long ago, he was running around talking about eliminating the Civit Right's Act. Given the intense scrutiny VP candidates get, Rand would be a huge gamble at best. I think we all know how the last VP gamble went. You should provide a link for your statement. Rand Paul has stated that he would not support any attempts to repeal the Civil Rights of 1964 and that he would march with Dr. Martin Luther King to end Jim Crow laws. He only opposes Title 2 which states that no public business can discriminate based on race, religion, or nation origin. It's extremely stupid of him to even think about opposing Title 2 but to exaggerate and say that he would repeal the whole Civil Rights Act is extremely stupid of you. Oh and Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Title_IIhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul#Private_property_and_civil_rights Way to keep it classy. I haven't been called "extremely stupid" in a while... Luckily for you, being a dick doesn't mean you're wrong on the substance. Your correction/clarification is essentially right, if incomplete. That is his official stance, and there's no reason to think he lying. It's consistent with his (and his father's) libertarian/strict constructionalist ideology. I rushed that post before running out to meet a couple friends. I was late and should have been more careful. I'd like to add that he also opposes title VII, which essentially extends Title II consumer protections to employees. Under Title VII, it's illegal to disctiminate against your employees on the basis of race, religion, or nationality. Together, these are the only 2 titles of the Civil Rights Act in which the government regulates businesses rather than state/local governments or courts. Both of these provisions are well established law, and have passed multiple tests in the Supreme Court: Title II: HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL v. U.S.KATZENBACH v. MCCLUNG Title VII: GRIGGS v. DUKE POWER COMPANYRICCI v. DESTEFANOI think the political consequences of Rand Paul's position are pretty obvious. Additionally, it demonstrates a disregard for established legal precedent that has stood unchallenged in over 40 years. That's almost the definition of an extreme view, and not something you want in a VP candidate.
or from a sitting President...yeah, I reeled back on that one. Neocons, sigh
|
On April 11 2012 11:27 RCMDVA wrote:
I believe that the US Senate would need to declare Rubio a natural born citizen (like the did for John McCain) at the very very least. Which really won't count for much.
With all the foggy birth certificate & dual-citizen issues Obama had (no matter what you believe)... Rubio's issues are pretty clearly cut and dried. There are no disputed facts. His parents were two Cubans. He is a Cuban anchor baby born in Miami. And I believe Cuba would still claim him as a citizen.
It would probaly require a SC decision to define what natural born really means.
If you are a anchor baby... you are a US Citizen. But does that make you a "Natural Born" citizen?
In not so many words, yes.
|
On April 11 2012 12:40 Omnipresent wrote:Both of these provisions are well established law, and have passed multiple tests in the Supreme Court: Title II: HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL v. U.S.KATZENBACH v. MCCLUNG Title VII: GRIGGS v. DUKE POWER COMPANYRICCI v. DESTEFANOI think the political consequences of Rand Paul's position are pretty obvious. Additionally, it demonstrates a disregard for established legal precedent that has stood unchallenged in over 40 years. That's almost the definition of an extreme view, and not something you want in a VP candidate.
Have you read Heart of Atlanta Motel or Katzenbach? They're crazy, and perfect examples of the Supreme Court deciding how it wants to rule in a case and then crafting a rationale to support the decision afterwards. That line of cases also went against over 150 years of Supreme Court precedent, and they continue to be challenged today (see the Obamacare case).
|
On April 11 2012 15:41 ShadowDrgn wrote:Have you read Heart of Atlanta Motel or Katzenbach? They're crazy, and perfect examples of the Supreme Court deciding how it wants to rule in a case and then crafting a rationale to support the decision afterwards. That line of cases also went against over 150 years of Supreme Court precedent, and they continue to be challenged today (see the Obamacare case).
We could argue about it, but I'm not a lawyer. The court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause has gradually expanded through most of America's history, especially in the last hundred years.
I will say this though. If your point is that the commerce clause has been the subject of much debate in the decades since (and before) the 1964 Civil Rights Act, you are correct. I assume that's why you brough up Obamacare. That being said, the Supreme Court hasn't even heard arguments (unless I'm missing something) about the commerce clause's application in the Civil Rights Act since the early 70s. I'm sure they've had ample opportunity. The Supreme Court decides which cases they want to hear and which they don't. There are few exceptions.
They chose to hear the Obamacare case for two main reasons: 1) There's a technical question about whether the penalty for not adhering to the individual mandate falls under congress' authority to tax. 2) The individual mandate is a novel application of the commerce clause. Opponents argue that it forces individuals into markets in which they would not otherwise participate. Supporters argue that everyone participates in the healthcare market whether they're insured or not, and that free riders increase prices for everyone. If you subscribe to the former, the Court must either rule the law unconstitutional or expand the existing interpretation of the commerce clause (likely in a very narrow way). If you subscribe to the latter, the mandate is likely in solid constitutional ground.
Obamacare has essentially nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act. Some far right politicians and commentators wish it did, and it makes a good storyline for anyone in the infotainment industry. Even if the court strikes down the mandate, they'd have to reach pretty far in order to damage the Civil Rights Act.
|
I find all the outrage about Ann Romney never having worked a day in her life amusing and sad.
Because it's completely true.
|
I find all the outrage about Ann Romney never having worked a day in her life amusing and sad.
Because it's completely true.
You don't demean someone based on their choice to raise their children as a stay-at-home parent, isn't that what feminism is about? Choice?
But the real point is to trash Republicans, isn't it? Regardless of consistency or decency. That rich bitch, what's she ever done that's hard work. Motherhood isn't hard (except when it is to justify abortion), and when you're rich by definition you're lazy and bad. You can't possibly have done anything hard or worthwhile.
|
On April 14 2012 01:30 paralleluniverse wrote:
I find all the outrage about Ann Romney never having worked a day in her life amusing and sad.
Because it's completely true.
So its ok to be offensive about the life choices of others as long as you don't lie?
The outrage was over the implication that stay at home moms are ignorant of economics and that their opinions aren't worth as much as the "working women"
Virtually everyone agreed that the comments weren't very tactful at best, including Obama.
|
On April 14 2012 01:40 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 01:30 paralleluniverse wrote:
I find all the outrage about Ann Romney never having worked a day in her life amusing and sad.
Because it's completely true. So its ok to be offensive about the life choices of others as long as you don't lie? The outrage was over the implication that stay at home moms are ignorant of economics and that their opinions aren't worth as much as the "working women"Virtually everyone agreed that the comments weren't very tactful at best, including Obama.
They almost certainly are.
Hell, it's not just stay at home moms, it's almost the entire electorate.
The only people whose opinions are worth a damn on the economy are economists or people who have studied economics.
Again I stress that it's simply a fact that she has never worked a day in her life, and finding this "insulting" does not change the truth.
|
On April 14 2012 01:36 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +I find all the outrage about Ann Romney never having worked a day in her life amusing and sad.
Because it's completely true. You don't demean someone based on their choice to raise their children as a stay-at-home parent, isn't that what feminism is about? Choice? But the real point is to trash Republicans, isn't it? Regardless of consistency or decency. That rich bitch, what's she ever done that's hard work.
Why are you so defensive about her? She really hasn't worked a day in her life. You could make the argument that raising kids is tough work when you are on minimum wage with no husband and no money...but that's not her. I don't know her life but since she married Romney I'd wager she has all the money she'd need to raise kids without a sweat. And if you think that's tough work, how the hell do real working class women feel? So no, the point isn't to trash republicans, it's to show who people really are and what experience they use to have knowledge of the real working class women in the states.
|
They almost certainly are,
What's funny is that this new offensive stereotype is the complete opposite of the pre-feminist offensive stereotype of the stay-at-home mother: the penny-pinching, always counting the cost, wallet-seizing harpy wife who emasculated her husband by dominating the family finances.
What progress we've made in half a century!
Why are you so defensive about her? She really hasn't worked a day in her life. You could make the argument that raising kids is tough work when you are on minimum wage with no husband and no money...but that's not her. I don't know her life but since she married Romney I'd wager she has all the money she'd need to raise kids without a sweat. And if you think that's tough work, how the hell do real working class women feel? So no, the point isn't to trash republicans, it's to show who people really are and what experience they use to have knowledge of the real working class women in the states.
How nice that raising kids is ezpz as long as you have money; it doesn't conform to reality in any way, but it's a nice fantasy. Unless you literally have servants raise your children or send them away; Ann Romney didn't do that, sorry.
In addition to raising children - which is again ezpz I guess when you have money and decide to do it yourself instead of using servants, go tell the world it's a breeze, all you need is cash - she also worked on typical "first lady" projects while Romney was governor of Massachusetts. That's not work, Michelle Obama doesn't do any work either right? She did Bible study classes for her kids and other children when they were young, that's not work either is it? I'm sure she didn't work hard at all to overcome her multiple sclerosis, that was ezpz too.
5 minutes of Google could have given you information about her life instead of talking shit about her because she's a rich. Implying that she's never worked, i.e. done anything worthwhile with her life, she's just basked in the luxury of Mitt Romney's money.
|
On April 14 2012 01:45 DeepElemBlues wrote:What's funny is that this new offensive stereotype is the complete opposite of the pre-feminist offensive stereotype of the stay-at-home mother: the penny-pinching, always counting the cost, wallet-seizing harpy wife who emasculated her husband by dominating the family finances. What progress we've made in half a century!
If this particular stay-at-home mom has an education in economics then I retract my statement.
Don't get angry at the truth, deal with it.
|
If this particular stay-at-home mom has an education in economics then I retract my statement.
Don't get angry at the truth, deal with it.
Bald technocratism, for the purpose of demeaning people you don't know is the most absurd of stances.
Hell, it's not just stay at home moms, it's almost the entire electorate.
The only people whose opinions are worth a damn on the economy are economists or people who have studied economics.
Again I stress that it's simply a fact that she has never worked a day in her life, and finding this "insulting" does not change the truth.
Funny, the opinion of 99 out of 100 economists or people who had studied economics pre-2008 was utterly wrong, I guess when it comes down to it your technocratism is nothing but a cover to dismiss anything you disagree with or to demean someone you disapprove of. Are we supposed to base our standard of authority simply on credentials, or results? You seem to prefer credentials, the real world doesn't work that way but it sounds good on the internet!
Never worked by your narrow, self-serving, nonsensical definition of work. Which economist are you relying on for your definition, by the way? Show us this authoritative economist or student of economics who has determined that raising children doesn't really matter economically. Here I'd thought that the manner of raising a child was very consequential in his or her future potential to contribute to the economy.
I stress that you don't need to don't get defensive at the truth of the utterly ludicrous nature of your pronouncements, you just need to deal with it.
|
On April 14 2012 01:59 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +If this particular stay-at-home mom has an education in economics then I retract my statement.
Don't get angry at the truth, deal with it. Bald technocratism, for the purpose of demeaning people you don't know, is the most absurd of stances. Don't get defensive at this truth, deal with it.
I'm simply pointing out that it's perfectly fair that she be called out for never having worked a day in her life. And the outrage is completely unjustified, because it's true.
If the truth is demeaning, too bad, it's still the truth.
As for the thing about economics, this isn't an Ann Romney problem, it is a problem with democracy in general. Most people don't know a damn thing about economics and the less they know, the louder they shout.
Economics is subject to the hyper-Dunning-Kruger effect. And this is a major problem.
|
On April 14 2012 02:11 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 01:59 DeepElemBlues wrote:If this particular stay-at-home mom has an education in economics then I retract my statement.
Don't get angry at the truth, deal with it. Bald technocratism, for the purpose of demeaning people you don't know, is the most absurd of stances. Don't get defensive at this truth, deal with it. I'm simply pointing out that it's perfectly fair that she be called out for never having worked a day in her life. And the outrage is completely unjustified, because it's true. If the truth is demeaning, too bad, it's still the truth. As for the thing about economics, this isn't an Ann Romney problem, it is a problem with democracy in general. Most people don't know a damn thing about economics and the less they know, the louder they shout. Economics is subject to the hyper-Dunning-Kruger effect. And this is a major problem.
It's true but false. She's never had a standard "job" in the workforce. However, a large portion of the feminist movement is dedicated to making the male dominated society recognize that a womans work at home should be considered as valuable as a man's work away. Saying "she's never worked a day in her life" is like saying being a stay at home mom doesn't carry the same weight as being a house maid for 10$ an hour. Ann has lived a privileged life, but she also raised 5 children, and to discount that is bad form.
|
^^should have just said she's never experienced economic hardship or something like that.
Even if "technically" she's never had a job it's still insulting and a stupid thing to say.
|
On April 11 2012 13:11 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2012 11:27 RCMDVA wrote:
I believe that the US Senate would need to declare Rubio a natural born citizen (like the did for John McCain) at the very very least. Which really won't count for much.
With all the foggy birth certificate & dual-citizen issues Obama had (no matter what you believe)... Rubio's issues are pretty clearly cut and dried. There are no disputed facts. His parents were two Cubans. He is a Cuban anchor baby born in Miami. And I believe Cuba would still claim him as a citizen.
It would probaly require a SC decision to define what natural born really means.
If you are a anchor baby... you are a US Citizen. But does that make you a "Natural Born" citizen? In not so many words, yes.
Pardon me if any of this is review.
Picking Rubio is a crass and manipulative move I'd expect from Republicans, but I just don't see it. Romney still needs to convince his Christian base he's either (or both, depending) the values politician they want or he's not the manipulative Mormon they think he is. The VP candidate would have balance out those issues, and putting Rubio on the ticket is like running two Mormons, in affect, one of which has a shady birth; like, I don't see the base flocking to the polls to vote out the black man who was born in Kenya to put in an ex-Mormon VP who was born in Cuba. Like, I wonder if these voters would just stay home if their options are CCP Nazi Obama Party versus Two Mormons, One Hispanic. Also, keep in mind that Rubio may not exactly lock up the hispanics the way people think he will: Rubio opposes immigration like he does as a refugee rather than someone who had to go through that process, so he may also appear as an elitist to hispanics, and he's had a pretty well-documented to-do with Univision, whose support he'd need to even appear favourable to the community he's supposed to inspire. That Univision affair also pulled out some shmaltz on Rubio that would definitely bubble up in the generals, especially if Romney/Rubio continued their hard line on immigration, which they're probably going to do.
And lastly it seems no smart, young gun with a bright political future ahead of them wants to get hitched to Romney's sinking ship of a campaign.
But who knows. "I'm not getting involved" is what every politician says until they get involved.
|
Canada11182 Posts
On April 14 2012 03:02 1Eris1 wrote:
^^should have just said she's never experienced economic hardship or something like that.
Even if "technically" she's never had a job it's still insulting and a stupid thing to say.
Yeah, I think the original intention was a class based critique. As in Romney's going around saying I have the finger on the pulse of working class women... because I listen to my wife. And the response to that is that she isn't working class either. But the way it came out was not so good.
|
On April 14 2012 01:44 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 01:36 DeepElemBlues wrote:I find all the outrage about Ann Romney never having worked a day in her life amusing and sad.
Because it's completely true. You don't demean someone based on their choice to raise their children as a stay-at-home parent, isn't that what feminism is about? Choice? But the real point is to trash Republicans, isn't it? Regardless of consistency or decency. That rich bitch, what's she ever done that's hard work. Why are you so defensive about her? She really hasn't worked a day in her life. You could make the argument that raising kids is tough work when you are on minimum wage with no husband and no money...but that's not her. I don't know her life but since she married Romney I'd wager she has all the money she'd need to raise kids without a sweat. And if you think that's tough work, how the hell do real working class women feel? So no, the point isn't to trash republicans, it's to show who people really are and what experience they use to have knowledge of the real working class women in the states.
That's not the kind of statement made in a vacuum. It's a judgement that being a stay-at-home mother isn't as worthwhile or doesn't count as "working". Colbert nailed it with his joke that the other thing that hasn't worked a day in its life is attacking motherhood. You have an ~18 point gender gap working in your favor, and it's bad *politics* to insult women who chose to be stay-at-home mothers. That's regardless of whether Ann Romney had a job or not. I keep hearing the defense "but it's true!", as if that changes the fact that it isn't good for the Obama campaign. There's a reason they threw her under the bus ASAP.
|
I think Hilary Clinton remarked that the downside of feminism is that it created an unfair and unflattering stigma against stay-at-home mothers.
Caring for your children full time is more than a worthy calling, and makes more sense economically for a lot of households. Paying for good childcare or maintaining a home is expensive.
|
On April 14 2012 01:36 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +I find all the outrage about Ann Romney never having worked a day in her life amusing and sad.
Because it's completely true. You don't demean someone based on their choice to raise their children as a stay-at-home parent, isn't that what feminism is about? Choice? But the real point is to trash Republicans, isn't it? Regardless of consistency or decency. That rich bitch, what's she ever done that's hard work. Motherhood isn't hard (except when it is to justify abortion), and when you're rich by definition you're lazy and bad. You can't possibly have done anything hard or worthwhile.
The demeaning part is crap. All that was said is that Ann Romney shouldn't be a reliable source for women's economic issues, because she isn't, because she hasn't worked much (if at all, don't know if she worked when she was younger). Being a stay-at-home mom is difficult, but it's not an traditional employed job that was part of the country's workforce, and everyone knows that this is what was being referred to.
It's true but false. She's never had a standard "job" in the workforce. However, a large portion of the feminist movement is dedicated to making the male dominated society recognize that a womans work at home should be considered as valuable as a man's work away. Saying "she's never worked a day in her life" is like saying being a stay at home mom doesn't carry the same weight as being a house maid for 10$ an hour. Ann has lived a privileged life, but she also raised 5 children, and to discount that is bad form.
It's not bad form because it's not discounting the work she put into raising her children - it's discounting her as being Romney's chief source for advice on women's economic issues in the workforce when she has never been part of the women's workforce.
That's not the kind of statement made in a vacuum. It's a judgement that being a stay-at-home mother isn't as worthwhile or doesn't count as "working". Colbert nailed it with his joke that the other thing that hasn't worked a day in its life is attacking motherhood. You have an ~18 point gender gap working in your favor, and it's bad *politics* to insult women who chose to be stay-at-home mothers. That's regardless of whether Ann Romney had a job or not. I keep hearing the defense "but it's true!", as if that changes the fact that it isn't good for the Obama campaign. There's a reason they threw her under the bus ASAP.
Of course it was a good idea for the Obama campaign to throw her under the bus, but that's only because the public is stupid and won't actually stop and think about what the woman's comments meant. They just listen to completely arbitrary BS interpretations and take it as matter-of-fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
