|
| Posted by: Seattle Zen
- [3603123] Wed, Aug 22, 2012, 01:07
Well, I have heard that Paul Ryan's political hero is Jack Kemp. Great, you are following in his exact footsteps, the Veep choice for a doomed Republican running against a popular Democrat about to win his second term.

As soon as the announcement was made, reporters had to dust off the Ryan budgets that the House has past the last two years. They didn't bother to read much of them, the Republicans themselves knew that this budget was DOA, so why bother? Now that Ryan is on the ticket, it's time to show America just how radical Ryan's views are. Seriously, Democrats are now the party of the Left, Center and just right of center.
Mitt Romney Would Pay 0.82 Percent in Taxes Under Paul Ryan's Plan
This is the simplest recipe for Democratic success in 2012 - explain capital gains taxes and the Republican desire to eliminate them. America is not interested in going back to the Gilded Age.
Mitt... you are done. |
| | | 1 | Tree
ID: 17039238 Wed, Aug 22, 2012, 10:19
|
then there's that whole issue of women's rights, and the RYAN/GOP PLATFORM of no abortions under any circumstances, including rape and incest.
|
|
| | | 2 | Khahan
ID: 39432178 Wed, Aug 22, 2012, 11:40
|
no abortions under any circumstances, including rape and incest
This is one the GoP has wrong. If they want to hold their ground as 'pro life' and anti pro choice that is fine. But they've got to recognize some grey areas.
And again, its an extremist view on one side or that other that prevents any real dialogue or progress from happening.
|
|
| | | 3 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Wed, Aug 22, 2012, 11:50
|
My understanding of Mitt's tax rate was that this was under Ryan's previous plan (i.e., not the current 2012 one). The difference is the capital gains rates, which was pretty much zeroed out previously.
The current plan? Doesn't mention them. And Ryan won't say one way or the other now.
FactCheck does s good job on this one, I think.
All might be moot, anyway--right after picking Ryan, Romney made clear that he wasn't running on the Ryan plan but on the Romney one. So if Ryan is known for, essentially, his budget plan and that plan is rejected out-of-hand by Romney, why was Ryan picked?
|
|
| | | 4 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Wed, Aug 22, 2012, 14:19
|
more than a few TX Conservatives I know, are speculating that the GOP is "throwing" this election, but picked Ryan to prep him for a 2016 run. That the GOP hopes to hold the House, continue as obstructionists for the next 4 years, then point and say how ineffective the Dems have been for the past 8 years. Then, sweep the House, Senate and WH, with Ryan as their "leader".
|
|
| | | 8 | Great One
ID: 2431114 Wed, Aug 22, 2012, 15:00
|
|
|
| | | 9 | Frick
ID: 14082314 Wed, Aug 22, 2012, 15:26
|
Considering how close he aligns to Romney, was Ryan picked to offer fewer areas where Obama could attack?
Adding Paul to the ticket doesn't excite me for the R ticket, and many of my Libertarian leaning friends are less than thrilled as well. Ryan doesn't seem to offer more than the typical politician of listen to me, don't mind that my actions don't match what I'm saying.
I'm sure that Ryan looked attractive coming from a swing state like Wisconsin, but that doesn't seem like it is going to be enough.
|
|
| | |
| | | 14 | Tree
ID: 17039238 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 01:01
|
This is one the GoP has wrong. If they want to hold their ground as 'pro life' and anti pro choice that is fine. But they've got to recognize some grey areas.
indeed. while i obviously disgree with the anti-choice stance, i find it reprehensible that there are those who believe even in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother's life is in danger, abortion is still not an option.
Tony Award winner Even Ensler wrote a great piece on being a victim of rape, and then being victimized all over again because many just don't get it.
it is very powerful.
|
|
| | | 15 | Tree
ID: 17039238 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 01:02
|
Eve, not Even.
|
|
| | |
| | | 17 | Boldwin
ID: 57242212 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 05:10
|
Being raped does not give you a "get you out of jail free" card for murder.
How you reach a 'compromise' over murder in such a clashing culture is problematic of course, to say the least.
|
|
| | | 18 | Boldwin
ID: 57242212 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 05:14
|
Ok, let's try one more time to state the most blatantly obvious point regarding Sarge's conspiracy theory in #4.
Republicans would not be so foolhardy as to concede the supreme court to the ideology which dares not speak it's name for the next 30 years, in order to secure some machialvelian short-term political goal.
|
|
| | | 19 | Tree
ID: 53555306 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 09:33
|
so forcing a woman to keep her rapist's baby, and forcing her to spend her life tethered to him so he can share custody and have visitation rights and parental rights to his child is acceptable, and morally just?
|
|
| | | 20 | bibA
ID: 54522612 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 10:10
|
No, the child can be taken care of by the Children's Social Services!
|
|
| | | 21 | Boldwin
ID: 327262311 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 12:49
|
Killing people because they are a burden and maybe you don't even like them is not the answer. Not ever.
|
|
| | | 22 | DWetzel
ID: 49962710 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 12:51
|
Good thing that's not what abortion is.
|
|
| | | 23 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 12:56
|
I think there may come a time when science may disagree with you on 22, I am not really sure what happens then.
|
|
| | | 24 | Seattle Zen
ID: 47630913 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 13:06
|
Murder is not a scientific principle, boikin, it's a legal principle.
Proposing that there be no abortions ever, not even in the case of rape or incest, is a political principle, and a damn foolish one at that.
|
|
| | | 25 | DWetzel
ID: 49962710 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 13:07
|
Sure, at some point there possibly is. But what is being discussed by the Paul Ryans and the "raped women don't get pregnant so they won't need an abortion" crowd is nowhere near that point.
|
|
| | | 26 | DWetzel
ID: 49962710 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 13:17
|
(crossposted with SZ obviously)
|
|
| | | 27 | Khahan
ID: 39432178 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 13:17
|
Killing people
And herein lies the sticking point. To me, a first trimester pregnancy is not a person yet. Its equating digging up a seed to chopping down a tree. Just not the same thing. Never will be to me.
But to Boldwin it is. The very instant the sperm enters the egg that egg is NOT person. No matter how much you want it to be. I can respect the fact that you want to use that point in time as a marker. And I'll admit there is not a really well defined point in development to use as a marker to decide, "This is now a viable person"
But you've got to understand also that if somebody rapes one of my daughters, HER whole life is not going to be turned upside down or even put on hold for 9 months unless its her decision. I'm not about to sit here and tell a middle schooler that she cannot have a normal child hood because some maniac raped her. And neither are you. Period. End of story.
|
|
| | | 28 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 13:27
|
re 18, the conspiracy theory (and that is precisely what it is), isnt mine. I was simply relaying, what some are proposing as the rationale for naming such a lightning rod as Ryan.
|
|
| | | 29 | Tree
ID: 17039238 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 13:43
|
"Here's what I want you to do. I want you to close your eyes and imagine that you are on your bed or up against a wall or locked in a small suffocating space. Imagine being tied up there and imagine some aggressive, indifferent, insane stranger friend or relative ripping off your clothes and entering your body -- the most personal, sacred, private part of your body -- and violently, hatefully forcing themself into you so that you are ripped apart. Then imagine that stranger's sperm shooting into you and filling you and you can't get it out. It is growing something in you. Imagine you have no idea what that life will even consist of, spiritually made in hate, not knowing the mental or health background of the rapist. " - Eve Ensler
Killing people because they are a burden and maybe you don't even like them is not the answer. Not ever.
i'm challenging you to address the issue then.
how do you propose to solve it?
a man rapes a 15 year old.
she gets pregnant.
due to changes in law, she cannot have an abortion.
due to the current law in her state, the rapist has full parental rights, and she,and the child she was forced to have against her will must spend the rest of her life tethered to her rapist.
offer a solution to gives her domain over her own body, and prevents her from being forced to spend time, and having her child spend time, with the man who raped her.
|
|
| | | 30 | Boldwin
ID: 327262311 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 13:55
|
The baby didn't commit any crime whatsoever. Let alone one worthy of capitol punishment.
Comments about legally handcuffing the woman to her rapist somehow are fatuous on their face.
The premise that the public will not accept a ban on abortion is questionable at best. There is a reason 'pro-choicers' are soooo happy to have the supreme court isolate the public from that particular voting lever.
|
|
| | | 31 | Khahan
ID: 39432178 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 14:02
|
There is a reason {edited}
I'll give you a hint Boldwin. I'm Pro-choice. Not an 'abortion lover.'
When my girlfriend and I were dating she got pregnant. Neither one of us were ready to be parents much less be a dedicated married couple.
And the thought of abortion crossed both our minds and was dismissed faster than it was conceived. We've now been married for 11 yrs (in october) and have 3 kids. And like I said, if some maniac were to rape one of my girls I want her to have the option to make the whole thing go away. She's NOT going to lose any more of her life to be dedicated to raising a baby and become a teenage mother who has to put off school and her career and making her own choices because you decided a moral option for her.
Doesn't work that way in America. You do not get to decide my morals or my kids morals. Or my neighbors morals. Or your neighbors morals.
|
|
| | | 32 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 14:11
|
"The baby", isnt a "baby", until it is born. Until then, it is at most, a fetus. These are biologic terms B, already defined by the field and not subject to redefinition by zealots.
Murder, as SZ pointed out above and I have repeatedly pointed out for you, is also predefined as a legal term/concept. It too, is immune from redefinition by people who disagree
Either engage in intelligent discourse please, or keep it to yourself. Most of us, want this forum to remain.
|
|
| | | 33 | Boldwin
ID: 327262311 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 14:12
|
Until it gets to the issue of murder.
And the aborted are merely a special interest group with a handicap. They get murdered before they can mount a defense.
|
|
| | | 34 | slug
ID: 167132313 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 14:13
|
30: The mother didn't commit a crime either. She is the victim of a horrible crime. Why must she be "punished"?
Back to Tree's question. What's the best way to handle the entire situation? We get that you don't want abortion. What about the rest of the equation? Mother's rights. Father's rights. When is the child old enough to decide that he/she doesn't want to be around "rape" Daddy anymore?
|
|
| | | 35 | DWetzel
ID: 49962710 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 14:14
|
No they don't, because that's not what the law is or ever has been.
Stop accusing people of criminal activity when they aren't doing criminal activity.
Khahan also very well summed up in his post 31 why "abortion lovers" is a really unhelpful, hostile turn of phrase -- and one which, I thought, we were going to be curtailing.
|
|
| | | 36 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 14:19
|
As I've said elsewhere: The pro-life position on pregnancies from rapes is difficult, and nuanced. And virtually every "pro-life" politician these days are flubbing it, badly.
The vast majority of Americans want abortion to be an option for the victims of rape and incest. That isn't reflected among the pro-life politicians, however, that they seem unable to be able to communication the distinction (or really, care).
|
|
| | | 37 | Boldwin
ID: 327262311 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 14:20
|
"Rape Daddy" doesn't have any rights other than a speedy trial. It's just a red herring to throw that out there. There is no support whatsoever for "rape daddy" rights of visitation.
There is longstanding support for taking care of babies abandoned by their mothers. I certainly don't fault the mothers for harboring negative feelings towards their babies. If they must add their babies to the babies already dropped off at the hospital and fire station now days, so be it.
|
|
| | | 39 | Khahan
ID: 39432178 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 14:26
|
There is longstanding support for taking care of babies abandoned by their mothers. I certainly don't fault the mothers for harboring negative feelings towards their babies. If they must add their babies to the babies already dropped off at the hospital and fire station now days, so be it.
What about that person's current active life for the 9months she would be forced to carry a baby she did not want, did not ask for and did not consent to have?
|
|
| | | 40 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 14:37
|
Post 37, is factually false. Shauna Prewitt
Prewitt, who is now an attorney, was 21 when she was raped and became pregnant. Her daughter is now 7 years old. She shares her story with Soledad O'Brien on "Starting Point," and explains that not only did she decide to keep her daughter, but had to face a custody battle with her attacker.
"He filed for sole custody of her," Prewitt says. "I am very lucky that his parental rights were terminated so he is no longer or was never a part of our lives. But I fight today in my advocacy work for the past two years focused on helping other women who haven't been so lucky or aren't so lucky."
|
|
| | | 41 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 14:45
|
There is no support whatsoever for "rape daddy" rights of visitation
That might be true (I've not seen polling) but most states allow rapists parental rights regardless of whether there is "support" for such things.
|
|
| | | 42 | Tree
ID: 17039238 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 14:55
|
Comments about legally handcuffing the woman to her rapist somehow are fatuous on their face.
"Rape Daddy" doesn't have any rights other than a speedy trial. It's just a red herring to throw that out there. There is no support whatsoever for "rape daddy" rights of visitation.
having facts, and being fully informed, helps.
31 States allow rapists custody and visitation rights to the children borne from their rapes.
In a majority of states, attackers are afforded the same rights as other fathers.
|
|
| | | 43 | Boldwin
ID: 327262311 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 15:02
|
Find me anyone who would vote for "rape daddy" visitation rights. Try convincing anyone there is majority support for it.
Remember back in my lifetime when rape was a capital offense?
Try swinging the pendulum back from the soft on crime position.
|
|
| | | 44 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 15:06
|
Current law B, doesnt require a vote. The facts are, the truth is...in MOST STATES, a rapist already has parental rights.
Your contention, is false.
|
|
| | | 45 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 15:10
|
I really, wish you would quit trying to derail every topic. This thread, is about Ryan.
As to your last however, and this is the last I will address it, there is a good reason for not treating rape as a capital offense.
About nine of 10 of those sentenced to death for rape during those years were black.
link
|
|
| | | 46 | DWetzel
ID: 49962710 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 15:12
|
"Remember back in my lifetime when rape was a capital offense?
Try swinging the pendulum back from the soft on crime position."
Wait, are you simultaneously arguing that the sanctity of an unborn, non-viable fetus is so great that a woman's life deserves to be ruined over it, while clamoring for the death penalty for rape?
I just want to make sure because my logic radar doesn't seem to be registering anything.
|
|
| | | 47 | Boldwin
ID: 327262311 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 15:21
|
The legal system is obviously out of whack when a rapist has child visitation rights and even custody rights...
...and an innocent baby doesn't have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I suspect there is still enuff common sense left in this country to recognize that.
|
|
| | | 48 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 15:29
|
I hope so, B. I hope so. But since politicians like Akins are the ones who make and change the laws, I'm not holding out a lot of short term optimism.
|
|
| | | 49 | Frick
ID: 14082314 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 15:29
|
I think that most people agree that a person's right to life takes precedence. However, when life starts is open to opinion. When the sperm penetrates the egg does not equal a person to many. On the opposite side, very few think that a person doesn't exist until the umbilical cord is cut. Where should we draw the line is the discussion that we need to have and determine. Once we can decide on when a embryo becomes a person, then we should be able to answer the questions that we are asking in this thread.
|
|
| | | 50 | Boldwin
ID: 327262311 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 15:45
|
I didn't agree with it in the slightest, but the Roe V Wade decision did identify that point, for legal purposes at least, as viability.
Which the abortionists simply overruled in practice.
BTW, I agree this last ~25 post drift isn't critical to the viability of this thread.
|
|
| | | 51 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 16:05
|
Sorry to derail the conversation a bit but this reminds me of article I read asking this question: If the father of baby and says they will pay for the abortion, but the mother decides she wants to keep the baby, has the father waived his obligation to take care of said baby. Legally yes, but logically there is arguement that says the mother made the choice it has become her responsibility.
|
|
| | | 52 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 16:09
|
They both made the choice. And if they don't both make the choice to abort than the father still has financial responsibilities.
|
|
| | | 53 | Tree
ID: 50752315 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 16:16
|
Find me anyone who would vote for "rape daddy" visitation rights. Try convincing anyone there is majority support for it.
it's the current law in 31 states Baldwin. There have been moves to prevent abortion in the case of rape and incest, but no moves to prevent rapists from having parental rights.
here's a pretty decent essay on the topic.
and to me, this topic is about Paul Ryan, since he is the one who dabbles in the same sort of "science" as Todd Akin.
|
|
| | | 54 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 16:39
|
Re 52: not really under the law it is only the woman's choice and I think that was the point. Both parties mutually agree to have sex, but only one party decides what happens to the possible outcome. Basically the legal implication is that there is verbal agreement that this what will happen, legally speaking if two parties are about to have sex and the man says I will only have sex with you if you waive all my legal responsibility would this hold up in court?
|
|
| | | 55 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 16:44
|
I am unaware of any agreement which allows a paternal party, to waive financial responsibility. Short perhaps of a full waiver or termination of parental rights. (And even that is subject to question. Look at the recent case involving a soldier of Native American background, having waived parental rights, the baby was adopted, then 6 months later he changed his mind and won custody under a Native American preservation of culture law.) For the most part, in my admittedly limited experience..if "he" impregnates "her"; "he" can expect to pay for it, for the next 18+ years.
|
|
| | | 56 | DWetzel
ID: 49962710 Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 16:50
|
"I didn't agree with it in the slightest, but the Roe V Wade decision did identify that point, for legal purposes at least, as viability. "
Exactly, and that's precisely why so many of us get a little ticked off when you keep calling it murder. Whether you agree with it or not, it isn't.
(The other part of the reason we get so ticked off about it is that starting off with as incendiary a word as you possibly can makes rational discussion of the topic nearly impossible.)
|
|
| | | 58 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 01:13
|
Moreso than competing abortion policy opinions among forum members, I'm interested in how Rep Akin's statements and the GOP's unchanged platform position of opposing legal abortions for rape victims might impact the presidential election.
While I very strongly disagree with it, I'm not particularly offended by the position. I accept that this is a widely held opinion among American social conservatives and as such, feel it deserves a certain degree of respect.
But Akin's defense of that position was first, misogyny ("legitimate rape") and second, ignorantly hostile to science - a label which is increasingly burdensome to the political right and the GOP, particularly as conservatives continue to publicly endorse positions like climate change denial and Creation and their elected officials are asked to defend them.
Paul Ryan has a long record of opposing legal abortions to rape victims and it might be difficult for him to distance himself from Akin on the issue.
I'm aware that the Romney Campaign has included a rape and incest exception to it's abortion opposition in their platform, which I think is in line with Romney's position of the past few years. I don't know whether Ryan has flip flopped on the rape exception since joining the ticket.
How odd is it that a presidential ticket platform has such a glaring disagreement with the greater party platform? I don't know that a disagreement on this issue (or sub-issue) would normally qualify as 'glaring' but in the wake of Akin's disaster last Sunday, the general topic has a spotlight beaming on it and will surely be exploited by the Dems for all it's worth.
|
|
| | | 59 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 01:22
|
Romney has gone from supporting the right of choice (when he ran for Gov) to being "severely" pro-life except in matters of rape/incest/mother's life.
Interesting speculation, is that Ryan is firm in his convictions and Romney can be swayed. So the Romney/Ryan ticket, would most likely end up mirroring the official party platform, once Ryan sways Romney.
All of which (if implemented as law), would cause an endangered pregnant woman to die, in order to be pro-life, and disallow the abortion. Hypocrisy, at its very zenith.
|
|
| | | 60 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 01:47
|
I accept that this is a widely held opinion among American social conservatives and as such, feel it deserves a certain degree of respect.
I haven't seen much on this, but the one chart I did see (here) indicated that while self-identified "extreme conservatives" had the highest percentage who felt there should be no incest or rape exception for an abortion ban, that number is less than 45%--perhaps this is what you mean by a "widely held opinion" but it isn't even a majority opinion among the most conservative members of the GOP.
It is, however, a widely held opinion among GOP politicians.
|
|
| | | 61 | Mith
ID: 18451815 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 02:09
|
No, I didn't intend majority, just that I don't think opposition to a rape exception is at all rare in the national discussion.
I guess 'widely held' might not convey what I meant.
For the record, that isn't the only criteria (or a clinching one) for what I think is a position worthy of respect. For example, opposition to legal unions for same sex couples isn't rare, either. But I find that and other pro-discrimination opinions offensive and frankly don't respect them or think they deserve any consideration when forming policy.
Abortion is much more difficult. I accept that reasonable people can come to different conclusions on when a life begins. And I can accept that some of those reasonable people place the legal value of one person's life that much higher than another person's emotional/financial/physical well being as to want it reflected in criminal law.
|
|
| | | 62 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 02:13
|
I've been finding, to my dismay, that many pro-choice people are taking the opportunity these days to attack those pro-lifers who support a rape/incest exception, as though this is "proof" of pro-lifer's hypocrisy.
This is sad on many levels, but mostly because a rare opportunity to find a tiny bit of common ground on a divisive issue is being cynically used by those who feel they have a rare opportunity to instead stick it to the "other side."
|
|
| | | 63 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 02:27
|
I agree PD. In fact, I find the hypocrisy, as I eluded to above, to be in NOT allowing an exemption for cases where for ex, the mother's life is in jeopardy. I find it extremely hypocritical, that "pro-life" in that case, would mean the mother dies and quite possibly the fetus as well.
|
|
| | | 64 | Mith
ID: 18451815 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 02:31
|
Shallow political wrangling. And probably counter-productive in that I'd think it more likely to get an open-minded pro-lifer to rethink support for a rape exception than covert him to pro-choice.
|
|
| | | 65 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 09:54
|
So the Romney/Ryan ticket, would most likely end up mirroring the official party platform, once Ryan sways Romney.
so here is the question: I would say without question but I would probably get arguments on this, Obama on average has turned out more moderate than his campaign platform or his past record. Give that would an Romney presidency look more like candidate Romney, or I think probably more accurately governor Romney?
|
|
| | | 66 | Frick
ID: 14082314 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 09:58
|
I think people in the middle would be more likely to vote for Governor Romney, but Candidate Romney scares them off as he drifts further and further to the right.
|
|
| | | 67 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 10:02
|
that is probably a pretty accurate statement, but the question still remains and I think a lot of independents are asking this question right now.
|
|
| | |
| | | 69 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 10:54
|
Missouri thoughts on abortion
Todd Akin has fallen behind Sen. Claire McCaskill by double digits in the Missouri Senate race, according to a Rasmussen automated phone poll released Thursday.
Male voters divide evenly among the two candidates but McCaskill holds a 20-point lead with women and a 70 percent to 21 percent lead with those who are unmarried. Akin has a slight 44 percent to 40 percent lead among married voters.
|
|
| | | 70 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 10:57
|
I saw that through a Bruce Barlett FB link yesterday. I noticed that Akin went down by 10 points (from their previous poll) and half of those people jumped to "some other candidate."
I'm betting, if he stays in the race, that those people will come right back to him.
|
|
| | | 71 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 12:06
|
65 is a legit question, with one basic difference between candidate/President Obama, and candidate/Gov Romney. Obama, IMO, hasnt shown the flip-flop tendencies of Romney. Yes, there re a few things he has changed on, but I think there will be a few things we all have changed on. Romney, ran for Gov of a Dem state, and was pro-choice. Romney, as Gov of that Dem state, instituted "Romney Care" and suggested it nationally. Romney as a conservative candidate, rolled over on even his OWN achievements, and reversed himself then, on all counts.
So where Romney is pliable to q HUGE extent, depending on the political winds of the moment, Obama is not quite so much so. I see Romney, being FAR more easily swayed by the hard and fast Ryan, than Obama being swayed by Biden. And that I think, is what terrifies me most about the potential of a Romney Presidency. I think, like Bush/Cheney, the VP would be more in charge than the rest of us know.
|
|
| | | 72 | Mith
ID: 18451815 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 12:46
|
I don't think Romney/Ryan would form anything like the Bush/Cheney dynamic. Just the impression I get but Romney comes off as more of a self-assured (egocentric?) executive than Bush and doesn't seem quite as much like the type to lean on his advisers.
I'd expect President Romney's stated positions would be more likely compromised in his dealings with political pressures outside the executive branch, like Congress or possibly other heads of state or the UN or maybe even public polling.
|
|
| | | 73 | Boldwin
ID: 327262311 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 16:01
|
The surprising career path of Mrs. Ryan.
|
|
| | |
| | | 75 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3603123 Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 11:19
|
The Paul Ryan Speech: Five Hypocrisies
I don't watch the Rep. convention nor do many people anymore. It's not 1972, we all have cable and something better to watch.
By all reports, Ryan's speech was full of doozies. I like this one best -
Ryan attacked Obama for ignoring the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles debt commission:
"He created a bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report. He thanked them, sent them on their way, and then did exactly nothing."
Guess who the leading Republican budget wonk on that commission was? Yes, Paul Ryan. When “the urgent report” came up for a vote, Ryan voted against it.
|
|
| | | 76 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3603123 Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 11:27
|
Fox News - Ryan is full of it...
- Paul Ryan’s speech in 3 words: Dazzling, Deceiving and Distracting. To anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold.
The good news is that the Romney-Ryan campaign has likely created dozens of new jobs among the legions of additional fact checkers that media outlets are rushing to hire to sift through the mountain of cow dung that flowed from Ryan’s mouth. Said fact checkers have already condemned certain arguments that Ryan still irresponsibly repeated.
Fact: While Ryan tried to pin the downgrade of the United States’ credit rating on spending under President Obama, the credit rating was actually downgraded because Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling.
Fact: While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shut down of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, the plant was actually closed under President George W. Bush. Ryan actually asked for federal spending to save the plant, while Romney has criticized the auto industry bailout that President Obama ultimately enacted to prevent other plants from closing.
Fact: Though Ryan insisted that President Obama wants to give all the credit for private sector success to government, that isn't what the president said. Period.
Fact: Though Paul Ryan accused President Obama of taking $716 billion out of Medicare, the fact is that that amount was savings in Medicare reimbursement rates (which, incidentally, save Medicare recipients out-of-pocket costs, too) and Ryan himself embraced these savings in his budget plan.
|
|
| | | 77 | Razor
ID: 177192916 Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 11:38
|
The debt commission thing alarmed me. I was stunned that he kept referring to it in the third person.
|
|
| | | 78 | Khahan
ID: 39432178 Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 12:18
|
the credit rating was actually downgraded because Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling. And here we go to the other extreme. The downgrade was not because republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling as if its a bad thing. The downgrade was because some in congress were looking for other options...Republicans. They were looking for ways to reduce the debt so that the ceiling didn't need to be raised. I'm not saying Ryan is 100% right and telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But you can't use half-truths and misrepresentations to call him a liar.
Though Ryan insisted that President Obama wants to give all the credit for private sector success to government, that isn't what the president said. Period. I don't know. I heard not just the quote but the part of speech he was talking about. Maybe he intended it to mean something else, but it certainly sounded like he said you didn't do it.
|
|
| | | 79 | Mith
ID: 18451815 Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 12:47
|
The downgrade was not because republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling as if its a bad thing. The downgrade was because some in congress were looking for other options...Republicans. They were looking for ways to reduce the debt so that the ceiling didn't need to be raised.
Sorry but that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me.
|
|
| | | 80 | slug
ID: 167132313 Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 14:19
|
"They were looking for ways to reduce the debt so that the ceiling didn't need to be raised"
Any agreement was going to raise the debt ceiling. The talks were about how to reduce (not eliminate) the deficit. The Republicans used the debt ceiling and threat of our nation defaulting as a bargaining chip to help get more of the types of deficit reduction that they wanted into the agreement. This was clearly a bad thing for our country in the short term (i.e. credit rating downgrade). Could it be a good thing for our country in the long term?
|
|
| | | 81 | Razor
ID: 177192916 Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 14:41
|
And here we go to the other extreme. The downgrade was not because republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling as if its a bad thing. The downgrade was because some in congress were looking for other options...Republicans. They were looking for ways to reduce the debt so that the ceiling didn't need to be raised. I'm not saying Ryan is 100% right and telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But you can't use half-truths and misrepresentations to call him a liar.
Khahan, the annual deficit right now is around $1 trillion, most of which is due to escalating entitlement. There is no way the Republicans were going to be able to balance the budget (i.e. cut out $1 trillion in spending) in a matter of days even if they controlled the White House and Senate. Further, they didn't campaign for cutting entitlements - they just wanted to cut discretionary spending. If we cut ALL of discretionary spending to 0, we'd still have a budget deficit and the debt ceiling would still have to be raised.
|
|
| | | 82 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 14:58
|
Actually a group of Republicans led by Jim DeMint did seek to prevent raising the debt ceiling. When the Treasury and the Dems responded by pointing out that failing to raise the debt ceiling would result in default with catastrophic consequences, DeMint and some others proposed prioritizing paying off debt ahead of obligations. Other Republicans in Congress openly questioned whether the results of default were overblown by the Treasury.
This exchange between the DeMint-led Republicans and Tim Geitner is telling.
Some prominent Republicans outside of congress even went so far as to endorse default.
S&P chose to be non-partisan in their public explanation for the downgrade but knowing the history makes it pretty clear.
"More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011. Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon." Ask yourself, what changed politically between mid April and August - one party openly and seriously began debating the merits of capping the debt ceiling, even if it meant the US Treasury's failure to meet its obligations.
|
|
| | | 83 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 16:03
|
here might be a silly question, is debt ceiling enforceable? Can't the president just tell the treasury to keep paying to bills. Clearly the president has shown that he has discrepancy on what laws he chooses to enforce, so why choose this one. Isn't the debt ceiling a contradictory law anyways since it tells you to not do something that another law tells you to do?
|
|
| | | 84 | Mith
ID: 36753016 Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 17:24
|
What does the debt ceiling "tell you to not do" that another law (what law?) "tells you to do"?
|
|
| | | 85 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 20:26
|
#83: Last time Obama threatened to do just that. Honestly, I think that the debt ceiling is not enforceable--after all, Congress authorized the bills to be paid when they passed the budget.
|
|
| | | 86 | J-Bar
ID: 87313020 Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 22:41
|
Would that be the 2009-10 budget?
|
|
| | | 87 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Fri, Aug 31, 2012, 00:00
|
re 76..OK, seriously now...as a Republican, how bad does it have to be when FOX says:
To anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold.
I mean really. When your own press dept says that, about what you had to say? Isnt it time then, to pack it in?
|
|
| | | 88 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Fri, Aug 31, 2012, 01:01
|
For the record, that columnist self-identifies as a progressive. The fact that that opinion was published by a FOX outlet doesn't make it any more or less valid. Just like MSNBC's leftward lean does not make every conservative opinion you hear from Joe Scarborough more valid.
|
|
| | |
| | | 91 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Fri, Sep 14, 2012, 19:02
|
No, they do not have to.
|
|
| | |
| | | 93 | Boldwin
ID: 228302617 Wed, Sep 26, 2012, 18:30
|
A) After you add in the hidden fees, in the AHC bill for example, he's raised taxes enormously.
That's just the way Illinois politicians do it. Tax increases are just shifted to hidden taxes to avoid the taxpayer outrage.
Wait till you see what happens to your energy bill if you think Obama improved your economic life.
B) Romney is clearly too stupid a politician to win on his own. If he wasn't running with the anti-Obama wind at his back he'd make Goldwater look like a political genius. He'll win anyway.
|
|
| | | 94 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Wed, Sep 26, 2012, 20:40
|
He should have hired The Architect.
|
|
| | | 95 | Boldwin
ID: 68202620 Wed, Sep 26, 2012, 21:25
|
Rove hates the republican conservative base so he is best left to explicitly neo-con, not so conservative campaigns. ----
BTW, hidden taxes are usually the least progressive taxes imaginable. Put a hidden tax on ketchup or gasoline and the 1% pay the same in hidden tax per month as the poor.
Thanx, progressive Obama.
|
|
| | | 96 | biliruben
ID: 21841115 Wed, Sep 26, 2012, 22:58
|
He put a tax on catsup and gasoline?
Please be more, much more specific about these taxes. And please stay concrete. No imaginings please.
|
|
| | | 97 | Boldwin
ID: 478592622 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 07:58
|
What's a trillion here, a trillion there? Don't worry, no one notices hidden taxes. Libs can sneak away from the scene of the crime like nothin happened.
Oh, and he's taught republicans the Illinois way to backdoor hidden taxes too.
Lots of hidden taxes coming too. Plans to eliminate the mortgage deduction in 2013. Both regressive and damaging to the very vulnerable housing market.
bili, you are aware of how regressive the effects of Obama's war on fossil furls is? Gasoline and electric costs can't go high enuff for Obama. He wants to force us to buy Chevy Volts and out of our gasoline powered cars. Oh, and he wants me to kick in around $50,000 so you can buy a volt.
Financing the explosion of government spending with the printing press [and keeping government repayment interest low] has hidden regressive costs:Consider the price increases in the commodities market from the beginning of 2009 to today:
Heating Oil +155% Gasoline +195% Natural Gas -45% Wheat +100% Soybeans +72% Corn +114% Cotton +7% Cattle +43% Sugar +60% Coffee +31% Orange Juice +56% Ketchup isn't included when they figure the phony inflation numbers for public consumption. Or it would look much worse than they say.
|
|
| | | 98 | biliruben
ID: 41431323 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 08:00
|
I said no imaginings.
You are attempting logical leaps across oceans, but all you gots is a pogo stick.
|
|
| | | 99 | Boldwin
ID: 478592622 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 08:01
|
Obviously you didn't click on the links.
|
|
| | | 100 | Mith
ID: 23217270 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 08:23
|
I clicked the last one. I cites QE (beginning with 2008 and specifically blaming Obama for all of it) as the reason for the rise in commodity prices, calling it a tax.
|
|
| | | 101 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 08:55
|
Consider the price increases in the commodities market from the beginning of 2009 to today
That list represents the height of dishonesty if your attempt is to lay it at the feet of the current administration. Most commodities on that list are agricultural products. Any honest evaluation of the current rise in these commodities must include the following qualification:
The worst American drought in more than half a century is driving up grain prices and deepening worries about global food shortages.
With much of the corn crop already lost, farmers are holding out hope for some weather relief that could help salvage the harvest of soybeans and other. But the latest data from the government Friday showed that the damage to the food supply chain already has been done.
“This is worse than 2008 -- we’re in kind of a perfect storm scenario,” said Ana Puchi-Donnelly, senior agricultural commodities trader at London-based Marex Spectron. “We won’t really know until the whole crop is harvested. We’re talking about the worst drought in the last 50 to 70 years in one of the hottest years on record." Shriveling supplies have sent grain prices soaring. Corn futures set an all-time high Friday to levels roughly 50 percent higher than the end of May, before the drought took hold. Soybean prices also jumped this week to more than 25 percent above pre-drought levels. link
Using a 195% jump in gasoline since the beginning of 2009 is equally dishonest, using the height of the global recession, when demand was the weakest in decades, gives a completely distorted analysis. This 5 year chart shows that if you had used July 2008 as your starting point, gasoline prices have risen 0%.
Who do you think you're fooling with these distorted numbers?
|
|
| | | 102 | Perm Dude
ID: 56832185 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 11:31
|
FOX News viewers, of course.
|
|
| | | 103 | Boldwin
ID: 368252710 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 11:33
|
Who do you think you are fooling?
The person O put in charge of energy policy said we needed $9 dollar gas. O put him in charge anyway.
Obama promised he'd bankrupt anyone who put up a new coal power plant and at the rate they are closing we'll go into WWIII with no muslim oil, no Keystone oil and no USA coal power plants. [and no new nuke plants]
|
|
| | | 104 | Perm Dude
ID: 56832185 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 11:36
|
Taking quotes out of context seems to be the only way to keep the GOP afloat.
|
|
| | | 105 | Tree
ID: 88512711 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 12:56
|
Taking quotes out of context seems to be the only way to keep the GOP afloat.
ironically, Baldwin doesn't even have the courage to be a member of the GOP.
|
|
| | |
| | | 107 | Boldwin
ID: 40937423 Sat, Oct 06, 2012, 02:36
|
Every mainstream conservative media figure has to make a decision whether he is gonna stick to the truth or stick more or less to the zeitgeist narrative. If you stick to the truth, you just get extremely bogged down by attacks from those with a great deal to hide and a great deal of media power. These mainstream conservative figures pick their fights carefully and just go to the mat over the crucial battles and don't insist on difficult battles with great personal cost and little big picture gain.
|
|
| | | 108 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Sat, Oct 06, 2012, 03:58
|
They also don't pick battles over things that aren't true, by and large.
|
|
|
|