[Discussion] The American Politics Discussion Thread

[Scarf]

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14

I'll give Obama credit for winning this debate by lying. Romney also really had to debate two opponents: Obama, and the liberal moderator who helped Obama out.

Don't agree with this. The moderator is a journalist and journalists ought to tell the truth. Obama and Romney were just going to spat with "Yes, I did" "No, you didn't" if no one got in the middle to clarify. Moderators have to do something or they may as well not be there. (Which would not be a good option in the first place.)

Even if you think that "acts of terror" doesn't mean the same thing as "terrorist attack" it's not a lie on Obama's part. Romney made the mistake of getting that factoid from the right-wing media echo chamber. He made the mistake of pushing it so far that the moderator had to step in.

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14

I don't agree with much of what the Green Party is proposing, but I do believe that the people deserve to hear from all of the candidates, so that they can make an informed decision as to who they want to lead our country.

Agree with this. Third party candidates always (well, almost always) get kept out of the national spotlight and we don't get to hear their positions. At the very least every debate should include a second debate with 3rd party candidates.

[93Aiwass]

Originally Posted by Mr. X

Personally, I don't see why they are having so many issues on this. It's real simple. If your going to reduce the deficit, get half by reducing the budget and half by increased taxes.

Here's the thing though, the Interstate system? It wasn't, originally, built for the average person. Thats not why it got funding. It was funded as a way to ensure rapid movement of military hardware and material in the case that we got invaded.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Unfortunately, that is how some things happen. It is also my understanding that this is how the ZIP code system came to be.

Love is the Law, Love under Will.

[Mario The World Champion]

I can understand the Third Party's gripe about not being able to participate in debates, but both major parties fear that having the Green Party and or the Libertarian Party candidates participate in debates will sway many undecided voters both sides need when Election Day comes around.

That's why Stein and Johnson are persona non grata.

[93Aiwass]

Originally Posted by Mario The World Champion

I can understand the Third Party's gripe about not being able to participate in debates, but both major parties fear that having the Green Party and or the Libertarian Party candidates participate in debates will sway many undecided voters both sides need when Election Day comes around.

That's why Stein and Johnson are persona non grata.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

I know, right? Thankfully, Aleister Crowley and Vermin Supreme had a debate at Knight's Templar Oasis in Salem, Massachusetts (the debate starts 8 minutes in).

Love is the Law, Love under Will.

[infosoft]

I propose a new name for this thread! "[Bashing on mitt] The official PC democratic party thread!". In all seriousness, this thread got alitle out of hand! 3 pages of this is just people wining about the republicans. "Looky at my quote of a politician saying something I perceive as ignorant! Agree with me! Im desperate!"

As for the debate, I don't think they should let other parties in. The all it will do is divert votes away from a party, its basically as bad as people not voting. Although, I wouldn't mind seeing others at that debate, I just don't see a way to do it that would be beneficial to all parties instead of just 1.

[TRIFORCE89]

I didn't particularly like the second debate.

Sure Obama did better, but.... that's kinda how he was supposed to be anyway. So, I don't think he "won" just on that. I'd still like Obama to give some more details on how the next four years will go. Not just defending the last four or focusing on fact-checking, but some actual ideas.

On both sides, I hate the big selling feature is just "I'm not the other guy"

Romney got flustered a couple of times. I don't see the big issue with the "binder of women" quote aside from it sounding funny. I don't get why he brought up Obama's pension.

I would have liked the guests to give follow up questions or say if they felt the answer was sufficient.

Did not like the moderator. "How is Romney different from Bush?" and "Why should Obama be re-elected?" should have been questions just for Romney or Obama respectively. That they got to answer each other's questions was weird.

I also would have liked her to fact-check without prompting. Pretty sure that happened in the VP debate, although I don't remember the issue. But here, Obama asked for the transcript to be shared first. I don't mind him saying "Can you say that louder?" XD I thought that was good.

But overall, it was boring.

[FreakyLocz14]

Originally Posted by infosoft

I propose a new name for this thread! "[Bashing on mitt] The official PC democratic party thread!". In all seriousness, this thread got alitle out of hand! 3 pages of this is just people wining about the republicans. "Looky at my quote of a politician saying something I perceive as ignorant! Agree with me! Im desperate!"

As for the debate, I don't think they should let other parties in. The all it will do is divert votes away from a party, its basically as bad as people not voting. Although, I wouldn't mind seeing others at that debate, I just don't see a way to do it that would be beneficial to all parties instead of just 1.

PC is full of liberals who want to tax and spend America into oblivion! I'm glad to know that I'm not the only conservative here to defend American values.

[Mr. X]

Bain Capital is outsourcing jobs to other countries. Mitt credits his experiences at Bain Capital as what gives him the ability to fix our economy. Can you explain how outsourcing jobs to other countries will help improve our economy?

Obamacare was based on Romneycare. Can you explain why Romney hates Obamacare, even though he was the one that laid the frameworks for it?

Romney said he pressured some of his advisors to find women to fill governmental roles during his time as governor. It was later found out, that he didn't, and his so called 'binders full of women' were actualy made before he was elected governor. Can you explain why he lied about this, and why we should allow him to get away with this?

And really, you can't blame all the spending on Dems. A lot of the spending was because of a decade long war, that Republcians got us into, over reasons that were later proven false.

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by Mr. X

Bain Capital is outsourcing jobs to other countries. Mitt credits his experiences at Bain Capital as what gives him the ability to fix our economy. Can you explain how outsourcing jobs to other countries will help improve our economy?

Well, for starters the only jobs he would really be able to create or cut directly would be federal jobs. And...quite frankly I don't see those at risk of being outsourced to China and India XD Reduced, sure. Outsourced, no.

His argument (I think, although he doesn't seem to be being conveyed correctly at all), is that companies are not willing to invest in America. If you can do it cheaper elsewhere, that's where they will go and that's where they are going. That is why China, India, and Brazil are growing. Less regulations, lower taxes, and much lower wages. I don't think American wages should be reduced (they should be raised. Personal debts increasing because you're essentially making less year and year while trying to keep up), however cutting needless red tape and redundancies in regulations (not everything. Regulations and rules are important to keeping the system in check. But streamline it, make things faster and more efficient) or lowering corporate taxes (not income taxes for rich people) should foster a more supposedly "business-friendly" environment that enables America to be competitive on a global scale. More business investment means more jobs. His argument, I think, is about trying to create that kind of environment that on occasion he would edirect companies to (which was not in every case). He knows what made struggling companies profitable, so he wants to emulate it here (hopefully without the social violations).

Originally Posted by Mr. X

Obamacare was based on Romneycare. Can you explain why Romney hates Obamacare, even though he was the one that laid the frameworks for it?

Partly because he needs to cater toward the party base during election time. And partly because he thinks it should be a State-run issue, not Federal (which I think is stupid. Think poorer states would actually be able to implement such a thing on their own? No).

Originally Posted by Mr. X

Romney said he pressured some of his advisors to find women to fill governmental roles during his time as governor. It was later found out, that he didn't, and his so called 'binders full of women' were actualy made before he was elected governor. Can you explain why he lied about this, and why we should allow him to get away with this?

He lied because he's a politician XD That's what they all do. Does it matter if he commissioned it or not as long as he made use of the collection of qualified resumes?

Originally Posted by Mr. X

And really, you can't blame all the spending on Dems. A lot of the spending was because of a decade long war, that Republcians got us into, over reasons that were later proven false.

Indeed. Two wars, unfunded tax cuts, housing bubble burst, economy tanking, initial auto industry and banking bailouts and stimulus. In the first two years of Obama's presidency he didn't get that much done and in the next two... essentially nothing at all, I so I wouldn't blame him for paying what was put on a credit card before. ...at the same time that Obama's done so little (due to Congress), also makes it really damn hard to defend and/or support him.

Personally, I don't think Romney himself would be not better or worse than Obama. The way he's been in these two debates was inline with how he governed in Massachusetts, and not how he has been campaigning all year+. It is more the rest of the of any Republicans that would be elected I'm concerned about.

[Toujours]

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89

Romney got flustered a couple of times. I don't see the big issue with the "binder of women" quote aside from it sounding funny. I don't get why he brought up Obama's pension.

Allow me to clarify then. That one phrase is a joke, but used to refer to his entire opinion on women during the debate. In the fantasy world he created, he had to go search out women to fill out his cabinet, because no one applied that was qualified and a woman. This was in reply to the gender wage gap. That leads to the logical conclusion that he believes the reason women are paid less than men is...because they don't apply for the jobs they're qualified for? That's offensive.

In addition, he then went on to show how you have to flexible towards women, because babies. This is equally offensive because the solution isn't to be more flexible towards women so they're even more obligated to work and perform all the stay-at-home-mom duties at one, the solution is to add flexibility to men's schedules so they can provide for children like their mother would normally be forced into doing by the differences in jobs. A combination of women getting paid less and women receiving childcare flexibility keep women in a place where they have no choice but to become the primary caregivers of children in almost all situations.

It's a situation where feminists laugh so they don't cry at his out-of-touch attitude towards modern women.

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by Toujours

Allow me to clarify then. That one phrase is a joke, but used to refer to his entire opinion on women during the debate. In the fantasy world he created, he had to go search out women to fill out his cabinet, because no one applied that was qualified and a woman. This was in reply to the gender wage gap. That leads to the logical conclusion that he believes the reason women are paid less than men is...because they don't apply for the jobs they're qualified for? That's offensive.

In addition, he then went on to show how you have to flexible towards women, because babies. This is equally offensive because the solution isn't to be more flexible towards women so they're even more obligated to work and perform all the stay-at-home-mom duties at one, the solution is to add flexibility to men's schedules so they can provide for children like their mother would normally be forced into doing by the differences in jobs. A combination of women getting paid less and women receiving childcare flexibility keep women in a place where they have no choice but to become the primary caregivers of children in almost all situations.

It's a situation where feminists laugh so they don't cry at his out-of-touch attitude towards modern women.

The second one, the baby one, I caught during the debate.

But the binder one.... that's not how I perceived it all during the debate aside from sounding goofy. o.o To me it sounded like a totally normally "get me a list of the most qualified people for the job". Granted, that's not what happened as he was presented with it and didn't request it XD But, yeah.

[Toujours]

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89

The second one, the baby one, I caught during the debate.

But the binder one.... that's not how I perceived it all during the debate aside from sounding goofy. o.o To me it sounded like a totally normally "get me a list of the most qualified people for the job". Granted, that's not what happened as he was presented with it and didn't request it XD But, yeah.

Women tend to be more perceptive when it comes to our own rights.

[Mr. X]

Originally Posted by Toujours

Women tend to be more perceptive when it comes to our own rights.

[sarcasm]As a Republican, I take severe offense to this. Women have no right to choose what they want to do with their lives.[/sarcasm]

Republican stances toward women are pretty much say one thing, do another.

[Scarf]

The binders thing has taken off because it's the internet and the internet doesn't take much of anything serious. Toujours' points are spot on though. It's a good symbol for how out of touch Romney is. He couldn't even say that he was for equal pay. (But then maybe he doesn't believe in that and should get points for honesty?)

Going back to something Triforce said, I don't think the fact check was prompted by Obama. I think that was just him getting his "check the transcript" on the record so that later on he could be proven right once the debate was over.

I also think that there should have followups by the audience members. I'm glad that at least there were questions by some regular people though.

[FreakyLocz14]

Originally Posted by Mr. X

Bain Capital is outsourcing jobs to other countries. Mitt credits his experiences at Bain Capital as what gives him the ability to fix our economy. Can you explain how outsourcing jobs to other countries will help improve our economy?

Outsourcing some jobs to prevent a complete collapse of the company, losing all jobs, indeed helps improve the economy.

[Went]

So, uh, anyone help me make any sense out of the polls?

- Is the race tied with Obama having an edge in the key states and thus leading the college?
- Is Obama's performance in the swing states being overvalued and thus Romney will win everything?
- Is Romney winning Red non-swing states with 99% of the votes and thus getting an useless national lead that won't prevent him from losing the college?
- Is Romney's national share oversized and thus he'll lose both the vote and the college?
- Has Gallup gone completely nuts?

[Mr. X]

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14

Outsourcing some jobs to prevent a complete collapse of the company, losing all jobs, indeed helps improve the economy.

People have no job, no money to buy stuff. Nothing gets bought, company makes no money. Jobs get outsourced to maintain the large profit margins. Cycle repeats.

How does having less consumers help the economy?

Anyway, Romnesia. New favorite word of the day.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...b829_blog.html

If you say you're for equal pay for equal work but you keep refusing to say whether or not you will sign a bill that protects equal pay for equal work, you might have Romnesia.

If you say women should have access to contraceptive care, but you support legislation that would let employers deny contraceptive care, you might have a case of Romnesia.

If you say you will protect a women's right to choose but you stand up in a primary debate and say you'd be delighted to sign a law outlawing that right to choose in all cases, then you have definitely got Romnesia.

[FreakyLocz14]

Originally Posted by Mr. X

People have no job, no money to buy stuff. Nothing gets bought, company makes no money. Jobs get outsourced to maintain the large profit margins. Cycle repeats.

How does having less consumers help the economy?

Anyway, Romnesia. New favorite word of the day.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...b829_blog.html

If you say you're for equal pay for equal work but you keep refusing to say whether or not you will sign a bill that protects equal pay for equal work, you might have Romnesia.

If you say women should have access to contraceptive care, but you support legislation that would let employers deny contraceptive care, you might have a case of Romnesia.

If you say you will protect a women's right to choose but you stand up in a primary debate and say you'd be delighted to sign a law outlawing that right to choose in all cases, then you have definitely got Romnesia.

Losing less jobs better than losing all of them.

Regarding Romnesia:

1) Pay discrimination on the basis of sex was already illegal before Obama took office.

2) Employers never have, and never will have the power to deny contraceptive care. This is because they're not the ones who are selling it to women. I've never been denied to opportunity to purchase contraceptive medication from my local pharmacy.

3) Women do have the right to chose. They can chose to keep their legs closed if they don't want to get pregnant.

[Mr. X]

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14

Losing less jobs better than losing all of them.

Regarding Romnesia:

1) Pay discrimination on the basis of sex was already illegal before Obama took office.

2) Employers never have, and never will have the power to deny contraceptive care. This is because they're not the ones who are selling it to women. I've never been denied to opportunity to purchase contraceptive medication from my local pharmacy.

3) Women do have the right to chose. They can chose to keep their legs closed if they don't want to get pregnant.

What if they get pregenant as a result of rape?

Wait, don't tell me. You believe in "Legitimate Rape'.

Obama's comment about contraceptives was about them denying it in their health plans.

[Toujours]

Believing in personhood and simultaneously saying "but women should be able to abort in the cases of rape and incest" is contradictory. If you believe it's a life, you believe it's a life. You don't get the right to kill an innocent human being just because someone else hurt you, right? It doesn't make any sense.

Not that I'm pro-life by any stretch of the imagination, but that's always seemed so dumb to me.

[FreakyLocz14]

Originally Posted by Mr. X

What if they get pregenant as a result of rape?

Wait, don't tell me. You believe in "Legitimate Rape'.

Obama's comment about contraceptives was about them denying it in their health plans.

Why should the child be punished for what happened to the mother?

And employers don't have to cover anything. They especially shouldn't be forced to if they're a religious organization.

[Mario The World Champion]

Originally Posted by Went

So, uh, anyone help me make any sense out of the polls?

- Is the race tied with Obama having an edge in the key states and thus leading the college?
- Is Obama's performance in the swing states being overvalued and thus Romney will win everything?
- Is Romney winning Red non-swing states with 99% of the votes and thus getting an useless national lead that won't prevent him from losing the college?
- Is Romney's national share oversized and thus he'll lose both the vote and the college?
- Has Gallup gone completely nuts?

The multiple number of polls are constant skewed and spinned by both campaigns in order to show their candidate is doing better than the other. I really can't fully answer your question, but I would go with Gallup going nuts. Maybe you can add in the CNN poll and the AP Poll as well.

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by Mr. X

Obama's comment about contraceptives was about them denying it in their health plans.

Indeed.

But, we're talking about private insurance plans here. They're not all created equal. I agree with Obama in that an employer should not be to exclude contraception coverage solely on the basis of their own moral or religious beliefs. They should not be in a position to enforce that on their employees. No more so than if you had some employer who only agreed with "new agey" treatments. That employer should not deny traditional coverage because that's what the "feel" is the right thing to do. That'd be imposing on you and your well-being.

However, generally the insurance plan a company offers is tailored to what they deem are the needs of their employees. If the demographics of that organization don't support giving everyone a plan that includes contraception then they could probably go for a lesser plan that doesn't include it.

It should be covered and addressed as anything else with insurance. If it's needed, they should include it. If it isn't, they shouldn't have to - based only on that reasoning and not one's morals. The question is though, how would you prove their intentions? Tricky.

[Mr. X]

Originally Posted by FreakyLocz14

Why should the child be punished for what happened to the mother?

Anyway, I see contraceptives as one of the... Well, essentials, in health plans. Stuff that is standard because of its widespread use, or being cheap enough to include standard.

[TRIFORCE89]

Originally Posted by Mr. X

Anyway, I see contraceptives as one of the... Well, essentials, in health plans. Stuff that is standard because of its widespread use, or being cheap enough to include standard.

Perhaps, but.... a lot of health plans just cover procedures not medicine.

Where I am, we have "universal health care", which is just a baseline. For procedures that aren't yet covered you need to go with private insurance or your employer's insurance. Further, medicine is largely not covered. Lots of people rely the health plans they get from work to cover only some of those costs - and what is covered differs by plan offered.

So, nothing really is as standard as you seem to think it is. O_o