2012 Presidential Campaign

[larrymcg421]

Do we believe in consent of the governed all the time or only when the governed support someone acceptable to US interests? Installing leaders/governments that don't have popular local support is an awful idea that just leads to more problems down the road.

[JediKooter]

I think I have to agree with RendeR. Romney sounds nowhere near someone being presidential. He sounds like someone on American Idol that can barely sing, and then trying to negotiate with the judges to sing another song because he thinks that the judges didn't like the first song, but, in reality, he just can't sing.

Obama is definitely more articulate and does sound presidential. Don't confuse articulate with honest though.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Obama is definitely more articulate and does sound presidential. Don't confuse articulate with honest though.

Do you think Obama sounds as articulate and charisma as he did 3-4 years ago?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Do you think Obama sounds as articulate and charisma as he did 3-4 years ago?

He sounds the same, but, with just more knowledge gained over the last 3 years.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Do we believe in consent of the governed all the time or only when the governed support someone acceptable to US interests? Installing leaders/governments that don't have popular local support is an awful idea that just leads to more problems down the road.

This.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I think I have to agree with RendeR. Romney sounds nowhere near someone being presidential. He sounds like someone on American Idol that can barely sing, and then trying to negotiate with the judges to sing another song because he thinks that the judges didn't like the first song, but, in reality, he just can't sing.

Obama is definitely more articulate and does sound presidential. Don't confuse articulate with honest though.

OK. But aren't you and RendeR decided to begin with? This election is about those who might be convinced one way or another and those who might turn out for their party if they're inspired enough.

I can't rest too much on this one. To me, Romney is a professional politician from a family of professional politicians. If he had real answers about dealing with the deficit and handling unemployment, I might be tempted to vote for him. But he doesn't, so I'm not.

I thought it was interesting that if I didn't know from being alive the last four years that Obama was the president and Romney the challenger, I would have guessed, from the debate last night and the facial expressions and conduct of the candidates, that Romney was the incumbent.

I'd add that someone needs to advise Obama that the word "decimate" does not mean what he thinks it means. We do not want to simply decimate Al Qaeda's leadership. He needs to go quite a bit further if this is to have any significance, and I think he has.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

How exactly did it seem to "fail in Libya"? I think Libya has shown a great success in putting in a moderate government. Does that mean all the terrorists will stop fighting in its territory? Of course not. But its a damn sight better than how Quaddafi would have dealt with the issue.

Really, it's gone fairly well, considering. We have someone in office who has spent most of his adult years in America and is presumably friendly to America. So far, even with the professions of shari'a compliance, it seems to be a peaceful and liberal variety of shari'a.

For some reason, we haven't responded to the attack. And I don't know why. I'd like to know why. Is it because we don't feel comfortable addressing this with Libya? Are they promising to deal with it and just don't have the ability to take on the militants? Or is this a separate failure of foreign policy.

Romney, of course, isn't stepping into this one. He would sound like Bush if he did. It's more what we don't know than what we know that has me worried that it's a failure. I was blasted for worrying about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, because at first they said they weren't going to run for office and that it wasn't their revolution. Well, now we know that's not true, and tensions are pretty high.

We toppled a dictator in Iraq, and justifiably received condemnation from the world. So these kinder and gentler topplings (we're not leading them, at least, despite the bombings in Libya) at least don't anger the Europeans. But what are we gaining? What are the people of these countries gaining?

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I'd add that someone needs to advise Obama that the word "decimate" does not mean what he thinks it means. We do not want to simply decimate Al Qaeda's leadership. He needs to go quite a bit further if this is to have any significance, and I think he has.

Usage of decimate is not limited to the original reduce by one tenth, it can also be used to mean destroying any large portion of a group.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Do you think Obama sounds as articulate and charisma as he did 3-4 years ago?

FWIW, I don't know if any President is physically/mentally/emotionally capable of the same things as a candidate for their second term as they were during the campaign for their first term.

The job takes a toll on pretty much everyone who has it.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

For some reason, we haven't responded to the attack. And I don't know why. I'd like to know why. Is it because we don't feel comfortable addressing this with Libya? Are they promising to deal with it and just don't have the ability to take on the militants? Or is this a separate failure of foreign policy.

How would you suggest a response is made? - if the people in charge there appear to honestly be against the terrorists and doing their best to catch/stop them then knocking them won't help US interests nor will undermining them in front of their own people.

I recall when the IRA were active in Ireland the hardest part for the English (both Government and the English people) was turning another cheek for a while as they attacked us* ... however it was required we do so because it undermined their support and eventually lead to the (relatively) stable peace we have today.

Without the English turning another cheek they would have continued to generate sympathy and funding from other countries not directly involved in the conflict (much as is the case in the Middle East) - its far harder to look like heroic independence fighters if the people you attack don't retaliate.

Not saying this is definitely the case - but its something to bear in mind ....

*As someone who travelled regularly through London during this period and sometimes waited patiently as various 'controlled explosions' were detonated in stations I travelled through this was a (cough) interesting time for me personally.

[stevew]

What exactly is this "war on coal" b.s. I see signs for.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by stevew

What exactly is this "war on coal" b.s. I see signs for.

Coal industry pays people to wear shirts and put up signs. I'm not kidding.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I would advocate cutting the military budget by reducing or eliminating foreign bases, ending this nation-building concept and ending interference in civil wars around the world.

I agree with you. We probably have very similar stances on the military. I did make the point earlier though that it couldn't be an immediate cut, it would have to be wound down slowly over years. The problem is that our position is a minority position. Democrats want to cut defense and use it for other stuff, Republicans want to cut other stuff and put it in defense.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

We differentiate between money earned and capital gains. Without moral judgments. If you have an asset and it increases in value, the tax on that increase is lower than the tax on wages.

We can argue whether that makes good economic sense, but there are reasons for this tax code. The Romneys of the world pay less because what we consider income is an increase in the value of what they already own.

Regardless of the reasoning for it, I was just stating that we don't have a progressive system. Wealthier people will make more money through capital gains and thus will pay a lower overall tax rate. They will also cease paying SS tax at the $110k mark. I'm not arguing policy really, just the insinuation that we have a progressive tax structure because we don't.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by stevew

What exactly is this "war on coal" b.s. I see signs for.

Obama at one point said that he would make it so that a coal power plant could not afford to run.

FWIW, I've seen two proposed coal plants cancelled in the past 2 years. Not sure if it is related to this or not. In at least one case, I think it was the ineptitude of the group that put in the first one.

[JPhillips]

Natural gas(fracking) is killing coal. It's cheaper and cleaner.

[JPhillips]

Another GOP Senate candidate says something offensive about rape. This is Mourdock in IN:

I’ve struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God,” Mourdock said. “And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.

[DaddyTorgo]

umm...wow

why do any women vote Republican? Jeezus

[Buccaneer]

Nevermind. Not in this knee-jerk crowd.

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

why do any women vote Republican? Jeezus

Probably the same reason a lot of us struggle with this, because the only other option is Democrat. And the fact that there's a lot of nutjob Republicans can't mean that there's only one correct way to look at the world and its issues. The fact that there's a bunch of Republicans that have disturbing ideas about rape doesn't mean that the Democrats are just inherently right about everything. I know too many dumb and smart people on all sides of the political spectrum to believe that it's just as simple as Democrats are right about everything and everyone else is un-enlightened and wrong.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Highlight of all three debates, to me:

Originally Posted by President Obama

I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. You — you mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.

And so the question is not a game of Battleship where we're counting ships. It's — it's what are our capabilities.

[RainMaker]

I don't think it's a R vs D thing. It has more to do with the Pro-Life movement which is less about abortion and more about shaming women.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by molson

Probably the same reason a lot of us struggle with this, because the only other option is Democrat. And the fact that there's a lot of nutjob Republicans can't mean that there's only one correct way to look at the world and its issues. The fact that there's a bunch of Republicans that have disturbing ideas about rape doesn't mean that the Democrats are just inherently right about everything. I know too many dumb and smart people on all sides of the political spectrum to believe that it's just as simple as Democrats are right about everything and everyone else is un-enlightened and wrong.

but why would you want to give someone with those ridiculously backwards ideas about rape and gender roles power? even if the democrats aren't great, it's certainly the lesser of two evils, isn't it?

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

but why would you want to give someone with those ridiculously backwards ideas about rape and gender roles power? even if the democrats aren't great, it's certainly the lesser of two evils, isn't it?

I don't think I do anything to contribute to Republican power but I can't get excited about supporting a political party on the sole ground that the only other legitimate option has ridiculously backwards ideas about rape and gender roles power. So ya, politics depresses me.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

For some reason, we haven't responded to the attack. And I don't know why. I'd like to know why. Is it because we don't feel comfortable addressing this with Libya? Are they promising to deal with it and just don't have the ability to take on the militants? Or is this a separate failure of foreign policy.

Romney, of course, isn't stepping into this one. He would sound like Bush if he did. It's more what we don't know than what we know that has me worried that it's a failure. I was blasted for worrying about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, because at first they said they weren't going to run for office and that it wasn't their revolution. Well, now we know that's not true, and tensions are pretty high.

We toppled a dictator in Iraq, and justifiably received condemnation from the world. So these kinder and gentler topplings (we're not leading them, at least, despite the bombings in Libya) at least don't anger the Europeans. But what are we gaining? What are the people of these countries gaining?

I wonder the same thing. Libya was an issue that Romney should have won in the debates clearly. He didn't for two reasons; one is that he absolutely impaled himself on this issue with the knee-jerk midnight email. Second is that he just didn't seem to be engaged with the the facts and the key issues. Last night he got the Libya question right off the bat and starts talking about Mali. Here we are more than a month afterwards and no response. It would have been very easy for Romney to say that Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush all responded quickly and decisively when Americans were killed by terrorists, so why doesn't Obama?

The real answer is that the solution appears muddled. There was an article I read over the weekend that I can't find now that essentially says we know who was involved in the attacks and we know who sponsored the attacks, but the leaders are located in Al Qaida cells across Africa. We don't necessarily want to make this a law enforcement issue because it would be too difficult to prosecute, but launching missile or air strikes would involved violating the sovereignty of several Islamic nations, and all the leaders in the Middle East are telling Obama that if the USA strikes that it will inflame anti-American feelings further.

But given how badly the CIA whiffed on this before, during and after the attacks, and how weak the CIA network apparently is in Northern Africa, it seems we have reason to be concerned.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

but why would you want to give someone with those ridiculously backwards ideas about rape and gender roles power? even if the democrats aren't great, it's certainly the lesser of two evils, isn't it?

Where does the indiscriminate abortion of unborn children fall among the evils or don't they count at all?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Where does the indiscriminate abortion of unborn children fall among the evils or don't they count at all?

I see. So you're in favor of forcing rape victims to carry their attackers' children?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

I see. So you're in favor of forcing rape victims to carry their attackers' children?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I believe in forcing harsher penalties on rapists than there are now, nothing about 'forcing' the women to choose to carry. You're the one forcing an automatic solution in all cases with no exceptions. Hypocrite.

Let's say, hypothetically, you believe in the sanctity of all life. How would you then frame the question? Would you still violate your principles without exceptions?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Where does the indiscriminate abortion of unborn children fall among the evils or don't they count at all?

There are far more miscarriages each year than abortions. Where does that fall on the evil scale? Seems like whatever deity allows that isn't all that good of an entity.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

but why would you want to give someone with those ridiculously backwards ideas about rape and gender roles power? even if the democrats aren't great, it's certainly the lesser of two evils, isn't it?

I don't think Romney personally really cares that much about the issue. Others do, yes. I think he's playing to the party line, and if he were elected there wouldn't be some huge push to roll back the social structure of the US above dealing with other issues (now, it could say something about him that he is willing to be that malleable to garner support, but hey - he's a politician). I also think that there are enough checks that even if there was such a push, it wouldn't get very far.

I also don't believe that the underlying issue - "terminating would-be life is wrong" - is necessarily "ridiculously backwards." How that is extended and in some cases distorted, perhaps. But in its simplest terms, "killing babies is bad", is not ridiculous.

(Of course, "raping is bad" is pretty simple and obvious, and some people have trouble understanding this, too. There are no winners in these cases.)

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by cartman

There are far more miscarriages each year than abortions. Where does that fall on the evil scale? Seems like whatever deity allows that isn't all that good of an entity.

Accidents happen all phases of life and I believe that (most? nearly all?) miscarriages are not purposefully chosen to happen.

[cuervo72]

Heh, indeed - people die of natural causes all of the time. That being the case, I guess all bets are off!!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I believe in forcing harsher penalties on rapists than there are now, nothing about 'forcing' the women to choose to carry. You're the one forcing an automatic solution in all cases with no exceptions. Hypocrite.

Let's say, hypothetically, you believe in the sanctity of all life. How would you then frame the question? Would you still violate your principles without exceptions?

Um what? How is giving someone a choice to have an abortion forcing an automatic solution? Is that what you're referring to? And if so - Are you really that stupid?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I also don't believe that the underlying issue - "terminating would-be life is wrong" - is necessarily "ridiculously backwards." How that is extended and in some cases distorted, perhaps. But in its simplest terms, "killing babies is bad", is not ridiculous.

I agree with this. I do respect people that have the opinion that terminating a would-be life is wrong. Don't necessarily agree with it, but I see the perspective. But that side of the aisle doesn't give a shit about abortion, they care about shitting on women. You can't claim to be against abortion and then at the same time support policies that increase them.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I agree with this. I do respect people that have the opinion that terminating a would-be life is wrong. Don't necessarily agree with it, but I see the perspective. But that side of the aisle doesn't give a shit about abortion, they care about shitting on women. You can't claim to be against abortion and then at the same time support policies that increase them.

They also fail to understand that they don't have any right to impose their beliefs on others who believe differently.

[Solecismic]

If I were pro-life, which I'm not, I would have a hard time not pushing for penalties against women who smoked during pregnancy, or who refused to seek medical help and didn't take vitamins, or who ate too many Mallomars instead of a balanced diet.

I hope it's obvious where I'm going with this.

It's estimated that as many as 50% of all successful fertilizations of eggs end in miscarriage. That's a lot of death to deal with and not truly understand. I don't think the issue is as simple as saying doctor-assisted abortion should be illegal, no exceptions, and that's as far as I'm willing to go to protect the sanctity of life.

To be consistent, you might have to go beyond the current pro-life philosophy, and start jailing women for drug use during pregnancy, or even for using certain forms of birth control, like the pill, designed in part to prevent attachment to the uterine wall *after* fertilization (this is certainly part of how birth control pills work - after all, the "morning after" pill is mostly just a higher dose of the same stuff.

I don't have much patience for the Akins of this world. I think it's mean to tell a woman who was raped that this was some sort of plan for her, and she should just relax and enjoy the baby. That might be your religious view, and you're entitled to it, but sometimes being a decent human being means you don't say what you think and you recognize that your world view might not always be correct.

[RainMaker]

If I were pro-life, I'd be pushing for easier access to contraceptives including Plan B. I'd be for social programs that help low income mothers. But like I said, pro-life doesn't give a shit about things that actually reduce abortions.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Heh, indeed - people die of natural causes all of the time. That being the case, I guess all bets are off!!

But there is a marked difference. Once you are born, the odds are really good that you will live quite a long time. This actuarial table bears that out:

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

But a fertilized egg faces very long odds. Anywhere from 25-40% do not make it past the first trimester.

I made the point rather awkwardly with the first post, but many abortions would have ended up as miscarriages. In fact, prior to Roe v. Wade, miscarriages were widely referred to as 'spontaneous abortions'. There seems to be this notion that all of the abortions would have resulted in a birth if the abortion wasn't performed, when that just isn't the case.

It is my personal opinion, but I don't see an inherent evilness in someone given drugs that causes their body to react the same as a someone who has suffered a miscarriage, when the incidence of miscarriages is so high. Or someone undergoing a medical procedure that is the same as one to deal with stillborns. I see it as evil to force someone to endure a pregnancy caused by a sexual assault or one that could kill or maim the mother.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

but why would you want to give someone with those ridiculously backwards ideas about rape and gender roles power? even if the democrats aren't great, it's certainly the lesser of two evils, isn't it?

I am pretty outspoken as against the lessor of two evils approach but the Libertarian candidate here in Missouri is a bit of a whack job and I find Akin so reprehensible on so many different levels that I think I will be casting a ballot for Claire. Libertarians > GOP/Democrats >> People who claim they have spoken to Jesus.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

They also fail to understand that they don't have any right to impose their beliefs on others who believe differently.

Hi! Welcome to politics!

[stevew]

Assuming an Obama victory, where do the wingnuts go? More years of war on coal signs? As the one retard has on his hotel sign "Impeachment is the ideal solutsion"? How long do the Romney signs stay up? Biweekly tea parties? It's not normal for people to get so fired up like this. This fanaticism is somewhat scary

[stevew]

Supposedly Trump has a divorce filing from the Obamas in 2000. Dunno if there are allegations of infidelity in there or something.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by panerd

People who claim they have spoken to Jesus.

you mean mormons?

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by stevew

Assuming an Obama victory, where do the wingnuts go? More years of war on coal signs? As the one retard has on his hotel sign "Impeachment is the ideal solutsion"? How long do the Romney signs stay up? Biweekly tea parties? It's not normal for people to get so fired up like this. This fanaticism is somewhat scary

According to Chuck Norris, 1,000 years of darkness. We're going to need that coal for running lights.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by stevew

Supposedly Trump has a divorce filing from the Obamas in 2000. Dunno if there are allegations of infidelity in there or something.

Well I guess he had to move on from the birther movement sometime...

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by cartman

But there is a marked difference. Once you are born, the odds are really good that you will live quite a long time. This actuarial table bears that out:

Actuarial Life Table

But a fertilized egg faces very long odds. Anywhere from 25-40% do not make it past the first trimester.

I made the point rather awkwardly with the first post, but many abortions would have ended up as miscarriages. In fact, prior to Roe v. Wade, miscarriages were widely referred to as 'spontaneous abortions'. There seems to be this notion that all of the abortions would have resulted in a birth if the abortion wasn't performed, when that just isn't the case.

It is my personal opinion, but I don't see an inherent evilness in someone given drugs that causes their body to react the same as a someone who has suffered a miscarriage, when the incidence of miscarriages is so high. Or someone undergoing a medical procedure that is the same as one to deal with stillborns. I see it as evil to force someone to endure a pregnancy caused by a sexual assault or one that could kill or maim the mother.

I've softened on this a lot since my younger days, especially concerning drugs that work this way very early in the pregnancy. Where I haven't softened is on the argument that a person isn't a person until it has passed through the birth canal (or abdomen). I think that view is ridiculous. Of course the trick has always been pinpointing at what point exactly is a person a person, if not at birth.

Maybe looking at things from a statistical point of view would help some. Do you have any data on what the survival rate is for fetuses that make it to 18, 21, 24, etc. weeks (not numbers on % of births that occur at 24 weeks, but how many pregnancies that make it to that point result in an infant that survived to X months)? I would think that at some point, the survival rate rockets up then levels off.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by bronconick

According to Chuck Norris, 1,000 years of darkness. We're going to need that coal for running lights.

My guess is the reveal on Revolution will be that Obama caused the blackout.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I would think that at some point, the survival rate rockets up then levels off.

There are big drops around Week 3, Week 6, and Week 12. A detected heartbeat (usually in the Week 7-9 range) and making it out of the first trimester are significant milestones. Most physicians agree that the vast majority of miscarriages are the result of severe chromosome-related defects, and the vast majority of them cause death prior to the end of the first trimester. Once the first trimester is complete, there's only roughly a 3% chance of miscarriage. After that point, there's a significantly increased frequency of them being caused by other factors (illness/disease in mother, accidents, mother's lifestyle choices, etc.)

In response to your specific comment about it leveling off: the rate of survival is pretty level and quite high once you hit the second trimester. And the dropoff between detection of the heartbeat roughly midway through the first trimester and the end of the first trimester isn't all *that* big, I'm fairly sure.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Well, this should be interesting. The administration knew two hours after the Benghazi attack that extremists claimed responsibility. Should make for an fun day of backtracking and attacks on the campaign trail.

E-mails: White House knew of extremist claims in Benghazi attack - CNN.com

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Well, this should be interesting. The administration knew two hours after the Benghazi attack that extremists claimed responsibility. Should make for an fun day of backtracking and attacks on the campaign trail.

E-mails: White House knew of extremist claims in Benghazi attack - CNN.com

"Claimed credit for" is not always believable.

[Tigercat]

This whole line of debate is stupid. It would be one thing if an administration wasn't clear on an action IT took or defining a threat in the future. But to be unclear about defining an attack that took place in the past? When its possible that the lack of clearity or accuracy may be due to caution? It's just ridiculous. And can this debate ever really win Romney any points or really affect the election?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If I were pro-life, I'd be pushing for easier access to contraceptives including Plan B. I'd be for social programs that help low income mothers. But like I said, pro-life doesn't give a shit about things that actually reduce abortions.

The problem that Pro-Life people have with easier access to contraceptives is the mixed signal it sends. That's why most preach abstinence when it comes to sex.

Personally, I fall in the camp of it's going to happen so make sure you are prepared for it. That is preferable to an abortion.

Why is this even an issue any more? Its not going anywhere.