Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by G19G20, Oct 4, 2012.
Well, Obama thanks you for seeing it that way. He was hoping someone would.
Here, I do think you are Projecting yourself on to others.
I've discussed the debate with many people this morning, face to face. Every one of them had a handful of specifics, why he won.
So what you are really saying is that Obama got knocked flat and you have no idea how. I'm ok with that. Hope Axelrod feels the same as you.
I won't dispute that. There are plenty of people that know policy details and agree with Romney's positions (even though they are still WAY to vague and without detail ... exactly HOW again is he going to do a 20% tax cut across board, add 2 trillion to defense spending, not cut medicare/medicaid/SS (arguably even increase spending), and NOT add dramatically to the debt? Clue: It is IMPOSSIBLE without assuming some magical/mythical growth and/or significant changes to deductions that primarily would impact middle class negatively). But for every one of these people in our circles who know the policies and are intelligent enough to parse them ... there are 10 that think Romney looked "more Presidential" or was "more energetic" or "had nicer hair" .... etc. To these folks, Romney "won" and might have been swayed.
edit: folks like Goaltender66 (post #10 above I believe) are doing thoughtful and legitimate analysis based on their beliefs on policy. While I don't AGREE with some of the beliefs, he is at least making information, policy based arguments. If we were a world full of Goaltender66 critical thinking skills (not necessarily of same conclusions though ) ... we would be in much better place. But instead .... we have Honey Boo Boo and Kim Kardashian voting.
It's a reach to attribute this to the entire Libertarian movement when it's one or two guys on PI promoting this aberrant view. I detest Obama and am in mourning over the damage he has done to this country. I have already stated on PI that I will hold my nose and vote for Romney, but man, the GOP really blew an opportunity to change things in a major way.
Not at all what I'm saying. He got "knocked flat" based primarily on "feel good" types of analysis IMO (e.g., level of energy, aggressiveness, etc.) Romney won the battle for "low information" voters who vote based on stupid **** ... in other words.
Romney was simply MUCH better prepared in the technicalities and superficial things needed to effectively debate. Like he practiced for weeks. It looked like Obama practiced and prepared about 3 days and was just pissed he had to be there.
One pundit made an interesting comment last night that I think was good. It was that presidents (particularly during their first term) tend to live in a "bubble" of "yes men". As a result, they are well out of practice in challenging aggressive opposition. Romney took him off guard in this manner ... in that I don't think any single person has directly challenged Obama face to face like that (facts not necessarily withstanding ... it was perception that counted) since the 2008 election.
Speaking of critical thinking skills...
Wow ... you're clever. You are officially classified as a "low information" voter now.
Do you actually think that is a "gotcha"?
Ironically ... that post was in response to your statement in that thread:
That ... my friends ... is EXACTLY an illustration of a "low information" voter who lacks the ability (or maybe just desire ... but same effect) of thinking critically. They don't want to hear fact based news and have to "read between the lines" and make inferences and decisions to form their opinions. They would rather have a blatantly partisan media source like right-wing radio, fox news (or even MSNBC) GIVE them their opinions.
Why expend additional energy when one can just echo back the inane comments that expose someone for the leftist moonbat that they are?
Exactly ... which is why I've ignored the other probably 4 times(?) you've whipped that same quote of mine out on unrelated threads like you have some golden nugget "gotcha". It is hilariously lame (because it is only in your own mind a "gotcha") and not worth my time and energy ... as you noted. So ... perhaps I'll just stop responding to it again.
Debate me on something meaningful and topical and I'll respond. Otherwise/until then, I hereby banish you back to rube-ville and willl essentially ignore you.
Fair point, though I have heard it in other venues than GTPI. Regardless, I apologize for being overbroad.
The thing is, I don't know that a major change *can* be made given the facts on the ground. I would absolutely love for the vast majority of government to be cut down to nothing. Let me offer an anecdote:
I recently went through my passport renewal process. As part of the process I'm given the choice of the regular passport book, a passport card, or both. In talking with the clerk at the passport office I find out the card is a credit-card sized credential used only for land travel between the US and Canada or Mexico, or sea travel to those ports plus the Caribbean. It's useless for air travel (except as ID to board the plane, but it won't get you through customs.). I was asking why I would need this extra $30 card if I had a book. I was told "convenience."
Turns out that border control stopped allowing travellers across the Mexican/Canadian borders to simply use drivers licenses and birth certificates and started requiring passports. Frequent travellers started complaining about this, so in response the State Department applied a brand new level of bureaucracy and created an all-new RFID-enabled passport card. And while it's supposedly secure enough for ground travel, you can't use it for air travel...you have to have the full passport book.
To me this is yet one more example of bureaucracy existing to perpetuate itself. Instead of working to lower the cost of the passport book, they complicate the options with something only useful in limited, specific circumstances.
My point is that all of this crap isn't going to go away overnight. I would love to dismantle the entire US Department of Education, but the reality is that building full of bureaucrats isn't going anywhere any time soon. So instead, until we conservatives can change attitudes, why not try to transform the Dept of Ed from a jobs program for union teachers into something that can advocate for decent curricula in our schools? Then gradually reduce the role of that bureaucracy until it withers away.
I honestly can't think of another politically feasible way to accomplish a reduction in government on the scale that we need. As long as people like Trew2Life are demanding their bennies, we're kind of stuck in what we can do.
Nice delusions of grandeur there Douggie.
JFRAME, I didn't know you were headed to DU...
And helping re-elect Obama is such a superior plan. . . .
Thank you for trashing the Republic of America as you want to incorporate communism system by telling people who to vote for. You are very awesome!!! You are helping to destruct the America as we know with either Obama or Romney! High five!!
Seriously, please don't tell a person if he doesn't want to vote Romney then he is helping Obama to be re-elected.
I'm going to vote Ron Paul or Gary Johnson because both represents me better than Obama or Romney. I am living to the republic and not in accordance with your lesser of two games which it is the bottom line of a communism system or even worse a tyranny system.
Enjoy the America as you have know while it last.
Leftists tend to ignore those they cannot defeat -- and they especially hate being hoisted on their own petard.
I appreciate and share some of your disenfranchisement with wasteful spending and bureaucratic crap. Your anecdote about the passport is spot on. I would say that I don't agree specifically with your D. of Ed. opinion though.
With that said though, both of those things (like doing away with the ~250 million dollar funding/year to "Big Bird") won't do SQUAT to our budget issues. It is simply mathematically impossible. You alluded to "bennies" though ... and I'll assume you mean SS/Medicare/Medicaid. Now THAT is the big bucket of spending that is meaningful ... along with DoD.
ONLY these two areas (entitlements and DoD) make up between 2/3 and 3/4 of our budget. We could cut the the rest of expenditures (25 - 30 of spending), and leave entitlements and DoD as is ... and STILL be running a deficit. So ... while it feels good to complain about D. of Ed., passports, and "Big Bird" ... it is nothing more than an illusion and meaningless.
I'm of the opinion that we need to:
a) Drastically cut DoD. Call me crazy ... but I'd be OK with a budget that doubles the next highest country's instead of one that is more than the next 5 combined. We could cut DoD spending by 50% and still be 2x more than the next country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures I'm ex-Military FWIW. I believe in appropriate use of military force and in peace through power ... i.e., walk softly and carry a big stick. But the MiC in this country is ridiculous and the false patriotic propaganda pushed by so many to perpetuate it "discusting" We need smart DoD spending. Not quantity over quality.
b) Means test SS. Sorry ... if you don't need it, you don't get it. In other words, on a scale based on net worth/income ... you index down the eligibility to receive SS benefits. This sucks ... I know. Somebody is gonna feel pain in some manner or another ... no way around it.
c) Raise SS eligibility age based on a scientific lifespan index assessment that is adjusted periodically. Dropping dead at 67 a couple years after you retire is not as common as it used to be. Thank Medicare! Nor can can we expect to retire at 62 (unless you've smartly self-funded your retirement ... which is great then you can) when we expect to live to 90+. So ... need to account for longer lifespans.
d) Return tax brackets to those during mid-90s. We are disingenuous to only take a spending cut approach to solve our problems. Hey .. after all ... a top bracket of 39% is way better than what we had during those wonderful booming 1950s we always refer to .. right? Those great days of economic growth and thriving middle class? Cough .. cough: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
You can vote for anyone you want but the FACT is that only one of two people will become the next president.
If you don't like Obama, but you don't vote for the ONLY person who can replace him, you ARE helping Obama win.
Sorry if the truth hurts. .
Great! I love it when leftists give me immunity!
(I also love that you're trying to laugh this off, but I can virtually see your teeth clenched in rage every time you get your idiotic words thrown back at you... )
You are feeding to that system: Only Obama or Romney will be the next President. You are trashing the US Constitution and you are feeding to that crap. Sorry that truth is more painful for you.
We are beyond of no return. Therefore I couldn't see any ways to reverse the system right now, so it is either you are feeding to it or to be opposite to it and stand up for the right cause.
Enjoy your cheerleadering for the destruction of America as we know.
Unfortunately it takes time to turn things around. The Ron Paul supporters seem to believe that if Paul was elected, he would cut the budget in half on the first day and all would be fine.
But it doesn't work like that. When you dig a deep hole over several decades, it can take a long long time to climb out of that hole.
A person can run up thousands in CC debt in a short period of time. But it might take years to pay off that debt. The USA is in the same situation. We don't have any free (discretionary) money to "pay down" the debt.
Even cutting spending is a difficult task because of legal obligation that were incurred with that spending. Sure there is some low hanging fruit (PBS, Grants to study the sex life of the fruit fly). But the serious money will require total restructuring of programs such as SS and medicare, which no one has the guts to do. Especially Congress! And the President can't accomplish those types of changes without Congress. . .