2012 US Election -- Round 2

[Coito ergo sum]

So then you're equally exasperated about Romney constantly talking about "REAL change".

Yes, but it's not a fucking slogan. But, yes, if he calls for change and doesn't specify "to what" then it fricking burns my ass.

I would be. I for one never liked "change" as a slogan, going back to Clinton in 1992. "Hope" in 2008 was a bit more understandable after eight years of the Bush administration, even if it was just exploiting a vague sentiment, but I digress.

"Forward" works fine, especially for an incumbent coming off a rough four years. No, it's not a specific policy, but that's not what we're talking abouty here any more than "Country First" alluded to a specific policy. "Forward" means not returning to the ways of the Bush years; tragically, a very large part of Obama's presidency to date has been repairing the damage left over from the last guy, which Obama's campaign knows is obvious enough to make Forward a viable slogan.

Anyway, screw slogans. They are the lowest common denominator in a campaign.

I fucking hate them. And, Forward is repulsive.

Literally, I want to know what his vision of 'Merka is... anyone know what "fundamental change" he wants to move "Forward" to?

[Ian]

I'm sure we could go a few rounds on Obama's vision, but I think "forward" is just a cheap way of saying "not backwards", which subtlely implies Dubya.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm sure we could go a few rounds on Obama's vision, but I think "forward" is just a cheap way of saying "not backwards", which subtlely implies Dubya.

So, you're the one who knows what the "fundamental change" is?

[Ian]

I'm sure we could go a few rounds on Obama's vision, but I think "forward" is just a cheap way of saying "not backwards", which subtlely implies Dubya.

So, you're the one who knows what the "fundamental change" is?

Indeed I am, comrade.

[Wumbologist]

I'm sure we could go a few rounds on Obama's vision, but I think "forward" is just a cheap way of saying "not backwards", which subtlely implies Dubya.

We certainly don't need to go "backwards" by a few decades in terms of women's reproductive rights by electing someone who will actively seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, prevent thousands of women from accessing birth control via their health insurance, and shut down vital programs like Planned Parenthood. We don't need to go backwards on the progress being made towards marriage equality when the momentum has just started to build, by electing a president who will support a federal amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. We don't need to go backwards on allowing gays the right to serve openly in the military. We don't need to go backwards on America's reputation with the rest of the world. We don't need to go backwards to the failed Bush policies of excessive military spending while cutting taxes. We don't need to go backwards in our education system, which already needs improvement and will be even worse off as a target for the deep cuts Romney will need to make to afford the extra $2 trillion he wants in military spending, let alone if he's going to try to bring down the deficit at the same time.

So yeah. "Forward" or "not backwards" is definitely the correct direction for this nation, and anyone who thinks Mittens is going to bring us in that direction is off their rocker.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm sure we could go a few rounds on Obama's vision, but I think "forward" is just a cheap way of saying "not backwards", which subtlely implies Dubya.

So, you're the one who knows what the "fundamental change" is?

Indeed I am, comrade.

But, see, that would be "a" fundamental change, for certain. I'm not saying that is "the" fundamental change he is talking about. But, for a change to be fundamental, it has to be something pretty big. What is the US, "fundamentally?" It is a republic. It is constitutionally limited. It is economically capitalist, being based on freedom of contract, freedom of association, laissez-faire capitalism. There are probably other things that can be deemed "fundamental" to the country.

So, what does want to fundamentally change?

I mean - this is a smart guy, right? Well read. Politically savvy. He knows what he is saying, yes? I mean - I've rarely seen someone whose speeches have such a way of navigating and parsing language. He says what he means, and is adept at hedging and qualifying.

So, I can't imagine it being just a throwaway line. I mean, some things he has said are revealing -- that the constitution defines rights in the sense of what the government can't do to you, but it needs to spell out what the government must do for you. That would be sort of fundamental.

So -- that's where I'm coming from. I really wonder why not a single reporter didn't ask him during the 2008 campaign. "Mr. Obama, you talk often about "fundamental" changes -- what are the fundamentals that you wish to change? -- Or, is that just a reference to wanting to fix the economy and make people's lives better?"

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm sure we could go a few rounds on Obama's vision, but I think "forward" is just a cheap way of saying "not backwards", which subtlely implies Dubya.

We certainly don't need to go "backwards" by a few decades in terms of women's reproductive rights by electing someone who will actively seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, prevent thousands of women from accessing birth control via their health insurance, and shut down vital programs like Planned Parenthood. We don't need to go backwards on the progress being made towards marriage equality when the momentum has just started to build, by electing a president who will support a federal amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. We don't need to go backwards on allowing gays the right to serve openly in the military. We don't need to go backwards on America's reputation with the rest of the world. We don't need to go backwards to the failed Bush policies of excessive military spending while cutting taxes. We don't need to go backwards in our education system, which already needs improvement and will be even worse off as a target for the deep cuts Romney will need to make to afford the extra $2 trillion he wants in military spending, let alone if he's going to try to bring down the deficit at the same time.

So yeah. "Forward" or "not backwards" is definitely the correct direction for this nation, and anyone who thinks Mittens is going to bring us in that direction is off their rocker.

Maybe Mitt is moving forward, but off to one side...

[Kristie]

I'm sure we could go a few rounds on Obama's vision, but I think "forward" is just a cheap way of saying "not backwards", which subtlely implies Dubya.

We certainly don't need to go "backwards" by a few decades in terms of women's reproductive rights by electing someone who will actively seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, prevent thousands of women from accessing birth control via their health insurance, and shut down vital programs like Planned Parenthood. We don't need to go backwards on the progress being made towards marriage equality when the momentum has just started to build, by electing a president who will support a federal amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. We don't need to go backwards on allowing gays the right to serve openly in the military. We don't need to go backwards on America's reputation with the rest of the world. We don't need to go backwards to the failed Bush policies of excessive military spending while cutting taxes. We don't need to go backwards in our education system, which already needs improvement and will be even worse off as a target for the deep cuts Romney will need to make to afford the extra $2 trillion he wants in military spending, let alone if he's going to try to bring down the deficit at the same time.

So yeah. "Forward" or "not backwards" is definitely the correct direction for this nation, and anyone who thinks Mittens is going to bring us in that direction is off their rocker.

Maybe Mitt is moving forward, but off to one side...

He's moving toward the way of the past in terms of women't reproductive rights. That would mean he's moving backward.

[Coito ergo sum]

He's moving toward the way of the past in terms of women't reproductive rights. That would mean he's moving backward.

See, well, I suppose that's a matter of opinion. The Gallup survey I saw said at least 50% of women in the US call themselves pro-Life. So...their "forward" is to move on from Roe v Wade into a world of "save the fetuses," which would also be "forward" from the traditional, common law of abortion which didn't consider a fetus to be alive until "the quickening" set in. Even early Catholic teaching on the subject, Thomas Aquinas, was not "from conception" -- rather, they went by when they thought the soul entered the body, which was at the quickening.

So, over the years, this issue has gone back and forth but the traditional rule was that abortion wasn't a big deal pre quickening. The "from conception" thing is a relatively new invention. So, it's not really possible to put one or the other as forward or backward. They're both both.

[Tero]

Obama pissed off my Finnish American libertarian friend with this:

"There appears to be no limit to the president's desire for power,” says Michael Farris, founder and chairman of HSLDA, expressing the shock homeschoolers felt at the president’s statement. “Car companies, banks, doctors, and now schools and the family. He's gone way too far this time."

I'm not even sure it passed. Obama wanted school to last till 18. My friend is a home schooler.

[amused]

It's a bad idea to elect a Republican president at this time because it gives more power to the nuttery at the state level. Here's a prime example:

Oh No, Not Again: Florida's Ballot Crammed With Wingnuttery by Nutbags

With 11 complicated ballot measures—all of them state constitutional amendments, all of them far-reaching and bizarre—the ballot for election day in Florida runs to ten pages. Already several days before election day, lines are running long at voting places in Miami Beach—so long that candidates for local office can work the voting lines, reports a local spy, because the voters lined up are well over 100 feet from the actual polling place. Among other measures, the ballot gives voters the opportunity to amend the constitution to:

• Not use public funds for abortion

• A crazy Tea Party judge selection amendment, which is basically an attempt to get right-wing ideologue judges installed;

• The ol' anti-Obamacare amendment, to outlaw any federal provisions that employers must provide healthcare, and to get rid of any federal penalties for large employers for not providing healthcare;

• Allowing the state to use tax dollars for churches and religious organizations.

...

Read the Texas Republican party platform, it's an embarrassment to humanity.

[Tero]

Krugman poo poos fiscal cliff

The starting point for many “vote for Romney or else” statements is the notion that a re-elected President Obama wouldn’t be able to accomplish anything in his second term. What this misses is the fact that he has already accomplished a great deal, in the form of health reform and financial reform — reforms that will go into effect if, and only if, he is re-elected.

But would Mr. Obama be able to negotiate a Grand Bargain on the budget? Probably not — but so what? America isn’t facing any kind of short-run fiscal crisis, except in the fevered imagination of a few Beltway insiders. If you’re worried about the long-run imbalance between spending and revenue, well, that’s an issue that will have to be resolved eventually, but not right away. Furthermore, I’d argue that any alleged Grand Bargain would be worthless as long as the G.O.P. remained as extreme as it is, because the next Republican president, following the lead of George W. Bush, would just squander the gains on tax cuts and unfunded wars.

The starting point for many “vote for Romney or else” statements is the notion that a re-elected President Obama wouldn’t be able to accomplish anything in his second term. What this misses is the fact that he has already accomplished a great deal, in the form of health reform and financial reform — reforms that will go into effect if, and only if, he is re-elected.

But would Mr. Obama be able to negotiate a Grand Bargain on the budget? Probably not — but so what? America isn’t facing any kind of short-run fiscal crisis, except in the fevered imagination of a few Beltway insiders. If you’re worried about the long-run imbalance between spending and revenue, well, that’s an issue that will have to be resolved eventually, but not right away. Furthermore, I’d argue that any alleged Grand Bargain would be worthless as long as the G.O.P. remained as extreme as it is, because the next Republican president, following the lead of George W. Bush, would just squander the gains on tax cuts and unfunded wars.

[Coito ergo sum]

[Warren Dew]

I'm sure we could go a few rounds on Obama's vision, but I think "forward" is just a cheap way of saying "not backwards", which subtlely implies Dubya.

So, you're the one who knows what the "fundamental change" is?

Indeed I am, comrade.

But, see, that would be "a" fundamental change, for certain. I'm not saying that is "the" fundamental change he is talking about. But, for a change to be fundamental, it has to be something pretty big. What is the US, "fundamentally?" It is a republic. It is constitutionally limited. It is economically capitalist, being based on freedom of contract, freedom of association, laissez-faire capitalism. There are probably other things that can be deemed "fundamental" to the country.

So, what does want to fundamentally change?

Why do you reject the idea that getting rid of free market capitalism is indeed the fundamental change he's trying to work?

[Coito ergo sum]

Obama pissed off my Finnish American libertarian friend with this:

"There appears to be no limit to the president's desire for power,” says Michael Farris, founder and chairman of HSLDA, expressing the shock homeschoolers felt at the president’s statement. “Car companies, banks, doctors, and now schools and the family. He's gone way too far this time."

I'm not even sure it passed. Obama wanted school to last till 18. My friend is a home schooler.

School has lasted until roughly 18 for as long as anyone alive today can remember. High school is generally ages 14, 15, 16 and 17, with some final year students turning 18 before graduation in June and others turning 18 in the 6 months after school is out. So, what's the fuss about?

I don't like home schooling. Send your kids to school, and home school them outside of school hours. Most parents are too stupid to teach their kids themselves.