2012 US Election -- Round 2

[Coito ergo sum]

However I did not see all the debate, I would have liked Obama to have thrown in a jibe about supporting womens rights abroad in Muslim Countries (which he did mention) and in the US .

I thought this too. Romney kept mentioning women needing to be treated as equals in other countries. I kept wanting to scream. Other countries need to treat women as equals, but not the US?!

You are treated as equals in the US. Don't go all Apelust on me now, Kristie....

We currently are (for the most part), but that will change when our rights get cut under a Romeny administration.

LOL -- How is that going to happen?

[Kristie]

However I did not see all the debate, I would have liked Obama to have thrown in a jibe about supporting womens rights abroad in Muslim Countries (which he did mention) and in the US .

I thought this too. Romney kept mentioning women needing to be treated as equals in other countries. I kept wanting to scream. Other countries need to treat women as equals, but not the US?!

You are treated as equals in the US. Don't go all Apelust on me now, Kristie....

We currently are (for the most part), but that will change when our rights get cut under a Romeny administration.

LOL -- How is that going to happen?

314136_10151218605171252_384667045_n.jpg (20.89 KiB) Viewed 335 times

[Tero]

I wish Obama had asked him some things about the origins of the universe, whether or not jeebus visited N. America, which of the angels did God send to create earth, why he didn't know whether or not there were humans here before asking them, what the weather is like on planet/star Kolob, etc.

Too complicated. Merrikins don't know mormonism. Just ask him if he wore magic underwear to the debate. And are all his wives equal.

[Coito ergo sum]

314136_10151218605171252_384667045_n.jpg

One, the Vice President has no control over abortion. It's not going anywhere. It survived the Bush Administration. I think it'll survive a Romney Administration.
Two, women's equality is not about funding for Planned Parenthood any more than men's equality is about funding for testicular cancer or prostate tests.
Three, as Vice President, he doesn't get a vote on the Lily-Ledbetter Act or its repeal, if any, unless it winds up in the Senate and there is a tie vote. And, Lily Ledbetter only dealt with the statute of limitations on fair pay discrimination claims -- the civil rights act was already a law and wasn't going anywhere. A lot of people wrongly think that the Lily Ledbetter Act was a law requiring that women be paid the same as men. It isn't. Ledbetter is a law that changed when the statute of limitations begins to run. Before the act was passed, the statute of limitations began to run the first time the employer makes a discriminatory pay decision. The LLA changed that to make it reset each time the employer makes a discriminatory pay decision, which makes sense. That law isn't going anywhere either, so don't worry about it.

[FBM]

I wish Obama had asked him some things about the origins of the universe, whether or not jeebus visited N. America, which of the angels did God send to create earth, why he didn't know whether or not there were humans here before asking them, what the weather is like on planet/star Kolob, etc.

Romney doesn't deny the Big Bang theory or the theory of evolution, he would probably say that his faith is that Jesus did visit North America, but then again, Obama is a Christian and would probably say that he believes Jesus died for our sins and was crucified, put in tomb, and was resurrected. The Mormon religion is made up, but so is Christianity, which Obama is. I know we'd like to think he's "wink wink" really an atheist, but just has to say he's a Christian. However, there is really nothing at all to substantiate that view of it.

The religious right until recently held that the LDS was a cult that promoted heretical teachings/beliefs.

some small minority did. Most listened to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir on national television all the time without thinking the children were captured by a cult. Mos people just thought they were a branch of Christians that they didn't understand -- hardly anybody outside of Mormons themselves knows much about them. And, the Christian fundamentalists that think the LDS is a cult also think Catholics are a Cult and Jews go to hell for being Jewish.

That is, until one of them stepped up to the Republican candidacy. If the religious electorate were to focus for just a few minutes on some of the whack-out shit Mormons believe, they'd see it in the same light as Scientology and abandon ship. xtian delusians are acceptable only because they're so standardized. Mormon shit is way off the scale, and I'm pretty sure millions would refuse to vote for a blatant heretic. All this PC "respect my beliefs" bullshit is the only reason Romney stands a snowball's chance in hell, much less able to give Obama a run for his money.

I've read the Book of Mormon cover to cover and I know a lot about the religion in general. The only reason you think it's "so off the scale" is because Christianity is so familiar to you, and Mormonism so foreign. It's not any different.

I'm happy to see a Mormon as a GOP candidate because it illustrates that the hard Christian right - the old Falwell Republicans the Pat Robertson Republicans -- don't have as much grip on the GOP as we might have thought. They've had to swallow their objections. Good.

Edit: If Romney agrees with the Big Bang theory and evolution, then he's a heretic according to Mormon orthodoxy, which states that God sent some angels to create earth, and they created Man without is knowledge or instruction.

That's overly simplistic. Catholicism and Anglicanism have the Book of Genesis just like fundamentalist Christians, but Catholics and Anglicans (Episcopalians in the US) are fine with Evolution. In fact, most mainline Protestant churches in allow for individual conscience to dictate how one interprets the creation story in the Book of Genesis. It can be taken literally, or it can be viewed as a metaphor written a long a time ago designed to make spiritual message about our relationship with the world. The Lutheran church, for example, which is the one I was forced to go to, occasionally, until I was 14 did not require a literal reading of the Book of Genesis.

Calling it heresy is not correct. The Mormon Church has no official position about the theory of evolution, and therefore it cannot be "heresy" to think evolution occurs. There were early Mormon leaders who approved of Darwin's theory of evolution, like Spencer Kimball, David McKay and Joseph F. Smith said that the church took no position one way or the other. There are also Mormons who think that the theory of evolution is wrong, sure. But, heresy? Not at all. It's something that is up for debate.

Science: Big Bang started off the known universe and purely mundane physical laws eventuated the formation of our planet and the subsequent development of our species.
Mainstream xtianity: God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (all the same being) created Man in his likeness, and Woman from the rib of the first Man.
Fundamentalist/creationist xtianity: Goddidit (Trinity) all in 6 days about 6,000 years ago. Evolution is bullshit.
LDS: God may have done it with the Big Bang, but the Son and Holy Ghost are separate beings and out of the picture at that time. They live on different planets and are the gods of those planets. If you're a good enough Mormon male, you can be the god of your own planet after you die. God sent some angels to create Earth and didn't even know whether or not Man was created along with it until he asked them.

From the point of view of mainstream science, all theism is whacked out. But from the point of view of mainstream theism, fundamentalism is whacked out. From the point of view of fundamentalist xtianity, Mormonism is heresy. It denies the biblical version of Creation and the Trinity. If mainstream and fundamentalist xtians knew just how un-xtian Mormonism is, they'd abandon Romney's campaign like it was common sense.

[Kristie]

314136_10151218605171252_384667045_n.jpg

One, the Vice President has no control over abortion. It's not going anywhere. It survived the Bush Administration. I think it'll survive a Romney Administration.
Two, women's equality is not about funding for Planned Parenthood any more than men's equality is about funding for testicular cancer or prostate tests.
Three, as Vice President, he doesn't get a vote on the Lily-Ledbetter Act or its repeal, if any, unless it winds up in the Senate and there is a tie vote. And, Lily Ledbetter only dealt with the statute of limitations on fair pay discrimination claims -- the civil rights act was already a law and wasn't going anywhere. A lot of people wrongly think that the Lily Ledbetter Act was a law requiring that women be paid the same as men. It isn't. Ledbetter is a law that changed when the statute of limitations begins to run. Before the act was passed, the statute of limitations began to run the first time the employer makes a discriminatory pay decision. The LLA changed that to make it reset each time the employer makes a discriminatory pay decision, which makes sense. That law isn't going anywhere either, so don't worry about it.

Women's healthcare is not comparable to men's. Planned Parenthood is necessary. I won't even get into arguing that one with you, it gets me too fired up.
I know the VP has no control over certain things. But, Romney is a puppet. The conservatives that have helped fund his campaign will want abortions stopped. I have no doubt they will do everything they can, which is a lot, to make this happen.
The Lilly Ledbetter thing is more about principle. Romney wants women in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Ryan does also. I don't want men like that in charge. It can only be bad for women.

[Coito ergo sum]

314136_10151218605171252_384667045_n.jpg

One, the Vice President has no control over abortion. It's not going anywhere. It survived the Bush Administration. I think it'll survive a Romney Administration.
Two, women's equality is not about funding for Planned Parenthood any more than men's equality is about funding for testicular cancer or prostate tests.
Three, as Vice President, he doesn't get a vote on the Lily-Ledbetter Act or its repeal, if any, unless it winds up in the Senate and there is a tie vote. And, Lily Ledbetter only dealt with the statute of limitations on fair pay discrimination claims -- the civil rights act was already a law and wasn't going anywhere. A lot of people wrongly think that the Lily Ledbetter Act was a law requiring that women be paid the same as men. It isn't. Ledbetter is a law that changed when the statute of limitations begins to run. Before the act was passed, the statute of limitations began to run the first time the employer makes a discriminatory pay decision. The LLA changed that to make it reset each time the employer makes a discriminatory pay decision, which makes sense. That law isn't going anywhere either, so don't worry about it.

Women's healthcare is not comparable to men's. Planned Parenthood is necessary. I won't even get into arguing that one with you, it gets me too fired up.
I know the VP has no control over certain things. But, Romney is a puppet. The conservatives that have helped fund his campaign will want abortions stopped. I have no doubt they will do everything they can, which is a lot, to make this happen.
The Lilly Ledbetter thing is more about principle. Romney wants women in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. Ryan does also. I don't want men like that in charge. It can only be bad for women.

What has Romney or Ryan said that makes you think he wants women in the kitchen?

I think you overstate the funding risk. First, Planned Parenthood started getting federal funding in 1970, when Richard Nixon signed it into law. Nixon described Title X funding as based on the premise that "no American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition."

“There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.” - Mitt Romney.

Now, he has said he would not put funding for Planned Parenthood in his first budget. But, that is a far cry from it being defunded. The budget has to be passed by Congress. Congress will require the funding to continue.

But, certainly, if you think that abortion and funding for Planned Parenthood are at risk, I could understand you leaning toward Obama. He is coming right out and saying he supports them. I guess I just don't see any of that as likely. We're not going to make abortion illegal in the US. It's an impossibility.

[Wumbologist]

One, the Vice President has no control over abortion. It's not going anywhere. It survived the Bush Administration. I think it'll survive a Romney Administration.
Two, women's equality is not about funding for Planned Parenthood any more than men's equality is about funding for testicular cancer or prostate tests.
Three, as Vice President, he doesn't get a vote on the Lily-Ledbetter Act or its repeal, if any, unless it winds up in the Senate and there is a tie vote. And, Lily Ledbetter only dealt with the statute of limitations on fair pay discrimination claims -- the civil rights act was already a law and wasn't going anywhere. A lot of people wrongly think that the Lily Ledbetter Act was a law requiring that women be paid the same as men. It isn't. Ledbetter is a law that changed when the statute of limitations begins to run. Before the act was passed, the statute of limitations began to run the first time the employer makes a discriminatory pay decision. The LLA changed that to make it reset each time the employer makes a discriminatory pay decision, which makes sense. That law isn't going anywhere either, so don't worry about it.

Wow.

Coito, your ignorance on this topic is astounding, and I can't help wondering how much of it is a willful ignorance borne out of Republican apologism.

Whether or not the VP "has control over" an issue is little reassurance. For one thing, the VP is next in line for the presidency, should something happen to the current president. Secondly, whether or not they have the capability to enact laws to promote their agendas, the fact that they hold such views in the first place ought to be a red flag for us, and the idea that it's ok because they maybe might not be able to act on it is absurd.

On to Planned Parenthood. Where do I begin? Planned Parenthood provides ESSENTIAL health care for many women, much of which is preventative, saving lives and wallets at the same time. Your argument that it's equivalent to "funding for testicular cancer or prostate tests" is great and all, except that nobody is attacking funding for testicular cancer or prostate tests. It's not funding for these things across the board that is under attack, it's funding for women's health care specifically. Planned Parenthood saves lives, keeps pregnancy rates down, and saves our healthcare system in the long run, and no opponent of Planned Parenthood will ever earn my vote.

On Ledbetter, again, what difference does it make if that law "isn't going anywhere"? It seems you agree that it's a good law that should be there, yet Ryan voted against it and Romney voiced his opposition to it, before recently changing his tune to pander to the female audience. Regardless of whether or not it's going anywhere, the fact is that these men would have fought its passing, and that should send a clear message to us on where they stand on women's rights.

Our nation has made great strides in equality over the years. We've got a long way to go in that regard, still. The last thing we need right now is an administration that will do their best to go backwards. Americans are focused on the economy for this election, and I think it's blinding them everywhere else. I disagree that Romney will be any better for the economy anyway, but even if he were I'd rather live in a struggling nation of equals, than a prosperous nation with 1950's style social inequality.

[Wumbologist]

We're not going to make abortion illegal in the US. It's an impossibility.

The next administration has two likely Supreme Court nominations. With two more far-right justices, Roe v. Wade could be overturned. Impossibility, my ass.

[Santa_Claus]

Oh and I also liked Obama mentioning (twice) that Mitt had been making money from trading with Iran in the last few years (via China).

So that I don't have to do da googles on this -- can you explain how this actually occurred? Trading with Iran, even indirectly, is a crime. It's like an American traveling to Cuba and spending money there via a flight from Toronto -- still a violation of the Embargo.

According to Obama, Mitt invested in a Chinese (state?) company that in turn invested / traded into Iran.......and Mitt never denied it (nor even countered). Twice......in front of a squillion US Voters. Which to my mind says it is likely to be true.

My bet is that was legal at the time (and maybe still is?) for Amerikans to trade indirectly - but nonetheless doesn't quite fit in with Mitt's public claim that Iran is the worlds greatest threat and the source of all evil. And leaving aside the morals of what he did (helping to fund terrorists even indirectly is still helping to fund terrorists) just says to me that a) he is for sale for simply the sniff of a buck into own pocket and b) he is dumber than rocks, given that we do not appear to be talking ancient history and certainly well past the time he started his tilt at the White House.

[Santa_Claus]

I can't see comparing the 2012 US military to the 1916 battleship and gunboat style navy.

My bet is that the 1916 Navy would have swapped everything they had (ships, bayonets and horses!) for one 21st century aircraft carrier - let alone a single battle group!

[Santa_Claus]

So, Ian, how does it feel to know that ships are obsolete?

Also that aircraft carriers aren't ships, as aren't "ships that go underwater".

what I was struck by was that Mitt had rolled back on his previous positions .

Which positions are you referring to here. I would like to see this substantiated by juxtaposing (a) the position expressed last night, vs (b) a position expressed at a previous time.

a) I can't be arsed
b) To paraphrase, up to last night Mitt was all for bombing Iran back to the stone age - and anyone else who looked at America funny. including Yourop . (He thinks the rest of the world thinks that means he looks strong - where it simply makes him look silly ).

Whilst I can understand him taking the simpleton Bush approach - his rolling back on his ambitions simple smells of someone saying whatever he thinks people want to hear (no shit, he is a politician ).

BTW am not sure how his comments on Latin America will go down with the locals. Seems that the main reason for the start of economic reform / prosperity is because the US have taken their eyes off the ball down there.

[Coito ergo sum]

One, the Vice President has no control over abortion. It's not going anywhere. It survived the Bush Administration. I think it'll survive a Romney Administration.
Two, women's equality is not about funding for Planned Parenthood any more than men's equality is about funding for testicular cancer or prostate tests.
Three, as Vice President, he doesn't get a vote on the Lily-Ledbetter Act or its repeal, if any, unless it winds up in the Senate and there is a tie vote. And, Lily Ledbetter only dealt with the statute of limitations on fair pay discrimination claims -- the civil rights act was already a law and wasn't going anywhere. A lot of people wrongly think that the Lily Ledbetter Act was a law requiring that women be paid the same as men. It isn't. Ledbetter is a law that changed when the statute of limitations begins to run. Before the act was passed, the statute of limitations began to run the first time the employer makes a discriminatory pay decision. The LLA changed that to make it reset each time the employer makes a discriminatory pay decision, which makes sense. That law isn't going anywhere either, so don't worry about it.

Wow.

Coito, your ignorance on this topic is astounding, and I can't help wondering how much of it is a willful ignorance borne out of Republican apologism.

Take that nonsense and shove it. I am far from ignorant on this topic, and I would be willing to bet that I know more about the Lily Ledbetter Act, Roe v Wade and the Constitutional right to abortion, not to mention the laws governing Planned Parenthood funding than you do, as well as the role of the President and Vice President in our government. Feel free to disagree, but keep your dopey insults to yourself.

Whether or not the VP "has control over" an issue is little reassurance. For one thing, the VP is next in line for the presidency, should something happen to the current president.

So what? The President can't repeal Lily Ledbetter, or Planned Parenthood funding or Roe v Wade either.

Secondly, whether or not they have the capability to enact laws to promote their agendas, the fact that they hold such views in the first place ought to be a red flag for us, and the idea that it's ok because they maybe might not be able to act on it is absurd.

Not at all -- if a person is going to make the claim that the election of Romney is going to result in the elimination of abortion rights, then one needs to back that up. Romney says he's proLife, but he also said that abortion will not be anything his presidency is going to concern himself with. Moreover, to repeal Roe v Wade, we'd need a radical shift of the makeup of the SCOTUS, and then a case would have to make its way up the ladder and be accepted for certiorari by that SCOTUS and the SCOTUS would have to take the dramatic step of actually reversing Roe v Wade which now forms the bulwark of four decades of SCOTUS jurisprudence. That is a tall order, and one that would take years if it even was to become possible. Alternatively, they could do a constitutional amendment, which would be more difficult than the SCOTUS route which is nearly impossible.

Further, to repeal Lily-Ledbetter, you'd have to get the House and the Senate to both approve repeal. Not going to happen, as either the Dems will have control of the Senate or they'll filibuster it and require a 2/3 majority vote. Moreover, you'd have to have enough Republicans actually care enough to waste political capital on repealing a law which merely changes the start date of a statute of limitations.

It's not absurd -- it's reality. Whether an issue is important enough to worry about is directly related to how likely it is to come to fruition.

On to Planned Parenthood. Where do I begin? Planned Parenthood provides ESSENTIAL health care for many women, much of which is preventative, saving lives and wallets at the same time. Your argument that it's equivalent to "funding for testicular cancer or prostate tests" is great and all, except that nobody is attacking funding for testicular cancer or prostate tests.

Sure they are. The same people that oppose funding for planned parenthood generally oppose funding for medical procedures in general. The issue we were talking about was "equality" for women. And, women being treated equally is not dependent on government funding. If you think it does depend on that, then you're suggesting that women are inherently unequal and can't be treated equally in our society without the government providing funding for Planned Parenthood. I think that is patently false, and that women can very well be treated equally without having Planned Parenthood funded.

It's not funding for these things across the board that is under attack, it's funding for women's health care specifically. Planned Parenthood saves lives, keeps pregnancy rates down, and saves our healthcare system in the long run, and no opponent of Planned Parenthood will ever earn my vote.

Maybe they wouldn't earn your vote, but women's EQUALITY does not depend on Planned Parenthood funding. Let's not confuse a thing of benefit to women with a thing that is necessary for equality of the sexes.

On Ledbetter, again, what difference does it make if that law "isn't going anywhere"? It seems you agree that it's a good law that should be there, yet Ryan voted against it and Romney voiced his opposition to it, before recently changing his tune to pander to the female audience. Regardless of whether or not it's going anywhere, the fact is that these men would have fought its passing, and that should send a clear message to us on where they stand on women's rights.

Romney is not against it. I disagree with Ryan on social issues, but I view his positions on social issues as less important because (a) he's going to be the VP and not the P and (b) he will have little power to effectuate any of those positions and (c) it's a Romney administration so the fact that Romney isn't going to bother with Lily Ledbetter is what is important.

Moreover, again -- the Lily Ledbetter act doesn't make women "more equal." It changes the start date of the statute of limitations under the civil rights act for equal pay discrimination cases. The law still required nondiscrmination and nothing changed in that regard. Again, my question for Kristie was how would women, who she said were being treated equally now, be not treated equally under Romney's administration. She posted in response to that question the cartoon with the Ryan position statements.

Our nation has made great strides in equality over the years.

During both Republican and Democrat administrations. Roe v Wade didn't go away under W.Bush and he took no steps to try to get it reversed.

We've got a long way to go in that regard, still. The last thing we need right now is an administration that will do their best to go backwards. Americans are focused on the economy for this election, and I think it's blinding them everywhere else. I disagree that Romney will be any better for the economy anyway, but even if he were I'd rather live in a struggling nation of equals, than a prosperous nation with 1950's style social inequality.

I'd rather live in a succeeding nation with a broad, generally non-discriminatory middle class. Equal poverty doesn't do anybody any good, and is no virtue.

[Wumbologist]

"The US battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined, and 11 of those 13 navies belong to allies and friends." - Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense, 2009

The Navy's budget has only gone up since 2009, btw. And the size of the fleet isn't the same as its capabilities, especially compared to many of those other fleets. I could get into more detailed comparisons, but I think it should be obvious enough that the US Navy rules every ocean in the world beyond any question.

Of note: as part of Obama's East Asia "pivot", his 2013 national military request moves funding from the Army and Marines to favor the Navy, but Congress has resisted this.

We've got 11 aircraft carriers. The rest of the world combined has 11 aircraft carriers. Of those, 10 are Nimitz-class, and the 11th is the older Enterprise which despite its age is still more capable than any of the carriers in the rest of the world. We also have the world's leading submarine fleet, especially in terms of the nuclear subs necessary for a blue-water fleet. We're the only nation in the world currently operating 5th-generation fighters. We're the only nation known to have a railgun program advanced enough to potentially be in service in the not too distant future, a development which will further increase the capability of our Navy with less need for extraneous ships. So yeah, anyone who is seriously comparing our Navy to the one of 1917 needs their head checked out.

[Coito ergo sum]

Rasmussen -- tracking poll shows R 50% to O 46% -- http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... cking_poll That's nationally, and not EC specific.

Gallup -- tracking poll of likely voters R 51% and O 45%: http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx

Fivethirtyeight has Obama ahead in the EC 290 to 247 (forecast) http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Realclearpolitics has Romney ahead 206 to 201 in the EC with 131 states as toss-ups: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/

Facing a Mitt Romney surge in North Carolina polls, Team Obama is poised to pull back forces in the state that hosted the Democratic National Convention and Democratic advisors suggest that Virginia may be next to fall.

While Obama aides on the ground in both states reject suggestions the campaign has given up to devote more resources to Iowa, Ohio and Florida, those close to the Obama campaign say it's getting to be time to cut bait.

Democratic strategist Paul Begala, asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer if the Obama campaign has given up on North Carolina, said "Yes. I'm not supposed to say that Wolf. I work for the pro-Obama super PAC, so I'm being paid to help reelect the president, but if you look at where he's going and where he's spending money, yes, it looks like Governor Romney is likely to carry North Carolina."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/team-obam ... Ia4q8XNaSq