Politics

[DSully1995]

Whats wrong with Ayn Rand? Obama had relationships with JEremiah Wright, and the guy from Weather Underground. Sure, Ayn is a little extreme, but her basic principles are provoking.

And I'd much rather follow Ayn's train of thought than the liberal:

"Dont worry, you can be an underachieving loser, we'll just tax people who work hard and become successful. They'll carry your dead weight. We should all have equal outcomes in life"

Ahh yes thats exactly the liberal argument, good to know you pay attention to more than just Fox News

 

[Who'saWildManNow]

1. And you know Paul Ryan is an avid Ayn Rand supporter, how? Oh, right, from a comedy show. Irrespective of the truth of your charge, you shouldn't make assertions from such an information source.

2. I have no problem with people making a considered and intelligent decision to vote Democrat. What I do have a problem with is the all too many people who rely on what are essentially comedy shows as their main, if not, primary soure for political information.

Such people should have enough respect for their country and fellow citizens to realize they are in no position to make an informed vote and should kindly refrain from doing so.

Oh please stop spewing.. I laugh harder during the wasted time I give to Fox News than any other political broadcast. Who are you to demand where someone finds their truth?

 

[Canton_Irish]

I'll be voting for Romney/Ryan. I think the VP pick is bold and impressive as it will elevate the debate past the idiotic personal attacks and start to focus on the actual problems of the country. Sure there will be misrepresentation and lying (on both sides) about the proposals put forward, but at least we will be talking about tax/entitlement reform.

I think this is honestly the most important election of our lifetime. If Obama wins, entitlements will go unreformed for at least another four years. Look at the ads over the next few months and ask yourself if the Democrats are serious about reforming the federal government.

They aren't.

 

[magogian]

Magogian, we can agree that people should not be getting all of their information and perspective from any one source, including a program on Comedy Central, but you're making a mistake in judging the content of a program based on the genre of the vehicle. The writers for the Daily Show (I'm less familiar with Colbert's show, but my impression is that it is of the same ilk) are every bit as knowledgeable about politics and world affairs as the pundits and producers on more traditional news programs. There may be headier sources of information, but the Daily Show audience is the most informed, intelligent, educated and affluent of any television news program.

I understand why you would dismiss the Comedy Central "news" programs, as they do not share your political perspective. But the numbers do not support your apparent supposition that these shows are not worthy sources of information for truly informed people. [Note that these shows, like most cable news programs, are not as much about delivering news as they are about providing context and perspective through analysis.]

Also, I think a lot of you guys will surprised at the reaction Ryan gets from the non-radically-conservative segment of the electorate (some portion of which you will need to win). He has virtually no appeal outside of the hard right. There is a very narrow appeal to his budget proposals. From a policy perspective, I find his ideas to be offensive and dangerous. I also think your view of his intellect is heavily influenced by how well his views align with yours.

You can tell by watching him and listening to him speak that he has convinced himself of his own brilliance, and apparently some of his political allies and fanboys are also convinced. I don't see it, personally. He definitely loves talking (and listening to himself talk) about wonky issues; his command of those issues is suspect to me.

1. If the audience of the Daily Show itself is more intelligent/informed/etc. that the general populace does not mean that the Daily Show is a good source of information (i.e. does not establish a casual relationship that because they watch that show they are more knowledgeable)

2. I dismiss the Daily Show and Colbert Report as sources of information and analysis generally, not because of their politics, but because its primary purpose is NOT to provide information and cogent analysis. Granted yes, cable news shows are hardly paragons of informed, reasonable analysis, but they try, each in their own way.

3. Nevertheless, I actually watch the Daily Show and the Colbert Report far more than I ever watch a show on a cable channel or the nightly news (which is practically nil for the latter). I watch them because they are entertaining. But it is a big mistake to rely on them for factual information or analysis. That said, John Stewart actually does a pretty good job in his interviews. I enjoy his interviews of Republicans and Conservatives because, even though he usually disagrees, he can be an effective interviewer.

4. I think the reaction to Paul Ryan is largely because of the Dems efforts to caricature him. He has been more true to policy than the "politics" of it. That is great for his position in the House, but it will have to be managed now that he is the Republican VP nominee.

5. Unlike many Republicans and almost all Democrats, he has actually developed relatively coherent plans for dealing with the deficit, taxes, healthcare, medicare, and the like.

6. If you think his grasp of these issues is suspect, just watch that 6 minute clip. In that clip, he effectively and accurate dismantles the bs accounting that went into Obamacare.

6.a. In short, the Dems and the media crow about the supposed deficit reducing abilities of Obamacare because the CBO scored it as such. Well, what few Dems like to admit is that the CBO is told to score a statute as drafted, even if the statute itself relies on completely faulty or false assumptions. For example, the CBO scores legislation for one ten year period. Well, the first decade of Obamacare includes 10 years of revenue but only 6 years of spending (because the revenue provisions kick in immediately but the spending provisions take roughly 4 years to start). The ONLY way that Obamacare helps the deficit is through that sleight of hand. The CBO's score is not permitted to account for the fact that in any given ten year period in which the revenue AND spending provisions are fully intact for the full decade, Obamacare runs a significant deficit. Yet, the Dems and the media label it as deficit reducing, while refusing to acknowledge that the whole actuarial framework is a joke.

6.b. Second, even using the accounting gimmick described above, the only way that Obamacare is deficit reducing in the first decade is because the legislation assumes that the "doc fix" won't be passed (which costs hundreds of billions of dollars when passed as it is every year). (If you are unfamiliar with the "doc fix," just google it.) In scoring the legislation, the CBO is specifically prevented from including the "doc fix" that will have to be passed. Thus, abra cadabra, the legislation is deficit reducing because the doc fix is not included. Yet, everyone knows that the doc fix has to be passed, and has been each year.

These are pretty much unassailable truths that the Dems and the media just largely ignore because they are . . . cough cough . . . inconvenient truths.

 

[magogian]

Oh please stop spewing.. I laugh harder during the wasted time I give to Fox News than any other political broadcast. Who are you to demand where someone finds their truth?

Why are you wasting time with Fox News?

 

[Who'saWildManNow]

Why are you wasting time with Fox News?

Urban Dictionary: train wreck theory

 

[magogian]

1. Stephen Colbert is not the only person to accuse that Paul Ryan is a Ayn Rand supporter. In fact no one is accusing him of being a supporter, they are simple just stating that he is one because thats the truth. If they were accusing it, then it wouldn't be definitely factual . Here are some other media outlets criticizing Ryan for his Rand support (the first is a letter from Georgetown University agreeing with numerous Catholic Bishops throughout the nation criticizing Paul Ryan for his proposed budget which hurts the poor while Ryan claims it represents Catholic doctrine, the Georgetown statement highlights Ryan's Rand philosophy):

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JRLM7Jh9PnrxptafWYENXdAmxnXd4gQJMYTu3H4TFHA/edit?pli=1

Religious progressives prepare to mount case against Ryan – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Paul Ryan and the Influence of Ayn Rand : The New Yorker

2. Who the f*** said I vote Democrat? I don't know why you accuse me of being liberal just because I don't like the VP nomination. In fact I don't like the presidential nominee either-- or the incumbents for that matter.

My point quite clearly criticized your overreliance on a particular source of information, not whether the broken clock was right twice a day.

Further, as others have said, Ayn Rand while fairly extreme is hardly the same thing as having a Jeremiah Wright as your spiritual mentor for two decades, a domestic terrorist as one of your political mentors and primary early supporters, and a felon, convicted of multiple counts of fraud and bribery, as one of, if not the, main financial supporter of your nascent political careeer.

 

[ACamp1900]

This... Most economic conservatives admire Rand ( as I do) simply because there are few who were more prophetic than she was. Socially, no thanks.

Also, how many liberal leaders openly admire Margaret Sanger? Should they be voted out on that basis?

 

[Bluto]

I cannot for the life of me figure out how a Catholic who supposedly follows the teachings of Jesus can also be an avid proponent of Rand's philosophies and objectivism.

That's kind of like being a Michigan and Ohio State fan at the same time.

 

[ACamp1900]

I cannot for the life of me figure out how a Catholic who supposedly follows the teachings of Jesus can also be an avid proponent of the left in any form.

That's kind of like being a Michigan and Ohio State fan at the same time.

fixed.

 

[Bluto]

fixed.

I don't have time for this crap. I'm watching the best movie ever....Beerfest! Lol

 

[ACamp1900]

I don't have time for this crap. I'm watching the best movie ever....Beerfest! Lol

German boobs and beer... Nice... Just having fun anyway, I should have re worded more to the Sanger point... Whatever, enjoy your Saturday.

 

[magogian]

.
Also, how many liberal leaders openly admire Margaret Sanger? Should they be voted out on that basis?

Wait. I'm confused. I thought liberals advocate for abortion because, just as Sanger argued, it allows them to reduce the population of the undesirables. I thought everyone knew that.

 

[Bluto]

German boobs and beer... Nice... Just having fun anyway, I should have re worded more to the Sanger point... Whatever, enjoy your Saturday.

No problem. It did make me laugh. Have a good weekend as well.

 

[cody1smith]

Did you guys hear? Bill Clinton had an affair while in office and i'm pretty sure Richard Nixon did something wrong too but i can't put my finger on it.

 

[enrico514]

I'm not an american but from the outside it would seem that both are awful choices and that neither can (or don't want to?) right the ship.

 

[dshans]

I'm not an american but from the outside it would seem that both are awful choices and that neither can (or don't want to?) right the ship.

This is a tough call considering the current state of economic health/illness and the political intransigence that currently dominates in America.

As is the case these days, Obama campaigned on "Change We Can Believe In" but ran headlong into opposition that can quash any plans. The same will undoubtedly be true should Romney prevail.

I have no doubt that Obama faced international and domestic political realities upon election that he was not privy to in terms of things within his immediate control. I would have preferred that Guantanamo were shut down immediately, that troops were withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan within a month and that Wall Street free-wheeling trading in bullshyte financial science fiction derivatives, and the banking industry's inexplicable and unsustainable collusion (that's a different rant) be severely reined in. It was not in the cards.

I have the feeling that much the same gauntlet/reality would be true for Mr. Romney. Ours
is a diverse and increasingly divided and contentious political society. Rarely, barring extreme circumstances, does our political system perform uber admirably. Our strength at times becomes our weakness.

Obama was faced with incredibly poor conditions and then faced with incredibly partisan opposition to possible solutions. Romney, in my estimation, represents a few steps backwards.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I wonder how you all view picking Paul Ryan will affect Mitt Romney's chances of winning.

 

[phgreek]

This is a tough call considering the current state of economic health/illness and the political intransigence that currently dominates in America.

As is the case these days, Obama campaigned on "Change We Can Believe In" but ran headlong into opposition that can quash any plans. The same will undoubtedly be true should Romney prevail.

I have no doubt that Obama faced international and domestic political realities upon election that he was not privy to in terms of things within his immediate control. I would have preferred that Guantanamo were shut down immediately, that troops were withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan within a month and that Wall Street free-wheeling trading in bullshyte financial science fiction derivatives, and the banking industry's inexplicable and unsustainable collusion (that's a different rant) be severely reined in. It was not in the cards.

I have the feeling that much the same gauntlet/reality would be true for Mr. Romney. Ours
is a diverse and increasingly divided and contentious political society. Rarely, barring extreme circumstances, does our political system perform uber admirably. Our strength at times becomes our weakness.

Obama was faced with incredibly poor conditions and then faced with incredibly partisan opposition to possible solutions. Romney, in my estimation, represents a few steps backwards.

only one thing is for sure...we'll be having this discussion again in 4 years. If things are the same in terms of the economy...throw Romney out and try the Dems again.

...and yes I assume the economy will still suck in November, and Romney will win.

Nothing special about Romney, other than he's not Obama. Is there any way we could hitch Harry Reid's wagon to Obama's? Thats one guy who needs to be "retired"...rather that word describess his state of being, or a wish for him to step down, fall down, be pushed down...I'll take it.

 

[BobD]

I wonder how you all view picking Paul Ryan will affect Mitt Romney's chances of winning.

As Dan Quayle might have said "The Vice President is no small potatoe"

 

[phgreek]

I wonder how you all view picking Paul Ryan will affect Mitt Romney's chances of winning.

...well he didn't move to the middle by doing that. I think Paul Ryan is a pretty smart guy...and no I don't mean politically astute...I mean there seems to be genuine intellect hanging between his ears....

Could have done way worse if VP is to be a functional position...but expect LOTS of old lady being thrown over a bridge Schtick.

 

[phgreek]

As Dan Quayle might have said "The Vice President is no small potatoe"

Joe Biden doesn't get it...

 

[irishtrooper]

Not sure what happened to the other thread someone started on this last night, but I'm elated about the pick. I'm also all-in with the President, FWIW. Ryan will play well to the republican base, but he will be toxic to the center.

This, I feel could not be more incorrect. The left wants everyone to believe that this pick is terrible and it means an easy victory come November. The most important issue is the economy, and I realize that jobs are the main reason. The other main reason people are worried about the economy, is the unbelievable rate of spending. I feel the center really wants to have a fiscally conservative candidate. Nobody gives more fiscally responsible instant street cred than Ryan. I preferred Rubio as most Romney supporters did, but this was my second choice all along. The changes that will be made to medicare need to be made anyway otherwise the program goes broke and nobody seems to remember that Obamacare took 500 billion from medicare. The senior vote will be fine when the voters realize that Ryan's plan affects only people born after 1957.

 

[dshans]

Only one thing is for sure...we'll be having this discussion again in 4 years. If things are the same in terms of the economy...throw Obama out and try the Dems again.
Nothing special about Romney, other than he's not Obama.

I'll go with that: my "fixed" version of your post. Yep, Obama is "out" regardless, due to the two term limitation imposed by those bitter Republicans when FDR kept getting elected. An amendment both Nixon and Reagan operatives sought to overturn. Such a deal!?!?!?!!

Eisenhower warned us of the "Military Industrial Complex." The man knew his ****. Nixon had a "secret" plan to end the "conflict" in Viet Nam that had its origins in Ike's decisions, JFK's decision to carry it on with "military consultant" status, LBJ's decision to to "up the ante" with a bullshit Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and RMN's to dabble in illegal air raids in Laos. Cross party garbage. I "lobbied" against them all regardless of party.

I supported Obama (and still do) even though he disappointed me in many ways. I've grown older and no longer expect "We want the world and we want it now" to be an achievable goal. I do hope that some reasonable and effiicacious middle ground might be reached.

All is not necessarily as it seems. Especially in terms of religion, politics and economics.

 

[Irishbounty28]

I know that I am barging in on this, but there is really no good answer in a situation like this. Both sides are arguing the same points at certain instances, because they understand that the independent vote is going to win them the candidacy. Ultimately, I do not believe that Obama will lose this race because there isn't a feeling that the problem is fixable. I will vote Republican because it benefits me personally (Military Veteran), but I do not know how Romney will win this as a Mormon Republican Candidate.

 

[Bubba]

This is a tough call considering the current state of economic health/illness and the political intransigence that currently dominates in America.

As is the case these days, Obama campaigned on "Change We Can Believe In" but ran headlong into opposition that can quash any plans. The same will undoubtedly be true should Romney prevail.

I have no doubt that Obama faced international and domestic political realities upon election that he was not privy to in terms of things within his immediate control. I would have preferred that Guantanamo were shut down immediately, that troops were withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan within a month and that Wall Street free-wheeling trading in bullshyte financial science fiction derivatives, and the banking industry's inexplicable and unsustainable collusion (that's a different rant) be severely reined in. It was not in the cards.

I have the feeling that much the same gauntlet/reality would be true for Mr. Romney. Ours
is a diverse and increasingly divided and contentious political society. Rarely, barring extreme circumstances, does our political system perform uber admirably. Our strength at times becomes our weakness.

Obama was faced with incredibly poor conditions and then faced with incredibly partisan opposition to possible solutions. Romney, in my estimation, represents a few steps backwards.

I completely agree. It seems that the parties are so divided that one side will not allow the other any success regardless of whether it is good for our country or not. Until we can get away from this way of thinking, our politicians will do little good for our country. They should remember that they are not there to serve themselves or their financial contributors; they should be there to do what is right for America. Unfortunately, they all "owe" those that got them there and that is where their allegiance lies.

Economically, I am very fearful of the trickle-down approach. I am not in favor of the re-distribution of wealth, but I also dislike the fact that this approach (which favors the rich) continues to widen the gap of the ultra-wealthy and that is not good for our country. We cannot continue to help out the top and hope it makes its way down to the middle class and poor. It just doesn't work.

 

[Rhode Irish]

This, I feel could not be more incorrect. The left wants everyone to believe that this pick is terrible and it means an easy victory come November. The most important issue is the economy, and I realize that jobs are the main reason. The other main reason people are worried about the economy, is the unbelievable rate of spending. I feel the center really wants to have a fiscally conservative candidate. Nobody gives more fiscally responsible instant street cred than Ryan. I preferred Rubio as most Romney supporters did, but this was my second choice all along. The changes that will be made to medicare need to be made anyway otherwise the program goes broke and nobody seems to remember that Obamacare took 500 billion from medicare. The senior vote will be fine when the voters realize that Ryan's plan affects only people born after 1957.

I think people generally like the idea of cutting spending, lowering budget deficits and reducing debt. When people confront the specifics of what that means, however, they are decidedly less enthusiastic about it. It is almost the exact opposite of the public sentiment regarding healthcare reform (people say they are against it, but overwhelmingly support each of the component parts of the law when polled on them individually).

Let's be honest: this is not a particularly bright or informed electorate, generally speaking. People get caught up on wedge issues, sound bites and rhetoric that oversimplifies the problems and potential solutions. Very little attention is paid to nuance, and a lot of the people who have the capacity to understand the issues in any meaningful way do not have the patience or the intellectual curiosity (or the time) to do so.

I don't think the Ryan approach to dealing with the debt problem is economically sound or socially responsible. The only people that view him as some sort of policy whiz-kid are the hardcore right wingers, because he is really their only option for that role. The people will get to decide for themselves; that is the point of elections. I certainly have nothing to gain by coming here and saying that I don't think it will work out well if that isn't my honest opinion.

 

[dshans]

... I will vote Republican because it benefits me personally (Military Veteran) ...

Why do you feel this way? What, historically and contemporarily makes you feel a Democratic "regime" would treat you and other veterans less favorably? Don't assume that currently perceived "truths" are, in fact, "truthful" and factual.

 

[Irishbounty28]

Obama cuts military health care benefits, leaves unionized civilians untouched | Conservative News, Views & Books


There are many other instances that could be delved into on a larger scale, but for the most part Republicans are more Pro-military, i.e. veterans. This has been shown with the Post 9/11 GI Bill, which was overhauled by President Obama, without consideration for the benefits of our veterans. if you are asking me about substantial claims about past Presidents, I have no information in regards to this, but President Bush pushed many aspects that enhanced the issues faced by veterans today. There has been little to no talk about the unemployment rate of veterans in their mid twenties, which is in fault of both parties. Currently the unemployment rate of veterans in this age group more than doubles that of all other Americans, which is certainly disconcerting to say the least. I feel that there are many things that candidates of the Democratic party feel that do not benefit those that are veterans, or current military. I can delve deeper into the issue if you would like, as I have done extensive research for many college term papers in regards to these issues. I really just don't believe there is any substantial evidence that the Democratic party has done anything substantial to benefit the current society of veterans living in the United States. This in fact is a rather large issue, considering that many individuals have, or will be, returning home from deployments or being discharged from the military in the near future.

 

[BGIF]

I know that I am barging in on this, but there is really no good answer in a situation like this. Both sides are arguing the same points at certain instances, because they understand that the independent vote is going to win them the candidacy. Ultimately, I do not believe that Obama will lose this race because there isn't a feeling that the problem is fixable. I will vote Republican because it benefits me personally (Military Veteran), but I do not know how Romney will win this as a Mormon Republican Candidate.

Everything will be O.K. now that he's balanced his Mormonism with a Catholic, won't it?



Where I live they're both considered cults.


I don't think there's ever been a Republican Ticket without a WASP.

Technically there's not a Protestant on either ticket. Obama is unaffiliated, Biden an R.C., Romney, LDS, and Ryan an R.C. Jerry Falwell must be tossing in his grave. What's an evangelical to do?