| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: Mitt picks Paul Ryan Posted by: Seattle Zen - [3603123] Wed, Aug 22, 2012, 01:07 Well, I have heard that Paul Ryan's political hero is Jack Kemp. Great, you are following in his exact footsteps, the Veep choice for a doomed Republican running against a popular Democrat about to win his second term. As soon as the announcement was made, reporters had to dust off the Ryan budgets that the House has past the last two years. They didn't bother to read much of them, the Republicans themselves knew that this budget was DOA, so why bother? Now that Ryan is on the ticket, it's time to show America just how radical Ryan's views are. Seriously, Democrats are now the party of the Left, Center and just right of center. Mitt Romney Would Pay 0.82 Percent in Taxes Under Paul Ryan's Plan This is the simplest recipe for Democratic success in 2012 - explain capital gains taxes and the Republican desire to eliminate them. America is not interested in going back to the Gilded Age. Mitt... you are done. | ||||||
| 58 | Mith ID: 23217270 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 01:13 |
Moreso than competing abortion policy opinions among forum members, I'm interested in how Rep Akin's statements and the GOP's unchanged platform position of opposing legal abortions for rape victims might impact the presidential election. While I very strongly disagree with it, I'm not particularly offended by the position. I accept that this is a widely held opinion among American social conservatives and as such, feel it deserves a certain degree of respect. But Akin's defense of that position was first, misogyny ("legitimate rape") and second, ignorantly hostile to science - a label which is increasingly burdensome to the political right and the GOP, particularly as conservatives continue to publicly endorse positions like climate change denial and Creation and their elected officials are asked to defend them. Paul Ryan has a long record of opposing legal abortions to rape victims and it might be difficult for him to distance himself from Akin on the issue. I'm aware that the Romney Campaign has included a rape and incest exception to it's abortion opposition in their platform, which I think is in line with Romney's position of the past few years. I don't know whether Ryan has flip flopped on the rape exception since joining the ticket. How odd is it that a presidential ticket platform has such a glaring disagreement with the greater party platform? I don't know that a disagreement on this issue (or sub-issue) would normally qualify as 'glaring' but in the wake of Akin's disaster last Sunday, the general topic has a spotlight beaming on it and will surely be exploited by the Dems for all it's worth. | |||||
| 59 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 01:22 |
Romney has gone from supporting the right of choice (when he ran for Gov) to being "severely" pro-life except in matters of rape/incest/mother's life. Interesting speculation, is that Ryan is firm in his convictions and Romney can be swayed. So the Romney/Ryan ticket, would most likely end up mirroring the official party platform, once Ryan sways Romney. All of which (if implemented as law), would cause an endangered pregnant woman to die, in order to be pro-life, and disallow the abortion. Hypocrisy, at its very zenith. | |||||
| 60 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 01:47 |
I accept that this is a widely held opinion among American social conservatives and as such, feel it deserves a certain degree of respect. I haven't seen much on this, but the one chart I did see (here) indicated that while self-identified "extreme conservatives" had the highest percentage who felt there should be no incest or rape exception for an abortion ban, that number is less than 45%--perhaps this is what you mean by a "widely held opinion" but it isn't even a majority opinion among the most conservative members of the GOP. It is, however, a widely held opinion among GOP politicians. | |||||
| 61 | Mith ID: 18451815 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 02:09 |
No, I didn't intend majority, just that I don't think opposition to a rape exception is at all rare in the national discussion. I guess 'widely held' might not convey what I meant. For the record, that isn't the only criteria (or a clinching one) for what I think is a position worthy of respect. For example, opposition to legal unions for same sex couples isn't rare, either. But I find that and other pro-discrimination opinions offensive and frankly don't respect them or think they deserve any consideration when forming policy. Abortion is much more difficult. I accept that reasonable people can come to different conclusions on when a life begins. And I can accept that some of those reasonable people place the legal value of one person's life that much higher than another person's emotional/financial/physical well being as to want it reflected in criminal law. | |||||
| 62 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 02:13 |
I've been finding, to my dismay, that many pro-choice people are taking the opportunity these days to attack those pro-lifers who support a rape/incest exception, as though this is "proof" of pro-lifer's hypocrisy. This is sad on many levels, but mostly because a rare opportunity to find a tiny bit of common ground on a divisive issue is being cynically used by those who feel they have a rare opportunity to instead stick it to the "other side." | |||||
| 63 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 02:27 | I agree PD. In fact, I find the hypocrisy, as I eluded to above, to be in NOT allowing an exemption for cases where for ex, the mother's life is in jeopardy. I find it extremely hypocritical, that "pro-life" in that case, would mean the mother dies and quite possibly the fetus as well. | |||||
| 64 | Mith ID: 18451815 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 02:31 | Shallow political wrangling. And probably counter-productive in that I'd think it more likely to get an open-minded pro-lifer to rethink support for a rape exception than covert him to pro-choice. | |||||
| 65 | boikin ID: 532592112 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 09:54 |
So the Romney/Ryan ticket, would most likely end up mirroring the official party platform, once Ryan sways Romney. so here is the question: I would say without question but I would probably get arguments on this, Obama on average has turned out more moderate than his campaign platform or his past record. Give that would an Romney presidency look more like candidate Romney, or I think probably more accurately governor Romney? | |||||
| 66 | Frick ID: 14082314 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 09:58 | I think people in the middle would be more likely to vote for Governor Romney, but Candidate Romney scares them off as he drifts further and further to the right. | |||||
| 67 | boikin ID: 532592112 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 10:02 | that is probably a pretty accurate statement, but the question still remains and I think a lot of independents are asking this question right now. | |||||
| 68 | Khahan ID: 39432178 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 10:20 |
Very pertinent to the topic at hand: Americans thoughts on abortion | |||||
| 69 | Pancho Villa ID: 59645318 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 10:54 |
Missouri thoughts on abortion Todd Akin has fallen behind Sen. Claire McCaskill by double digits in the Missouri Senate race, according to a Rasmussen automated phone poll released Thursday. Male voters divide evenly among the two candidates but McCaskill holds a 20-point lead with women and a 70 percent to 21 percent lead with those who are unmarried. Akin has a slight 44 percent to 40 percent lead among married voters. | |||||
| 70 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 10:57 |
I saw that through a Bruce Barlett FB link yesterday. I noticed that Akin went down by 10 points (from their previous poll) and half of those people jumped to "some other candidate." I'm betting, if he stays in the race, that those people will come right back to him. | |||||
| 71 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 12:06 |
65 is a legit question, with one basic difference between candidate/President Obama, and candidate/Gov Romney. Obama, IMO, hasnt shown the flip-flop tendencies of Romney. Yes, there re a few things he has changed on, but I think there will be a few things we all have changed on. Romney, ran for Gov of a Dem state, and was pro-choice. Romney, as Gov of that Dem state, instituted "Romney Care" and suggested it nationally. Romney as a conservative candidate, rolled over on even his OWN achievements, and reversed himself then, on all counts. So where Romney is pliable to q HUGE extent, depending on the political winds of the moment, Obama is not quite so much so. I see Romney, being FAR more easily swayed by the hard and fast Ryan, than Obama being swayed by Biden. And that I think, is what terrifies me most about the potential of a Romney Presidency. I think, like Bush/Cheney, the VP would be more in charge than the rest of us know. | |||||
| 72 | Mith ID: 18451815 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 12:46 |
I don't think Romney/Ryan would form anything like the Bush/Cheney dynamic. Just the impression I get but Romney comes off as more of a self-assured (egocentric?) executive than Bush and doesn't seem quite as much like the type to lean on his advisers. I'd expect President Romney's stated positions would be more likely compromised in his dealings with political pressures outside the executive branch, like Congress or possibly other heads of state or the UN or maybe even public polling. | |||||
| 73 | Boldwin ID: 327262311 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 16:01 | The surprising career path of Mrs. Ryan. | |||||
| 74 | Boldwin ID: 327262311 Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 16:17 |
I think Romney is the kind of guy who leans on good accountants. Just ask Erskine Bowles, prominent and respected democrat co-chair of Obama's America's debt reduction commission. | |||||
| 75 | Seattle Zen ID: 3603123 Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 11:19 |
The Paul Ryan Speech: Five Hypocrisies I don't watch the Rep. convention nor do many people anymore. It's not 1972, we all have cable and something better to watch. By all reports, Ryan's speech was full of doozies. I like this one best - Ryan attacked Obama for ignoring the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles debt commission: | |||||
| 76 | Seattle Zen ID: 3603123 Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 11:27 |
Fox News - Ryan is full of it... - Paul Ryan’s speech in 3 words: Dazzling, Deceiving and Distracting. To anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold. | |||||
| 77 | Razor ID: 177192916 Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 11:38 | The debt commission thing alarmed me. I was stunned that he kept referring to it in the third person. | |||||
| 78 | Khahan ID: 39432178 Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 12:18 |
the credit rating was actually downgraded because Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling. And here we go to the other extreme. The downgrade was not because republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling as if its a bad thing. The downgrade was because some in congress were looking for other options...Republicans. They were looking for ways to reduce the debt so that the ceiling didn't need to be raised. I'm not saying Ryan is 100% right and telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But you can't use half-truths and misrepresentations to call him a liar. Though Ryan insisted that President Obama wants to give all the credit for private sector success to government, that isn't what the president said. Period. I don't know. I heard not just the quote but the part of speech he was talking about. Maybe he intended it to mean something else, but it certainly sounded like he said you didn't do it. | |||||
| 79 | Mith ID: 18451815 Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 12:47 |
The downgrade was not because republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling as if its a bad thing. The downgrade was because some in congress were looking for other options...Republicans. They were looking for ways to reduce the debt so that the ceiling didn't need to be raised. Sorry but that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me. | |||||
| 80 | slug ID: 167132313 Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 14:19 |
"They were looking for ways to reduce the debt so that the ceiling didn't need to be raised" Any agreement was going to raise the debt ceiling. The talks were about how to reduce (not eliminate) the deficit. The Republicans used the debt ceiling and threat of our nation defaulting as a bargaining chip to help get more of the types of deficit reduction that they wanted into the agreement. This was clearly a bad thing for our country in the short term (i.e. credit rating downgrade). Could it be a good thing for our country in the long term? | |||||
| 81 | Razor ID: 177192916 Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 14:41 |
And here we go to the other extreme. The downgrade was not because republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling as if its a bad thing. The downgrade was because some in congress were looking for other options...Republicans. They were looking for ways to reduce the debt so that the ceiling didn't need to be raised. I'm not saying Ryan is 100% right and telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But you can't use half-truths and misrepresentations to call him a liar. Khahan, the annual deficit right now is around $1 trillion, most of which is due to escalating entitlement. There is no way the Republicans were going to be able to balance the budget (i.e. cut out $1 trillion in spending) in a matter of days even if they controlled the White House and Senate. Further, they didn't campaign for cutting entitlements - they just wanted to cut discretionary spending. If we cut ALL of discretionary spending to 0, we'd still have a budget deficit and the debt ceiling would still have to be raised. | |||||
| 82 | Mith ID: 23217270 Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 14:58 |
Actually a group of Republicans led by Jim DeMint did seek to prevent raising the debt ceiling. When the Treasury and the Dems responded by pointing out that failing to raise the debt ceiling would result in default with catastrophic consequences, DeMint and some others proposed prioritizing paying off debt ahead of obligations. Other Republicans in Congress openly questioned whether the results of default were overblown by the Treasury. This exchange between the DeMint-led Republicans and Tim Geitner is telling. Some prominent Republicans outside of congress even went so far as to endorse default. S&P chose to be non-partisan in their public explanation for the downgrade but knowing the history makes it pretty clear. "More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011. Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon."Ask yourself, what changed politically between mid April and August - one party openly and seriously began debating the merits of capping the debt ceiling, even if it meant the US Treasury's failure to meet its obligations. | |||||
| 83 | boikin ID: 532592112 Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 16:03 | here might be a silly question, is debt ceiling enforceable? Can't the president just tell the treasury to keep paying to bills. Clearly the president has shown that he has discrepancy on what laws he chooses to enforce, so why choose this one. Isn't the debt ceiling a contradictory law anyways since it tells you to not do something that another law tells you to do? | |||||
| 84 | Mith ID: 36753016 Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 17:24 | What does the debt ceiling "tell you to not do" that another law (what law?) "tells you to do"? | |||||
| 85 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 20:26 | #83: Last time Obama threatened to do just that. Honestly, I think that the debt ceiling is not enforceable--after all, Congress authorized the bills to be paid when they passed the budget. | |||||
| 86 | J-Bar ID: 87313020 Thu, Aug 30, 2012, 22:41 | Would that be the 2009-10 budget? | |||||
| 87 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Fri, Aug 31, 2012, 00:00 |
re 76..OK, seriously now...as a Republican, how bad does it have to be when FOX says: To anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold. I mean really. When your own press dept says that, about what you had to say? Isnt it time then, to pack it in? | |||||
| 88 | Mith ID: 23217270 Fri, Aug 31, 2012, 01:01 | For the record, that columnist self-identifies as a progressive. The fact that that opinion was published by a FOX outlet doesn't make it any more or less valid. Just like MSNBC's leftward lean does not make every conservative opinion you hear from Joe Scarborough more valid. | |||||
| 90 | wolfer ID: 39537520 Fri, Sep 14, 2012, 18:59 |
Re 76 Going back to Janesville, do some of the PAC's actually fact check before they trow ads out? | |||||
| 91 | sarge33rd ID: 12554167 Fri, Sep 14, 2012, 19:02 | No, they do not have to. | |||||
| 92 | Perm Dude ID: 56832185 Wed, Sep 26, 2012, 13:47 |
Love the title: Paul Ryan Looks Like Somebody Kicked Him in the Gut When Romney Admits Obama Didn’t Raise Taxes | |||||
| 93 | Boldwin ID: 228302617 Wed, Sep 26, 2012, 18:30 |
A) After you add in the hidden fees, in the AHC bill for example, he's raised taxes enormously. That's just the way Illinois politicians do it. Tax increases are just shifted to hidden taxes to avoid the taxpayer outrage. Wait till you see what happens to your energy bill if you think Obama improved your economic life. B) Romney is clearly too stupid a politician to win on his own. If he wasn't running with the anti-Obama wind at his back he'd make Goldwater look like a political genius. He'll win anyway. | |||||
| 94 | Building 7 Leader ID: 171572711 Wed, Sep 26, 2012, 20:40 | He should have hired The Architect. | |||||
| 95 | Boldwin ID: 68202620 Wed, Sep 26, 2012, 21:25 |
Rove hates the republican conservative base so he is best left to explicitly neo-con, not so conservative campaigns. ---- BTW, hidden taxes are usually the least progressive taxes imaginable. Put a hidden tax on ketchup or gasoline and the 1% pay the same in hidden tax per month as the poor. Thanx, progressive Obama. | |||||
| 96 | biliruben ID: 21841115 Wed, Sep 26, 2012, 22:58 |
He put a tax on catsup and gasoline? Please be more, much more specific about these taxes. And please stay concrete. No imaginings please. | |||||
| 97 | Boldwin ID: 478592622 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 07:58 |
What's a trillion here, a trillion there? Don't worry, no one notices hidden taxes. Libs can sneak away from the scene of the crime like nothin happened. Oh, and he's taught republicans the Illinois way to backdoor hidden taxes too. Lots of hidden taxes coming too. Plans to eliminate the mortgage deduction in 2013. Both regressive and damaging to the very vulnerable housing market. bili, you are aware of how regressive the effects of Obama's war on fossil furls is? Gasoline and electric costs can't go high enuff for Obama. He wants to force us to buy Chevy Volts and out of our gasoline powered cars. Oh, and he wants me to kick in around $50,000 so you can buy a volt. Financing the explosion of government spending with the printing press [and keeping government repayment interest low] has hidden regressive costs: Consider the price increases in the commodities market from the beginning of 2009 to today:Ketchup isn't included when they figure the phony inflation numbers for public consumption. Or it would look much worse than they say. | |||||
| 98 | biliruben ID: 41431323 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 08:00 |
I said no imaginings. You are attempting logical leaps across oceans, but all you gots is a pogo stick. | |||||
| 99 | Boldwin ID: 478592622 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 08:01 | Obviously you didn't click on the links. | |||||
| 100 | Mith ID: 23217270 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 08:23 | I clicked the last one. I cites QE (beginning with 2008 and specifically blaming Obama for all of it) as the reason for the rise in commodity prices, calling it a tax. | |||||
| 101 | Pancho Villa ID: 59645318 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 08:55 |
Consider the price increases in the commodities market from the beginning of 2009 to today That list represents the height of dishonesty if your attempt is to lay it at the feet of the current administration. Most commodities on that list are agricultural products. Any honest evaluation of the current rise in these commodities must include the following qualification: The worst American drought in more than half a century is driving up grain prices and deepening worries about global food shortages. With much of the corn crop already lost, farmers are holding out hope for some weather relief that could help salvage the harvest of soybeans and other. But the latest data from the government Friday showed that the damage to the food supply chain already has been done. “This is worse than 2008 -- we’re in kind of a perfect storm scenario,” said Ana Puchi-Donnelly, senior agricultural commodities trader at London-based Marex Spectron. “We won’t really know until the whole crop is harvested. We’re talking about the worst drought in the last 50 to 70 years in one of the hottest years on record." Shriveling supplies have sent grain prices soaring. Corn futures set an all-time high Friday to levels roughly 50 percent higher than the end of May, before the drought took hold. Soybean prices also jumped this week to more than 25 percent above pre-drought levels. link Using a 195% jump in gasoline since the beginning of 2009 is equally dishonest, using the height of the global recession, when demand was the weakest in decades, gives a completely distorted analysis. This 5 year chart shows that if you had used July 2008 as your starting point, gasoline prices have risen 0%. Who do you think you're fooling with these distorted numbers? | |||||
| 102 | Perm Dude ID: 56832185 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 11:31 | FOX News viewers, of course. | |||||
| 103 | Boldwin ID: 368252710 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 11:33 |
Who do you think you are fooling? The person O put in charge of energy policy said we needed $9 dollar gas. O put him in charge anyway. Obama promised he'd bankrupt anyone who put up a new coal power plant and at the rate they are closing we'll go into WWIII with no muslim oil, no Keystone oil and no USA coal power plants. [and no new nuke plants] | |||||
| 104 | Perm Dude ID: 56832185 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 11:36 |
Taking quotes out of context seems to be the only way to keep the GOP afloat. | |||||
| 105 | Tree ID: 88512711 Thu, Sep 27, 2012, 12:56 |
Taking quotes out of context seems to be the only way to keep the GOP afloat. ironically, Baldwin doesn't even have the courage to be a member of the GOP. | |||||
| 106 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Sat, Oct 06, 2012, 01:43 |
Thought this was interesting: When Paul Ryan gets letters from birthers, in his response (along with his form letter) he includes a photocopy of Obama's long-form birth certificate. | |||||
| 107 | Boldwin ID: 40937423 Sat, Oct 06, 2012, 02:36 | Every mainstream conservative media figure has to make a decision whether he is gonna stick to the truth or stick more or less to the zeitgeist narrative. If you stick to the truth, you just get extremely bogged down by attacks from those with a great deal to hide and a great deal of media power. These mainstream conservative figures pick their fights carefully and just go to the mat over the crucial battles and don't insist on difficult battles with great personal cost and little big picture gain. | |||||
| 108 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Sat, Oct 06, 2012, 03:58 | They also don't pick battles over things that aren't true, by and large. | |||||
| If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | |||||||
| |||||||
Post a reply to this message: Mitt picks Paul Ryan | |||||||