2012 Official Preallo Political Discussion Thread

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I personally believe that any individual who makes a career out of politics and serves in the public sector will never understand how to govern according to constitutional law. My hats off to Mr. Ron Paul who stays true to his word. Too bad America will recognize he has been the only real choice once it in too late.

This.

Members don't see this ad.
 
I personally believe that any individual who makes a career out of politics and serves in the public sector will never understand how to govern according to constitutional law. My hats off to Mr. Ron Paul who stays true to his word. Too bad America will recognize he has been the only real choice once it in too late.


"govern according to constitutional law?" Wtf other way to govern is there?
 
"govern according to constitutional law?" Wtf other way to govern is there?

Sigh.

One very, very, very recent example is the NDAA and the indefinite detention clause.

This was signed off on by Obama and was recently (like yesterday) found unconstitutional (as it damn well should be) by a federal court.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Let's leave the candidates' religious affiliations out of this and have a grown up conversation about healthcare.


The fact that Romney wants to completely defund Planned Parenthood, despite the fact that only 2% of its operating budget goes toward providing abortions, tells me that his decisions are based on pure party ideology rather than pragmatic objectivity. Many lower income women depend on PP's family planning and STD screening services, and with the most pregnant teens in the Western world, now is not the time to defund Planned Parenthood. Obama certainly isn't perfect, but is Romney really presidential? I just get the feeling that he is reading from a script, saying what the Republican National Committee tells him to. At least with Obama I know he stands for something, like it or not.

Does anyone else remember the intense healthcare debates 2 summers ago? If the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed (As Romney has vowed to do), we are back to square one, with insurance premiums skyrocketing with little oversight, and people being dropped for preexisting conditions. If a person loses her insurance coverage because she gets sick, what is the point of buying it in the first place? Like him or not, Bill Clinton's administration was one of the most successful in modern times, but even he couldn't pass healthcare reform, and if we repeal it now, who knows how long it will be until our do-nothing Congress can pass another healthcare overhaul. Our best path forward as a nation is to build on the strong parts of Obamacare (PPACA) and continue reforming the parts that don't work, maybe even the individual mandate. No one can truly predict the effect of reforming 15% of the GDP of the world's largest economy, it is going to take some time and some trial and error before we get it right. I'm certainly not as thrilled about voting for Obama as I was in 2008, but compared to the alternative, how can you not?

Is it not the role of the government to fund groups like this anyway. Lower taxes across the board, let the economy grow and create jobs, and put more money in the hands of the people. The government exists to ensure liberty, not to provide products for certain people for free. It is a fact that everything the government does, the private sector can do exponentially better. Try to mail something at the Post Office, then go to a FedEx. See which one operates better. This is why the government cannot and should not interfere in healthcare. This and the fact that, again, the constitutionality of social "safety nets" is dubious at best.
 
Is it not the role of the government to fund groups like this anyway. Lower taxes across the board, let the economy grow and create jobs, and put more money in the hands of the people. The government exists to ensure liberty, not to provide products for certain people for free. It is a fact that everything the government does, the private sector can do exponentially better. Try to mail something at the Post Office, then go to a FedEx. See which one operates better. This is why the government cannot and should not interfere in healthcare. This and the fact that, again, the constitutionality of social "safety nets" is dubious at best.
This is FOX NEWS talks...Lets have the private sector take charge of the military...
 
This is FOX NEWS talks...Lets have the private sector take charge of the military...

The federal government should concern itself with the protection of the environment (very important), the regulation of inter-state commerce, the provision of national defense, and the forging of agreements/treaties with other nations. It should, in a very broad sense, promote the life, liberty, and happiness of all Americans. That's all. No Medicare, no welfare, no federal education initiatives, no funding of research. States themselves can provide these items, but the federal government should not.
 
The federal government should concern itself with the protection of the environment (very important), the regulation of inter-state commerce, the provision of national defense, and the forging of agreements/treaties with other nations. It should, in a very broad sense, promote the life, liberty, and happiness of all Americans. That's all. No Medicare, no welfare, no federal education initiatives, no funding of research. States themselves can provide these items, but the federal government should not.
I am sure you voted for Bush...
 
It is a fact that everything the government does, the private sector can do exponentially better.

Look up the deregulation of the energy market in Texas.

sotto voce said:
Try to mail something at the Post Office, then go to a FedEx.

The USPS has delivered >99.8% of the mail I have ever sent/received, and lapses have been extraordinarily rare. I use FedEx quite a bit now, and they're fine. I do note that Overnight/Express offered by the USPS is significantly cheaper than FedEx, and in my anecdotal experience just as reliable.

Your example sort of sucks, regardless. Look up the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970.

sotto voce said:
See which one operates better. This is why the government cannot and should not interfere in healthcare. This and the fact that, again, the constitutionality of social "safety nets" is dubious at best.

You have a very adolescent understanding of how the world works. But no worries, it's nothing a little time won't cure.
 
More healthcare reform will come, regardless of whether the ACA is upheld or not. Medicare will implode within the next 15 years. We will eventually be forced to do something.

While healthcare is an extremely important issue and an integral part of the economy, it should not be the main focus when it comes to this election. Unemployment, the lack of jobs, and the perpetual economic malaise is what concerns me most. The immense government debt is also worrisome.

But the funny thing is, the idea that the government can turn around the economy is fallacious. This was tried with the stimulus. Yes, you can argue that the stimulus prevented another great depression, but then you're just parroting a sound bite and you can't even explain what you just said. The stimulus is based on the (outdated) idea of a Keynesian multiplier which unfortunately seems to have a negative value.

Private sector growth w/ a strong manufacturing backbone is the only thing that is going to turn this economy/country around. The government can pass (or repeal) laws to create a more favorable climate for this to occur, but the government itself can not generate economic prosperity.
 
politifact.jpg
 
The USPS has delivered >99.8% of the mail I have ever sent/received, and lapses have been extraordinarily rare. I use FedEx quite a bit now, and they're fine. I do note that Overnight/Express offered by the USPS is significantly cheaper than FedEx, and in my anecdotal experience just as reliable.

Your example sort of sucks, regardless. Look up the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970.

I'm not sure if you're just ignorant or intentionally ignoring facts. You do realize that the USPS hemorrhages billions of dollars each year, right? Yet because doing what's necessary to ensure its survival - reducing costs (shutting down facilities, limiting delivery days, etc.) and/or increasing prices beyond inflation - are politically undesirable to do, politicians refuse to update laws that would help the USPS experience success. This is the problem with the government running anything where decisions that might be unpopular must be made (i.e., business or even healthcare). Our politicians are too short-sighted and interested in CYA maneuvers that they choose not to do what is necessary to improve the viability of the things it runs.

This is why, for example, the ACA includes a measure that will institute automatic spending cuts should healthcare spending rise above a certain amount relative to GDP, yet those cuts can't come from anything that could be construed as rationing, increases in patient premiums, or a whole list of other sources of revenue/spending cuts. Something like this is NECESSARY to ensure (or at least improve the likelihood of) the survivability of Medicare, yet incompetent politicians that are interested in their own success prevent fundamentally important things like this from happening. Frankly I can't believe people would actually trust the government to do any more than it already does.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I'm not sure if you're just ignorant or intentionally ignoring facts. You do realize that the USPS hemorrhages billions of dollars each year, right? Yet because doing what's necessary to ensure its survival - reducing costs (shutting down facilities, limiting delivery days, etc.) and/or increasing prices beyond inflation - are politically undesirable to do, politicians refuse to update laws that would help the USPS experience success. This is the problem with the government running anything where decisions that might be unpopular must be made (i.e., business or even healthcare). Our politicians are too short-sighted and interested in CYA maneuvers that they choose not to do what is necessary to improve the viability of the things it runs.

This is why, for example, the ACA includes a measure that will institute automatic spending cuts should healthcare spending rise above a certain amount relative to GDP, yet those cuts can't come from anything that could be construed as rationing, increases in patient premiums, or a whole list of other sources of revenue/spending cuts. Something like this is NECESSARY to ensure (or at least improve the likelihood of) the survivability of Medicare, yet incompetent politicians that are interested in their own success prevent fundamentally important things like this from happening. Frankly I can't believe people would actually trust the government to do any more than it already does.

To be honest, this is why I generally vote with more bias toward social issues than economic ones. I will never understand the right path the economy should take no matter how many times it is explained to me because I'll both never have access to any of the data and trust that anyone will have a better understanding than I will.
 
Last edited:
To be honest, this is why I generally vote with more bias toward social issues than economic ones. I will never understand the right path the economy should take no matter how many times it is explained to me not because I'll both never have access to any of the data and trust that anyone will have a better understanding than I will.

That's the best justification that I've heard for voting primarily by social issues.
 
:sleep::sleep::sleep:

Still wondering what that has to do with coming up with a balanced budget or solving our foreign policy entanglements...

Still wondering why you think that's the only thing that matters?

I guess as long as he can come up with a financial plan you like its ok to throw women, gays, and others under a bus.
 
Bush and Obama did nothing different, as a matter of fact every single president I could think of has been the same. They all promise you the world and give you a rotten apple. It's almost like there is a higher power running the show.

Sure, I'd say it is typical for a presidental candidate to make bold statements to try and get nominated.

What has Obama done to warrant re-election?
 
More healthcare reform will come, regardless of whether the ACA is upheld or not. Medicare will implode within the next 15 years. We will eventually be forced to do something.

While healthcare is an extremely important issue and an integral part of the economy, it should not be the main focus when it comes to this election. Unemployment, the lack of jobs, and the perpetual economic malaise is what concerns me most. The immense government debt is also worrisome.

But the funny thing is, the idea that the government can turn around the economy is fallacious. This was tried with the stimulus. Yes, you can argue that the stimulus prevented another great depression, but then you're just parroting a sound bite and you can't even explain what you just said. The stimulus is based on the (outdated) idea of a Keynesian multiplier which unfortunately seems to have a negative value.

Private sector growth w/ a strong manufacturing backbone is the only thing that is going to turn this economy/country around. The government can pass (or repeal) laws to create a more favorable climate for this to occur, but the government itself can not generate economic prosperity.

Well said and dead on.
 
Neither, both have implemented healthcare systems at the federal or state level that simply will not provide long-term viability without sacrificing quality of care. Both are elitist snobs, one who is vastly underqualified and the other has lived life on a silver platter with his head in the clouds. Both are pure politicians to the core and neither has the stomach to stick to their principles when faced with the prospect of losing even a single vote.

To reference South Park, this election really is like choosing between a douche and turd sandwich.
 
"govern according to constitutional law?" Wtf other way to govern is there?

Obama, and Bush before him, signed off on legislation that many believe violates constitutional law.
 
Neither, both have implemented healthcare systems at the federal or state level that simply will not provide long-term viability without sacrificing quality of care. Both are elitist snobs, one who is vastly underqualified and the other has lived life on a silver platter with his head in the clouds. Both are pure politicians to the core and neither has the stomach to stick to their principles when faced with the prospect of losing even a single vote.

To reference South Park, this election really is like choosing between a douche and turd sandwich.

Because of the money. If only Ron Paul were rich...
 
Because of the money. If only Ron Paul were rich...

The bigger problem is that his style isnt fit for our politically correct society. He says things that he believes and sticks to his guns, and that offends a lot of people. He doesn't mind looking you in the eye and telling you that you're wrong.

I always hear the medai talking him "putting his foot in his mouth", yet all he is really doing is making potential voters who can't handle the truth angry.
 
The bigger problem is that his style isnt fit for our politically correct society. He says things that he believes and sticks to his guns, and that offends a lot of people. He doesn't mind looking you in the eye and telling you that you're wrong.

I always hear the medai talking him "putting his foot in his mouth", yet all he is really doing is making potential voters who can't handle the truth angry.

I don't get it though. All the young people love Ron Paul. All his videos, and only his, have so many more likes than any of the others and he's actually a thinker. The media is just as you say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7JPvbVsDdY
 
This. There's plenty of good reasons to go one way or the other on this. But in my opinion, if economic interest is deciding your vote, you're putting too much stock in your paycheck. Personally, if I'm making upwards of a quarter million a year, and the gov't wants to take a bigger fraction off the top to ease the load on the working class, I'm cool with it. I'm not saying physicians shouldn't be well compensated. They should, and they are. They invest a lot in their education and then work hard on top of that. But come on, there are plenty in the working class that work just as hard, and for them that difference in tax rate might mean being able to send a kid to college.

Just my two cents.

What about some of us that will earn slightly above the tax cut? Is it fair that I will help pay for someone else's college while my kids will probably be working to pay for theirs?
 
Still wondering why you think that's the only thing that matters?

I guess as long as he can come up with a financial plan you like its ok to throw women, gays, and others under a bus.

I love the way of the liberal. Romney does not put out ads featuring faceless, zombie-like women (Julia) who rely upon cradle-to-grave government coddling for every stage of life, so he is said to "throw women... under a bus."

He is not willing to change the essential nature of a venerable institution (marriage) in response to childish political tides, so he is said to "throw gays... under a bus."

Whom else does he throw under a bus? Minorities? Dogs?

One of the reasons I'm not so sure Obama will win is because this drivel is the best his surrogates have thrown at Romney, and frankly, it's a total joke.
 
I love the way of the liberal. Romney does not put out ads featuring faceless, zombie-like women (Julia) who rely upon cradle-to-grave government coddling for every stage of life, so he is said to "throw women... under a bus."

He is not willing to change the essential nature of a venerable institution (marriage) in response to childish political tides, so he is said to "throw gays... under a bus."

Whom else does he throw under a bus? Minorities? Dogs?

One of the reasons I'm not so sure Obama will win is because this drivel is the best his surrogates have thrown at Romney, and frankly, it's a total joke.


It's not just childish political ties. The issue means a great deal to many, many people. I don't know that I'd rush to call marriage in America venerable. So much of it outright fails.
 
It's not just childish political ties. The issue means a great deal to many, many people. I don't know that I'd rush to call marriage in America venerable. So much of it outright fails.

First point: it does mean a great deal to some people, but the government's job is not to make laws to make people feel better. The fact of the matter is that for gay couples to have the same privileges as straight ones, the institution of marriage need not be tampered with. Civil unions are sufficient.

Second, I wasn't referring to "marriage in America" but marriage through history. Sure, there have been all sorts of changes in the understanding of marriage (polygamy, property rights, etc.), but the common denominator in all interpretations has been the standard foundation of man + woman.

If so much of marriage has outright failed, why don't people come up with a new one? "Frindle"?

The fact of the matter is that this is a non-issue designed to buy votes. A certain party has been trying to do that for a long, long time with multiple groups.
 
First point: it does mean a great deal to some people, but the government's job is not to make laws to make people feel better. The fact of the matter is that for gay couples to have the same privileges as straight ones, the institution of marriage need not be tampered with. Civil unions are sufficient.

Second, I wasn't referring to "marriage in America" but marriage through history. Sure, there have been all sorts of changes in the understanding of marriage (polygamy, property rights, etc.), but the common denominator in all interpretations has been the standard foundation of man + woman.

If so much of marriage has outright failed, why don't people come up with a new one? "Frindle"?

The fact of the matter is that this is a non-issue designed to buy votes. A certain party has been trying to do that for a long, long time with multiple groups.

Dude, that's exactly what any logical person would want. Everyone should have access to government sanctioned Frindles, and religious groups can provide marriage ceremonies that are completely unrelated to the government. That would be amazing. Doesn't matter what the roots are. Just do away with the word since it's obviously inflammatory both to have it apply to only one class of people and to use such an entrenched word to define a changing ideal.

Oh, and:

Husband => Rorbstin.

Wife => Klonto.
 
First point: it does mean a great deal to some people, but the government's job is not to make laws to make people feel better. The fact of the matter is that for gay couples to have the same privileges as straight ones, the institution of marriage need not be tampered with. Civil unions are sufficient.

Second, I wasn't referring to "marriage in America" but marriage through history. Sure, there have been all sorts of changes in the understanding of marriage (polygamy, property rights, etc.), but the common denominator in all interpretations has been the standard foundation of man + woman.

If so much of marriage has outright failed, why don't people come up with a new one? "Frindle"?

The fact of the matter is that this is a non-issue designed to buy votes. A certain party has been trying to do that for a long, long time with multiple groups.

Civil unions aren't sufficient... I bet that if you'd experience the barriers and limitations that gay couple face you will think otherwise. You lack the empathy and understanding that gay marriage provides them with rights that civil unions provide, so it's a right and matter.

In regards to contraception, the ideology of the candidate matters a lot. Just because a religion condemns contraceptives that doesn't mean we should all start having kids like rabbits; we are living in a overpopulated world. We are going to run out of resources... Eventually
 
Civil unions aren't sufficient... I bet that if you'd experience the barriers and limitations that gay couple face you will think otherwise. You lack the empathy and understanding that gay marriage provides them with rights that civil unions provide, so it's a right and matter.

In regards to contraception, the ideology of the candidate matters a lot. Just because a religion condemns contraceptives that doesn't mean we should all start having kids like rabbits; we are living in a overpopulated world. We are going to run out of resources... Eventually

Frankly I don't care what people want to call "gay marriage" as long as those couples with that relationship are entitled to the same rights and benefits as traditional married couples.

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos and brevity)
 
Civil unions aren't sufficient... I bet that if you'd experience the barriers and limitations that gay couple face you will think otherwise. You lack the empathy and understanding that gay marriage provides them with rights that civil unions provide, so it's a right and matter.

In regards to contraception, the ideology of the candidate matters a lot. Just because a religion condemns contraceptives that doesn't mean we should all start having kids like rabbits; we are living in a overpopulated world. We are going to run out of resources... Eventually
I'm for equality under the law for all people no matter what type of relationship or cohabitation arrangement they pursue with their significant other(s). However, gay marriage is not as salient for me and many other Americans as the sluggish economy, burgeoning national debt, healthcare, or foreign policy. These issues effect us all and our future as nation.

Additionally, President Obama is not sincere in his support for gay marriage as he only came out in support during an election year when pressured by his party cohorts. Then again, I have come to expect that our president does not have any strong convictions other than maintaining his hold on power and cultivating his cult of celebrity. Anyways, this conversation easily got sidetracked from discussing each candidate's views regarding healthcare policy.
 
Frankly I don't care what people want to call "gay marriage" as long as those couples with that relationship are entitled to the same rights and benefits as traditional married couples.

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos and brevity)

Well... Yeah!!!! That's the bottom line of the issue. Gay people should have the right to get marry to gain the benefits that come from that union. I don't think it should be call something else, because it implies that is different and that precisely is an issue.
 
I'm for equality under the law for all people no matter what type of relationship or cohabitation arrangement they pursue with their significant other(s). However, gay marriage is not as salient for me and many other Americans as the sluggish economy, burgeoning national debt, healthcare, or foreign policy. These issues effect us all and our future as nation.

Additionally, President Obama is not sincere in his support for gay marriage as he only came out in support during an election year when pressured by his party cohorts. Then again, I have come to expect that our president does not have any strong convictions other than maintaining his hold on power and cultivating his cult of celebrity. Anyways, this conversation easily got sidetracked from discussing each candidate's views regarding healthcare policy.

I agree, he came out in support of gay marriage as a political maneuver for re-election. Despite this, the end of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was an indication on his view to the problems that afflict the gay population.
 
If Ron Paul was a candidate, I would highly consider voting for him. I have some issues with his policies, but I have some issues with Obama's too. But from what I see, the Republician Party will nominate Romney as there candidate, not Paul. I vote to prevent Romney from getting elected, if I could do that by voting Obama or Paul I would, but I don't think voting for Paul will help defeat Romney.

Although, all of this is based on the assumption that the president enacts policies, which simply isn't true with the fractured Congress currently elected.
 
I'm not sure if you're just ignorant or intentionally ignoring facts. You do realize that the USPS hemorrhages billions of dollars each year, right?

Actually in the first quarter of 2012 the USPS had a $200 million operating profit, which was only turned into $3.2 billion loss due to the bizarre and sadistic 2006 law that forces it to stash 75 years of pension funds in only 10 years. Overall the Post Office has adapted quite well to changing demand.

If there is some other set of facts I am truly ignorant of please let me know.
 
I'm not saying Obama isn't being unreasonable, and he definitely got dealt a raw deal (i.e., Bush being a complete ***** and increasing spending/decreasing revenue during an economic boom), but let's be real here.

Comparing those two charts only tells me that Obama has presided over a massive decline in federal revenue. That's it.
 
First of all, "Obamacare" is what Romney implemented in Massachusetts, and it's what Obama had to settle for, not what he wanted.

The comparison would be more Obama (Universal Healthcare) vs Romney (Obamacare).

Obama doesn't have a legitimate universal healthcare plan. It's more like pseudo-universal healthcare.

I'm going to be honest, I like the current system. But I guess that isn't what our politicians are offering. I guess I have to go with Mitt on this one.
 
Actually in the first quarter of 2012 the USPS had a $200 million operating profit, which was only turned into $3.2 billion loss due to the bizarre and sadistic 2006 law that forces it to stash 75 years of pension funds in only 10 years. Overall the Post Office has adapted quite well to changing demand.

If there is some other set of facts I am truly ignorant of please let me know.

That fact proves my point even further.

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos and brevity)
 
What's your point? That representative government is messy and people **** up? Yeah, thanks, we knew that already.

And yet you want those same people to run a healthcare system to an even larger degree than is already done? I can't imagine what could go wrong here...

(sent from my phone - please forgive typos and brevity)
 
Doctors already complain a lot about increasing paperwork. If my trips to the DPS and filling out finical aid information has taught me anything...Government=Paperwork. More paperwork means less time spent with patients. Patient interaction is one of the top reasons why I want to be a doctor.
 
Really? So all funding should come from pharmaceuticals and device manufacturers to promote self-interests? That would essentially flush evidence based medicine down the toilet.

No. States can extract money from (i.e., tax) their citizens to fund public research. Groups of states can pool their resources to form research conglomerates. State-funded public universities, state-funded research centers, and the private market can collaborate to drive innovation and lower costs.

A great example is the Kansas City Animal Health Corridor. This geographic region stretches from Columbia, Missouri, to Manhattan, Kansas. Within this region, you find over 200 animal health companies, including the headquarters of over 40 animal science giants (Bayer HealthCare Animal Health, Hill's Pet Nutrition, etc.). Schools such as Kanas City Community College, Johnson County Community College, Kansas State University, and the University of Missouri-Columbia conduct research and provide talented, educated individuals for those companies. This public-private relationship is fostered by local and state governments, who provide tax incentives and assist in coordination. No federal government needed, thank you very much.
 
The USPS has delivered >99.8% of the mail I have ever sent/received, and lapses have been extraordinarily rare. I use FedEx quite a bit now, and they're fine. I do note that Overnight/Express offered by the USPS is significantly cheaper than FedEx, and in my anecdotal experience just as reliable.

That's because what you pay at the Post Office does not reflect the true cost of mailing and shipping. Of course, the USPS doesn't pull that money out of thin air--our federal tax dollars have to be spent to make up the difference.

And my challenge remains. Go to the Post Office at 4:30pm and tell me how that experience works out for you. Then go to a FedEx or UPS store.
 
Top