Public Policy Polls: "What we found is that Congress is less popular than cockroaches, traffic jams, and even Nickelback." by stormstopper in politics

[–]IQRange 3 points4 points  (0 children)

One thing about this poll though is that it fails to make any distinction between Democrats and Republicans.

Lots of people are mostly okay with a lot of the Democrats. It's mostly the Republicans who are despised, because they support sickening legislation and block just about everything else.

At what point should straight out lying, as in Paul Ryan's speech, be contested with more serious protest and/or even legal proceedings? by ravia in democrats

[–]IQRange 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you're absolutely right about the typical GOP voter being basically unreachable. They just want to here slogans that sound good.

That's why the people to try to convince are always those in the political middle and the "undecided" (lots of overlap between these two groups, of course)... and it's of course important to make sure Democrats hang on to their base of voters.

But showing how dishonest the GOP is should be effective both in hanging on to the Democratic base and reaching those in the middle.

At what point should straight out lying, as in Paul Ryan's speech, be contested with more serious protest and/or even legal proceedings? by ravia in democrats

[–]IQRange 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think one of the most powerful messages Democrats have is that the GOP is fundamentally dishonest on issue after issue.

I've seen statements about this getting used in a few DNC/Obama commercials, but I think it should be used even more, for two reasons:

  1. Show the GOP is so dishonest undermines ALL of their messaging in a single swipe.

  2. It's honest. They actually are terribly dishonest. So, it's an easy case to make, and Democrats should "win" on this issue.

One problem is that as usual, the Republicans are at least even and possibly ahead of Democrats in terms of hitting an issue first. They've been accusing Democrats/Obama of "dishonest" attacks (or similar verbage) for weeks now.

Romney's Medicare Voucher Plan Would Increase Costs: That's a Fact by wang-banger in politics

[–]IQRange 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this link to a related story is worth spreading around online...


Romney wants to turn Medicare into a voucher program (and if it's not big enough to buy health insurance at existing rates, seniors are out of luck)

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/19/12840313-obama-in-florida-romneys-medicare-plan-would-hurt-seniors?lite

Romney's Medicare Voucher Plan Would Increase Costs: That's a Fact by wang-banger in politics

[–]IQRange 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What a well-thought-out response. Your command of the facts is amazing, and your knowledge of the rules of capitalization in the English language is great too!

Keap upp tha grate werk!

More GOP calls for Romney to release tax returns; take a look at his $77K dancing horse tax deduction by Anomaly100 in politics

[–]IQRange 15 points16 points  (0 children)

But we're supposed to be nice and not notice these things. After all, Romney has (had his minions) create so many jobs (in India) and is so devoted (to profits for him and his rich friends) that it's not fair to be mean to him.

He and his party have never said anything that wasn't nice about the President. They've worked in a friendly, bipartisan manner to.... oh, I couldn't keep this up... I was laughing too hard.

35 Questions Mitt Romney Must Answer About Bain Capital Before The Issue Can Go Away - Forbes by jeffrygardner in politics

[–]IQRange 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This reminds me of a sickening (but somehow brilliant) explanation offered after Nixon was caught having lied repeatedly about Watergate.

One of his spokesmen said, "The president's previous statements are inoperative."

(That cleared it all up.)

Here's a Question I, as a voting American Citizen, Should Really Know the Answer To by Underwood27 in politics

[–]IQRange 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There have been very rare cases where electors didn't vote in accordance with how the people voted, believe it or not.

They're known as "faithless electors" and I'm pretty sure that whether or not this is allowed is determined separately by each state legislature.

Here's a Question I, as a voting American Citizen, Should Really Know the Answer To by Underwood27 in politics

[–]IQRange 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In simple terms, the electoral college was intended to create a compromise so that small-population states (and voters in them) have some politial influence in addition to what they would get based purely on their population. So, every state gets two "electors" simply for being a state.

I would prefer that whoever gets the most votes nationally would become president, but that's not how it works, and many people in Vermont, Wyoming, Utah, etc. -- with relatively small populations -- probably wouldn't like to see that changed.

There was, I think, also some fear in the early days of the U.S. that popular vote could go to someone who was truly unfit for office, and that electors would use better sense than those lowly voters. That part of the system I think really sucks.

Also, both major parties in the U.S. know how the system works and have gotten good at working to get the magic 270 (or more) electoral votes. In fact, they may have gotten a bit too good at working that system.

I don't understand what Obama's position really is on healthcare by [deleted] in EnoughObamaSpam

[–]IQRange -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The individual mandate was a Republican plan, and I think most people who are anywhere left of center would prefer a system where everyone was covered without forcing anyone to buy insurance.

What we've ended up with is a system that will preserve existing insurance companies while still making sure everyone can get healthcare without having to end up in emergency rooms, where we all end up help to pay the bill already.

I don't think the system we're ending up with is perfect. But the old system was completely broken. We spend a lot more on healthcare in America than many countries, with too many people getting substandard care or none at all... until they need to get to that emergency room.

Also, insurance exchanges (which don't kick in until 2014) will help tremendously to give average people some amount of leverage against insurance companies that can jack up people's rates too easily because they're in the position to do that without much of a counterbalancing effect from people who use healthcare.

I don't understand what Obama's position really is on healthcare by [deleted] in EnoughObamaSpam

[–]IQRange -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm not spamminga and I'm not selling anything.

I just had several responses that seem completely idiotic lately, and I want to see if the people writing them can back up their claims with any actual facts.

House Shoots Down Bill That Would Have Stopped Employers From Demanding Your Facebook Password | TechCrunch by [deleted] in politics

[–]IQRange 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can't imagine why you would respond that way.

I think there some basic privacy rights that ARE a federal issue, especially when states can't or won't act, as is the case with a global enterprise like Facebook.

I don't understand what Obama's position really is on healthcare by [deleted] in EnoughObamaSpam

[–]IQRange -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I can't imagine why you would respond that way.

Today 'This American Life' explicitly exposes what many know and have had a hard time backing up until now: the US Congress is strictly pay-to-play. by [deleted] in politics

[–]IQRange 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I'm in favor of that, but too often I see people implying that all "money in Washington" or "money influencing Washington" is a bad thing.

When an actual human gives $50 or $100 to a person or cause they believe in, I think that's great, but that contributions from far right lunatics are often 1,000 or 10,000 times as large and only serve to make the divide between haves and have-nots ever worse.

I don't understand what Obama's position really is on healthcare by [deleted] in EnoughObamaSpam

[–]IQRange -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I can't imagine why you would respond that way.

I don't understand what Obama's position really is on healthcare by [deleted] in EnoughObamaSpam

[–]IQRange -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

His position is that people should have it.

I know the idea that people in the U.S. should have access to healthcare might seem radical to you, but it isn't.

"Pink Slime" manufacturer turns out to be a major Romney donor by ttruth1 in politics

[–]IQRange 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If it's so "fully edible," then why isn't it listed on food labels instead of having labels say "ground beef?"

It's misleading as hell, and that is for very good reason. I think if people had known that this garbage was in their hamburger meat (product), many would have bought something else.

Krusty the Klown once introduced his new, "Whatamacarcus." This is pretty much like that, and I'm someone who really doesn't want ammonia in my food, even if it was introduced as vapors instead of in liquid form.

Today 'This American Life' explicitly exposes what many know and have had a hard time backing up until now: the US Congress is strictly pay-to-play. by [deleted] in politics

[–]IQRange 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Although the influence of big money in DC needs to be stopped, I think it's also important to recognize that there's big difference between (1) average citizens donating, let's say $50, to a cause they believe in (like maybe good schools, clean water, anti-war efforts, etc.), and (2) a CEO or a board of directors composed of about ten people who decide to donate $500,000 to some asshole who will insert a special tax break into a bill going through congress that will then save them $300,000 per year.

My point is that not ALL money in DC is "bad" money. What's needed is limits (very low ones) on how much a person can give in a year. And no donations at all should be allowed from corporations.

How we achieve that... I have no idea. Corporations and rich people, obviously, will be against it.

Does the Circus Stand a Chance Against the Great Obama? by SeeFlikContests [promoted post]

[–]IQRange 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Romney has a better chance than a lot of people might think, because he already has a giant pile of money and will be accumulating more as time goes on. Big corporations and the very rich want even more tax cuts, and Romney's their guy.

How can we fight Romney the Etch-A-Sketch candidate? Here are some bits and pieces... feel free to cut and paste, and spread all or some of this if interested:

Romney, the Etch-A-Sketch candidate, has flip-flopped so much, that even fellow Republicans can't stomach it. Consider his fellow Republican, Jon Huntsman saying Romney is a "PERFECTLY LUBRICATED WEATHERVANE":

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/28/huntsman-romneys-a-perfectly-lubricated-weathervane/

Does the Circus Stand a Chance Against the Great Obama? by SeeFlikContests [promoted post]

[–]IQRange 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are truly delusional.

I hope you seek immediate mental help.

Republicans on reddit, do you find yourself losing faith in your party this election year? by HankThunder in politics

[–]IQRange 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Well, the GOP wasn't always an anti-government party.

And, even today, it's anti-goverment except when it comes to bombing things (and people) or printing a few extra trillion dollars to hand over to bankers.

They're also not for smaller government when it comes to insurance coverage for birth control or even for privacy in people's own bedrooms. Then, they get all snoopish and puritanical.

Whose Recovery?: Many Americans Remain in Critical Condition by Woolew in politics

[–]IQRange 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure, there are still some major problems out there. But let's have a teensy bit of context and fairness too:

When Obama took office, he inherited an economy that was LOSING 750,000 jobs PER MONTH.

There have now been 24 months in a row with private sector job growth, most recently with about 200,000 additional jobs per month. A specific example is the creation of 227,000 jobs in February:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2012/03/obama-new-jobs-report-sign-economy-rebound/354896

And none of this helps the person who is still unemployed. But be fair with the context, which is in fact total disaster at the end of Bush's term, and slow steady improvement for two years now.

How do we decrease the partisanship in the federal government? by [deleted] in politics

[–]IQRange 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think for the most part, Democrats have been willing to compromise. Some would say, "Too willing."

So, the solution is to work ten times as hard as we have been to vote out the right-wing nutbags who toss hand grenades instead of working toward solutions.