• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

terraplnr said:
Imagine if all the money spent on chicken yesterday had gone to food banks or homeless shelters or something…
Click to expand...

If leftists and liberals support a boycott on food banks and homeless shelters then maybe, just maybe you'd be onto something. :-#
 
Here's a claim you don't hear everyday.

Ex-Idaho senator: Bathroom trip official business

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Former Republican U.S. Sen. Larry Craig aims to fend off a federal election lawsuit against him by arguing his infamous June 11, 2007, Minneapolis airport bathroom visit that ended in his sex-sting arrest was part of his official Senate business.

Craig is hoping to avoid repaying $217,000 in campaign funds the Federal Election Commission claims he misused to defend himself.

Craig counters that money tied to his airport bathroom trip was for neither personal use nor his campaign, but fell under his official, reimbursable duties as senator because he was traveling between Idaho and the nation's capital for work.
Click to expand...

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Ex-Idaho-senator-Bathroom-trip-official-business-3760660.php
 
Since I don't live in Ohio, can someone explain what is going on with the Military voting debate there and why there is a law suit? The bits that I have been able to pick up from various sources is that it allows members of the military the ability to vote early and absentee ballots can arrive late?

Can someone explain what is going on and what the law suit is all about because every media source online appears to paint a different picture.
 
michaelskis said:
Since I don't live in Ohio, can someone explain what is going on with the Military voting debate there and why there is a law suit? The bits that I have been able to pick up from various sources is that it allows members of the military the ability to vote early and absentee ballots can arrive late?

Can someone explain what is going on and what the law suit is all about because every media source online appears to paint a different picture.
Click to expand...

The D's are trying to allow everyone the same right to vote early - which the military already can do. The R's don't want to share those rights with everyone, they just want the military to be able to.... and are demonizing the D's for "attacking the rights of the Military".

I foresee that it will end with everyone being able to vote at the same time... which is fair. Who knows how it will end up though after the demagoguery.
 
Hink said:
The D's are trying to allow everyone the same right to vote early - which the military already can do. The R's don't want to share those rights with everyone, they just want the military to be able to.... and are demonizing the D's for "attacking the rights of the Military".
Click to expand...

That is also my understanding. They're bumping everyone up to have more time to vote, rather than preventing Military members from voting early. If that is the case, then I honestly feel like some pundits are drawing arguements out of thin air.
 
Hink said:
The D's are trying to allow everyone the same right to vote early - which the military already can do. The R's don't want to share those rights with everyone, they just want the military to be able to.... and are demonizing the D's for "attacking the rights of the Military".

I foresee that it will end with everyone being able to vote at the same time... which is fair. Who knows how it will end up though after the demagoguery.
Click to expand...

dw914er said:
That is also my understanding. They're bumping everyone up to have more time to vote, rather than preventing Military members from voting early. If that is the case, then I honestly feel like some pundits are drawing arguements out of thin air.
Click to expand...

No high moral ground here for either side. Military folks tend to vote conservative so "fairness" calls for extending to others to balance it out regardless of why the Military was given the extra time. It's a red herring election year issue being played by both sides. Blame the other side and avoid real issues.
 
Does anyone think that we will ever have real 3rd party candidate that will stand a chance against the R's or D's?
 
michaelskis said:
Does anyone think that we will ever have real 3rd party candidate that will stand a chance against the R's or D's?
Click to expand...

I don't. I used to, but not anymore. I think any real challenge to the parties will result in them being absorbed or marginalized (depending on the following they have) by the existing powers. Our system, though similar to a parliamentary democracy, really is rigged in favor of a two-party setup and does not accommodate true multi-party arrangements very well.It has its advantages and also is drawbacks. But unless something drastic changes in the structure of our government, I really don't see us having more than two viable, electable parties (at least for executive office and probably for the senate as well - I can see it more likely at a state or local level). I'd be glad to eat my words, though...
 
michaelskis said:
Does anyone think that we will ever have real 3rd party candidate that will stand a chance against the R's or D's?
Click to expand...

Not with the way the electoral college dolls out the votes on a winner-take-all basis for each state.

In my dream world, we would get rid of the electoral college and presidential candidates would need to win a majority of the actual votes. If any one candidate fails to do so, they would need to have a run-off election. Maybe the top 3 or 4 vote-getters would make it to the run-off with the potential for a second round of run-offs.
 
michaelskis said:
Does anyone think that we will ever have real 3rd party candidate that will stand a chance against the R's or D's?
Click to expand...
Michael Bloomberg is currently the only person I can think who could make a viable run as an independent. He's got the resources and connections to possibly make it happen. Bloomberg himself says he doesn't have a chance at winning though. I can't disagree with that assessment either considering his liberal leanings and the resources of the other two parties.
 
Blide said:
Michael Bloomberg is currently the only person I can think who could make a viable run as an independent. He's got the resources and connections to possibly make it happen. Bloomberg himself says he doesn't have a chance at winning though. I can't disagree with that assessment either considering his liberal leanings and the resources of the other two parties.
Click to expand...

He's the only one around that could possibly stand a chance. Ross Perot made an honest go of it and probably had the best shot of anyone in nearly a century, and still didn't come close. Our structure prevents 3rd parties from ever gaining momentum, much less winning a major election. I wish we were closer to a parliamentary democracy and that the electoral college didn't exist.
 
Planit said:
Paul Ryan only had 7 or 8 inconsistencies with the truth during his speech last night.

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/30/paul_ryans_brazen_lies/


Granted this is the convention ... pep rally time
Click to expand...

I thought his speech felt good, but it was obvious he was rah-rahing a fair bit and ignoring some truths. Usually Ryan is more honest then that, but I am sure he was pressured into attacking certain aspects of Obama. In general his speech was much better than I expected. He wasn't amazing, but he wasn't horrible. Although I am from Ohio, I am very glad Rob Portman wasn't chosen. The Vanilla Ticket would have been VERY difficult to manage for the next couple months or the next 4 years.

I think with Paul Ryan we will at least get some out of the box thinking. None will get implemented, but at least we might have a conversation...
 
Planit said:
Paul Ryan only had 7 or 8 inconsistencies with the truth during his speech last night.

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/30/paul_ryans_brazen_lies/


Granted this is the convention ... pep rally time
Click to expand...

Yes the quotes from CNN avoiding calling them 'lies' are all over my RSS feed this morning. You can be sure that Murdoch's empire would be screaming if the uppity Kenyan lied like that. Oh, to have media that do their job!
 
Hink said:
None will get implemented, but at least we might have a conversation...
Click to expand...
It doesn't even seem like a conversation will happen at this point. Republicans claimed Ryan was going to elevate the debate on the budget but the same old lies and half truths are now being tossed out by Ryan himself. I mean seeing a fact check article next to every article about his speech doesn't help his case.
 
Hink said:
I think with Paul Ryan we will at least get some out of the box thinking. None will get implemented, but at least we might have a conversation...
Click to expand...

Blide said:
It doesn't even seem like a conversation will happen at this point. ... the same old lies and half truths are now being tossed out by Ryan himself. I mean seeing a fact check article next to every article about his speech doesn't help his case.
Click to expand...

"That's freedom, and I'll take it any day over the supervision and sanctimony of the central planners."​


That is not out of the box thinking, and there is no need to have a conversation about this nincompoopery, except one that decides how quickly we can ignore these outdated dinosaurs and move on.


“The demographics race we’re losing badly,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.). “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”​
 
ColoGI said:
"That's freedom, and I'll take it any day over the supervision and sanctimony of the central planners."​


That is not out of the box thinking, and there is no need to have a conversation about this nincompoopery, except one that decides how quickly we can ignore these outdated dinosaurs and move on.


“The demographics race we’re losing badly,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.). “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”​
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that his speech was disappointing in a policy and honesty perspective. I think though, when not put on a platform, he is much more of a thinker than Romney. I think we haven't had an Economics wonk in the White House in a while. It would be interesting.
 
Blide said:
It doesn't even seem like a conversation will happen at this point. Republicans claimed Ryan was going to elevate the debate on the budget but the same old lies and half truths are now being tossed out by Ryan himself. I mean seeing a fact check article next to every article about his speech doesn't help his case.
Click to expand...

I did not watch the speech, so can you list the points that where lies?
 
Hink said:
... he is much more of a thinker than Romney. I think we haven't had an Economics wonk in the White House in a while. .
Click to expand...

You've been flimflammed. If he's an economics wonk, I'm a mechanic changing the oil on the Curiosity rover.
 
ColoGI said:
You've been flimflammed. If he's an economics wonk, I'm a mechanic changing the oil on the Curiosity rover.
Click to expand...

I honestly believe he understands economics better than the last at least 4 president/vp combos. Maybe wonk is a bit strong, but he has a working knowledge.
 
Hink said:
I honestly believe he understands economics better than the last at least 4 president/vp combos. Maybe wonk is a bit strong, but he has a working knowledge.
Click to expand...

He's an Austrian Rand-toter who - among other things that immediately discredit his 'thinking' - has an oh-so-good budget proposal that balloons the debt and eliminates Medicare. He also praises 'policy' "ideas" such as it is a good idea to return to gold coinage.

Come now. No one can take that seriously. He is a con man.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
Here's the simplest run-down I've seen: Paul Ryan's speech included an incredible string of false or misleading statements.

Yes, I know Slate is solidly in the "left".
Click to expand...

Yep, it appears many of those are misleading statements based on disconnected bits of factual information spun for political gain. I think it was right for people to question those items.
Frankly, I thought there would be a whole lot more and I am guessing that the other stuff he said was true?

  • GM Plant did close at the end of the Bush Administration. Obama did say that it needs to be re-tooled and that it would be open for another 100 years. Neither Obama nor Bush did anything to save the plant or work to get it reopened. Obama did not cause the plant to close and he did not say he would save it.
  • The stimulus was a case of political patronage, corporate welfare, and cronyism at their worse, yet he did try to get some of the money for his district (as did almost all of the congress reps... idiots in congress...)
  • $716 billion, funneled out of Medicare by President Obama. It is more of a shifting and restructuring partly in due to Obamacare. It is still there, but used differently from what I can tell.
  • S&P Downgrade... This one is funny because Obama was at the helm and after 2 years of a democrat controlled senate and house, things still got worse. On top of that, all indications from the Democrat platform was to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire (instead of raising taxes). According to the link above, that was part of the rationale for the decision.
  • Bipartisan Commission... You might as well put vegetarians and meat-eaters in a room together to come up with an agreement for dinner plans. One side wants to cut taxes and spending the other wants to increase taxes and increase assistance programs.
 
michaelskis said:
  • S&P Downgrade... This one is funny because Obama was at the helm and after 2 years of a democrat controlled senate and house, things still got worse. On top of that, all indications from the Democrat platform was to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire (instead of raising taxes). According to the link above, that was part of the rationale for the decision.
  • Bipartisan Commission... You might as well put vegetarians and meat-eaters in a room together to come up with an agreement for dinner plans. One side wants to cut taxes and spending the other wants to increase taxes and increase assistance programs.
Click to expand...

As far as I am concerned this is trolling, but these two are really bad. Come on.
 
michaelskis said:
Tell me if anything that I said was not factually correct and provide proof.
Click to expand...

Just like the "proof" you provided to make the claims true? :r:

S&P said the downgrade "reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics." It also blamed the weakened "effectiveness, stability, and predictability" of U.S. policy making and political institutions at a time when challenges are mounting.
Click to expand...

It was the ineffectiveness of the congress, not the President who caused the downgrade. Everyone can point fingers, but around that time, it was the policy of the right to just say no. There inability to find common ground or - I am going to say it - compromise, was what caused the downgrade. Not the President.

I would argue there were meat eaters and omnivores in the room together. The republicans only would accept cuts. The democrats proposed both reductions in government (and tax cuts) as well as increasing taxes on some and additional investment in other areas. Paul Ryan voted against the Simpson Bowles legislation. The republicans refused everything except there extremely narrow view of the way forward. Remember the promise to compromise on the Simpson Bowles or we would see cuts across the board to get the debt down? Well the R's voted that down and now are screaming about the reductions across the board. Either accept that the debt is going to rise with the current spending, or accept that jobs are going to be lost.... even maybe military jobs.

To say that the blame lies with the President on any of that is laughable.
 
Hink said:
Just like the "proof" you provided to make the claims true? :r:



It was the ineffectiveness of the congress, not the President who caused the downgrade. Everyone can point fingers, but around that time, it was the policy of the right to just say no. There inability to find common ground or - I am going to say it - compromise, was what caused the downgrade. Not the President.

I would argue there were meat eaters and omnivores in the room together. The republicans only would accept cuts. The democrats proposed both reductions in government (and tax cuts) as well as increasing taxes on some and additional investment in other areas. Paul Ryan voted against the Simpson Bowles legislation. The republicans refused everything except there extremely narrow view of the way forward. Remember the promise to compromise on the Simpson Bowles or we would see cuts across the board to get the debt down? Well the R's voted that down and now are screaming about the reductions across the board. Either accept that the debt is going to rise with the current spending, or accept that jobs are going to be lost.... even maybe military jobs.

To say that the blame lies with the President on any of that is laughable.
Click to expand...
Democratic Position on Bush Tax Cuts

Secondly, have you ever tried to get a vegetarian to eat steak? Furthermore the bill ballooned from 66 pages to over 600 pages... there was so much crap in it *as is in most bills* that I don't blame someone for voting no. Some of the things included raising the Gas tax 0.15 per gallon starting in 2013, increases to the payroll tax, and would tax capital gains and dividends as ordinary income. How well will that last one work out for your 401K? But the President thought that they could get it done?
 
michaelskis said:
Some of the things included raising the Gas tax 0.15 per gallon starting in 2013, increases to the payroll tax, and would tax capital gains and dividends as ordinary income. How well will that last one work out for your 401K? But the President thought that they could get it done?
Click to expand...

Uh...your investment profits in tax-deferred accounts are not reported as capital gains. Instead, income from these accounts is tax-deferred until the money is withdrawn, and then the income is taxed as ordinary income. Increasing the capital gains tax would not impact people's retirement accounts.The proposal was for all capital gains to be taxed as ordinary income. As for gas tax, we don't pay anything near the true cost of fuel in this country and that has repercussions in many other parts of the economy. A little "market correction" might not be a bad thing. Plus, that money typically goes to road improvement and expansion and everyone seems to agree that the infrastructure in our country is way overdue for an overhaul. Payroll taxes were to be increased over a period of 40 years so its not like suddenly tomorrow you would be paying out the wazoo. This money goes to social security so, in theory, it would come back to you later (if it still exists when we get old...).

I'm not saying these are all the best solutions, but they have some internal logic and I felt like there needed to be some context presented here to understand them since you are presenting them as outrageous and untenable.
 
wahday said:
Uh...your investment profits in tax-deferred accounts are not reported as capital gains. Instead, income from these accounts is tax-deferred until the money is withdrawn, and then the income is taxed as ordinary income. Increasing the capital gains tax would not impact people's retirement accounts.The proposal was for all capital gains to be taxed as ordinary income. As for gas tax, we don't pay anything near the true cost of fuel in this country and that has repercussions in many other parts of the economy. A little "market correction" might not be a bad thing. Plus, that money typically goes to road improvement and expansion and everyone seems to agree that the infrastructure in our country is way overdue for an overhaul. Payroll taxes were to be increased over a period of 40 years so its not like suddenly tomorrow you would be paying out the wazoo. This money goes to social security so, in theory, it would come back to you later (if it still exists when we get old...).

I'm not saying these are all the best solutions, but they have some internal logic and I felt like there needed to be some context presented here to understand them since you are presenting them as outrageous and untenable.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct. I was not aware that the dividends are taxed as ordinary income upon withdraw. I was wrong.

As for Social Security, that Ponzi scheme gives you back quite a bit more than what you put in. But event then it is not nearly enough to actually live on for most people.

As for the increase of gas prices, it has a ripple effect as the cost of shipping goes up too.
 
Thoughts....

Republicans only want to cut expenses.

Democrats are willing to cut expenses, but want to raise revenue as well, as a compromise.

Instead of compromising, Republicans would rather use it as a means towards defeating Obama.

The GOP is more interested in defeating Obama than in helping the country.

Michigan's GOP Governor would have been lambasted by the national Tea Party movement for some of the compromises he made to help balance the State budget, where we now have a budget surplus. He actually raised taxes!! And he did it on old people!

There are some awesome Republican legislators, Congressmen and women and locals, but as a national party, the GOP is a joke. Because of this, there is no way I can vote Republican for a national ticket.
 
btrage said:
Thoughts....

Republicans only want to cut expenses.

Democrats are willing to cut expenses, but want to raise revenue as well, as a compromise.

Instead of compromising, Republicans would rather use it as a means towards defeating Obama.

The GOP is more interested in defeating Obama than in helping the country.

Michigan's GOP Governor would have been lambasted by the national Tea Party movement for some of the compromises he made to help balance the State budget, where we now have a budget surplus. He actually raised taxes!! And he did it on old people!

There are some awesome Republican legislators, Congressmen and women and locals, but as a national party, the GOP is a joke. Because of this, there is no way I can vote Republican for a national ticket.
Click to expand...

If both want to cut expenses, why don't they just start there? Baby steps... (and do it with a bill that does not include ANY pork and only does that one thing... cut expenses)
 
btrage said:
I think you just proved my point.
Click to expand...

As someone who leans more libertarian, it proves the point that the democrats are not willing to compromise. If there is already a point that they can truly agree on, cutting spending, then why don’t they just start there. Additionally, I would want it to be in a bill that has no pork. I would venture to guess that neither side is willing to do that.

I doubt that the level of spending cuts that they are willing to agree on will suit what I believe but at least it is a step in the right direction. And where you state “increase revenue” first of all, let’s call it was it is a tax increase, secondly, it sounds like you want the government to be run like a business.
 
Back
Top