2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Heald]

Well I believe a Social Security card is issued when ever you are born, its the number that every American has, and is used largely for pretty much everything including for employment verification for even the smallest job, and even things like welfare and medicaid.

Even if it is, people fall through the cracks. There are tens of thousands people out there living in complete abject poverty, in projects or ghettos, who don't even show up on the government's radar because they are not legally employed or earn their wage through criminal activities. Even if they are issued this at birth, I doubt the average kid pushing crack on the street corner has a clue where his card is, or where to go get one. I think his priority is not getting killed or arrested.

[Dark Sage]

I realize I am breaking my promise, Roy's last statement simply annoyed me. I have no driver's license, and manage just fine without one. I have a generic New York State ID.

You'd have to be incredibly rich to afford to own a car, let alone drive one, in New York City, and you might realize that if you lived here.

And a lot of people in poverty don't have the Social Security cards you mentioned because they don't have birth records, having been born into poor families. The same can be said for a lot of elderly people too. They will have trouble getting those state IDs as well.

Furthermore, last I checked, my Social Security card did NOT have my photo on it. Most voter ID laws require a picture ID.

[Roy Karrde]

Even if it is, people fall through the cracks. There are tens of thousands people out there living in complete abject poverty, in projects or ghettos, who don't even show up on the government's radar because they are not legally employed or earn their wage through criminal activities. Even if they are issued this at birth, I doubt the average kid pushing crack on the street corner has a clue where his card is, or where to go get one. I think his priority is not getting killed or arrested.

At which point there needs to be education as to where to get one. And even if they live in poverty that does not mean they do not use Government programs like food stamps, medicaid, or even medicare.

I realize I am breaking my promise, Roy's last statement simply annoyed me. I have no driver's license, and manage just fine without one. I have a generic New York State ID.

You'd have to be incredibly rich to afford to own a car, let alone drive one, in New York City, and you might realize that if you lived here.

Having a Drivers License does not mean you automatically have to buy a car, some see it as a right of passage, and can use it as a secondary form of ID, and to have when they are ready to get a car.

And a lot of people in poverty don't have the Social Security cards you mentioned because they don't have birth records, having been born into poor families. The same can be said for a lot of elderly people too. They will have trouble getting those state IDs as well.

Its hard to believe that these "Poor Families" do not have a form of Government issued ID, the same goes for the elderly, and yet they are able to take from Government programs.

Furthermore, last I checked, my Social Security card did NOT have my photo on it. Most voter ID laws require a picture ID.

In which case you can go to the nearest Sams Club and get a Picture ID, or hell most High Schools give students one.

[classy_cat18]

Well I believe a Social Security card is issued when ever you are born, its the number that every American has, and is used largely for pretty much everything including for employment verification for even the smallest job, and even things like welfare and medicaid. You practically cannot do anything with the Government or connected to it with out your Social Security card / Social Security number.

You're forgetting that a lot of places require you to have at least TWO forms of ID, one of which must be a picture ID (which a Social Security card ain't). The process in which to get a picture ID (it doesn't have to be a driver's license or permit, I have a state-issued non-driver's ID, or it can be a military ID) can be long and tedious, and many people have insane schedules that make it hard to get one. And not everyone still has their Social Security card.

Also, a Sam's card might not be a valid form of picture ID. Not sure if a student ID is either, in some places.

EDIT: Dark Sage beat me to the punch. Oh well.

[Plantae]

“political brinkmanship”

As in, the political brinksmanship of both parties. Both parties are being blamed. I'm not sure where the debate is here.

"like having campaign surrogates call Romney a felon"

Can you prove Obama asked them to do this?

"his campaign allegedly working with the Super PAC..."

Again, that word allegedly there. By that logic, everything that any Super PAC or campaign surrogate has ever said in support of Romney's campaign is essentially the words of Romney himself. Do you really want to set that standard?

But I do find the particular ad you mention to be deplorable. But it's not any worse than the ad that alleges Obama had nothing to do with the operation that resulted in Osama Bin Laden's death.

"has tried to craft a [sic] image of himself as some one [sic] better than that. He is betraying that image.

Is it tried to craft or tried to be? Obama certainly once had some genuine bipartisan intentions. But I don't think it's possible to blame just the President for a failure to cooperate across party lines. It takes two to tango. And don't even think to suggest that Republicans have been "cooperative" or "bipartisan," because that argument has absolutely no legs to stand on.

Politicians make concessions all the time. But it seems rather histrionic to get worked up every time someone changes their position or breaks a promise.

Mitt Romney previously said burning fossil fuels contributes to Global Warming. Now he says we can't know the cause of climate change. He's a traitor to his principles!
He once called for the "virtual elimination" of the Department of Agriculture. Now he supports farm subsidies. He should be drawn and quartered!
He was for the stimulus before he was against it. He's the most vile man on earth!

Regardless of their past remarks, condemning one person and not another for the same action is exactly the definition of a double standard. If negative ads are evil, than the use of them is all-things-considered morally objectionable, regardless of other factors. Likewise, if switching campaign strategies, changing opinions, and breaking promises are the marks of a traitor, than let both Obama and Romney be tried for treason. And Davis too, for that matter, since he switched political parties. The horror!

I am speaking of the oil moratorium that Obama placed on the Gulf of Mexico.

It's possible that the situation could have been handled better. Then again, if the regulations hadn't been tightened before the moratorium was lifted, we might have had another catastrophic incident. You could mention something about offshore drilling companies losing profit or their employees being laid off...

But what about the fishermen? What about the other people that make their living from wildlife resources in the Gulf? Should we have less concern for their jobs? Should we not be worried that another large oil spill might threaten their livelihood? There's a give-and-take involved.

Actually oil production is on a high because of leases Bush granted before he left office, however for all Obama is done in being "Green Friendly" that still has not done a thing to lower oil at this moment. Furthermore while we are doing good on the Bush leases we could be doing better.

Nowhere in my statement did I give Obama credit for high oil production. I actually explicitly stated that he has given less permits than Bush in the latter half of his presidency.

however it would be utterly ignorant to suggest that more oil coming onto the market from domestic drilling, especially as opposed to the unease in the Middle East, would not calm oil prices at least some bit.

Can you prove this with anything except faulty "common-sense" rationale? I think the historical data demonstrates otherwise. I think the common consensus and various studies of the world's economists demonstrate otherwise.

The information has also been published by the HHS as a example cited by Nevada, now like it or not the HHS saw fit to show that as enough of a example of a waver, which is giving people pause and if they do issue wavers like the Nevada letter asks for, that would be gutting the program.

That's not what the memo says. It says that Nevada proposed waivers as a mechanism for improving efficiency in welfare distribution. It doesn't say that HHS embraced their specific proposal or even approved it. In fact, the letter itself isn't even a proposal for a waiver; it's just a request to discuss waivers in general. It seems very likely that the HHS would view a six-month suspension of the work requirement without adequate grounds a misuse of a waiver and would reject this proposal.

Obama's own previous opposition to the work requirement, as well as the use of the Nevada letter does suggest their wish to gut the work requirement.

It is true that Obama previously opposed the work requirement. But I believe he has recently stated the opposite. Can you provide any evidence that he opposes it now? If not, it's irrelevant. The Nevada Letter is a proposal. Nowhere in the memo is the letter used except where it is mentioned as an example of one state which suggested waivers. That does not imply acceptance of Nevada's specific proposal. It just indicates that there was such a proposal in the first place.

Ironically enough GM is on the verge of going into bankruptcy again, one wonders if America will ever recoup its money. By the way it is not Ryan who is parsing words, it is the Democrats. He talked about when the plant closed, it is you, not him that is struggling to spin this.

It's not spin to say that the vast majority of the plant's jobs were lost under Bush. If we're going by the numbers (57/2057 people), you can hold Obama a little less than 3% responsible for the layoffs.

Seven hundred and sixteen billion dollars [were] funneled out of Medicare by President Obama.

The problem with the charge is that the money was not in any sense "cut" from Medicare. The $716 billion is savings from spending reductions that will take effect over a 10-year period; these reductions will mostly affect hospitals and private insurers, not Medicare beneficiaries. The suggestion within the statement, which is that the benefits of the elderly will be reduced, is false.

As for the double-counting, did you miss this statement in the same article you cited, Roy?

When contacted by The Daily Caller, Richard Sorian, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs had this to say:

“The scoring of the Affordable Care Act is entirely consistent with how legislation has been scored for the 30 years, under Presidents of both parties, and Congresses of both parties. Savings in programs like Medicare and Social Security are scored as improving the solvency of those programs and reducing the deficit.”

And one more thing:

Fox News can pull in millions of viewers, MSNBC... not so much.

I hope the viewers of both start watching another news station, unless there intention in watching news is to be less informed.

[Plantae]

Also, I know it's already been brought up in this thread, but I'm too lazy to go looking for it. What's the evidence that supports a high enough incidence of voter fraud in this country to justify stricter voting laws?

[Roy Karrde]

Can you prove Obama asked them to do this?

They come from top levels of Obama's campaign, as such if he did not endorse such a line of attack he would have fired them.

Again, that word allegedly there. By that logic, everything that any Super PAC or campaign surrogate has ever said in support of Romney's campaign is essentially the words of Romney himself. Do you really want to set that standard?

But I do find the particular ad you mention to be deplorable. But it's not any worse than the ad that alleges Obama had nothing to do with the operation that resulted in Osama Bin Laden's death.

Really? You are comparing the actual murder of a innocent woman to the involvement or lack there of of Osama Bin Laden? Are you really going there?

Now why I said allegedly is because the connections are stronger than just "each campaign using the same words". Obama's campaign filmed a commercial with this man and later on he told the Obama Campaign's staff the exact story about his wife. And then months later Obama's Super Pac some how tracks down the EXACT same man, who is not anything special, and films him telling the EXACT same story that he told to the Obama Campaign. The evidence is quite significant of coordination between the campaign and the Super Pac on this event.

Is it tried to craft or tried to be? Obama certainly once had some genuine bipartisan intentions. But I don't think it's possible to blame just the President for a failure to cooperate across party lines. It takes two to tango. And don't even think to suggest that Republicans have been "cooperative" or "bipartisan," because that argument has absolutely no legs to stand on.

Politicians make concessions all the time. But it seems rather histrionic to get worked up every time someone changes their position or breaks a promise.

Regardless of their past remarks, condemning one person and not another for the same action is exactly the definition of a double standard. If negative ads are evil, than the use of them is all-things-considered morally objectionable, regardless of other factors.

Again, either you are not listening or not making the connection, the reason I am condemning Obama for his campaign ads, as he tried to portray himself and really have the media make him into being one thing, and then he immediately comes out and does the other. Romney has not spent the last 4 years trying to craft himself into some amazing Post Partisan person, the same cannot be said for Obama, period.

It's possible that the situation could have been handled better. Then again, if the regulations hadn't been tightened before the moratorium was lifted, we might have had another catastrophic incident. You could mention something about offshore drilling companies losing profit or their employees being laid off...

Except Obama's own advisers have gone off and said that the broad based moratorium issued by President Obama would not have effected safety.

""A blanket moratorium is not the answer. It will not measurably reduce risk further and it will have a lasting impact on the nation's economy which may be greater than that of the spill.""

http://www.eenews.net/public/eenewspm/2010/06/09/1

But what about the fishermen? What about the other people that make their living from wildlife resources in the Gulf? Should we have less concern for their jobs? Should we not be worried that another large oil spill might threaten their livelihood? There's a give-and-take involved.

As I said again, there are many rigs out there, not all of them have the same problems as the Deep Water Horizon, a across the board moratorium was not only idiotic, but also could very well effect thousands of jobs as well as the rigs move to areas around the rest of the world. Thus damaging communities that depend on those rigs.

Can you prove this with anything except faulty "common-sense" rationale? I think the historical data demonstrates otherwise. I think the common consensus and various studies of the world's economists demonstrate otherwise.

I believe you, yourself have said that oil is a global market, that a loss of production in one area of the world effects global supply. Would not a increase in production from our side of the world thus boost global supply? Especially since we do not have many of the hazards that are present in the Middle East?

That's not what the memo says. It says that Nevada proposed waivers as a mechanism for improving efficiency in welfare distribution. It doesn't say that HHS embraced their specific proposal or even approved it.

HHS put out that memo from Nevada as a example of why the need for wavers.

It is true that Obama previously opposed the work requirement. But I believe he has recently stated the opposite. Can you provide any evidence that he opposes it now? If not, it's irrelevant. The Nevada Letter is a proposal. Nowhere in the memo is the letter used except where it is mentioned as an example of one state which suggested waivers. That does not imply acceptance of Nevada's specific proposal. It just indicates that there was such a proposal in the first place.

Is there any assurance that such a waver would not be granted? If so then why did the HHS produce the letter in the first place?

It's not spin to say that the vast majority of the plant's jobs were lost under Bush. If we're going by the numbers (57/2057), you can hold Obama a little less than 3% responsible for the layoffs.

Except Paul Ryan was not talking about what jobs were laid off and which were not, he was talking about the actual shutting of the plant, try to focus.

The problem with the charge is that the money was not in any sense "cut" from Medicare. The $716 billion is savings from spending reductions that will take effect over a 10-year period; these reductions will mostly affect hospitals and private insurers, not Medicare beneficiaries. The suggestion that the benefits of the elderly are being decreased is false.

Depends on if the hospitals begin to cut back treatment doesnt it?

As for the double-counting, did you miss this statement in the same article you cited, Roy?

I have no doubt that double counting has happened in the past, that does not change what happened here.

I hope those viewers start watching another news station, unless there intention in watching news is to be the less informed.

"Considering FDU’s undergraduate school is ranked as one of the worst in the country, we suggest the school invest in improving its weak academic program instead of spending money on frivolous polling – their student body does not deserve to be so ill-informed."

Hope that FDU's students find another university, that is unless their intention of going there is to be... less informed.

Also, I know it's already been brought up in this thread, but I'm too lazy to go looking for it. What's the evidence that supports a high enough incidence of voter fraud in this country to justify stricter voting laws?

As talked about earlier, Voter Fraud can change a close election, just ask Al Frankin.

[Dark Sage]

In other news...

The surprise guest speaking at the convention is Clint Eastwood.

Just the image that the GOP needs to show, a crusty old geezer living in the past who loves guns, who used to be mayor of a small town where only rich people were welcome. Did they invite him to make Romney look good in comparison?

[Roy Karrde]

In other news...

The surprise guest speaking at the convention is Clint Eastwood.

Just the image that the GOP needs to show, a crusty old geezer living in the past who loves guns, who used to be mayor of a small town where only rich people were welcome. Did they invite him to make Romney look good in comparison?

Aww some one a little jealous that the Republicans got a mega star like Clint Eastwood? Don't worry, the Democrats have their own little movie star Eva Longoria from movies like Arther Christmas and The Sentinel.

[Dark Sage]

Aww some one a little jealous that the Republicans got a mega star like Clint Eastwood? Don't worry, the Democrats have their own little movie star Eva Longoria from movies like Arther Christmas and The Sentinel.

I'd prefer an attractive young star to some washed-up has-been.

And by the way, I was a big fan of Eastwood's early movies, but that was long ago. He was a good actor, but he became a pathetic politician.

And might I add, Romney's pro-family attitude really doesn't fit a man who's had seven children with five women, only two of which he was married to.

[Plantae]

They come from top levels of Obama's campaign, as such if he did not endorse such a line of attack he would have fired them.

Yes, the statement was given by Stephane Cutter, who mentioned that if Romney had misrepresented to SEC his role at Bain Capital, this would be a "felony." No one accused Mitt Romney of being a felon.

Really? You are comparing the actual murder of a innocent woman to the involvement or lack there of of Osama Bin Laden? Are you really going there?

Exactly how is a death from stage-four cancer "actual murder?" Even the ad-makers agree that it would be wrong to allege Romney is responsible for the woman's death. The ad is false, but we're talking negligence and indirect action here, not first-degree homicide.

Also, I'm not making a moral comparison between the two accusations. I'm making a political comparison of the potential fallout if these lies were to be believed. Barack Obama has already stated that he does not believe Mitt Romney is in any way responsible for the death of the steel plant worker's wife.

Obama's campaign filmed a commercial with this man and later on he told the Obama Campaign's staff the exact story about his wife. And then months later Obama's Super Pac some how tracks down the EXACT same man, who is not anything special, and films him telling the EXACT same story that he told to the Obama Campaign. The evidence is quite significant of coordination between the campaign and the Super Pac on this event.

Citation needed.

Again, either you are not listening or not making the connection, the reason I am condemning Obama for his campaign ads, as he tried to portray himself and really have the media make him into being one thing, and then he immediately comes out and does the other. Romney has not spent the last 4 years trying to craft himself into some amazing Post Partisan person, the same cannot be said for Obama, period.

I'm not disagreeing that he portrayed himself as post-partisan. I'm just saying that it's not unusual political behavior to change strategies or become more cynical in your outlook. No president in decades, Democratic or Republican, has lived up to any hope of forging a post-partisan future. Obama's rhetoric has indeed been lofty, and no, he hasn't delivered either; but I also don't think it is remotely logical to blame solely him for the failure of bipartisanship in Washington. Our do-nothing congress is equally unwilling to compromise on anything. Thus, I don't think Obama's transformation into a post-post-partisan president deserves special condemnation.

Except Obama's own advisers have gone off and said that the broad based moratorium issued by President Obama would not have effected safety.

"A blanket moratorium is not the answer. It will not measurably reduce risk further and it will have a lasting impact on the nation's economy which may be greater than that of the spill."

And there are other experts and advisers that have the opposite opinion. What's clear is that jobs were affected as a result of the moratorium. But there was a need for safer drilling, as evidenced by the spill itself.

As I said again, there are many rigs out there, not all of them have the same problems as the Deep Water Horizon, a across the board moratorium was not only idiotic, but also could very well effect thousands of jobs as well as the rigs move to areas around the rest of the world. Thus damaging communities that depend on those rigs.

To be specific, the moratorium shut down 33 deepwater drilling sites, which represents less than 1% of oil and natural gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. I will agree that jobs were affected as a result, but there was certainly a need for additional risk assessment and safety measures. The report on the incident found that there was a significant chance that a similar incident could occur again without additional government oversight. Shouldn't we be concerned about the safety of the workers on the oil rigs in question?

The oil slicks form the BP spill affected tourism and resulted in significant clean-up costs. It devastated local fisheries. There is no telling how much damage has been done to these fisheries, as we will not know the full ecological effects for decades. In the long-term, the spill itself caused much more damage than the moratorium. Hazardous spills like these might cost hundreds of thousands of jobs in the tourism and fishing industries. I think the threat of another spill is serious enough to warrant extensive preventative measures.

It seems to me like it's something of a Catch-22. Impose a moratorium, affecting jobs, to prevent a spill; or avoid a moratorium, which could potentially result in a spill, which will result in the loss of many more jobs.

I believe you, yourself have said that oil is a global market, that a loss of production in one area of the world effects global supply. Would not a increase in production from our side of the world thus boost global supply? Especially since we do not have many of the hazards that are present in the Middle East?

No. We have too small a portion of the world's reserves to significantly affect the global price of a barrel of oil. It also costs us more to extract this oil than it does Saudi Arabia or similar places because of the near-surface location of their petroleum. Reducing gas prices is a matter of reducing demand, not increasing oil production.

Is there any assurance that such a waver would not be granted? If so then why did the HHS produce the letter in the first place?

I agree that there should be a clearer assurance. But Sebelius has stated, "And if a Governor proposes a plan that undercuts the work requirements established in welfare reform, that plan will be rejected." That seems to demonstrate that the specific request in the Nevada letter to suspend the work requirement for six months would be rejected, to say nothing of the letter's remaining contents.

Except Paul Ryan was not talking about what jobs were laid off and which were not, he was talking about the actual shutting of the plant, try to focus.

Ryan was correct about when the plant closed, but he's missing the point. After all, it's the hardship that the workers suffered that is really the significant factor here, isn't it? 57 of them lost their jobs because the plant closed (during Obama's presidency) and 2000 of them because of cutbacks during the process of closure (during Bush's presidency).

Obama didn't promise anything. He said that he believed that with government help, it was possible the plant could stay open. He couldn't have made the promise to keep it open during his visit, as the announcement of the plant's closure came four months later. This closure was also planned before Obama became president. This from the article you cited.

Depends on if the hospitals begin to cut back treatment doesnt it?

Any reduction in hospital reimbursements should be balanced by additional payments on currently uninsured patients. Though this isn't a foolproof assertion. Moreover, the ACA actually increases certain other Medicare benefits for the elderly as well.

"Considering FDU’s undergraduate school is ranked as one of the worst in the country, we suggest the school invest in improving its weak academic program instead of spending money on frivolous polling – their student body does not deserve to be so ill-informed."

See, that's funny, because we can certainly trust the views of the news organization that is being critiqued. Also, this statement demonstrates an obvious ad hominem fallacy. Even better, it's false. FDU is ranked 81st in several hundred universities in the United States Region North. It's not Harvard, but it's hardly among the worst in the country.

If you'd like to find a fault in the evidence, why don't you examine the actual study instead?

As talked about earlier, Voter Fraud can change a close election, just ask Al Frankin.

Let me clarify. Is there any statistical evidence? Or is it all hearsay?

[Roy Karrde]

I'd prefer an attractive young star to some washed-up has-been.

I think that pretty much describes many Obama voters, fawning over looks instead of substance.

And might I add, Romney's pro-family attitude really doesn't fit a man who's had seven children with five women, only two of which he was married to.

* Shrugs * They each have their own differences.

Yes, the statement was given by Stephane Cutter, who mentioned that if Romney had misrepresented to SEC his role at Bain Capital, this would be a "felony." No one accused Mitt Romney of being a felon.

Of which she had no proof, and was found to be utterly false.

I'm not making a moral comparison between the two accusations. I'm making a political comparison of the potential fallout if these lies were to be believed. Barack Obama has already stated that he does not believe Mitt Romney is in any way responsible for the death of the steel plant worker's wife.

There is not even a political comparison to be made, one is to suggest the candidate's biggest victory was one in which he had little to do with it, the other is suggesting the candidate is a accessory to murder. There is NO comparison to be made.

Also if Barack Obama does not believe that then he should conduct a investigation to see if his campaigned leaked the story to the Super Pac.

Citation needed.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2...ry-131577.html

I'm not disagreeing that he portrayed himself as post-partisan. I'm just saying that it's not unusual political behavior to change strategies or become more cynical in your outlook. No president in decades, Democratic or Republican, has lived up to any hope of forging a post-partisan future. Obama's rhetoric has indeed been lofty, and no, he hasn't delivered either; but I also don't think it is remotely logical to blame solely him for the failure of bipartisanship in Washington. Our do-nothing congress is equally unwilling to compromise on anything. Thus, I don't think Obama's transformation into a post-post-partisan president deserves special condemnation.

Except if one is to portray himself as Post Partisan despite what Congress does, that does not give them the right to suddenly do a about face and turn on the nastiness. Furthermore it is perfectly right to call the person out about such a about face.

And there are other experts and advisers that have the opposite opinion. What's clear is that jobs were affected as a result of the moratorium. But there was a need for safer drilling, as evidenced by the spill itself.

Except not every drill was made by the same company, nor drilled the same way, why should they be effected when they have no ties to what happened? Is not such a blanket moratorium excessive?

To be specific, the moratorium shut down 33 deepwater drilling sites, which represents less than 1% of oil and natural gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. I will agree that jobs were affected as a result, but there was certainly a need for additional risk assessment and safety measures. The report on the incident found that there was a significant chance that a similar incident could occur again without additional government oversight. Shouldn't we be concerned about the safety of the workers on the oil rigs in question?

Does that apply to all the drilling sites? Or to a selected few?

The oil slicks form the BP spill affected tourism and resulted in significant clean-up costs. It devastated local fisheries. There is no telling how much damage has been done to these fisheries, as we will not know the full ecological effects for decades. In the long-term, the spill itself caused much more damage than the moratorium. Hazardous spills like these might cost hundreds of thousands of jobs in the tourism and fishing industries. I think the threat of another spill is serious enough to warrant extensive preventative measures.

As opposed if some of those rigs move, in which case the jobs may never come back and those towns that are hurting for a season or two, dry up completely.

It seems to me like it's something of a Catch-22. Impose a moratorium, affecting jobs, to prevent a spill; or avoid a moratorium, which could potentially result in a spill, which will result in the loss of many more jobs.

Except that is a false dichotomy, a proper moratorium could be in place that targets the rigs that could be in danger, while allowing for the rigs not in danger to keep going.

No. We have too small a portion of the world's reserves to significantly affect the global price of a barrel of oil. It also costs us more to extract this oil than it does Saudi Arabia or similar places because of the near-surface location of their petroleum. Reducing gas prices is a matter of reducing demand, not increasing oil production.

No.. decreasing gas prices is a matter of how much supply is on the market, and seeing how demand is not going to be reduced anytime soon, the only choice we have is to increase the amount on the market from friendly sources.

By the way the U.S. actually has a significant amount of oil, far more than the 2% that the Democrats would like you to believe.

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-conten...ilScarcity.png

I agree that there should be a clearer assurance. But Sebelius has stated, "And if a Governor proposes a plan that undercuts the work requirements established in welfare reform, that plan will be rejected." That seems to demonstrate that the specific request in the Nevada letter to suspend the work requirement for six months would be rejected, to say nothing of the letter's remaining contents.

And the assurance from that is what? She can say what ever she wants, the fact that she has the ability to gut the program says otherwise.

Ryan was correct about when the plant closed, but he's missing the point. After all, it's the hardship that the workers suffered that is really the significant factor here, isn't it? 57 of them lost their jobs because the plant closed (during Obama's presidency) and 2000 of them because of cutbacks during the process of closure (during Bush's presidency).

Obama didn't promise anything. He said that he believed that with government help, it was possible the plant could stay open. He couldn't have made the promise to keep it open during his visit, as the announcement of the plant's closure came four months later. This closure was also planned before Obama became president. This from the article you cited.

The closure was planned no doubt, but you would think with Obama's promise to keep the plant open, and the fact that the U.S. did so much for GM, that he would have worked to keep his promise to those workers, as the Government did help the company.

Any reduction in hospital reimbursements should be balanced by additional payments on currently uninsured patients. Though this isn't a foolproof assertion. Moreover, the ACA actually increases certain other Medicare benefits for the elderly as well.

It should be noted that because of the lag time in payments, reduction in payments, etc etc before Obamacare even started, has caused doctors to begin to turn away patients. A further reduction in hospital reimbursements could see the same happen.

See, that's funny, because we can certainly trust the views of the news organization that is being critiqued. Also, this statement demonstrates an obvious ad hominem fallacy.

If you'd like to find a fault in the evidence, why don't you examine the actual study instead?

Seeing how your post was a Red Haring as it had nothing to do with the actual ratings of the network, lets continue on shall we?

Let me clarify. Is there any statistical evidence? Or is it all hearsay?

The evidence is based on voter rolls and changes from state to state. As I said you can find evidence, not hearsay, but actual evidence of voter fraud changing close elections. Now will it effect blow outs? No. But in some of the closest down ballot elections, it can make all the difference.

[Dark Sage]

Oh, by the way, Roy... You can add The Young and the Restless and Desperate Housewives to the list of Eva's accompishments. She was the starring role in both for many seasons.

[Roy Karrde]

Oh, by the way, Roy... You can add The Young and the Restless and Desperate Housewives to the list of Eva's accompishments. She was the starring role in both for many seasons.

Yes but I was comparing the two to Movie Roles since he is a Movie Actor. But hey if you think that being on The Young and The Restless is a accomplishment feel free, I hear the story lines and acting are on par with the WWE.

[Plantae]

I think that pretty much describes many Obama voters, fawning over looks instead of substance.

I'm sure some people are into older men like Mitt Romney too, ha. But in all seriousness, most people voted for Barack Obama because of his campaign platform, not his looks.

And might I add, Romney's pro-family attitude really doesn't fit a man who's had seven children with five women, only two of which he was married to.

Give the man a break. He's a movie star. It's to be expected.

Oh, by the way, Roy... You can add The Young and the Restless and Desperate Housewives to the list of Eva's accomplishments. She was the starring role in both for many seasons.

If we consider those accomplishments...

[Roy Karrde]

I'm sure some people are into older men like Mitt Romney too, ha. But in all seriousness, most people voted for Barack Obama because of his campaign platform, not his looks.

Yeah... that is why his "Likeability" rating is so high, and his policies on things like the economy rank so long.

[Plantae]

Yeah... that is why his "Likeability" rating is so high, and his policies on things like the economy rank so long.

You're killing me, Roy. I'm trying to be optimistic about American voters. Also, I'm sure that whole "Yes We Can" thing had something to do with it. McCain's platform, by comparison, was pretty bland.

[Roy Karrde]

You're killing me, Roy. I'm trying to be optimistic about American voters. Also, I'm sure that whole "Yes We Can" thing had something to do with it. McCain's platform, by comparison, was pretty bland.

Oh its all about the looks and his energy. I am sure "Yes we can" and "Hope and Change" played a big part of it. As did him being the first African American president. But can you honestly say that the people out there listened to his actual plans? I mean if they did, wouldn't there have been less anger at him for Obamacare as that was a major part of his plans.

[Dark Sage]

Look, I'm not saying that Eastwood isn't a great actor - or rather, has a history of being a great actor - but he doesn't exactly project a very positive image. (And he hasn't made a movie of the same depth as Unforgiven in years.)

He's an old, wealthy, upper-class individual with an old-fashioned outlook on things who's well-known for his use of guns. That town he was mayor of was pretty much an enclave for people in the same economic group as Romney.

Is this going to endear any voters other than the ones who Romney could already count on? I tend to doubt it.

Edit: And by the way, Roy, if Romney was smart, he'd steer clear of Obamacare. It's only going to make people remember his own proposed health care mandate when he was governor.

[Roy Karrde]

Look, I'm not saying that Eastwood isn't a great actor - or rather, has a history of being a great actor - but he doesn't exactly project a very positive image. (And he hasn't made a movie of the same depth as Unforgiven in years.)

He's an old, wealthy, upper-class individual with an old-fashioned outlook on things who's well-known for his use of guns. That town he was mayor of was pretty much an enclave for people in the same economic group as Romney.

Is this going to endear any voters other than the ones who Romney could already count on? I tend to doubt it.

Edit: And by the way, Roy, if Romney was smart, he'd steer clear of Obamacare. It's only going to make people remember his own proposed health care mandate when he was governor.

He is also a walking talking bad ass, to think people are going to look at him and think "Uber Rich Millionaire" instead of "Dirty Harry" is pathetically stupid.

BTW here are some excerpts of his speech: "If you felt that excitement when you voted for Barack Obama, shouldn't you feel that way now that he's President Obama? You know there's something wrong with the kind of job he's done as president when the best feeling you had, was the day you voted for him."

"President Obama promised to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet. MY promise...is to help you and your family. "

Apparently it may be more soft hearted, but then again this time last night when the excerpts were released, no one knew Paul Ryan was about to give the biggest ass kicking seen in decades.

BTW I know this may kill you, but I thought it was worth noting while Craig Romney is up there speaking Spanish, that even Chuck Todd on MSNBC noted that the Republican Party has FAR more depth in terms of recognizable minorities than the Democratic party.

[Dark Sage]

"The biggest ass-kicking seen in decades"...

Uh-huh... YOU may say that everything he said in that speech was the truth, Roy, but I beg to differ, and he gave the Democrats ample ammunition to use against him in the next few weeks. And they're gonna use it... You can bet on that.

Edit: Doesn't kill me Roy. He wouldn't fool anyone if he found a way to Speak in Tongues.

[Plantae]

But can you honestly say that the people out there listened to his actual plans? I mean if they did, wouldn't there have been less anger at him for Obamacare as that was a major part of his plans.

Only as much as I can say that anyone who voted for McCain listened to his plans. McCain's platform was completely indefinite, as he started out as nothing more than the presumptive, establishment candidate and didn't build very much from that.

The unfortunate truth is that most voters make their decision based on something other than each candidate's views on policy. It's a tragedy.

He's an old, wealthy, upper-class individual with an old-fashioned outlook on things who's well-known for his use of guns. That town he was mayor of was pretty much an enclave for people in the same economic group as Romney.

Romney's strategy at this point seems to be focused more on firing up the Republican base than on attracting independent voters. So in that sense, Clint Eastwood is an effective surprise guest. He's a man that every gun-toting Republican probably idolized in their youth.

[Roy Karrde]

Uh-huh... YOU may say that everything he said in that speech was the truth, Roy, but I beg to differ, and he gave the Democrats ample ammunition to use against him in the next few weeks. And they're gonna use it... You can bet on that.

Sure, if they can find the funding and airtime, Obama has overspent his money and is lagging behind Romney in funds, meanwhile tomorrow morning Romney gets access to his General Campaign Fund and can bring to bare his fully operational Death $tar.

By the way they better hurry up and do something soon, as Gallup points out today, Democrats likeability is dropping like a stone, and again that is before Romney unleashes the Death $tar.

Romney's strategy at this point seems to be focused more on firing up the Republican base than on attracting independent voters. So in that sense, Clint Eastwood is an effective surprise guest. He's a man that every gun-toting Republican probably idolized in their youth.

Actually between Ann Romney's Speech, and some of the other speakers put out right now, I would say that the focus is attracting Women and Minorities.

[Dark Sage]

We'll just see if anyone listens now that the GOP Party Platform and its dystopian vision has been publically revealed.

My job supervisor is a former Marine who spends time on actual political discussion websites, not forums like TPM. He told me that Romney can spend a trillion dollars if he wants, but he doubts any woman, veteran, gay, black, or Latino that HE knows on any of them is going to listen.

[Roy Karrde]

We'll just see if anyone listens now that the GOP Party Platform and its dystopian vision has been publically revealed.

GOP Party Platform =/= Romney/Ryan Platform.

My job supervisor is a former Marine who spends time on actual political discussion websites, not forums like TPM. He told me that Romney can spend a trillion dollars if he wants, but he doubts any woman, veteran, gay, black, or Latino that HE knows on any of them is going to listen.

How about we see how the polls turn out instead of taking the word of a person spending time on political discussion websites?

[Plantae]

By the way they better hurry up and do something soon, as Gallup points out today, Democrats likeability is dropping like a stone, and again that is before Romney unleashes the Death $tar.

Weren't we just discussing Obama's likeability? I don't think it's going away anytime soon. It's not Alderaan.

And are you saying that Mitt Romney is aligned with the Galactic Empire? I find this highly suspect. Watch out for Darth Vader (aka Paul Ryan); he'll freeze your Medicare benefits in carbonite. Haha.

[Dark Sage]

By the way they better hurry up and do something soon, as Gallup points out today, Democrats likeability is dropping like a stone, and again that is before Romney unleashes the Death $tar.

Oh, right... You mean THIS Gallup Poll?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/156980/mi...gop-stage.aspx

Or maybe THIS one?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/156914/am...-election.aspx

[Roy Karrde]

Weren't we just discussing Obama's likeability? I don't think it's going away anytime soon. It's not Alderaan.

Even Obama's likeability is dropping, it is not helping that all the negative ads pushed by him are destroying his "Post Partisan" image.

And are you saying that Mitt Romney is aligned with the Galactic Empire? I find this highly suspect. Watch out for Darth Vader (aka Paul Ryan); he'll freeze your medicare benefits in carbonite.

Wasn't Dick Cheney Darth Vader?

And a part of my geekiness showing through, at least the Empire recognized the threat on the horizon ( Yuuzhan Vong ), and was willing to be prepared for it. Kind of like how Romney and Ryan recognize the danger of the debt on the horizon.

Oh, right... You mean THIS Gallup Poll?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/156980/mi...gop-stage.aspx

Or maybe THIS one?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/156914/am...-election.aspx

Nope this one
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156959/go...ion-level.aspx

[Plantae]

What about this poll?

I mean, he's polling at 57%! Of course, we don't know the margin of error, but that sure looks like a landslide victory for Mitt Romney there. The Force is strong with this one.

And a part of my geekiness showing through, at least the Empire recognized the threat on the horizon ( Yuuzhan Vong ), and was willing to be prepared for it. Kind of like how Romney and Ryan recognize the danger of the debt on the horizon.

But the New Republic found a diplomatic solution eventually! It's not acceptable to eradicate other races just because their technology is organic and they're a little hard to get along with.

Nope this one
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156959/go...ion-level.aspx

Party likeability doesn't translate to candidate electability.

Wasn't Dick Cheney Darth Vader?

I guess Paul Ryan can be General Grievous or something.

[Dark Sage]

You're a funny guy, Plantae. I like that.

In all fairness, Sith Lords and other beings with Dark Side powers seemed to be more powerful than true Jedi (they could harness powers like Force Choke and even Force Lightning), so it stands to reason that more would want to do what they did.

[Roy Karrde]

But the New Republic found a diplomatic solution eventually! It's not acceptable to eradicate other races just because their technology is organic.

Yeah after nearly losing the war, nearly succumbing to releasing Alpha Red, and the destruction of tens of trillions of lives.

[Plantae]

First, here's my take. I think Romney has moved too far to the right, and as Dark Sage says, won't attract very many independent voters (or females or minorities or young people). What happened to the old, moderate, Massachusetts Mitt? I didn't mind him quite so much.

In all fairness, Sith Lords and other beings with Dark Side powers seemed to be more powerful than true Jedi (they could harness powers like Force Choke and even Force Lightning), so it stands to reason that more would want to do what they did.

That explains poor Republicans. They want to harness the powers of vast, untraceable wealth, so they support Mitt Romney. Too bad none of those Stormtroopers know how to aim.

Yeah after nearly losing the war, nearly succumbing to releasing Alpha Red, and the destruction of tens of trillions of lives.

Mistakes were made.

[Dark Sage]

Back to serious matters...

Roy, if you look at that poll again... I hate to tell you this, but it seems that the favorability of the GOP is dropping just as fast as that of the Democrats.

If you ask me, more people have an unfavorable opinion of both parties.

[Roy Karrde]

First, here's my take. I think Romney has moved too far to the right, and as Dark Sage says, won't attract very many independent voters. What happened to the old, moderate, Massachusetts Mitt? I didn't mind him quite so much.

Well remember everyone moves to their respected corners before and during the nomination process, it is after that the lighter side comes out.

Mistakes were made.

Anakin Solo ;~;

Back to serious matters...

Roy, if you look at that poll again... I hate to tell you this, but it seems that the favorability of the GOP is dropping just as fast as that of the Democrats.

If you ask me, more people have an unfavorable opinion of both parties.

Then I guess its good that the Republicans have produced a upbeat optimistic convention. Now onto the Democrats, can they do the same? Or will we see fearmongering?

[Plantae]

I'm more interested in the opinion of the parties in congress. I know the topic title says "2012 U.S. Presidential Election," but let's not forget that there's plenty of House and Senate seats at stake here.

Generic Congressional Ballot
Since this is from Rasmussen Reports, an allegedly conservative-leaning source, I assume Roy can accept it. Seems to me that we have a very tight race on our hands.

Also, not that this is related, but it looks like opposition to the PPACA is actually down from earlier this year. Poll here.

Well remember everyone moves to their respected corners before and during the nomination process, it is after that the lighter side comes out.

I'm not sure Mitt Romney can afford to even appear more moderate under his current strategy.

Anakin Solo ;~;

The humanity!

Then I guess its good that the Republicans have produced a upbeat optimistic convention. Now onto the Democrats, can they do the same? Or will we see fearmongering?

It'll be interesting to see, that's for sure. I certainly don't expect Romney's recent bump in the polls to last much longer.

[Roy Karrde]

I'm more interested in the opinion of the parties in congress. I know the topic title says "2012 U.S. Presidential Election," but let's not forget that there's plenty of House and Senate seats at stake here.

Generic Congressional Ballot
Since this is from Rasmussen Reports, an allegedly conservative-leaning source, I assume Roy can accept it. Seems to me that we have a very tight race on our hands.

Yet does that not suggest that we will see business as usual? I mean it is already almost a given that the Republicans will keep the House, its up to many of those Democrats in Republican districts that need to hold on to their Senate seats to keep Republicans from getting that.

[Dark Sage]

Then I guess its good that the Republicans have produced a upbeat optimistic convention. Now onto the Democrats, can they do the same? Or will we see fearmongering?

My opinion of the RNC was, it was remarkably similar to a Klan rally.

I think that the DNC will have no problem presenting a Platform that is more likeable to the public.

[Roy Karrde]

My opinion of the RNC was, it was remarkably similar to a Klan rally.

Yes because the first thing I think of at a Klan rally is a bunch of Latino and Black speakers.

[Plantae]

My opinion of the RNC was, it was remarkably similar to a Klan rally.

Hyperbole. Rhetorically speaking, most of the speeches haven't been bad. Some funny moments, too. Condi's lipstick malfunction, I'm looking at you. For some bizarre reason I find that woman rather likeable.

Yes because the first thing I think of at a Klan rally is a bunch of Latino and Black speakers.

Obvious pandering is obvious. Not going to work either, since neither Mitt Romney nor Paul Ryan has a non-Caucasian bone in their body.

On the subject of likeability, Roy, I assume you don't find Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan to be at all an attempt to cater to those types of voters? As I understand it, the opinion of him on the street is that he's rather dreamy (though sorry, girls, he's married!).

[Dark Sage]

On the subject of likeability, Roy, I assume you don't find Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan to be at all an attempt to cater to those types of voters? As I understand it, the opinion of him on the street is that he's rather dreamy (though sorry, girls, he's married!).

The thought did cross my mind. Most people assumed that was the reason why Bush the Elder went with Quayle, and we all know how THAT turned out.