Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, October 02, 2012

OTP: October 2012-THE RACE: As Candidates Prep, Attention in DC split between politics and baseball

While President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney bone up in Nevada and Colorado for Wednesday’s opening debate, back in the nation’s capital attention is split between the hard-fought presidential race and baseball playoffs.

The Nationals won the first division baseball championship for a Washington team since 1933 by clinching the National League East race Monday night.

Washington, D.C., has the only ballpark where so many Cabinet members, politicians and other luminaries routinely gather and where fans now are openly rooting for a particular president — one who served more than a century ago, Theodore Roosevelt.

“Let Teddy Win” banners and buttons are everywhere. Fans like 2008 GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona say it’s time for Roosevelt’s 500-plus losing streak to end.

[...]

“Teddy, you are the victim of a vast left-wing conspiracy by the commie pinko libs in this town,” McCain said in a video played in the stadium Monday night. “But you can overcome that.”

The October 2012 “OT: Politics” thread starts ... now.

Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:14 PM | 6119 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: nationals, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 46 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 >  Last ›
   4501. just plain joe Posted: October 24, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4281528)
Apparently I can mail it in, which I think I'll do, but the courthouse is about a half-hour drive each way.


Here they have polling places in all of the public library branches; which is a good thing as they have drastically cut back on the number of places where you can vote on election day. I was going to the library on the way home from work so it was a no brainer for me.
   4502. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: October 24, 2012 at 12:58 PM (#4281531)
One of the ten million great moments in Band of Brothers was a little scene in which a replacement soldier is putting a bayonet on his rifle and Bull tells him, "You can't shoot straight with that thing on." This works well after some fairly ridiculous bayonet instruction scenes back in episode 1.
   4503. Jim Wisinski Posted: October 24, 2012 at 12:58 PM (#4281532)
I haven't voted since 2006, the only time I voted, but I requested an absentee ballot yesterday. Now I can vote and still maintain extreme laziness about the whole process. Looks like there are 11 constitutional amendments this time around, all of which get automatic no's from me.
   4504. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 24, 2012 at 12:59 PM (#4281533)
Arizona has a ####-ton of propositions, plus there are some city and school district measures, not to mention all the individual races. Because of this, I'll be filling out my ballot at home; at a polling place, even with a cheat sheet, I'd probably be standing in the booth for 10-15 minutes.
   4505. McCoy Posted: October 24, 2012 at 12:59 PM (#4281534)
You know, a flip at the "00" is a horrible place to do it.
   4506. McCoy Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:01 PM (#4281537)
I took a look at the ward 1 DC ballot this year and there is basically nothing going on besides positions that need to be filled. At this point I really don't know if I'm going to bother to vote or not. If ever a vote was completely useless it would be a single vote in DC this year.
   4507. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:03 PM (#4281539)
Anyone here with an opinion on jungle primaries? That's one of Arizona's propositions.
   4508. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:06 PM (#4281541)
This Week In Crazy (International Edition):


The L'Aquila earthquake devastated central Italy in 2009, killing over 300 people. But an Italian judge's decision to convict seismologists for failing to predict the quake flies in the face of basic science. Six scientists and a government official have just been sentenced to six years in prison for manslaughter. The "logic" behind Judge Marco Billi's ruling is that the National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks team issued reports which lulled the public into a false sense of security prior to the 6.3 magnitude quake. In his ruling, Billi claimed that the defendants circulated "inexact, incomplete and contradictory" information about earthquake risks.


6 years for failing to predict the future.

Yikes.
   4509. GregD Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:07 PM (#4281542)
Jungle primaries are interesting, right? You could end up with moderates as party activists can't control primaries as they do now. Or could end up with primaries contested in the general election--in a district with a big party majority, the top two finishers might both be Republicans or Democrats, and it'd be interesting to see the effect of a general election settling that. A few years ago I would have thought that the primary system provided some useful discipline in terms of winnowing out the nutballs but that no longer seems true, so the downside of the jungle primary--an unvetted loon could win--is just as true as in the current closed primary.
   4510. Randy Jones Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:07 PM (#4281543)
Anyone here with an opinion on jungle primaries?


No idea what that is, but it sounds like a great reality TV show. Drop all the primary candidates in a jungle with nothing but a machete and a canteen and whoever gets out first wins!
   4511. Greg K Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:08 PM (#4281545)
One of the quirky things I remember about bayonets from All Quiet on the Western Front is that all the guys refuse to use those saw-bladed bayonets because the British/French unceremoniously kill any German who has one when they are captured.

It's disquieting to think of what those things did to a human body for people living through the First World War to stop and say, "whoa, that's over the line mate".
   4512. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:08 PM (#4281546)
No idea what that is, but it sounds like a great reality TV show. Drop all the primary candidates in a jungle with nothing but a machete and a canteen and whoever gets out first wins!
WOULD WATCH.
   4513. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4281550)
FWIW: Gallup has Romney's lead with LV down to 3, Obama retakes lead among RV, and Obama's approval is up to 53.
   4514. Greg K Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4281552)
6 years for failing to predict the future.

Yikes.

My uncle did some work on a weather forecasting system for the Italian Army in the 60s. Hopefully he doesn't get extradited back there for a bad lightning storm.
   4515. Weekly Journalist_ Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4281554)
Gallup continues to move back towards Obama, he gains 2 in the LV model and now trails Romney 50-47.
He also gains two and now leads the RV model, 48-47.

Ras still holding at R +4.

   4516. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:11 PM (#4281556)
A few years ago I would have thought that the primary system provided some useful discipline in terms of winnowing out the nutballs but that no longer seems true, so the downside of the jungle primary--an unvetted loon could win--is just as true as in the current closed primary.
Perhaps the better approach is the instant runoff.
   4517. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:12 PM (#4281558)
6 years for failing to predict the future.

Yikes.
Between this, Berlusconi and the Amanda Knox prosecutors, Italy's public sector sounds like a disaster.
   4518. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:12 PM (#4281559)
No idea what that is, but it sounds like a great reality TV show. Drop all the primary candidates in a jungle with nothing but a machete and a canteen and whoever gets out first wins!


2 tributes from each district, one Republican, one Democrat.
   4519. zonk Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:15 PM (#4281561)
Good to know: As of this moment, RCP has the Indiana senate race as a toss-up.

But RCP also admitted, on Oct. 15, "Indiana regulates polling strictly, so we've been starved for information here. The best guess is that Mourdock is ahead, but that it is still a close race."


I had it lean R until Mourdock's latest (and seriously, the guy has been shooting himself in the foot with his mouth ever since the primary... this is just the first time he's gone viral).

Indiana generally doesn't like bomb throwers - sure, sure, it's a red state and certain congressional districts have given us jackasses like Dan Burton - but at a state level, I'm just not sure Mourdouck plays...

Internal polls are internal polls, of course - but I do think it's telling that the Donnelly campaign hasn't been shy about releasing their internal polls, while I don't know that I've seen any released from Mourdouck or the RSCC... not saying I believe Donnelly is 5 pts up - just that generally, if you don't have any objective polling, the side that's quiet about its own internals isn't doing as well as the side that tends to trumpet and broadcast its own.
   4520. The District Attorney Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4281566)
6 years for failing to predict the future.
Huh, Nate Silver may have even more on the line than I thought...
   4521. spycake Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4281567)
Drop all the primary candidates in a jungle with nothing but a machete and a canteen and whoever gets out first wins!

Make it a bayonet instead of a machete, and I think we'd all watch.
   4522. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:21 PM (#4281569)
California is using jungle primaries now. The combination of jungle primaries and redistricting has created a very strange 30th District congressional race between a liberal, Jewish congressman named Berman and a liberal, Jewish congressman named Sherman.

EDIT: I'd also never heard the term "jungle primaries" before now. I'd heard them called nonpartisan open primaries and other such milquetoast things.
   4523. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:21 PM (#4281570)
Make it a bayonet instead of a machete, and I think we'd all watch.
But not the sawtooth kind - that would be over the line.
   4524. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:23 PM (#4281576)
Arizona has a ####-ton of propositions,


My favorite is the "take the Grand Canyon back for locals!" prop.

AZ is seriously contesting the AR and MS as ground zero for the stupid.
   4525. zonk Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:24 PM (#4281578)
Jungle primaries are interesting, right? You could end up with moderates as party activists can't control primaries as they do now. Or could end up with primaries contested in the general election--in a district with a big party majority, the top two finishers might both be Republicans or Democrats, and it'd be interesting to see the effect of a general election settling that. A few years ago I would have thought that the primary system provided some useful discipline in terms of winnowing out the nutballs but that no longer seems true, so the downside of the jungle primary--an unvetted loon could win--is just as true as in the current closed primary.


I don't really like these top two situations -- they're extremely easy for a well-organized party to game... while Florida doesn't have such a thing, I just think of the nonsense that likely-soon-to-be-indicted David Rivera pulled (essentially, running a phantom primary candidate against his likely D opponent and doing a lot of shady cash-stuffed envelop transfers to fund it).

I don't think you end up with moderates either -- because moderates don't tend to inspire many people... and primaries are about inspired people -- hence, I think you end up with nutty and nutter more often than not because you only need to win a top 2 plurality spot, and in a race flooded with candidates -- the nuts simply tend to turn out in bigger numbers. Moderates have 'support' that's a mile long, but inch deep -- in primaries, that's just often not enough.

It can make for interesting debates, though -- as this D on D action in a California congressional debate (CA has 'jungle primaries') shows...

EDIT: sip of coke to Fern... though, I've got the debate scuffle in my link!
   4526. GregD Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:24 PM (#4281579)
Gold Star, I am interested in instant runoffs, though I'm sure I wouldn't like all the consequences. It would allow for the development of plausible 3rd and 4th parties, as you wouldn't cost your lesser of two evils party an election by voting them 2nd to your preferred party. So some places a Green Party would win, which would be interesting. In some a Pat Buchanan America First Party would easily win over a mainstream Republican, which I'd be less excited about. And you'd get some more eccentric outcomes--ethnic parties and so on. I like the expanded choice though I don't think it will lead us to my social democratic utopia.
   4527. Spahn Insane Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:25 PM (#4281580)
6 years for failing to predict the future.

Huh, Nate Silver may have even more on the line than I thought...


Heh.
   4528. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:26 PM (#4281585)
Drudge et al are doubling down on the Benghazi idiocy. I continue to suspect this is part of a concerted "keep the nutters in a tizzy to distract them while Mitt morphs into something else for the undecideds."
   4529. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:26 PM (#4281586)
6 years for failing to predict the future.

Yikes.


This has been presented as this, but they were actually charged with making false statements the other way. Basically the head of the group made the bonehead statement that small shocks will prevent a big earthquake, leading (allegedly) to a false sense of security.

It's still ridiculous, but it's not so ridiculous as people are making it out to be.
   4530. McCoy Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:32 PM (#4281592)
One of the quirky things I remember about bayonets from All Quiet on the Western Front is that all the guys refuse to use those saw-bladed bayonets because the British/French unceremoniously kill any German who has one when they are captured.

It's disquieting to think of what those things did to a human body for people living through the First World War to stop and say, "whoa, that's over the line mate".


I believe even by the start of WWI saw-bladed bayonets were extremely rare. 1 in 20 were of that variety and Germany pulled them all out in 1917. As a tool the saw was pretty useless and as you mentioned a wound by one of these was pretty gruesome. There was a lot of "contraband" weapons that if you were found with on your possession could get you killed or severely beaten. Don't be a machine gunner and don't have spiked brass knuckles on you when you get captured.
   4531. spike Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4281594)
Drudge et al are doubling down on the Benghazi idiocy.

Already seen a number of "Why is the NY Times silent on the biggest presidential coverup of all times??? on social media today. Apparently nobody is old enough to remember Iran-Contra anymore.
   4532. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:43 PM (#4281598)
This has been presented as this, but they were actually charged with making false statements the other way. Basically the head of the group made the bonehead statement that small shocks will prevent a big earthquake, leading (allegedly) to a false sense of security.


The general gist of the way I've seen it reported, (and it's hard to find anything definitive) is that the 6 scientists had a meeting with local civil officials and said something along the lines of "we think that the smaller quakes make a larger quake unlikely, but we can't guarantee that with any certainty" and then the "government official" who was also convicted went out and had a presser where he doubled down on the former and mostly left out the latter.
   4533. spike Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:43 PM (#4281599)
All Quiet on the Western Front

Ironically, there is a quote in it about how the bayonet is obsolete, or so I recall.
   4534. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:53 PM (#4281602)
Already seen a number of "Why is the NY Times silent on the biggest presidential coverup of all times??? on social media today. Apparently nobody is old enough to remember Iran-Contra anymore.


I thought "Fast and Furious" was the biggest presidential coverup of all time. Well, I mean, it was a couple of months ago.
   4535. Shredder Posted: October 24, 2012 at 01:53 PM (#4281603)
Make it a bayonet instead of a machete, and I think we'd all watch.
And also give them a horse.
Arizona has a ####-ton of propositions, plus there are some city and school district measures, not to mention all the individual races. Because of this, I'll be filling out my ballot at home; at a polling place, even with a cheat sheet, I'd probably be standing in the booth for 10-15 minutes.
I absolutely, positively hate the initiative process in California, and and glad to a large extent it does not exist in Illinois. There are obviously a boatload of problems with it, many of which perhaps were not intuitive to its founders. But probably my biggest issue with it is that voting on statewide laws is not my job. That's what I paid assembly-persons and senators for. Typical citizens don't have the drive to educate themselves on the fine print of every initiative, and those that do probably don't have the time. The proliferation of the initiative process in the Western states is probably one of the worst political developments in this country in the last 100 years.
   4536. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 24, 2012 at 02:06 PM (#4281611)
Maryland has a lot of ballot propositions, too: Same sex marriage (should pass); in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants (should also pass); and expanded casinos, mostly in PG County (likely to squeak by, too). I've yet to receive a single phone call or a single piece of junk mail on any of these, with one exception: I've been getting about 3 phone calls and 2 pieces of junk mail every ####### day from proponents of the new casinos. I swear if ever I were to be converted to libertarianism, it would be because of the proliferation of state sponsored gambling. Talk about something the government should keep its hands out of completely.
   4537. Jim Wisinski Posted: October 24, 2012 at 02:12 PM (#4281620)
There are obviously a boatload of problems with it, many of which perhaps were not intuitive to its founders. But probably my biggest issue with it is that voting on statewide laws is not my job. That's what I paid assembly-persons and senators for. Typical citizens don't have the drive to educate themselves on the fine print of every initiative, and those that do probably don't have the time. The proliferation of the initiative process in the Western states is probably one of the worst political developments in this country in the last 100 years.


This is a big part of the reason I stated above that I automatically vote no on all of these (except for the amendment in 2006 which would change the requirement for future constitutional amendments to 60% approval instead of just 50%, I voted for that and it did pass). I have to leave for work but if this is still being discussed when I get home I'll elaborate a bit more on I'm so against them.
   4538. McCoy Posted: October 24, 2012 at 02:15 PM (#4281626)
All Quiet on the Western Front:

But the bayonet has practically lost its importance. It is usually the
fashion now to charge with bombs and spades only. The sharpened
spade is a more handy and many-sided weapon; not only can it be
used for jabbing a man under the chin, but due to its greater weight
if one hits between the neck and shoulder it easily cleaves as far
down as the chest. The bayonet frequently jams on the thrust and
then a man has to kick hard on the other fellow's belly to pull it out
again; and in the interval he may easily get one himself. And
what's more the blade often gets broken off.
   4539. BDC Posted: October 24, 2012 at 02:18 PM (#4281630)
I didn't see any ballot propositions in Texas. We do them in every-other odd-numbered off-year, not even in gubernatorial-election years (which are World-Cup as opposed to Olympic even years here). Most statewide initiatives take the form of constitutional amendments, meaning that the Constitution of the State of Texas is the damndest pastiche of stuff that looks like the Bill of Rights and stuff that looks like local real-estate code. It grows like Topsy every four years.
   4540. Ray (RDP) Posted: October 24, 2012 at 02:35 PM (#4281654)
Maryland has a lot of ballot propositions, too: Same sex marriage (should pass); in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants (should also pass);


Are liberals here still pretending that America has not been moving to the left?
   4541. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 24, 2012 at 02:39 PM (#4281661)
I thought "Fast and Furious" was the biggest presidential coverup of all time. Well, I mean, it was a couple of months ago.


Dude, you can't pull off a complete Kenyan Muslim Anti-Colonialist Socialist makeover in 3.5 years without like, a new cover-up every week.

Or, alternatively, the wingnuts continue to throw #### at the wall in the hopes that something sticks.

Speaking of wingnuts, Kehoskie has been notably absent since the Wiki counterpunch.
   4542. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: October 24, 2012 at 02:40 PM (#4281663)
Maryland has a lot of ballot propositions, too: Same sex marriage (should pass); in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants (should also pass);



Are liberals here still pretending that America has not been moving to the left?


The former should be a basic Libertarian position. And at least one lib here (Dan) should strongly support the latter.
   4543. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 24, 2012 at 02:40 PM (#4281664)
Are liberals here still pretending that America has not been moving to the left?


Socially, yes. Economically, no. With regard to foreign policy, absolutely not.

The world, she is complex, Ray. You need to update your processing parameters.
   4544. McCoy Posted: October 24, 2012 at 02:48 PM (#4281673)
Speaking of wingnuts, Kehoskie has been notably absent since the Wiki counterpunch.

Shhh. If you say his name two more times he'll appear.
   4545. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 24, 2012 at 02:55 PM (#4281684)
Maryland has a lot of ballot propositions, too: Same sex marriage (should pass); in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants (should also pass);

Are liberals here still pretending that America has not been moving to the left?


As Sam rightly says, socially it has been, but OTOH you might also have noted that same sex marriage has so far been defeated in every state where it's been on the ballot. Once again your capacity for selective information ingestion never ceases to be on display.
   4546. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 24, 2012 at 02:56 PM (#4281688)
As Sam rightly says, socially it has been, but OTOH you might also have noted that same sex marriage has so far been defeated in every state where it's been on the ballot.


In fact, the _reactionary lurch rightward_ is a direct response to the feeling of powerlessness the throwbacks feel in the face of basic human progress.

It's a complicated world, man.
   4547. spike Posted: October 24, 2012 at 02:58 PM (#4281691)
Snappers been MIA since calling in an airstrike on his own position too.
   4548. zonk Posted: October 24, 2012 at 02:59 PM (#4281694)
Are liberals here still pretending that America has not been moving to the left?



Socially, yes. Economically, no. With regard to foreign policy, absolutely not.

The world, she is complex, Ray. You need to update your processing parameters.


Precisely...

Nothing would please me more than to "admit" America is moving to the left... in fact, I wish it were so. I just see the sorts of things being proposed by one of the two parties -- and see the fact that rather than losing their pants, they're still competitive despite things like eliminating well-liked programs like Medicare and Social Security.
   4549. McCoy Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:05 PM (#4281704)
Some social issues have moved to the left and some social issues have moved to the right. go figure, the world is complicated.
   4550. The Good Face Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:08 PM (#4281708)
Some social issues have moved to the left and some social issues have moved to the right. go figure, the world is complicated.


What social issues have moved to the right? With the possible exception of 2nd Amendment rights...
   4551. Langer Monk Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:10 PM (#4281711)
Wasn't there someone here who said they were leaning Romney due to the President's foreign policy (drones, etc.) in the hopes that Romney would somehow reverse the trend?

I wonder how Monday's joint press conference on how the President was making mostly correct foreign policy decisions has affected that thought process.

I'd also wonder how Romney supporters process the sudden change, but I know that answer.
   4552. zonk Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:10 PM (#4281712)
Some social issues have moved to the left and some social issues have moved to the right. go figure, the world is complicated.



What social issues have moved to the right? With the possible exception of 2nd Amendment rights...


I think it would be fair to say that a lot of birth control and abortion legislation has moved rightward -- it certainly hasn't gone leftward.
   4553. McCoy Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:13 PM (#4281721)
What social issues have moved to the right? With the possible exception of 2nd Amendment rights...

Privacy rights. Reproductive issues. Drug/Alcohol use. Employer/Employee relationships. . . .
   4554. The Good Face Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:13 PM (#4281722)
I think it would be fair to say that a lot of birth control and abortion legislation has moved rightward -- it certainly hasn't gone leftward.


Did it have anywhere to go on the left? Serious question.
   4555. spike Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:19 PM (#4281731)
What social issues have moved to the right? With the possible exception of 2nd Amendment rights..

Separation of church and state. 24th Amendment.
   4556. The Good Face Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:22 PM (#4281734)
Privacy rights.


Good point, although I mostly see this stemming from technological changes rather than ideological ones.

Reproductive issues.


Not sure, but then abortion as a political issue bores me. My only beef with abortion is that I can't choose who gets one.

Drug/Alcohol use.


Mixed bag. MADD is doing their level best to bring back Prohibition, but medical marijuana has made great strides over the past 20 years.

Employer/Employee relationships. . . .


I don't see how this hasn't moved to the left.
   4557. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:23 PM (#4281736)
Wasn't there someone here who said they were leaning Romney due to the President's foreign policy (drones, etc.) in the hopes that Romney would somehow reverse the trend?


Daniel-san.
   4558. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:25 PM (#4281740)
Did it have anywhere to go on the left? Serious question.


Absolutely. More controversially, abortion-on-demand. Abortions covered as part of standard insurance claims (i.e. vasectomies.) Less controversially, but still to the left of anything the US has managed, "morning after pills" are available OTC in most western nations.
   4559. McCoy Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:25 PM (#4281741)
You can now get fired because of things on Facebook, your employer can require drug testing, your employer can ask for your Facebook password. . .

Like I said before the world is complicated. For every step we take to the left on something we then take a step to the right on something else.
   4560. Langer Monk Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:25 PM (#4281743)
Daniel-san.


Yeah, thought so, but didn't trust my memory.
   4561. Lassus Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:26 PM (#4281745)
The Wikipedia attack of Joe was over the top, and the whole thing was very Junior High school.
   4562. spike Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:26 PM (#4281746)
Wasn't there someone here who said they were leaning Romney due to the President's foreign policy (drones, etc.) in the hopes that Romney would somehow reverse the trend?


Daniel-san.


Guess that last debate pushed him back into the ranks of the uncommitted
   4563. zonk Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:28 PM (#4281751)

Did it have anywhere to go on the left? Serious question.


Sure, I think so -- if you're not religious and believe "life" begins at birth, not conception -- I suspect that there are those who would say that any limit on the practice of 'abortions' leaves the issue far from what they'd call optimal.

I suppose a lot depends, too, on whether the 'drift' needs to be explicit or not... there's been a lot of state and local legislation that hasn't even mentioned abortion, but was designed to limit it. For example, Mississippi legislature, I believe, passed a law that required physicians to be part of a hospital group... no MS hospitals will admit physicians who practice abortion procedures, hence, an end-around the underlying issue.

On reproductive rights generally - I guess I would also look at things like the Blunt amendment (which didn't pass, granted, but came awfully darn close), the attacks on Planned Parenthood, etc.

On a cynical level - both "parties" want to keep abortion/reproductive rights alive as an issue because it helps juice both their bases... but it seems like, for the past decade or so, one base has been a lot more effective at inching towards their ultimate goal, while the other base really hasn't moved their own needle.
   4564. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:30 PM (#4281752)
The Wikipedia attack of Joe was over the top, and the whole thing was very Junior High school.


"The Wikipedia attack?" Talk about "over the top." The man put up a Wiki page that was in clear violation of Wiki's policies. That page became public knowledge in the midst of a political thread here where he trolled his way into the doghouse of various users. Someone notified Wiki of the violation of their terms. That's not an attack, you git.
   4565. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:31 PM (#4281755)
Guess that last debate pushed him back into the ranks of the uncommitted


Maybe. I don't know what Dan's current position might be. I do know that if Romney's pivot LEFT in the FP debate made someone thing he was suddenly less bad than Obama... Well, that's an odd thought.
   4566. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:33 PM (#4281757)
The former should be a basic Libertarian position.

While I think it should pass, my basic position is that marriage is none of the government's business. I don't see any reason why, from the point-of-view of government, a contract between Harry and Barry to cohabitate and pool their financial resources should be considered at all different than Harry's contract with his cell-phone or cable provider.


And at least one lib here (Dan) should strongly support the latter.


From a pragmatic standpoint, I would, though there are other things involved here than my unlimited pro-immigration belief. I'm generally staying out of these political threads, especially since I've added to my ignore list the people I personally dislike enough to be motivated to get into a knock-down, drag-out political brawl with. But to reiterate my immigration belief for those unaware, I don't believe that me or you have any more inherent right to enjoy personal freedoms that are mostly protected in this country any more than a farmer in Gabon or a peasant in China.
   4567. zonk Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:37 PM (#4281763)
While I think it should pass, my basic position is that marriage is none of the government's business. I don't see any reason why, from the point-of-view of government, a contract between Harry and Barry to cohabitate and pool their financial resources should be considered at all different than Harry's contract with his cell-phone or cable provider.


This works for me, though-

Since 'marriage' - as defined by the government - does have impacts on things from taxes to inheritance rights to medical to others, I don't think I'd compare it to a cell phone contract. So long as everything from the IRC to HIPAA to other things reserves certain rights/privileges/whatever for people of a certain "contract", I would say that the government does need to issue or at least accept that contract... Civil Unions for everyone -- let churches decide whatever they want to do with their more traditional/ceremonial blessings works for me.
   4568. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:41 PM (#4281770)
While I think it should pass, my basic position is that marriage is none of the government's business.


It's incorrect to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
   4569. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:42 PM (#4281771)
Yeah, thought so, but didn't trust my memory.

I don't trust Republicans any more than Democrats on the issue, but personally, when given a choice, I'll always go with the guy who is likely to violate civil rights over the guy who already is.

And more to the point, I historically have voted for Democrats when they protect specific civil rights and in spite of other views that I disagree with. If a Democrat isn't a civil libertarian, then they're absolutely pointless to me. To me, that's like drinking a mass-market non-alcoholic beer. Yeah, other things are mass-market and don't have alcohol, too. But if I'm going to drink a crappy beer, it sure as hell better have alcohol in it.
   4570. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:45 PM (#4281777)
Privacy rights.



Good point, although I mostly see this stemming from technological changes rather than ideological ones.


Patriot Act?
   4571. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:45 PM (#4281778)
Since 'marriage' - as defined by the government - does have impacts on things from taxes to inheritance rights to medical to others, I don't think I'd compare it to a cell phone contract.

I would. I see no reason why marriages should get any different tax treatment - that's a construct of government. Don't like the $100,000 the two of you make result in more taxes being paid filing jointly than the $50,000 you each made filing separately? Too bad, so sad, you're the ones that made the contractual decision to pool your resources to your mutual advantage.

There's nothing else here that can't be done contractually. Want to get married? Fine. Either negotiate a contract before entering into the marriage or have every asset the two (or three or four, I couldn't care less, it's none of my business) of you own split right down the middle upon dissolution of the agreement.
   4572. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:46 PM (#4281779)
I don't trust Republicans any more than Democrats on the issue, but personally, when given a choice, I'll always go with the guy who is likely to violate civil rights over the guy who already is.


So, when a Republican is in office, you'll vote for the Democrat, and vice versa?
   4573. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:48 PM (#4281783)
I think it would be fair to say that a lot of birth control and abortion legislation has moved rightward -- it certainly hasn't gone leftward.

Did it have anywhere to go on the left? Serious question.


After Roe v. Wade? Pretty much no.
   4574. bunyon Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:49 PM (#4281784)
Duck, you nervous about the Series? The weather? The election?
   4575. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:50 PM (#4281786)
I would. I see no reason why marriages should get any different tax treatment


What about a surviving spouse inheriting the deceased's IRA vs another beneficiary? Or SS and pension suvivorship benefits? Or an non-working spouse eligible to receive medicare benefits after the working spouse dies? I know you don't think any of those things should exist, but since they do, clearly there has to be some sort of differentiation.
   4576. zonk Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:51 PM (#4281787)
Privacy rights.




Good point, although I mostly see this stemming from technological changes rather than ideological ones.


I wholeheartedly agree that the root here is in technological changes... but that said, the courts really haven't done a very good job sifting through the changes and translating precedent from antiquated technology to new. In their defense, the legislatures have done an even worse job defining it.

The point is that I think technology has created new dimensions of "privacy" that were previously unaddressed (and really, before said technology, didn't actually exist). Without legislation to define and protect these rights -- if one feels they exist, you'll find plenty of people who don't think they do -- we're just ceding them by default.

This is essentially Mark Zuckerberg's philosophy -- our virtual and 'real' selves are inevitably going to merge and you eventually will not be able to 'hide' online... there are actually some interesting, non-partisan I think, debates to be had on that topic.

To me, personally, I don't think it's cut-and-dry... how far does my right to digital "privacy" extend? Can I pretend to be someone else? At all? Only if not for illegal means? Can I read about, say... where to find a pot hookup online without fear of it being used in a possession trial?

Is anyone liable for spilling personal beans about me? There was a Facebook (surprise, surprise) issue that snagged a couple of UT students who had joined the LGBT chorus on campus... the group's sponsor had unwittingly sent them an invite to the group. They accepted... unbeknownst to them, all their other FB friends received notification that they had joined this new group -- including their parents. Is anyone at fault for revealing that private detail of their lives they wished to keep private?

One thing that I think about regarding online/digital privacy.... I tend to (try at least) to only say things online that I wouldn't mind people hearing me say in person just because I know how this #### works... BUT - I also know that my "information" -- which sites I visit, what I buy, etc has a fair bit of value to all sorts of commercial interests. I would be more than happy to "sell" this information of mine - even up to and including allowing someone to 'track' me, what stores I visit, etc. However - until statutes codify that this 'information' is private and belongs to me, I can't really 'sell' it when it's much easier and cheaper for people to surreptitiously acquire it.
   4577. BDC Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:51 PM (#4281788)
Want to get married? Fine. Either negotiate a contract before entering into the marriage or have every asset the two (or three or four, I couldn't care less, it's none of my business) of you own split right down the middle upon dissolution of the agreement

Somebody else here will probably know better, but I believe this was once an option in France (and may still be): either marry under community-property arrangements, or under the "séparation de biens" where property remains individual. My source for this is simply reading a lot of novels, so I could be very mistaken :)

But such reorganization of the basic nature of marriage is extremely unlikely here in the US. There's a patchwork of state laws (several states assume community property unless otherwise contracted, like Texas), and there are weird structural implications to tax laws and all kinds of things that are vestiges of who-knows-what ancient common or even Roman-law understandings of the nature of marriage. Far, far simpler and fairer to let same-sex couples marry and then think about the essence of marriage later on, if anyone ever gets interested in doing so.
   4578. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:52 PM (#4281789)
So, when a Republican is in office, you'll vote for the Democrat, and vice versa?

Only incumbent president I ever voted for was Bill Clinton. 2012 will be the first time I vote a Republican for president. Actually "was the first time," since I've already early-voted as an Ohio resident.
   4579. zonk Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:54 PM (#4281790)
Since 'marriage' - as defined by the government - does have impacts on things from taxes to inheritance rights to medical to others, I don't think I'd compare it to a cell phone contract.

I would. I see no reason why marriages should get any different tax treatment - that's a construct of government. Don't like the $100,000 the two of you make result in more taxes being paid filing jointly than the $50,000 you each made filing separately? Too bad, so sad, you're the ones that made the contractual decision to pool your resources to your mutual advantage.

There's nothing else here that can't be done contractually. Want to get married? Fine. Either negotiate a contract before entering into the marriage or have every asset the two (or three or four, I couldn't care less, it's none of my business) of you own split right down the middle upon dissolution of the agreement.


Sure - but I was thinking more of the benefits (as Miserlou points out in 4575)... and while sure, it may also be true that many of these things can be done without a 'marriage' -- the fact remains that a lot of them are automatic with a marriage.

Now... if you want to repeal all of that out of the tax code, etc - OK - then I guess I don't even care if the government issues civil unions... but from an equal treatment perspective, I think it behooves the government to have a mechanism that applies equally to M/F, F/F, and M/M partnerships.
   4580. BDC Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:54 PM (#4281791)
Only incumbent president I ever voted for was Bill Clinton

Weird and interesting. I've been voting since 1977, and this year is the first time I've cast a vote for an incumbent President.
   4581. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:54 PM (#4281793)
Duck, you nervous about the Series? The weather? The election?


Not really. Keeping with my milieu, it's just a line from a song.
   4582. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:54 PM (#4281794)
But such reorganization of the basic nature of marriage is extremely unlikely here in the US. There's a patchwork of state laws (several states assume community property unless otherwise contracted, like Texas), and there are weird structural implications to tax laws and all kinds of things that are vestiges of who-knows-what ancient common or even Roman-law understandings of the nature of marriage. Far, far simpler and fairer to let same-sex couples marry and then think about the essence of marriage later on, if anyone ever gets interested in doing so.

I have no doubt it would be enormously difficult to implement in the United States. Don't forget, I'm simply answering a couple questions here about what my beliefs are. I have no illusion that fixing the governmental-marital complex is realistically possible at any time in the near future.
   4583. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:55 PM (#4281795)
Wasn't there someone here who said they were leaning Romney due to the President's foreign policy (drones, etc.) in the hopes that Romney would somehow reverse the trend?

Daniel-san.

Guess that last debate pushed him back into the ranks of the uncommitted


Dan's a libertarian who often voted Dem, foreign policy issues being one major reason- having a Dem admin run a neo-Con light foreign policy operation and making no effort to roll back the Dubya era security state (and even expanding same) basically removed a reason for him to vote Dem, tipping him into the GOP column.

I refuse to believe that Dan of all people actually thinks that Romney would run a less hawkish foreign policy regime than Obama... though there are people out there on the internet who do (or did)
   4584. Greg K Posted: October 24, 2012 at 03:56 PM (#4281797)
Thanks McCoy for #4538. I knew I had read somewhere about that complaint about the difficulty of getting a bayonet out of a guy, but I couldn't remember if that was All Quiet as well or not.
   4585. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: October 24, 2012 at 04:00 PM (#4281799)
MADD is doing their level best to bring back Prohibition

QFT.
They're not interested in keeping people alive & well, they're interested in keeping people from drinking.
You can tell by the laws they've encouraged & supported (drunk driving... on a horse? Yes. On a bicycle? Yes.) vs. laws they don't care about ("distracted" driving, which is equally dangerous and much more common, but gets a wrist-slap).

Good point, although I mostly see this stemming from technological changes rather than ideological ones.

Guys, if you don't have some kind of password on your phone, PLEASE put some kind of security on there. Even if you think you have nothing to hide, from anyone, ever.
   4586. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: October 24, 2012 at 04:00 PM (#4281801)

Sure - but I was thinking more of the benefits (as Miserlou points out in 4575)... and while sure, it may also be true that many of these things can be done without a 'marriage' -- the fact remains that a lot of them are automatic with a marriage.


Remember, I don't see any of that as my business either. If Joe's Software wants to offer additional benefits within employment contracts to Roman Catholics only, or gay couples only, or blondes only, or non-Poles only, or people who can dunk a basketball only. Actions taken between consenting adults are their business and my rights to interfere in those situations are no more than my simple freedom of expression.

(Sorry, but you guys did essentially ask me what I thought)
   4587. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 24, 2012 at 04:03 PM (#4281805)
I would. I see no reason why marriages should get any different tax treatment - that's a construct of government. Don't like the $100,000 the two of you make result in more taxes being paid filing jointly than the $50,000 you each made filing separately? Too bad, so sad, you're the ones that made the contractual decision to pool your resources to your mutual advantage.


You contradict yourself here

1: you say "I see no reason why marriages should get any different tax treatment- that's a construct of government."

ok

then you say: " Don't like the $100,000 the two of you make result in more taxes being paid filing jointly than the $50,000 you each made filing separately? Too bad, so sad"

so 1st you say that marriages shouldn't get different tax treatment, and then turn 180 degrees noting that marriages do get different tax treatment and saying, "too bad"

   4588. BDC Posted: October 24, 2012 at 04:04 PM (#4281806)
I have no illusion that fixing the governmental-marital complex is realistically possible at any time in the near future

That's cool. I probably basically agree with you.
   4589. Group Captain Mandrake Posted: October 24, 2012 at 04:09 PM (#4281808)
Remember, I don't see any of that as my business either. If Joe's Software wants to offer additional benefits within employment contracts to Roman Catholics only, or gay couples only, or blondes only, or non-Poles only, or people who can dunk a basketball only. Actions taken between consenting adults are their business and my rights to interfere in those situations are no more than my simple freedom of expression.


I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about tax breaks and government benefits bestowed upon surviving spouses. Should a 70 year old woman who never worked because she raised 8 kids lose her medicare benefits because her husband died? Should she have to cash in his IRA within 5 years of his death and thus pay a hefty tax bill?
   4590. zonk Posted: October 24, 2012 at 04:11 PM (#4281814)

Remember, I don't see any of that as my business either. If Joe's Software wants to offer additional benefits within employment contracts to Roman Catholics only, or gay couples only, or blondes only, or non-Poles only, or people who can dunk a basketball only. Actions taken between consenting adults are their business and my rights to interfere in those situations are no more than my simple freedom of expression.


But the contract of 'citizenship' - if you want to call it that; the fact that I can't just choose not to contract with the government for certain things - isn't one we voluntary enter into.

I suppose you can go full bore independent individual here and say that it should be - but it's not and won't be any time soon... so long as the government does have a say in things like inheritances, various program benefits, and proscriptions about things like medical decision making in the absence of a living will, etc -- the gordian solution seems to me to be to be "civil unions for all and this entitles you all the responsibilities and benefits of what we used to call 'marriage'"
   4591. Langer Monk Posted: October 24, 2012 at 04:11 PM (#4281816)
I refuse to believe that Dan of all people actually thinks that Romney would run a less hawkish foreign policy regime than Obama... though there are people out there on the internet who do (or did)


That's where the logic of it breaks down in my mind - I can understand not voting for one, but then to vote for the other that is either worse (pre-Monday) or the same (Monday)... Well, maybe by next Monday there will be a 3rd version.
   4592. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: October 24, 2012 at 04:12 PM (#4281817)
I refuse to believe that Dan of all people actually thinks that Romney would run a less hawkish foreign policy regime than Obama... though there are people out there on the internet who do (or did)

Yeah, I don't really expect him to be less hawkish when it comes down to it. I do kinda expect Romney to be generally half-hearted about that stuff when he's not trying to bring out his base to vote.

I tend to think that the Moderate Romney is closer to his core beliefs than Conservative Romney. To me at least, it seems pretty obvious how much more natural and heartfelt he is when he's playing the former and how awkward and stilted he comes off trying to affect the latter. That being said, if it looked like the Republicans were going to get enough Senators that they could get 60 votes easily, I'd probably vote for Obama, simply out of practicality. That, in essence, is why I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 (I actually voted for nobody).
   4593. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: October 24, 2012 at 04:13 PM (#4281819)
I suppose you can go full bore independent individual here and say that it should be

Again, I was specifically asked about my beliefs, not what is. I also think I should have a billion dollars. I do not think I actually do.
   4594. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 24, 2012 at 04:14 PM (#4281823)
Only incumbent president I ever voted for was Bill Clinton
That's the sign of a man who isn't ever happy.

/iJest
   4595. zonk Posted: October 24, 2012 at 04:17 PM (#4281827)
I suppose you can go full bore independent individual here and say that it should be

Again, I was specifically asked about my beliefs, not what is. I also think I should have a billion dollars. I do not think I actually do.


Understood - but would you really see it to be 'workable' or a good idea if citizenship was essentially 'optional'? Say... something like the way the Catholic church does 'confirmation' or the like?

Turn 18 (or whatever) and 'decide' whether you want to be a US (or that of any other nation) citizen or not?

I suppose it ultimately comes down to whether you think citizenship is a right, a privilege, or a forced burden...
   4596. Ron J2 Posted: October 24, 2012 at 04:24 PM (#4281835)
#4562 Doubt it'll move Dan. Seems to me he's mostly energized by what he sees as critical differences on free speech.

EDIT: Of course Dan's made an appearance. I should have predicted that he'd also invoke the issue of known vs probable position WRT to drone strikes. (And in case anybody's doubtful, I agree with Dan on the point in general. It's just that in this particular case I'm unusually confident of what a Romney administration's position would be)
   4597. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 24, 2012 at 04:27 PM (#4281841)
#4562 Doubt it'll move Dan. Seems to me he's mostly energized by what he sees as critical differences on free speech.


Dan's a poopyhead.
   4598. Langer Monk Posted: October 24, 2012 at 04:31 PM (#4281843)
I tend to think that the Moderate Romney is closer to his core beliefs than Conservative Romney.


I also wonder whether the multiple versions of Romney is at all disconcerting to those voting for him. I expect not.
   4599. zonk Posted: October 24, 2012 at 04:32 PM (#4281844)


I also wonder whether the multiple versions of Romney is at all disconcerting to those voting for him. I expect not.


Ironically, it probably is so only to the base that's probably most committed to voting for him (or more accurately, voting against Obama).
   4600. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: October 24, 2012 at 04:41 PM (#4281849)
#4562 Doubt it'll move Dan. Seems to me he's mostly energized by what he sees as critical differences on free speech.

I don't think Republicans are all that awesome on free speech anyway. But it takes away one of the typical reasons I have voted for Democrats in the past.

When it comes down to it, if there are two realistic candidates and I can't pick one of them based on free speech and I can't pick one of them based on not feeling he has the right to push a button and decide that somebody deserves to die, I might as well pick one based on likelihood of them not interfering with my life otherwise.
Page 46 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dock Ellis on Acid
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogBoston Red Sox prospect Deven Marrero enjoying turnaround in Arizona Fall League | MiLB.com News | The Official Site of Minor League Baseball
(7 - 2:51pm, Oct 25)
Last: puck

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3779 - 2:46pm, Oct 25)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogDave Dombrowski: Injury worse than expected, Miguel Cabrera 'is as tough as you can possibly be' | MLive.com
(16 - 2:41pm, Oct 25)
Last: Batman

NewsblogJohn McGrath: The Giants have become the Yankees — obnoxious | The News Tribune
(18 - 2:41pm, Oct 25)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogBuster Olney on Twitter: "Sources: Manager Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out clause in his contract and is leaving the Tampa Bay Rays immediately."
(85 - 2:23pm, Oct 25)
Last: puck

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 4 OMNICHATTER
(1 - 2:15pm, Oct 25)
Last: Batman

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(21 - 2:14pm, Oct 25)
Last: boteman

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(392 - 2:08pm, Oct 25)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogYost's managerial decisions make for extra-entertaining World Series | FOX Sports
(4 - 1:59pm, Oct 25)
Last: boteman

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(933 - 1:35pm, Oct 25)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogGambling Bochy creature of habit when it comes to pitchers | CSN Bay Area
(3 - 1:14pm, Oct 25)
Last: esseff

NewsblogMLB - Royals' Ned Yost keeps managing to win - ESPN
(9 - 12:55pm, Oct 25)
Last: The elusive Robert Denby

NewsblogPhils' philospophy beginning to evolve | phillies.com
(8 - 12:43pm, Oct 25)
Last: Cargo Cultist

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1959 Ballot
(7 - 11:46am, Oct 25)
Last: lieiam

NewsblogRoyals get four AL Gold Glove finalists, but not Lorenzo Cain | The Kansas City Star
(17 - 11:46am, Oct 25)
Last: BDC

Page rendered in 0.5752 seconds
52 querie(s) executed