American Politics

[Vhale]

Get ready for really bad traffic =x

 

It's also interesting to note that America has all but one of Marx's "planks of communism" in some form or fashion, all but forced labor. Not to say that we're communist, just that the government has a LOT of say...

 

Yeah, I've heard that the health care for work is basically forced labor. After all, if you can't get affordable health care or retirement unless you work a very specific job set (only 25% of jobs currently offer both) you're pretty much shoe-horned into those jobs if you want those things.

[AngelKitty]

Oh dear oh dear: World of Warcraft hobby sparks US political row, State Senate Candidate Colleen Lachowicz Under Fire from Opponents for Playing World of Warcraft

 

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. *facepalm*

GAAAAWD WHAT. "Bizarre double life?" "Liking for backstabbing and poisons?"

 

I tend to play mage characters when I play RPGs. OH DEAR I LIKE THE IDEA OF USING MAGIC IN A MAKE-BELIEVE WORLD SO I MUST BE UNFIT TO BE A SCIENTIST. Lrn2Reality, guys.

 

As for laughing or crying, I'm just going to laugh, because this nonsense isn't worth my tears.

[hazeh]

Oh dear oh dear: World of Warcraft hobby sparks US political row, State Senate Candidate Colleen Lachowicz Under Fire from Opponents for Playing World of Warcraft

 

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. *facepalm*

Then obviously I enjoy animal abuse, slavery, and animal fighting rings because I like to play Pokemon! Whoo!

[Vhale]

Meh, I can't laugh at it. Where I work, gaming is very much looked down upon as something losers and kids do. The only proper socially acceptable activities are 1. Watching Sports. 2. Watching TV. 3. Going out and drinking.

 

I don't mind the former two but hate the third and prefer gaming regardless.

[Obscure_Trash]

Oh dear oh dear: World of Warcraft hobby sparks US political row, State Senate Candidate Colleen Lachowicz Under Fire from Opponents for Playing World of Warcraft

 

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. *facepalm*

Both, I think. o_O

 

~

 

I know the Johnson lawsuit was brought up here, but I don't remember if this was, so sharing it (again, maybe).

 

http://occupythecpd.org/

 

I don't really know how much petitions like this actually do, but I figured it couldn't hurt to sign.

 

Also in the middle of watching this: http://www.livestream.com/democracynow/vid...medium=ui-thumb

Democracy Now hosted Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson (they invited Johnson, but he declined) so they could 'participate' in the debate. Not official by any means, but I'm looking forward to hearing them speak.

 

~

 

Time is running out to register and I am just not having any luck running into anybody at the student center. Going to attempt the MVD, I think.

 

I think I actually want to register Green Party and, at this point, my vote is going towards Jill Stein. :3

I feel a little weird doing so, since I'm surrounded by libertarians down here. =p

[brairtrainer]

Both, I think. o_O

 

~

 

I know the Johnson lawsuit was brought up here, but I don't remember if this was, so sharing it (again, maybe).

 

http://occupythecpd.org/

 

I don't really know how much petitions like this actually do, but I figured it couldn't hurt to sign.

 

Also in the middle of watching this: http://www.livestream.com/democracynow/vid...medium=ui-thumb

Democracy Now hosted Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson (they invited Johnson, but he declined) so they could 'participate' in the debate. Not official by any means, but I'm looking forward to hearing them speak.

 

~

 

Time is running out to register and I am just not having any luck running into anybody at the student center. Going to attempt the MVD, I think.

 

I think I actually want to register Green Party and, at this point, my vote is going towards Jill Stein. :3

I feel a little weird doing so, since I'm surrounded by libertarians down here. =p

Sock we'll still love ya no matter what party you sign up with

 

Btw thanks for the link to the petition I signed it am forwarding it to my parents tonight.

[demonicvampiregirl]

Oh dear oh dear: World of Warcraft hobby sparks US political row, State Senate Candidate Colleen Lachowicz Under Fire from Opponents for Playing World of Warcraft

 

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. *facepalm*

Please say this is just a horrid joke or I'm still dreaming?

 

What does this have anything to do with how she is in office? It's freaking game people!

 

 

 

 

Will get around to the other posts in a bit. Eating atm but I just had to comment on that one just.... what the heck.... Has the US lost it's mind it's got to be so petty about someones personal life?

Edited October 5, 2012 by demonicvampiregirl

[Alpha1]

 

This sums up the debate, and the perceptions driven by the media.

 

 

 

[brairtrainer]

Where is charismatic Obama when we need him? Once again out of the main two canidates Obama at least doesn't scare me.

 

Now if Gary could just get into the debates

[Vhale]

Honestly, I'd like Obama to win because I think it's needed for the Republican party to have a Come to Jesus moment as the Democrats did when they got their butts handed to them. If Romney wins it will justify the election fraud, the nasty birther lies and the constant congressional obstructionism that's been going on for the past 4 years. Not to mention the rabid xenophobia. That kind of behavior needs not be encouraged.

[brairtrainer]

Exactly Vhale, that and some of the reproductive rights coming out of some republican's mouths. I wouldn't be that concerned with it exept 1) I'm a woman, 2) I may not be able to use oral contreceptives and may need an iud or something instead but as long as womens rights are challenged it is harder for me to ask for other types of birth control.

[Vhale]

The women's health issues are old. They've been doing this a long time. I remember when I was in school, one of Bush's appointees chopped some funding for research into women's health issues and suggested that women should just pray. I worked in an all-female medical dorm, so it was rather big news at the time. Sadly, our memories are short and Democrats are truly horrid at making Republicans responsible for their actions.

 

But here's an example from the Bush administration. This is Suzan Orr, who was his health czar:

Orr railed against requiring health insurance plans to cover contraceptives. “It’s not about choice,” said Orr. “It’s not about health care. It’s about making everyone collaborators with the culture of death.” In 2000, she authored a paper titled, “Real Women Stay Married.” In it, she wrote that women should “think about focusing our eyes, not upon ourselves, but upon the families we form through marriage.” In 1999, Orr referred to child protection as “the most intrusive arm of social services.” Her former employer, the Family Research Council, which championed her appointment yesterday, equates contraception with abortion.

Original

 

Dr. David Hager is even scarier.

 

But, we really accept that one of our political parties hires people from a known hate group for national office...

[Rosedamai]

and suggested that women should just pray

Is this really true? Because my mind just literally went blank when I read this...Ugh.

[brairtrainer]

Unfortuneatly both my parents are re[ublican, and though they were good about giving me both sides of the story when I was younger it has only been in the last three years that I have found information for myself that has proven that they hadn't given me everything.

 

The Republican's need to go back to their roots as conservitives for the economy and pushers of social justice (A la president Lincoln). However I stand by whay I said, we need to kick both main parties out of majority of office.

 

I'd like to see Mary Jo Kilroy back in office. I once got to talk with her adviser on education and the guy was really nice. He listened and took notes about my friends and mine concerns about 4H funding being cut at every level and trying to make sure we didn't loose such a good program.

 

Also when I broke my elbow and the college board refused to give me accomedations (either someone to dictate my answers too or allow me to take it on another day) they called my dad (a city counsel man at the time) asking about input on another matter (gathering information on something that was affecting our area and her trying to figure out how to vote on it). My dad told them he didn't have time because he found out that I couldn't take an ap exam and was trying to figure out how that would effect my grades (ap exams counted as a final). They asked for my name then told him good-bye.

 

Two hours later he got an email from her office saying it was taken care of. The next day my corridinator called my dad and said the college board had changed their minds about emergency accomedations and was allowed to take them on another day. Thats what we need in our politicians.

[skauble]

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when the Republicans and Democrats learned that the CPD was served with Johnson's law suit. Of all the ways that they had probably discussed handling third parties, I doubt that even one of them dealt with Libertarians citing anti-trust laws.

 

It was definitely a bold and quite interesting maneuver on Johnson's part.

[Vhale]

Is this really true? Because my mind just literally went blank when I read this...Ugh.

Hager's appointment to the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs in the FDA was controversial with women's right groups protesting his selection from the start. Hager's appointment became more divisive when on May 6, 2004, the FDA rejected the December 16, 2003 Advisory Committee 23 to 4 vote to drop the prescription-only status of emergency contraception, and refused to approve the sale of Plan B over the counter.

 

First, The Nation, and then The Washington Post and Lexington Herald-Leader reported that Hager spoke at Asbury College in Wilmore, Kentucky, about his role in persuading the FDA to keep Plan B a prescription-only drug. Hager said, "I was asked to write a minority opinion that was sent to the commissioner of the FDA. For only the second time in five decades, the FDA did not abide by its advisory committee opinion, and the measure was rejected."

 

Additionally, in The Nation, Linda Carruth-Davis, Hager’s ex-wife from a thirty-two-year marriage, alleges that between 1995 and their divorce in 2002, Hager repeatedly sodomized her while she slept.[1] The article's author Ayelish McGarvey puts forward the premise that Linda Davis's allegations are of additional concern due to Hager's public role as an advocate for women's health.

 

To The Nation, Hager responded "My official comment is that I decline to comment", but in his local newspaper, the Lexington Herald-Leader, Hager stated "As I said before, the allegations as stated do not reveal all of the information and therefore they're incomplete and not true. No one likes to be criticized, no one likes to be torn apart privately or publicly and I think that it's disappointing that my former wife has chosen this avenue to vent her anger and bitterness."

 

Further concerns with his candidacy arose with his beliefs and medical assertions penned in the book "Stress and The Woman's Body", co-written with his ex-wife Linda Carruth-Davis. In the book, his writings emphasized the "restorative power of Jesus Christ in one's life" and recommended specific Scripture readings and prayers for such ailments as headaches and premenstrual syndrome.

[Vhale]

LOL!

 

[skauble]

So, next debate is the Vice Presidential debate on Thursday.

 

Frankly, I think it's kind of a must win for Biden. If he blows it, I'm not sure that even a grand slam from Obama in his next debate would be enough to balance out for his last performance.

 

Biden just needs to stay on track with the party line that they stopped an economic free fall, are on the plus side of things when it comes to adding jobs, saved the auto industry, and got unemployment under 8%.

 

But I actually think that he can win and set Obama up for victory if he does two things.

 

One, he should establish, right at the beginning, that a presidential candidate picks a running mate who shares their vision for the country. After all, you're setting this person up to be one step away from the presidency, so it would only stand to reason that you would both believe in the same things, because if something happens then the vice president is left to carry out that vision. It's only logical to pick someone you're ideologically aligned with.

 

That's a reasonable premise that I think most people will agree with. And while it's risky because any mistakes Biden makes can then be attributed directly to Obama, I think it would be worth that risk.

 

Two, once he's planted the seed that Ryan=Romney, he needs to constantly hammer in that Ryan wants to privatize Social Security, change Medicare to a voucher system, and supports personhood. And every time he brings it up he should say, "Congressman Ryan and Governor Romney believe..."

 

Because, honestly, not many people can say, for certain, what Romney believes. He tends to switch things up quite a bit. He's made himself enough of a blank slate that I think that he can be, to a certain extent, painted with Ryan's extremist brush. And I don't think that's unreasonable, considering that he's placing the man next up for the presidency.

 

If he can tether Romney to Ryan's beliefs, instead of the other way round, he'll come out ahead and Obama will have some great ammunition to use to undercut Romney.

[brairtrainer]

Thought I'd drop in and leave this here. I'm hoping that Johnson can get win the law suit before all the debates are over. We need more voice in American politics not two voices of politicans.

 

Edit: If he can't debate he'll still answer the questions

Edit 2: a debate with third party canidates interesting on how both Obama and Romney declined to be there. I think they are just scared

 

Edited October 9, 2012 by brairtrainer

[skauble]

Thought I'd drop in and leave this here. I'm hoping that Johnson can get win the law suit before all the debates are over. We need more voice in American politics not two voices of politicans.

 

Edit: If he can't debate he'll still answer the questions

Not to be a killjoy, but I'll be honest that I have serious doubts this will work out no matter how the court rules.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a very creative way to attack the problem, but his basic premise isn't that it's unfair not to include other candidates, it's that the presidency pays $400,000 dollars a year, so by excluding him from the debate they're denying him a fair chance at earning that money, which is a restraint of trade based on the creation of a monopoly.

 

Like I said earlier, it's an interesting and bold gambit because, generally speaking, Libertarians aren't all that fond of anti-trust laws. They inserts government into private transactions and disrupt the natural flow of the market. But I have a feeling this is a kind of "live by the sword, die by the sword" thing where it seems just that if the Republicans and Democrats allow all of these anti-trust laws, then they deserve to be bound by them, too.

 

But, frankly, I'm not sure it qualifies as restriction of trade, provided that A. There's no agreement between the two parties stating that they can only do CPD debates, and b. They aren't preventing anyone else from holding debates.

 

However, it's entirely possible that the court will decide that it's in the public's best interest to force the CPD to allow third parties in that meet a lesser criteria. But one has to ask, can the court force the Republican and Democrat parties to debate? Because I don't think it can. So all they have to do is refuse to debate from now on. In fact, they could just dissolve the CPD entirely.

 

It's almost certainly better for the main two parties to have no debates rather than legitimize a myriad of third parties or to face all of the additional questions that will come with them. And if the Democrats and Republicans don't show, chances are it won't receive very much coverage.

 

I just think that no matter how this goes, the third parties probably won't get what they're looking for.

[brairtrainer]

If the two main parties decide to no longer debate though they'll lose the chance to reach out to the undecided voter. I think that the if the two main parties lose a tool and the third parties keep it and hopefully get televised and/or talked about on the internet it may be a way to build up favor.

 

Basically he's backing the two main parties into a corner and demanding a descision, because if you throw the case out he can appeal it on the grounds that they aren't allowing him to campain with them

[skauble]

If the two main parties decide to no longer debate though they'll lose the chance to reach out to the undecided voter. I think that the if the two main parties lose a tool and the third parties keep it and hopefully get televised and/or talked about on the internet it may be a way to build up favor.

 

Basically he's backing the two main parties into a corner and demanding a descision, because if you throw the case out he can appeal it on the grounds that they aren't allowing him to campain with them

 

Except he's not asking the parties to make a decision. This is in the court's hands and I don't think either party will come out directly to the public and touch the matter with a ten foot pole. They'll let the courts handle it and just try to tie it up in appeals if Johnson does win on any given level. And since the Republicans have made no attempt to hide trying to get elections changed around, keep candidates off certain ballots, etc. this year, I'm sure that they'd be willing to go hardball on this and I doubt the Democrats would even try to stop them.

 

The thing is, that if Johnson actually did get an order that wasn't appealed that let him into these last debates, then he would certainly get some attention if they were canceled. But given the unique take on the argument - that it's restricting trade and that the Sherman Act should cover campaign behavior and elections - it's probably going to give some courts pause on how quickly they want to rule on a case that could have a rather broad impact. Which means that if he does win inclusion, it probably won't matter until the next election.

 

And while it's true that, at that time in the future, the Democrats and Republicans will probably draw criticism over any cancellation, deriding them doesn't mean that anyone will pay substantially more attention to third parties without the debate platform/TV coverage that they still won't have. Because that still leaves those parties in a place where they can debate amongst themselves, but they can do that now, it's just that that they feel it won't really get coverage - hence the law suit.

 

Besides, I think it would be rather easy for the Democrats and Republicans to get around the whole thing. For instance, if a University asked the two of them to come debate, they wouldn't have to include third parties and it wouldn't violate any anti-trust laws as long as the parties didn't set it up.

 

I just don't get how it's beneficial for the Democrats and Republicans to have their candidates participate in debates with third party candidates. Because chances are that they'll split off more of their own voting base than they will pick up undecided voters - that's actually the whole point, because third party candidates are saying that they would have a chance of winning if they could debate.

 

And although I really do believe that if Johnson could get an order to be let into the debates this year it would make canceling them difficult without the Democrats and Republicans looking really bad, I still don't know if that would be enough to stop them. Especially if the order only covers Johnson. Because, while Obama's camp might agree to that, I don't think Romney's camp would go anywhere near it because the votes that could go to the Libertarians are far more likely to come from the Republicans. Which is why they've fought so hard to keep other conservative choices off of the ballots this year.

 

It could also cost the parties down ticket, because if the third parties get more attention, then so will their candidates for Congress. And even a small amount of those could end up costing them control of the House and/or Senate.

 

To be clear, I'm not saying I like it, because I believe more parties would be good for us, especially after this mess over the last two years in Congress. I'm just not sure there's an upside here that is compelling enough to make the main parties do this. Is it better to lose the chance to appeal directly to 10%, maybe 15%, of voters who are undecided, most of whom will end up choosing from the main candidates anyway, or to debate third party candidates and possibly loose 30% plus of the vote (Ross Perot managed to get 19% of the vote, so it's not unreasonable to think that at least 30% could be grabbed by adding another, at least, two parties to the mix)?

[brairtrainer]

Its not compelling, but what I'm saying is that if the courts shoot it down and since most courts you have to be appointed you can argue that the judge ruled in favor of the party that appointed him. Causeing outrage on the internet.

 

If the order is given and suddenly the other debates are canceled it brings the situation out into more of the public because right now it isn't (at least in my area) covered by tv news stations.

 

Or if they don't cancel it Johnson would have a chance of winning, but so would the Green party canidate (who's name is included with Johnson's on the lawsuit)

[philpot123]

Its not compelling, but what I'm saying is that if the courts shoot it down and since most courts you have to be appointed you can argue that the judge ruled in favor of the party that appointed him. Causeing outrage on the internet.

 

If the order is given and suddenly the other debates are canceled it brings the situation out into more of the public because right now it isn't (at least in my area) covered by tv news stations.

 

Or if they don't cancel it Johnson would have a chance of winning, but so would the Green party canidate (who's name is included with Johnson's on the lawsuit)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say even if Johnson was allowed into debates, he wouldn't have a huge chance of getting elected. Not only could they pull a Ron Paul and only let him talk for 30 seconds, I think most Americans are too set in the two party system to seriously consider voting for a third party. It will take longer than a couple months to change their minds, unfortunately.

 

 

**still harboring unrealistic hopes of Ron Paul 2012**

[brairtrainer]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say even if Johnson was allowed into debates, he wouldn't have a huge chance of getting elected. Not only could they pull a Ron Paul and only let him talk for 30 seconds, I think most Americans are too set in the two party system to seriously consider voting for a third party. It will take longer than a couple months to change their minds, unfortunately.

 

 

**still harboring unrealistic hopes of Ron Paul 2012**

Some American's don't even realize there are more than two parties though. They don't realize there are more than two options. If anything this should help awaken society *Crosses fingers*