U.S. 2012 Election

[Brad Sallows]

Unless the administration has properly caved since Friday, the Friday manoeuvre which was supposed to look like a flip-flop has not been accepted.

There isn't a "rights of individual vs rights of organization" issue at stake, unless one can not distinguish between political rights and employment benefits.

 

[tomahawk6]

This issue WAS all about the Constitution. The democrats dont like the Constitution they see the document as an impediment to their statist objectives.

 

[vonGarvin]

All I said was it blows my mind that people can think it's immoral.

Fair enough (though I don't know why Santorum is even mentioned, but that's another thread, I suppose).  Anyway, a simplistic version of the argument can be found in Monty Python's "the meaning of life".  You know, "bloody catholics filling the bloody world with their bloody children" and all that.

 

[Redeye]

Based on what????  Numbers from your ***?

Based on numbers from Catholics For Choice. They've got a number of articles, research papers, and information on their site on a variety of issues. All on this topic are here: http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/contraception/keypubs.asp The 2/3 number comes from the organization's director's various submissions to the US Congress, and a message circulated by HuffPo. You can find it here: www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-obrien/catholics-birth-control-contraception_b_1110212.html

The source appears to come from this 2004 global study: http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/prevention/documents/2004worldview.pdf - it shows that actual Catholic attitudes toward sexual health, contraception, etc differ from those of the Church's authorities. From page 3:

Whatever paths Catholics choose to follow, what is evident in this report is
that Catholics are not monolithic in their views, and more often than not disagree with
the positions of the church on these issues. It is critical that those who develop public
policy and those who serve Catholics as health care and social service providers are
aware of these views. Such awareness will continue to move the church, along with the
national and international communities, toward a greater understanding of its people.

I'd go one further and say that members of any group, be it a social group, professional association, religion, whatever are not monolithic.

On page 12:

UNITED STATES:
 61% of Catholics disagree with the church’s teaching on contraception.
Source: Zogby International conducted a survey commissioned by LeMonyne College and originally
published in USA Today. Deal Hudson, “Sed Contra,” Crisis, January 1, 2002.
 60% of Catholic respondents agree or strongly agree that it is acceptable to give
birth control pills to teenagers.
Source: GSS, 2000.

Page 13:

A strong majority of American Catholic women (76%) prefer to have a community
hospital that offers emergency contraception for rape victims while more than half (57%)
want a hospital that provides it to prevent pregnancy.
Source: Religion, Reproductive Health and Access to Services: A National Survey of Women. A national
opinion survey of 1,000 women conducted by Belden Russonello and Stewart for Catholics for a Free
Choice. Washington DC: Catholics for a Free Choice. April 2000.

This one fascinated me, in fact it sharply changed the way I view Catholics. I'm adult enough to admit to generalizing probably too much, as everyone does, and on this one I was definitely wrong. It doesn't provide a gender breakdown, that I would be most interested in. I'd almost bet money that most of the prolifers are men, most of the prochoicers are women Anyone, here's what it says: Page 16:

During the 2000 US presidential election campaign, Catholic voters were more likely
to be prochoice than antichoice and a strong majority (66%) believed abortion should
be legal.

Page 21, citing what the church says:

Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to
which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury
to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a
new union, even if it is recognized by civil laws, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the
remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery.

We know that Catholics don't always agree, even though some will go through an annulment process to avoid using the term divorce. More than half of American Catholics (57%) believe it's possible to be a good Catholic while ignoring teachings on divorce and marriage (p. 22).

Page 23:

Church teachings are outdated

CANADA: 74% of Catholics agree that “the doctrine of the Catholic church regarding
things such as abortion, contraception and the marriage of priests is dated and
out of sync with the times.”
Source: Leger marketing poll of 1,503 Canadians, May 22-26, 2002.

UNITED STATES:
 64% of Catholics view the church’s teachings on sexual behavior as outdated.
Source: USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll of 256 Catholics conducted May 28-29, 2002.
 Of Catholics surveyed, 49% agree that church leaders are out of touch.
Source: William V. D’Antonio. “Trends in US Roman Catholic Attitudes, Beliefs, Behavior,” National Catholic
Reporter, October 29, 1999; 36(12); 14.

Page 26-7 discussed the church and politics:

 70% of Catholic voters during the 2002 [United States] national election campaign did not believe
that Catholic bishops should use politics to impose their moral opinions.

So, no, I didn't pull any of this out of my arse. I got it from a variety of sources. Which is why I questioned who really was so outraged about this idea. It's that simple.

 

[Redeye]

Fair enough (though I don't know why Santorum is even mentioned, but that's another thread, I suppose).  Anyway, a simplistic version of the argument can be found in Monty Python's "the meaning of life".  You know, "bloody catholics filling the bloody world with their bloody children" and all that.

Santorum, generally, has made the most "controversial" (outrageous?) statements on the issue. It's particularly rich for him, given that despite his efforts to describe it in other terms, his wife, on the advice of a physician, terminated a pregnancy (which, colloquially, is called an "abortion").

 

[PuckChaser]

It's particularly rich for him, given that despite his efforts to describe it in other terms, his wife, on the advice of a physician, terminated a pregnancy (which, colloquially, is called an "abortion").

I'm not a Catholic, but I'm pretty sure that's the only reason Catholics are allowed to have abortions? Obviously her health was at risk with the pregnancy. He's allowed to have his views, and dragging his wife's difficulties with pregnancy is dirty pool IMO.

 

[Redeye]

I'm not a Catholic, but I'm pretty sure that's the only reason Catholics are allowed to have abortions? Obviously her health was at risk with the pregnancy. He's allowed to have his views, and dragging his wife's difficulties with pregnancy is dirty pool IMO.

It depends - they run the gamut, though it seems Catholics are more pragmatic about it. Most of the "not even for rape or incest" types seem to be extremist evangelicals. And you're right. It is. So I'll withdraw the comment - besides, without it there's no shortage of reasons why Santorum shouldn't (and won't) get the nomination.

 

[PuckChaser]

besides, without it there's no shortage of reasons why Santorum shouldn't (and won't) get the nomination.

I would agree with you here that Santorum is far too right-wing to be a real challenge to the White House. Some of his stuff comes right out of the 1950s.

 

[Redeye]

I would agree with you here that Santorum is far too right-wing to be a real challenge to the White House. Some of his stuff comes right out of the 1950s.

Yes - I was also of the understanding that didn't believe in the "rape, incest, life of the mother" exception concept for abortions. He's made some conflicting statements about it, but it seems that's pretty clearly his position.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

These discussions of religion are all fluff, and at the end of the day, irrelevant issues that serve as distractions from the real issues.  The real trend for messaging should be the fact that Obama has:
1.  wracked up a ton of debt (with another $901 billion coming);
2. Not really accomplished anything (Even the majority of Obamacare doesn't kick in until next year);
3. Conducted a military engagement in Libya without consulting congress or passing any sort of real bill;
4. Violated the territorial integritym, ie- invaded, Pakistan to get Bin Laden (Which was good to kill him, but still internationally illegal);
5. Not really fixed any of the other problems in the country (Mortgages, etc).

His appologists will say it's because of the fact that the GOP blocked everything he was trying to do, but he did have a great deal of time with a Democratic congress and senate, and didn't really do much there either.  Except wrack up debt.... he's good at that.

Bush dealt with the same issues when he was president, having a democratic house- he just didn't have the media love in that Obama has.

America will likely go with Obama in 2012, pushing it further into the gutter

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Based on numbers from Catholics For Choice.- This seems like a pretty0 neatural site

And the Huffington post? Another neutral source.

And you ALWAYS rail on fox news, why?

 

[Redeye]

HuffPo isn't the source I'm citing. It's the source of the surface quoted stat, which I then provided the sources for, in detail. When you can refute them all (and they use a vast swath of surveys and research studies), come on back.

 

[Redeye]

Bush dealt with the same issues when he was president, having a democratic house- he just didn't have the media love in that Obama has.

It's like you're not even trying. The Democrats held the House of Representatives for 25% of Bush's term in office. They won a majority of the house in 2006. Ditto the Senate.

 

[Redeye]

These discussions of religion are all fluff, and at the end of the day, irrelevant issues that serve as distractions from the real issues.

I suspect that the fluff is necessary to keep discussion away from things like Mitt's offshore assets and taxes, or his healthcare record, or whatever else they may not wish to discuss.

As for the messaging, I'll submit some problems for consideration:

The real trend for messaging should be the fact that Obama has:
1.  wracked up a ton of debt (with another $901 billion coming);

The platforms of the GOP contenders do the same - or worse - via their tax plans. There's no credibility for them on this issue.

2. Not really accomplished anything (Even the majority of Obamacare doesn't kick in until next year);

Not accomplished anything the GOP likes. However, he's accomplished a lot. Here's a first year list: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/19/805925/-90-Accomplishments-of-Pres-Obama-Which-The-Media-Fails-to-Report- - since then there's been more. I'm pretty sure that Obama's campaign will highlight. As far as Obamacare goes, some of the most important provisions are already in place - enabling people to get coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, children to stay on parents' plans until age 26, etc.

3. Conducted a military engagement in Libya without consulting congress or passing any sort of real bill;

This might go somewhere, but it's conceivable that it can be deflected by pointing out that a broad based UN sanctioned operation got rid of a long standing thorn in the side of the USA and an affront to its ideals of democracy.

4. Violated the territorial integritym, ie- invaded, Pakistan to get Bin Laden (Which was good to kill him, but still internationally illegal);

I'm going to laugh pretty hard if they actually go down this road.

5. Not really fixed any of the other problems in the country (Mortgages, etc).

Did you miss the deal that was just struck this week? That's a pretty good start to fixing things. More importantly, I think this would be great to see become a major debate topic. I'd like to see some really good efforts to come up with ideas on how to move forward.

His appologists will say it's because of the fact that the GOP blocked everything he was trying to do, but he did have a great deal of time with a Democratic congress and senate, and didn't really do much there either.  Except wrack up debt.... he's good at that.

Having a Democratic Congress didn't help much. Unlike Canada's Parliament which has pretty strict party discipline and tends to debate bills with a single focus, the US Congress will debate bills with all sorts of riders and interests injected. The Democrats were not a unified force, the debate over healthcare reform showed that.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Not accomplished anything the GOP likes. However, he's accomplished a lot. Here's a first year list: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/19/805925/-90-Accomplishments-of-Pres-Obama-Which-The-Media-Fails-to-Report- - since then there's been more. I'm pretty sure that Obama's campaign will highlight. As far as Obamacare goes, some of the most important provisions are already in place - enabling people to get coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, children to stay on parents' plans until age 26, etc.


Yes, here's some of the more ridiculous gems from this list:

29. Better body armor is now being provided to our troops- Do you REALLY believe that Obama did that?
82. New Afghan War policy that limits aerial bombing and prioritizes aid, development of infrastructure, diplomacy, and good government practices by Afghans- Pretty sure that he actually INCREASED aerial bombing (into Pakistan too) and the change was occuring well before Obama came on the scene;
83. Held first Seder in White House- Zip da dee doo
89. Has announced his intention to push for energy reform- I intend to be a millionaire by the time I'm 40? Did I now accomplish something
90. Has announced his intention to push for education reform- See above
13. Phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane and other outdated weapons systems, which weren't even used or needed in Iraq/Afghanistan- Based on the restrictions in the F-35 this is showing to be a mistake, particularly in the face of developments of new Gen fighters in China and Russia;
1. Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending
2. Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices

For the last 2, he ordered reviews, but there hasn't been any actual spending cuts, just increases.  For number 2, he should likely start with Obamacare.  Seems like wasteful spending and increased costs at a time when the rest of the world is going into austerity measures.

The guy who wrote this list forgot these Obama accomplishments:

91.  The sun came up every single day that Obama has been president;
92.  The population of the US has gone up since he became president;
93.  kate and Will got married while he was president;
94. The United States tectonic plates have moved approx 8 inches west since he became president, so relations with Asia are closer than ever;
95. The Leafs still haven't won a cup (a great victory for everyone outside of S Ontario).

The one on the list I found strange was teh loan guarantees for Israel...

That said, the GOP isn't a great option either.  I'm not arguing FOR them (which you seem to imply), I just dont see what the love for Obama is.  From the Canadian side of our border, he appears to be a dither-er who likes to commission studies, give lots of speeches, but in the end, not really accomplish a whole lot.  A list of 90 things means that he accomplished 22.5 things a year... and a large number of those items seem to be things that happened in spite of Obama than because of anything he did.

 

[Redeye]

You need to learn how the quote function works.

I didn't write the list, and most of them are minor. But not all. the contention you made was "he hasn't done much of anything", which I think is aptly demonstrated to be false. Is you want a better interactive and constantly updated list, check out the humourously named http://whatthef***hasobamadonesofar.com/ You will, of course, need to replace the asterisks with the appropriate letters.

As far as Obamacare goes, the CBO's studies showed (and still show) that it will SAVE money in the long term, so that's a bit of a red herring.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

You need to learn how the quote function works.

I didn't write the list, and most of them are minor. But not all. the contention you made was "he hasn't done much of anything", which I think is aptly demonstrated to be false. Is you want a better interactive and constantly updated list, check out the humourously named http://whatthef***hasobamadonesofar.com/ You will, of course, need to replace the asterisks with the appropriate letters.

As far as Obamacare goes, the CBO's studies showed (and still show) that it will SAVE money in the long term, so that's a bit of a red herring.

You used the list as an example of what Obama has done.  So by any standard, you proved that Obama really hasn't done much of anything.  If anyone in the military had only 90 things they had accomplished over a 4 year period and the majority of those things were A) Not really due to anything they did, and B) not really actually accomplishing anything (calling meetings or suggesting a service paper by written) than HOPEFULLY that person would not be a MOI, which is what you seem to suggest Obama is, unless of course, the person writing his PER was biased towards him (which is what you are doing). 

As for the quote function... I'll use it properly when you properly apply logic instead of just refuting things with biased left wing evidence or studies you say you've read.  I have no dog in the US hunt so to speak, but I remember that during the last election Obama spoke of changing the world, and he seemed to have a spark.  Since then, the US is essentially exactly the same, except a few trillion dollars poorer, and with more income inbalance. 

YES WE CAN!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Redeye]

You used the list as an example of what Obama has done.  So by any standard, you proved that Obama really hasn't done much of anything.  If anyone in the military had only 90 things they had accomplished over a 4 year period and the majority of those things were A) Not really due to anything they did, and B) not really actually accomplishing anything (calling meetings or suggesting a service paper by written) than HOPEFULLY that person would not be a MOI, which is what you seem to suggest Obama is, unless of course, the person writing his PER was biased towards him (which is what you are doing). 

I'm trying to figure out exactly what logical fallacy this is. I think non sequitur sort of applies. The means of assessing the term of a president and someone in the military are totally different, in every imaginable way. By the nature of the structure of the US government, while the Chief Executive ultimately bears responsibility for what happens over his term (remember "the buck stops here"?), Presidents cannot initiate legislation themselves.

As for the quote function... I'll use it properly when you properly apply logic instead of just refuting things with biased left wing evidence or studies you say you've read.  I have no dog in the US hunt so to speak, but I remember that during the last election Obama spoke of changing the world, and he seemed to have a spark.  Since then, the US is essentially exactly the same, except a few trillion dollars poorer, and with more income inbalance.

Another non sequitur. I was merely suggesting it's easier to follow posts if the quotes are done properly.

I eagerly await your refuting the study you're criticizing (actually, it's a summary of something like 20 studies). I trust that since you're so keen to dismiss them, you in fact actually have evidence that does that.

Wait, you don't? Alright then. Moving right along...

Saying the USA is "exactly the same" is patently false. Tell that people who finally have health insurance. Tell that to gays who now can serve in the military without their career being ended on account of who they are. (If you don't think that's significant, look at the stats on how many people were kicked out under DADT - linguists, intelligence analysts, pilots - people in whom massive amounts of money had been invested). Tell that to 11 million children (4 million of whom were uninsured) who got health insurance when President Obama signed a bill getting them coverage. Tell that to hundreds of thousands of Americans who worked in the auto industry or have jobs tied to it - that's small business people in towns all over America.

Is everything rosy in the USA? Not even a little bit. Things are still pretty rough there. But a country that prides itself on solving its problems can do better. It will. Handing more money to its wealthiest citizens (which seems to be the only real platform promoted by the GOP) won't do it. Invading Iran doesn't do it (and it terrifies me that there are some of them talking about such things. Slashing at the social programs that are keeping people from starving in the streets won't do it. There is absolutely room to discuss changing any programs, and nothing should be off the table, but where are the reasonable proposals? Where's the effort from the Congress? More people need to get engaged, and the noise has to be gotten out of the system. Problem is that the keeping the signal-to-noise ratio as low as possible is vital to one party in particular for their own survival. What a sad system.

So, is the guy the greatest President ever? Don't know. Don't think so. FDR was more bold in dealing with crises, but I have to wonder how different the climate he faced then was. I think there was a little less "Eff you I've got mine"/"Pull the ladder up, I'm alright" mentality then. But that's merely a guess.

YES WE CAN!!!!!!!!!!

If you're talking about President Obama winning a second term, yeah. It shouldn't be that hard, either.

 

[Jed]

Saying the USA is "exactly the same" is patently false. Tell that people who finally have health insurance. Tell that to gays who now can serve in the military without their career being ended on account of who they are. (If you don't think that's significant, look at the stats on how many people were kicked out under DADT - linguists, intelligence analysts, pilots - people in whom massive amounts of money had been invested). Tell that to 11 million children (4 million of whom were uninsured) who got health insurance when President Obama signed a bill getting them coverage. Tell that to hundreds of thousands of Americans who worked in the auto industry or have jobs tied to it - that's small business people in towns all over America.


So, is the guy the greatest President ever? Don't know. Don't think so. FDR was more bold in dealing with crises, but I have to wonder how different the climate he faced then was. I think there was a little less "Eff you I've got mine"/"Pull the ladder up, I'm alright" mentality then. But that's merely a guess.

Holy cow, talk about non sequitor, Batman! These comments of yours some how imply that the DADT policy previously followed by the US military was entirely responsible for any number of just and unjust terfing out of various individuals of their Armed Services and that the day was saved by the Magnificent Rainbow Warrior Commander in Chief, himself, President Barack Obama. What a stretch that is.

Then you go on to imply many other great things were accomplished, ranging from medically saving 4 million children and hundred's of thousands of Auto workers. You also equate all of those Auto sector union workers as small business in America.

Wow! Hail the Chief!

 

[Redeye]

Holy cow, talk about non sequitor, Batman! These comments of yours some how imply that the DADT policy previously followed by the US military was entirely responsible for any number of just and unjust terfing out of various individuals of their Armed Services and that the day was saved by the Magnificent Rainbow Warrior Commander in Chief, himself, President Barack Obama. What a stretch that is.

President Obama could have ended DADT by executive order without much trouble. Lots of people were angry he didn't right away. However, by making sure it was done by an Act of Congress ensure that it can't easily be undone. Well played by him. Thirteen thousand people who volunteered to serve and defend their country were fired under DADT for nothing more than who they are, by the way.

Then you go on to imply many other great things were accomplished, ranging from medically saving 4 million children and hundred's of thousands of Auto workers. You also equate all of those Auto sector union workers as small business in America.

I didn't imply anything about kids. I said it outright. Here's one link on it: http://themiddleclass.org/bill/children039s-health-insurance-program-reauthorization-act-2009

Nor did I equate auto sector workers with small business. However, saving the auto industry saved lots of small businesses too. Why? Because depending on which study you look at, each auto sector job supported something like 5-7 jobs in their communities. That's restaurants, coffee shops, all sorts of other businesses. When a major employer in a town disappears, it's not just the people who work there that suffer. The income they lose was money that was often spent in their communities, so the businesses that depended on that spending also fail. That's economics 101, something called "the multiplier".