Do you have a reference to that? I assumed it was a quote, because of the quotation marks, but it isn't. What DNC platform points are you talking about?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 |OT3| If it's not a legitimate OT the mods have ways to shut it down
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
Do you have a reference to that? I assumed it was a quote, because of the quotation marks, but it isn't. What DNC platform points are you talking about?
It is like Grover Norquist said, all they need is a guy that can sign his name on the papers.
It's a mocking response to Stinkles. Thus the 'derp derp'.
RustyNails
Member
That's who Romney is, so no wonder the RNC establishment thought he was their guy. Too bad for them that it turned out Romney is an incompetent politician.
Huh? So someone points out that the Republican platform has a whole lot of clear and explicit anti-abortion language, and suggests that this is a reason to think that Republicans, if elected, might work towards those ends (also he pointed out that Republicans haven't exactly been shy about talking about their position on abortion). You then invent fictional content for the Democrats' platform. I don't follow.
TacticalFox88
Banned
SO...about Romney making a comeback in less than a month or so...
It's the same platform as 2004 and 2008. It's mostly the same platform that existed since 1980.
And Republican presidents since then have done a pretty good job of appointing Supreme Court justices who aren't very friendly to Roe v Wade, which is by far the most effective means available to them to do something about abortion.
SO...about Romney making a comeback in less than a month or so...
The only way Romney can turn things around is with a resounding victory at all the debates. It seems unlikely but it's not over until it's over.
Republican presidents have elected 8 Supreme Court Justices since 1980. Democrats have elected 4.
When exactly was Roe v Wade in danger?
Aaron Strife
Banned
The thing is obama doesn't have to win the debates. He just has to not lose.
That said he'll win. Romney's a living strawman.
I know this was mentioned yesterday, but I didn't see the entire quote from Mittens:
What. The. Fuck.
He's insulting his idiot base right there in big bold letters. How the fuck was there no backlash toward this? I haven't heard a single person mention either that line or the other thing all day.
What. The. Fuck.
He's insulting his idiot base right there in big bold letters. How the fuck was there no backlash toward this? I haven't heard a single person mention either that line or the other thing all day.
Roe v Wade was a 7 to 2 decision in 1973. It was very nearly overturned in a 5 to 4 decision in 1992, and only wasn't because Kennedy changed his mind.
There have since been several 5 to 4 decisions on abortion which have tended to expand the ability of states to proscribe it in many situations.
It's pretty plausible that if Ginsburg, Breyer, or Kennedy get replaced under a Republican president, Roe v Wade is done for. Ginsburg is almost 80; Kennedy is 76, and unlike Ginsburg probably isn't going to make a special effort to leave under a Democrat.
SO...about Romney making a comeback in less than a month or so...
The disparity between the only thing Romney is ahead on and the things right above it is insane.
speculawyer
Member
Yep. (1) is an example where 'free speech' goes overboard. They should be able to restrict drug advertisements. It is commercial speech and that can be more tightly regulated. Coke can't say that Pepsi has rat poop in it. So why shouldn't drug makers be more restricted to stop advertising drugs in a way that causes people to self-diagnose and go ask doctors for drugs that they don't need.
one of my all-time favorite ads.
Battersea Power Station
Member
Heh, I just saw this clip. Between this and Willard's secret video, it seems like we're entering the next phase of conservatives' outrage. Until now it's been framed as these horrible forces of Obama, Pelosi, The New York Times, etc. taking advantage of the mythical "the American people." But when the evil liberal forces become more and more of "the American people" that facade has to fall away. I look forward to the GOP trying their eventual message of "Look, you people are idiots; just trust us about this stuff" and seeing how well that plays.
speculawyer
Member
Right now! You can't compare Republican Supreme Court nominations back from when the GOP was sane to today when they are they run candidates like Bachmann, Perry, Santorum, etc. I lived through the zenith of the Moral Majority and they were never much more than televangelist nuisances . . . but today the Christian-right has many people in positions of power.
If Romney won and Ruth Ginsberg's cancer claimed her life . . . it could be overturned within a year.
speculawyer
Member
The number of times I drop the important word 'not' out of sentences is scary.
SO...about Romney making a comeback in less than a month or so...
Holy shit, Obama holds a +43 advantage on the "being able to have a beer with them" stat. I know Romney is incredibly out of touch, but +43, holy shit.
BTW, can I get a source for this? Want to parade this around to some republicans.
8 of the sitting justices in 1992 were Republican appointees. With 2 of them being the most conservative that have ever taken the bench. Conventional wisdom was that Roe v Wade was 'done for' in 1992.
Black Mamba
Member
Romney is simply lying. Even according to their own supposed citations, it says over the long term it will be revenue neutral. It figures in growth in the economy. Even if you accept their ridiculous claims here, it's still a tax cut in the short term and not revenue neutral in the short term. Guaranteed. You can't defy math. 2+2=4 and nothing changes this.
And any tax cut that claims to pay for itself based on economic growth in the future is a reduction in taxes paid. How can it not be?
Romney is saying if you make $100 and give $20 to gov't, that in 10 years you will make $120 and give $20 to gov't. THAT IS STILL A TAX CUT. It doesn't matter if it is revenue neutral.
besides, the assumptions in the 2 studies are like a perfect storm scenario for Mittens. Even Mankiw, who is on his team, doesn't believe in that bullshit.
edit: he also mischaracterizes his citations: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ey/romney-claims-5-studies-back-his-tax-plan/ MOSTLY FALSE
Hard to overturn when Sandra Day O'Conner controlled the Court (with Kennedy 2nd).
Many developed countries have a fee for service system. Canada is 83% FFS reimbursement.
In the US the purest form of fee for service is offered by Medicare.
Major insurance plans, at least here in the Northeast usually have plans that are provider group level capped or network capped but fee for service on individual physian level. Heck, reimbursement of many physicians here is a mix not unlike what you will see in the UK system - a mix of FFS, capitation, salary and pay for performance metric based reimbursement (usually a withold from the network cap pool).
Why does the public think that more=better? Partially because of FFS model but partially because natural line of thinking is to assume that more test and more studies is better.
Also when people are dealing with life and death, rational thinking is often not easy.
Here is are my arguements:
1. Americans have to either accept insane costs of healthcare or accept rationing.
2. Rationing only makes sense if done the British way - namely when you use quality of life test and put an actual cost cutoff number for any major and expensive intervention.
3. Medicare cannot apply quality-of-life tests in determining the cost-effectiveness of treatment - they can only pay the bills, no matter the size - and end of life medicare expenses is where you get the most unneeded care.
4. Currently rationing is only done by private insurances and done in a haphazard way based on finding some kind of loophole in the policy. It does not save much money because of the opportunistic nature as opposed to the using the quality of life tests. Once again, Medicare does not ration, and it is Medicare expenses that need to be cut.
5. Trying to adopt the UK model of rationing will be political suicide for quite some time.
Usually when I present these arguments, I get catcalls "you bastard, you want to kill grandma" - from both sides of the aisle.
NullPointer
Member
It certainly could, but Romney has stated that he would not overturn Roe vs Wade even though in his heart he would like it to come to pass, because as a people America is not 'there yet' - it was as good an answer you could get from a social conservative - but then again he's said a lot of things, and turned 180s without even blinking.
My worries with Romney are manifold. Even if he says he wouldn't seek to overturn Roe vs. Wade he would act to place more conservative judges, and his party would continue to chip away at a woman's capability to get prenatal care as well as try to enact more shame policies.
If anything Romney has shown us that he'll tow whatever line is passed to him, so whatever madness the Republicans want they'll push hard. What madness? Defunding social services, removing the promise of benefits from Medicare and trying to privatize as many government services as possible.
Not to mention the kind of presence and leadership he seems incapable of showing to a domestic audience or on the world stage. The last person I want speaking for this country amidst some new unforeseen crisis is Mitt Romney. We've gotten to see him under pressure and behind closed doors. He's reactive, overly aggressive, looks down on a sizable swath of the American public and has no problem bald faced lying to any audience that will listen even though he doesn't have the mannerisms to hide his dishonesty. If you're going to lie, for god's sake at least be good at it, have some charm and persuasion, and use that lie to better things in this country.
I'd expect a Mitt Romney presidency to be ruled by committee. One that puts future Republican gains and neoconservative ideas ahead of policies that help all Americans. That seeks privatization over the general welfare. That extends the myth of the 47% freeloaders and seeks to cut benefits to provide incentives to work for lower wages with fewer benefits. That seeks to run government as a business, and while giving lip service to reducing entitlements will still heap huge subsidies on big energy, undermine regulation on the financial sector and throw gobs more of the treasury at our military to keep those industries happy.
That's my fear, in broad strokes. You need a leader who can provide a vision of long term prosperity and try to invest in that future as well as one capable of nuance in diplomacy and decisive aggression when needed, with a measured hand who is not quick to pounce on the latest developments. That person is not Mitt Romney.
Blackmun and Stevens predate 1980. Kennedy is famously wishy-washy on the issue, and hardly a strong defender of Roe v Wade. Only Souter stands out as any kind of evidence that Republican presidents haven't gone for pro-life judges since 1980, and he was certainly expected to be conservative when confirmed. Edit: And O'Connor, who was right on the line at 1981 and who was noted for attempting to make very narrow decisions. It's worth pointing out again that abortion at the Surpreme Court did go from 7-2 to 5-4, and it was 5 to 4 even with 20 years of precedent behind it.
But also I don't really know what you're saying, or if you're just arguing in order to be contrary. Do you actually think that, if Mitt Romney gets to pick the replacement for Kennedy, the new justice will probably uphold Roe v Wade? Or is there some bizarre conservation principle at work here and Scalia will suddenly start voting with the liberal wing? What if Romney gets to appoint a replacement for Ginsburg?
NihonTiger90
Member
As I said, nobody rations Medicare and this is where you get the most unnecessary care.
Conventional wisdom also said that Obamacare was going to get overturned and then Roberts happened.
Since we are playing the what if game, what if Breyer and Ginsburg hold on for 4 years and Scalia retires and Clarence Thomas passes away? Then Democrats in the Senate obstruct and successfully get 2 judges that are less socially conservative than those two?
What if ...
Yes. And we were fortunate Bush 41 unwittingly appointed Souter. Had he appointed another Thomas, the outcome would have been radically different. Or had Bork been confirmed instead of Kennedy. We may have been heretofore fortunate, but I am unwilling to risk another Republican appointee. They clearly prefer justices who restrict abortion rights.
Battersea Power Station
Member
This pretty much nails it.
I'm also thinking that I'd like to get married someday. Here, in Louisiana. And I don't see the
How on earth is this relevant?
Yes, if Republicans are prevented from appointing the justices they want, the justices we get will be more likely to uphold Roe v Wade. Are you conceding that Republicans actually do try to appoint justices that oppose Roe v Wade, and that it's important for people who don't want it overturned to try to push back against their appointment preferences?
I'm conceding that Thomas and Scalia are at the very far spectrum of how conservative a judge will be and it is most likely that anyone that passes through a divided, polarized congress is going to be far less socially conservative than those two.
Plus, Mitt Romney's governing background doesn't give any indication of someone that proudly holds the conservative banner (especially on social issues). He has begrudgingly had to hold it in an effort to get votes.
Plus, Mitt Romney's governing background doesn't give any indication of someone that proudly holds the conservative banner (especially on social issues). He has begrudgingly had to hold it in an effort to get votes.
speculawyer
Member
Consult some actuary tables.
And Scalia retires? LOL. You know little Nino better than that.
If Clarence Thomas dies? If he did, Scalia would just prop him up Weekend at Bernie's style. In fact I think he maybe doing that right now. You certainly would literally not know the difference based on the questions Thomas asks.
Black Mamba
Member
As i previously stated, Roberts is economically liberal.
That said, I am not convinced GOP brass wants RvW overturned as it's a rallying cry for 'em.
Roberts wanted to provide political cover while getting in a dig at the commerce clause. He's not a moderate.
That plays a part, but it is end of life where the real costs happen.
Do read the article, it is a good read.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/02/100802fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=1
speculawyer
Member
I'm sure many of them don't want it overturned. But you can't control the monsters you create. They created this Tea-bagger class that thinks Obama is a Kenyan Muslim, cutting taxes will always increase revenue, and Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs. The created Palin and they can't control her. They are just lucky McCain lost.
But new justices don't need to be as conservative as Thomas and Scalia in order for abortion rights in the US to be substantially eroded. They need to be marginally more conservative than Kennedy. And of course there's always the nuclear option if Republicans control the Senate, which is reasonably likely in 2014 if not 2012; it's pretty clear that our politics has been moving towards /someone/ deciding to end the filibuster.
Likewise, Romney doesn't need to be very conservative. But as long as he's not a secret liberal, why not appoint an anti-abortion judge when a huge portion of his base will be howling for him to do so? If he puts up someone who isn't at least on-face pro-life, the Republican base is going to turn the situation into another Harriet Miers (to be clear, I'm not saying that the base revolting over Miers had to do primarily with abortion).
And what happens if he wins and has to payback those people for holding their noses and supporting him?
I like how Obama is +4 in "Can get things done" when Republicans have bet the past 3 years on obstructing everything Obama has tried to do.
You called me a hypocrite dude. At least acknowledge my logic even if your instinct or calculation is different. I am literally going by their platform statement, even if you ignore the disturbing momentum the party is following.
Further, the illustrious Republican appointees delivered a fairly conservative decision. They may have affirmed Roe v. Wade by an uncomfortable margin. But they also permitted numerous new restrictions on reproductive rights. Again, there's a clear dichotomy between each party's respective appointees.
There's much convergence between the four conservative justices. Thomas and Scalia are not radically more conservative than Roberts and especially Alito. And I expect the next Republican president to make similar appointments.
Will his impetus for feigning conservatism disappear after the election? No. Bush even capitulated to his base after the backlash against his appointee. And that was after his reelection. The strategy of dodging bullets is not salutary. Forgive us for rejecting it.
BuggyDClown
Member
Any chance of getting democratic utopia, or is the house just not up for grabs?
It's competitive. There's some variation in projecting which party has the advantage. But Democrats have respectable prospects.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-more-campaign-money-spend-romney-015028174--election.html
So Obama campaign had $88 million in cash on hand at the end of August, Romney $50.4 million (and owes $15 million on a $20 million dollar loan)
So Obama campaign had $88 million in cash on hand at the end of August, Romney $50.4 million (and owes $15 million on a $20 million dollar loan)
Thank you, sir!
Not nearly as hot as some of the other Latina news people, or Latina telenovella actresses, but yeah sure, would smash.
- Status