The 2012 US Election

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The real irony is that there is tremendous similarity -- at least policy-wise -- between candidate Obama circa 2012, and candidate Romney circa 1994, or even 2002. But that ship has sailed long since.

[Primula Baggins]

Oh, so that's what you mean by huge differences - who they split for. I thought people were referring to ideological differences.

Umm . . . the split is because of the ideological differences. As in, no you cannot have birth control, you little slut, versus Planned Parenthood. Or, if you want to go to college, borrow from your parents, versus we will give you a hand up and expect you to pay us back. Or, back to Central America, you wetback who arrived at age 18 months and graduated cum laude from an American high school, versus show us you can benefit this country and we'll let you work toward citizenship. Or, get out of our sight and shut up, versus congratulations on your marriage and reenlistment.

Cause, effect.

[vison]

I very much hope that Mr. Obama is not going to be sunk by the way the administration seems to have screwed up on the attack in Libya.

For the luvva pete. It was obvious it was a terrorist attack and they should NOT have leapt in asserting it wasn't. And it's been mishandled ever since.

[Primula Baggins]

At this point I don't think anything that's already happened is going to sink him.

The FBI agents not being able to get to the crime scene—that's on Libya, not the administration. I'm sure it was a competent team. They just couldn't get into the country.

[vison]

CNN found the ambassador's journal. Were there NO US agents on the ground who could have been at the site?

I am shocked, to be honest.

[Holbytla]

I realize this is futile and probably unwise, but here it is anyway;

There is no question that there is common thread that runs through all politicians. They are all, to some extent arrogant, myopic, and tainted by a corrupt system. If they weren’t, they would never get elected.

I agree, but as I get older I am finding it more and more difficult to be tolerant of "politicians per usual" and I find myself wondering why we accept poor standards and what, if anything, we can do to make genuine changes.

But it is a mistake, in my opinion, to conclude therefore that there is no real difference between them, or no reason to choose among them.

I agree and disagree.
There is a saying among the people of Guatemala, at least the ones I am acquainted with, that says, "Es el mismo perro con diferente collar", which I guess is roughly translated to "same dog, different collar".

Of course, there are reasons to choose among them and of course there are differences between candidates as there is a difference between a pug and a great dane. Depending on your viewpoints in life, one side or the other is going to apparently better serve what you see as best for the direction of this country.
Apparently, I say, because even the best intentions get waylaid by ability, congress, and the courts. Not to mention the dissenters.

Yet at the same time, no matter who wins, they are going to serve specific interests, disregard a large portion of the country's population, and continue to be a part of the machine that is responsible for ineffective leadership and special interests.

Some dogs are better at protection and some are better at cuddling. They are all still dogs though.

Why would anyone support the type of person that is enmeshed in such a dysfunctional system, and is part of the problem? Why is there not a single person willing to throw their self on the sword and say, "enough of the insane direction that this country is heading in, this has to stop"?

Is it because the candidate wouldn't be elected? Whose fault is that? The voters for continuing to support people that partake in a system and behavior that is unacceptable, they perceive their candidate has the right answers for all of America, and because they fear the other candidate.

I would be a huge Obama endorser if he achieved zero agenda passed and stood up and attempted to make real change in this country and did not accept business as usual, rather than eke by some needed social agenda and continue to be part of the problem.

Obama is the Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces of America. Take that for what it is worth, but that is his title. As was Bush and Nixon and Carter and Clinton etc.
The buck is supposed to stop at their desk.
During Obama’s tenure, there was the repeal of the “don’t ask don’t tell policy”. There have also been thousands of rapes and murders of military personnel... Thousands. Yet nobody wants to talk about that aspect of his command.
I don't care what his ideals are and how they differ from Romney's, if he has already failed those people that were raped and murdered. I don’t accept that and can’t support that by endorsing him over someone who appears less competent, and purports ideals that are different from my likes.

We tend to gloss over the failings of politicians, and shine the light on the positive aspects that appeal to us.

Yes, Obama and Romney are different. So too were Obama and Bush.
Guantanamo Bay is still open for business. Obama extended the Patriot Act, which every anti-Bush person railed against. Soldiers are still in Afghanistan. How is it okay to castigate one president for those things and excuse another? I didn’t support those things then and I can’t excuse them now. Sure, the candidates are different dogs, but they both still pee on the carpet. I don’t want my carpet peed on anymore by anyone.

Immigration is still a huge problem in this country. Rather than pass meaningful legislation, Obama sidestepped congress and signed an executive order, giving immigrants a stay on deportation for two years. If a child is brought here at six months old, illegally by his parents, and remains here past his or her 18th birthday, how is that child still illegal? Obama has failed to address that in a long-term meaningful way despite promises to do so. Surely, his ideals are different from Romney’s on immigration. Romney wants to offer more visas so the ginormous corporations can keep payroll down by employing non-citizens. I’m sure the rest of Romney’s stance on immigration is along those same lines, and he is more interested in his benefits than those of the immigrants. Yes, there is a difference between Obama and Romney on immigration. Immigration is still broken, so there is no practical difference. Only a difference in empty words.

Paul Begala, Bill Clinton and James Carville had it right. "It's the economy, stupid". People want jobs and want to take care of their families. People are tired of spilling the blood of our brothers, sisters and children for idiotic causes. People are tired of the never-ending ideological battles in lieu of peace and food. Tired of overwhelming taxes, tired of overseas corporations sucking profits from this country, tired of outsourcing jobs, tired of everything being produced somewhere else, tired of lower quality products, tired of people siphoning from the system, doing more for less, paying through the teeth for substandard education, lies and half truths, broken promises and lack of leadership.

Yeah there is a difference between Romney and Obama, but no matter who is elected they will be willingly be part of the same failed system for the sake of being elected and kowtowing to one segment of the population over another and ignoring the majority, saying what they have to say to get elected, passing enough legislation to support their segment of the population and failing to actually reform the government and put this country back on course.

Sure, there are differences in social, economic, and military ideals, but the candidates are all part of the same problem. We as voters continue to perpetuate that problem because the candidates support ideals we want and because they are in appearance less evil than the other side. I understand that. It is probably the best we can do. I just won't do it anymore. I won't vote for anyone with any history of being part of the problem.

I happen to believe that more than half of this country hovers somewhere around the middle of the spectrum. The majority if you will.

I find that those people, in my experience, are tired of the never-ending tug-of-war of the left and right. Tired of not really being represented. Tired of the old broken machine that we continue to support.

At some point, this is going to come to a head, as we have seen with the Arab spring. At least I hope so, before we are totally beaten down by ginormous corporations, politicians, nanny states and a system that no longer serves the best interest of the people it is suppose to serve.

Sure there are differences. One gives with the left and takes with the right. One gives with the right and takes with the left. One is lifting up from the bottom and one is pushing down from the top.
The majority in the middle are being squashed like bugs from all sides.

This isn't to say Romney deserves a vote, but at least he has the benefit of not failing as a president yet.

So yeah pick one over the other depending on what you believe, but don't expect the insanity to stop.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

[vison]

How would you fix it?

[Holbytla]

How would you fix it?

You're asking for a 10,000 word post, and that wouldn't be enough.
I'll try and come up with something.

[axordil]

There were some relevant observations I read yesterday concerning the handful of progressives who object enough to the use of drones to not vote for Obama's re-election. They apply generally, though:

1) Voting for the lesser of two evils by supporting the greater yields predictable results.

2) Voting for a third party candidate is statistically identical to giving half a vote to the major candidate you like less.

3) The last third party candidate to have a real effect on politics (as opposed to just an election) was TR in 1912, and he was a former president.

Most importantly:

4) If you want to redirect a river, you don't start where it meets the ocean. You start near the river's sources:

If you want the American political system to become more responsive to the concerns of civil libertarians, you have to make it more responsive. And you do that by utilizing the tremendous influence available to dedicated interests within the system. The two parties aren’t particularly centralized—they draw their talent and resources from smaller state parties, who in turn draw from local and county parties. It’s possible for a dedicated group of people to take control of a local party, field a candidate, win, and expand outwards.

It’s hard work—and a lot of time and persuasion—but it can happen. Moreover, it can be translated to influence on a presidential scale. In five years, opposition to the Iraq War went from a minority position in the Democratic Party, to a litmus test for the party’s nomination. It’s when you’ve built a strong constituency for your interests, and shaped the contours of the debate, that you can shape the conduct of a presidency.

(http://prospect.org/article/should-you- ... rack-obama)

As I said, the particulars aside, this applies to either party and any cause.

Of course, dealing with the money problem would help, especially down-ticket. State legislatures are bargains.

[Primula Baggins]

Ax has the right of it. Presidential candidates are the end product of our system. Those who aren't scions of political families like George W. Bush and Romney fought their way to prominence by moving through the system from at least the state level of politics, maybe (like Obama) the local level.

The product won't change if the assembly line doesn't change, and the early parts are possible to change if people want to work at it.

Meanwhile, those of us who do see the important differences between the candidates, such as the ones I listed earlier—differences that we believe would make a difference in the lives of millions of people immediately after the election—will continue to use our votes as votes and hope that their are enough of us to matter. Breaking the system in an attempt to fix it will only let the power solidify where the money is, and that's already our worst problem.

For now, we all still have votes, and I think we ought to use them to encourage better candidates and thwart worse ones, even if we don't have the option of voting for a complete slate of people who agree with everything we believe and want for the country.

[Holbytla]

Of course, dealing with the money problem would help, especially down-ticket. State legislatures are bargains.

That, I would think, would be the first issue to try and corral. The problem is that there are so many facets to it and it is spread throughout the entire system. Reform campaign financing? Give every candidate an equal and limited budget to spend on campaigning, and do away with contributions?

Put an end to lobbyists?

Stop appointing former lobbyists and special interest CEO's as cabinet members or in positions of power?

Term limits?

Balanced budget amendment? Pay down the deficit?

Levies on foreign ownership?

Stop borrowing money from other countries while at the same time giving foreign aid?

Change the Constitution to ensure that there has to be approval by Congress before any soldier or piece of US military equipment is put anywhere near harm's way?

Stop piggybacking legislation?

Secret ballot voting in Congress so that people can vote their conscience instead of towing party lines?

Revise immigration laws and enforce them?

Stop using Social Security as a pension fund?

Give more autonomy to the states?

Reduce fees, fines and taxes so that the average person isn't spend half of their money on them?

I have no idea if or how it is possible to divorce politics from the judicial system.

I don't know? The list is endless.
Honestly I'm not even sure it can be fixed. The system is too large and unwieldy. Sometimes businesses grow too large and lose control over their operations. Maybe the only answer is to reduce the size of the federal government and give more control to the individual states.

I don't know, but there are an awful lot of concerns that aren't being addressed in a meaningful way.

There are a lot of very angry people in this country, and that alone is forcing people to change their voting habits. I don't think it is enough for Romney to pull an upset, but over the last four years, there have been some eye opening election results. Hopefully that trend will continue and the pols will start to wake up.

[vison]

I thought Social Security IS a pension fund. If it's not, what on earth is it?

[Holbytla]

From Wiki;

A limited form of the Social Security program began, during President Franklin D. Roosevelt's first term, as a measure to implement "social insurance" during the Great Depression of the 1930s, when poverty rates among senior citizens exceeded 50 percent. The Act was an attempt to limit what were seen as dangers in the modern American life, including old age, poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children.

It was never designed to be a pension.

[axordil]

I have always thought of Social Security as a pension supplement, a fallback if something went wrong with your retirement savings/pension.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Oh, so that's what you mean by huge differences - who they split for. I thought people were referring to ideological differences.

Umm . . . the split is because of the ideological differences. As in, no you cannot have birth control, you little slut, versus Planned Parenthood.

I know one of them allegedly (but really doesn't) oppose federal funding of abortions, but I didn't know there was a movement to ban entirely all birth control.

Or, if you want to go to college, borrow from your parents, versus we will give you a hand up and expect you to pay us back.

So both of them favor borrowing from someone?

Or, back to Central America, you wetback who arrived at age 18 months and graduated cum laude from an American high school, versus show us you can benefit this country and we'll let you work toward citizenship.

One party talks a tougher talk and the other party walks a tougher walk. Both of them talk tough, though.

Or, get out of our sight and shut up, versus congratulations on your marriage and reenlistment.

Even better on how the perception and the reality are very mixed up compared to each other.

[Primula Baggins]

Oh, so that's what you mean by huge differences - who they split for. I thought people were referring to ideological differences.

Umm . . . the split is because of the ideological differences. As in, no you cannot have birth control, you little slut, versus Planned Parenthood.

I know one of them allegedly (but really doesn't) oppose federal funding of abortions, but I didn't know there was a movement to ban entirely all birth control.

Both Romney and Ryan have expressed support for legislation that defines life as beginning at the moment of fertilization. This would outlaw any form of birth control that works by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg, including all hormonal forms of birth control such as the Pill, and IUDs. These are the most widely used and most effective forms of birth control. Also, many women get their birth control from Planned Parenthood, which would lose all federal funding. Beyond that, birth control is only available to many women because of Title X funding. Romney and Ryan favor rescinding Title X. It's not difficult to discern the policy differences, really.

Or, if you want to go to college, borrow from your parents, versus we will give you a hand up and expect you to pay us back.

So both of them favor borrowing from someone?

The little problem is in the assumption that everyone's parents can afford to lend them the money to go to college. Actually, this isn't the case.

Or, back to Central America, you wetback who arrived at age 18 months and graduated cum laude from an American high school, versus show us you can benefit this country and we'll let you work toward citizenship.

One party talks a tougher talk and the other party walks a tougher walk. Both of them talk tough, though.

But one party's candidate has moved to allow kids in this category to remain in the country.

Or, get out of our sight and shut up, versus congratulations on your marriage and reenlistment.

Even better on how the perception and the reality are very mixed up compared to each other.

Romney refuses to say whether he would reinstate DADT if elected.

The two parties may be easy to see as the same, if you're a healthy, employed, reasonably prosperous straight white guy who has never been touched by any of these issues. Most people in this country aren't healthy, employed, reasonably prosperous straight white guys. They're some combination of other things, and some of these issues are extremely important to them.

[Maria]

Apparently Mitt Romney sent out a flyer in Virginia promising to fight chronic Lyme disease better.

This has provoked some rather horrible reactions from journalists, including one at the New Yorker.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/n ... ience.html

Just when the fight against chronic Lyme disease is starting to get support from law makers- the truth about the disease will become obscured in partisan politics.

While I appreciate Romney's stance on the issue, politicizing this has probably done more harm than good.

[anthriel]

that defines life as beginning at the moment of fertilization. This would outlaw any form of birth control that works by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg, including all hormonal forms of birth control such as the Pill, and IUDs.

Okay, a bit off topic, but doesn't the pill prevent ovulation, so no egg is around to be fertilized?

[Primula Baggins]

It has a secondary effect that if an egg is released anyway (which does sometimes happen, especially on low-dose pills) and is fertilized, the uterus isn't prepared for implantation and it theoretically doesn't happen. So, by the strict definition of life beginning at fertilization, the Pill can cause abortion and would thus be on the forbidden list.

[River]

Fun fact I learned while trying to get pregnant: as far as biology is concerned, you're only pregnant if the fertilized egg implants somewhere. Preferably (and usually) the uterine wall because that's the only place a baby can grow. This happens ~ 1 week after fertilization (which can only happen within 24 hours of ovulation). Implantation is what triggers a positive result on any pregnancy test. That's also what triggers all the hormonal and physiological changes that convert your body into an incubator.

Another, less fun fact: fertilized eggs can and do fall out without implanting. You, the woman trying to get pregnant, will never know if that month was a total miss or an almost there.

And an even less fun fact: 15-18% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage in the first trimester. If an embryo is too defective to live, or the placenta just isn't happening, the body basically goes Ctrl-Alt-Del on the whole operation and out it comes. Often, if the miscarriage comes early enough and the woman isn't actually trying to have a baby (when you're trying, you're paying attention to every weird little thing your body does) she won't even know she's lost a pregnancy. She might just think it's a late period. Or maybe not even that. Implantation happens ~ 1 week before your next period is due so it's possible to lose the pregnancy without even being late.

So, basically, proponents of these weird birth control policies fail biology forever and should be lined up and slapped silly by all couples who've ever spent more than a couple months trying to make a baby.