| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
blingdomepiece 
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 4358
Location: Ottawa ON Canada
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:12 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Vampyromaniac wrote: | Two quick political questions:
Do you guys think filibustering shoud be allowed? |
I think it should have to be a real filibuster. Force the filibustering side to stay in the chamber and you might see it used more sparingly.
Anonymous holds and similar techniques where a single senator can block stuff are even worse.
_________________
Expert Pro Keys: 50/63 GS, most recent The Killing Moon
Expert Pro Drums: 53/83 GS, most recent Free Bird / Oh My God / Oye Mi Amor
Expert Pro Bass: 6/83 GS, most recent Everybody Wants to Rule the World
  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
skinnywhitecomic 
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vampyromaniac wrote: | | If someone knows they are not politically knowledgeable, should they vote, or is it irresponsible to do so? |
If you are eligible to vote, you can vote. Our democracy allows everyone that right (though its a shame that non-white and non-male citizens had to wait LONGER for their chance). There's no penalty for citizens voting that have no knowledge of politics. Hell, I'd venture to guess some of you have done it before.
Don't believe me?
I remember voting in the 2008 election for Obama and McCain. Of course it wasn't just them. I voted on a senator, congressmen, representatives, local officials, city councilmen, judges, and a SHIT ton of others. I had no idea who any of these people were. I voted for them based on their party or if they had a funny name. That is not really how we should base our voting selections, but that happens ALL the time. It happens because we have the freedom to vote, regardless of what we know about anybody.
_________________
XBox Gamertag: theimprovguy
Final Goals:
- Bass Full Series FC (WE)
   |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PiemanLK
Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Posts: 4711
Location: /export/home
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vampyromaniac wrote: | | Do you guys think filibustering shoud be allowed? |
Absolutely not
_________________
[quote=''Otend'']Id come up with a long post, but Pieman said what we are all thinking, as usual[/quote]
[quote=''youhas'']EDIT TO ADD: Hey, post #3000! Neat! I will eagerly anticipate my set of ScoreHero-branded steak knives within six to eight weeks.[/quote]
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
youhas
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3015
Location: Santa Clara, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bclare wrote: | | Change can't start at the top. Third party candidates need to settle down some and try to just get elected to the house and senate (both national and state). Executive offices are more prominent, but they're less important than they get credit for. |
That's about right. Having a third-party make a plausible run for a single state representative seat (or similar) is a much more achievable goal and at much lower cost to boot. I'm also for systemic changes which even the playing field in these contests - like instant-run-off voting - which actually can be enacted on the city/county level at times. (I'd love to see some state legislature dip its toe into proportional representation at some point, too, just to see how it'd play out, but that's probably a harder sell.)
| blingdomepiece wrote: | I think it should have to be a real filibuster. Force the filibustering side to stay in the chamber and you might see it used more sparingly.
Anonymous holds and similar techniques where a single senator can block stuff are even worse. |
Ugh, anonymous holds are the worst. At the very least, folks should be able to know which senator is obstructing matters, just to be able to put a name to an action for some accountability.
As I understand it, the reason we don't have more true filibusters is because whenever the disapproving senators finally shut the hell up, you'd have to have a quorum of senators around to actually perform the vote in question. Which means you'd have everyone just sort of sitting around the chamber, killing everyone's time, in the vague hopes that the filibustering party would run out of steam and the vote could go through. Feh. (Not that I think we should even have the filibuster anymore, probably, as it has long outlived its original purpose. Feh again.)
| raynebc wrote: | | If somebody doesn't know the politics, they still have a right to vote for their candidate of choice if they are otherwise eligible, but it IS irresponsible. |
More or less. I'm always disheartened when I hear of folks voting based on grounds that strike me as irrational or ill-advised: belief in objective falsehoods; misunderstandings about how government works; whatever positions 'resonate with the chakras' of the voices in their heads. But every other possibility I can dream up is somewhere between unethical and unconstitutional, so hey, if you're able to vote and you choose to do so, go for it.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blingdomepiece
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 4358
Location: Ottawa ON Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2012 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| youhas wrote: | | But every other possibility I can dream up is somewhere between unethical and unconstitutional, so hey, if you're able to vote and you choose to do so, go for it. |
Any attempt to restrict voting to qualified persons, however well intended from the start (and it takes a large leap of faith to assume it would be well intended from the start), seems destined to be gamed and turned into another way for the oligarchy to preserve its hold on power.
_________________
Expert Pro Keys: 50/63 GS, most recent The Killing Moon
Expert Pro Drums: 53/83 GS, most recent Free Bird / Oh My God / Oye Mi Amor
Expert Pro Bass: 6/83 GS, most recent Everybody Wants to Rule the World
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fUNC
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 3439
Location: Milwaukee
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So... we've legalized weed in Colorado, elected an openly gay senator in a formerly conservative state, and put Obama solidly back in office for the next four years. Crazy, crazy night.
_________________
~Kyle~
Scorehero's #1 Chiefs fan and L4D2 player |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GuitarHailz 
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 4910
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was really sweating it out last night, the rights of women and gay people everywhere depended on it! But it was a great night of progress for America. Even if you don't support all of Obama's decisions, we are slowly but surely moving forward as a country. Millions of people have healthcare, more states have gay marriage, and so on. I just really hope the GOP will see this as a wake-up call and work on their party image and ideals and I will consider them again in 2016. They spent millions and millions of dollars against one of the most defeatable presidents in recent memory and they barely flipped 2 states, it's just embarrassing. I gave them a chance from the very start, but let's just say they have been "legitimately raped" by reality. Best case scenario, this will lead to a rebirth of the GOP, which could be a very good thing.
Truthfully I'm watching Facebook today just to enjoy all the schadenfreude. After dealing with my boss's racist bullshit for 2 years I am happily swimming in his tears today. Conservative radio has to be a circus this morning, I wonder how they'll spin it? Blame Hurricane Sandy? I don't know, but I'm so done with this election stuff and I don't even live in Ohio *shudder*
Also, the people saying the end times are near and that they'll move to Canada or Australia are an absolute riot - Really? You mean the countries with universal healthcare and legalized marijuana? That's exactly what Republicans want...
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raynebc
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Posts: 992
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| While I can say I'm disappointed in the presidential election results, at least the Democrats didn't regain a majority of all 3 branches of government. As far as I'm concerned, fiscal issues are still more important than social issues, especially since we're this close to a sudden $0.5 trillion set of spending cuts and tax hikes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GuitarHailz
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 4910
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, I would say the fiscal issues are still of higher importance in this election. It's unfortunate that so many republican talking points from the past few months had to do with women's rights, abortion, rape, contraception and gay rights. Things we should be pretty well past by 2012. Those are all important issues, but should not have been such a dividing factor in this election. The extreme right was just way too unappealing to too many people. I also think it was a mistake for Romney to pick Ryan.
Also, after seeing Romney's concession speech, I can't help but wish that THAT guy had run for president, because he could have won. Instead nobody knew what they were getting with the flippity-flop that we got, and many weren't willing to gamble on it.
Anyway I hope the president can do some real good for this country in a 2nd term, provided people can work together on more things and not be concentrated on the looming election. But that's probably wishful thinking.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sarg338
Joined: 07 Feb 2008
Posts: 5143
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, GuitarHailz, how does it feel knowing your vagina is yours and safe?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PiemanLK
Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Posts: 4711
Location: /export/home
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GuitarHailz wrote: | | I wonder how they'll spin it? |
Voter fraud. I live with people that are wrapped up in this made up story of democratic voter fraud that basically stems from the fact that they refuse to believe that anyone could legitimately like Barack Obama enough to elect him a second term in a row. Then there's always blaming it on black people voting based on race, people who don't work, people who are on food stamps, anyone else republicans don't like. The crocodile tears are actually pretty depressing; I know my parents are whining that they're never going to vote again because "their vote doesn't matter" due to all the "voter fraud" and it's just like...step out of your little fabricated talk radio world for a second.
Interestingly enough I am not a horribly huge Obama fan myself - I voted for Stein - and I had a great discussion with several people today at school who are a variety of political leanings, most of them far more moderate than the people I have to tolerate day in and out. It was definitely refreshing to have, well, polite discourse with people, even if we disagreed on some things. I was actually surprised how much I had in common with a conservative friend of mine.
I also think actually interacting with college level folk really blows the whole "liberal bias" myth out of the water. People attend college because they want to learn and get a better education; it's just more likely you're going to find thinking people there, despite how college is spun as some kind of mindless work camp where people become "liberal drones". Oy. No, the people that stick to party lines and talking points do not go on to higher education for the most part, at least in my experience.
| raynebc wrote: | | While I can say I'm disappointed in the presidential election results, at least the Democrats didn't regain a majority of all 3 branches of government. As far as I'm concerned, fiscal issues are still more important than social issues, especially since we're this close to a sudden $0.5 trillion set of spending cuts and tax hikes. |
I do think we should place a high importance on social issues despite the state of the economy. After all, America was based on the ideals of freedom and individual liberty, so I think it goes against what we stand for to brush off issues such as equal rights. We're supposed to be a bastion of freedom in the world and it's a problem that we don't often practice what we preach.
Finally, no, corporations are not people, they are a group of people; an entity if you will. I feel like people don't understand this simple concept enough.
_________________
[quote=''Otend'']Id come up with a long post, but Pieman said what we are all thinking, as usual[/quote]
[quote=''youhas'']EDIT TO ADD: Hey, post #3000! Neat! I will eagerly anticipate my set of ScoreHero-branded steak knives within six to eight weeks.[/quote]
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raynebc
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Posts: 992
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GuitarHailz wrote: | | It's unfortunate that so many republican talking points from the past few months had to do with women's rights, abortion, rape, contraception and gay rights. |
Maybe I'm wrong, but wasn't it the Democrats that wouldn't stop talking about the Republicans waging a war against women just because they don't support taxpayer-subsidized contraception/abortion? Seems like the non-issue issue just kept getting pressed by one or both sides to distract from more important matters.
| PiemanLK wrote: | | Voter fraud. |
While it's a fact that voter fraud occurs, it hasn't been demonstrated to affect the presidential election. This voting year, I've read news of multiple Democrats prosecuted for involvement with voter fraud, and even a Republican was caught. However there have been elections where the number of fraudulent votes was enough to change the results of an election (Al Franken's senate run is a perfect example).
| PiemanLK wrote: | | I do think we should place a high importance on social issues despite the state of the economy. |
I don't disagree, but I don't place that importance higher than the country's solvency. It's too easy for politicians to be generous with other peoples' money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
megallica
Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 2429
Location: Woodbridge, VA
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| raynebc wrote: | | GuitarHailz wrote: | | It's unfortunate that so many republican talking points from the past few months had to do with women's rights, abortion, rape, contraception and gay rights. |
Maybe I'm wrong, but wasn't it the Democrats that wouldn't stop talking about the Republicans waging a war against women just because they don't support taxpayer-subsidized contraception/abortion? Seems like the non-issue issue just kept getting pressed by one or both sides to distract from more important matters. |
it started out that way, but the Democrats took the opportunity to ask Republican candidates about their stance on abortion, and allowed them to hang themselves
Romney said he'd overturn Roe v. Wade, and many Republicans said they opposed abortion in all cases including rape and incest (which provided sound bites for ads)
and of course, Akin made that ridiculous comment about "legitimate rape", and showed a complete lack of understanding of biology and human anatomy
to be fair, the initial issue was a good point. it really doesn't make sense to have taxpayer subsidized abortions. only a small percentage are medically necessary to save the life of the mother, and those could easily be under the umbrella of emergency room care. all other cases are essentially elective surgery, and don't need to be funded by taxes any more than nose jobs, breast enhancements, liposuction, hair plugs, or any other elective procedure
it wouldn't in any way remove the right for a woman to chose what to do with her body, but there's no reason for everyone to pay for other peoples abortions
the other issue here is that planned parenthood also provides breast cancer screenings (i'm not really sure how that's related to contraceptives, abortions and testing/treatments for STDs, or how it's related to parenthood in general, but apparently they do that as well). this makes cutting government funding for abortions a bigger issue, since it also cuts funding for breast cancer screenings, which do save many lives every year
| raynebc wrote: | | PiemanLK wrote: | | I do think we should place a high importance on social issues despite the state of the economy. |
I don't disagree, but I don't place that importance higher than the country's solvency. It's too easy for politicians to be generous with other peoples' money. |
I absolutely agree that the economy should be the single most important issue right now. gay or straight, few people will be able to afford to have a wedding if the entire country is bankrupt
many government programs need some level of reform, to cut down on wasteful spending (and some programs could potentially be cut all together)
Romney didn't really make a great case for his plan though. He hinted at a couple of small ideas, but didn't really lay out a complete plan, and from what I read from fact checking articles, the numbers didn't add up to what he claimed his plan could offer.
Both sides do have good ideas for economic plans, and the best plan is probably a combination of each side, but I'm not too optimistic about them finding that compromise very quickly, if at all
On a side note, Obama's claims about having extra revenue from bringing our troops home didn't make sense either, since the war has been almost entirely funded on borrowed money, and stopping that spending isn't going to free up any funds to build roads, bridges or schools
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GuitarHailz
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 4910
Location: Austin, Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| raynebc wrote: | | GuitarHailz wrote: | | It's unfortunate that so many republican talking points from the past few months had to do with women's rights, abortion, rape, contraception and gay rights. |
Maybe I'm wrong, but wasn't it the Democrats that wouldn't stop talking about the Republicans waging a war against women just because they don't support taxpayer-subsidized contraception/abortion? Seems like the non-issue issue just kept getting pressed by one or both sides to distract from more important matters. |
Pretty much with megallica on this one, the issue was originally a good talking point - hypothetically I don't think anyone should have to pay for my abortion or contraception but me, but at the same time it is in any country's best interest to provide affordable healthcare but more importantly options to women in these cases. That's just my opinion, but making it harder for people to prevent unwanted pregnancies isn't going to help anything when you're already struggling economically. I would guess that a lot of Democrats or women in general would be happy to ignore these issues and talk about things of more pressing importance, but too many politicians stuck their foot in their mouths on this one. So it unfortunately became a much bigger issue than it ever should have been.
Hell, from what I understand Ryan/the Republicans wanted to criminalize in vitro fertilization, but ban abortions even in the case of rape. So as Jon Stewart puts it, if a woman wants to have a baby, she can't use IVF, but if she gets raped, she has to have the baby. That's absolutely terrifying, that the government could have that much control over me. They say they want small government... apparently small enough to fit inside my uterus. ಠ_ಠ
Also, as a semi-related rant I wish we could talk about actual issues that are important to people without using the "War on ____" terminology. I mean last year it was the War on Christmas, then the Class Warfare, then the War on Women. Not everything has to be a war, just a serious discussion that is apparently needed when people in power keep making comments like this. This shouldn't have been a deciding issue of the election, but the Republicans really shot themselves in the foot on this one. Both of our famed "Rape philosophers" lost their respective elections when before their controversial comments they were expected to win, which I hope sets a precedent for what kind of stuff simply isn't okay if you're a politician. The female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down. 
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raynebc
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Posts: 992
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| megallica wrote: | | it wouldn't in any way remove the right for a woman to chose what to do with her body, but there's no reason for everyone to pay for other peoples abortions |
I agree that people should pay for their own abortions and contraception, but I draw the line at calling a fetus the mother's body and not the unborn child's body. There is plenty of legal precedent for convicting people of the murder of unborn children, so it's not a leap to say that the notion that it's the mother's choice what to do to her own body (whether the fetus lives or dies) is questionable and perhaps even selfish. If a woman was raped, then by all means, that woman should be allowed to abort the pregnancy because it was not her choosing to engage in intercourse. If the pregnancy risks the life of the mother, she should be allowed to abort the child. When a non life-threatening pregnancy came from consensual sex, that makes it more of a morality issue, boiling down to whether the mother feels it is convenient to keep the baby she took part in creating. People need to take responsibility for their own actions, and if they can't care for the baby, at least put it up for adoption so that child at least has a chance to live.
| megallica wrote: | | the other issue here is that planned parenthood also provides breast cancer screenings |
My understanding is that anything offered at Planned Parenthood (and more, such as mammograms) is offered at fully qualified clinics, and that those facilities are taxpayer subsidized as well. If that is true, then I see the promotion of Planned Parenthood as pushing to make abortions cheap and easy, given they're the world's leading abortion provider.
| GuitarHailz wrote: | | Hell, from what I understand Ryan/the Republicans wanted to criminalize in vitro fertilization |
I agree that's stupid. If a couple is up to the task of raising a child, then they should be able to. And artificial procreation is, I'm guessing, the preferred way for all gay couples to produce their own (half their own at least) children. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Copyright © 2006-2024 ScoreHero, LLC
|
Powered by phpBB
|
![Inbox [ Login ]](templates/subSilver/images/icon_mini_message.gif){kind=icon}
Inbox [ Login ]
Search
Memberlist
Profile
Log in
